The URL can be used to link to this page

FLD2006-05030 I `Clearwater CASE #:_? 200(p - 0 D._S 0 RECEIVED BY (staff initials): DATE RECEIVED: 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 $ * 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: Triangle Old Bay Holdings, LLC Ben Kugler MAILING ADDRESS: 305 N. Ft. Harrison, Clearwater, FL 33755 PHONE NUMBER: 727-446-0020 CELL NUMBER: 727-446-0002 PROPERTY OWNER(S): Triangle Old Bay Holdings, LLC, Church of Scientology, Flag Service Organization List ALL owners on the deed AGENT NAME: Thomas Coates MAILING ADDRESS: 305 N. Ft. Harrison Clearwater FL 33755 PHONE NUMBER: 727.446-0020 FAX NUMBER: CELL NUMBER 727-504-7311 E-MAIL ADDRESS: B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A) PROJECT NAME: Island View / Harrison Village PROJECT VALUATION: $ 152m STREET ADDRESS 302 304 308 312 314 400 404 303 309 N Osceola 400.410 Jones 410 N. PARCEL NUMBER(S): see attached PARCEL SIZE (acres): 5.18 ac (4.98 usable) PARCEL SIZE (square feet)225.644 SF (2' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Affn. ho.f -/1 -4 Q--' PROPOSED USE(S): 358 Attached Dwelling Units; 13,235 SF Commercial DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Request 139 Units from Density Pool and approval of Master Plan 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.) OCT 12 Page 1 of 8 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • DOES THIS APPLICATION INVOLVE THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR), A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, OR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED (CERTIFIED) SITE PLAN? YES _ NO _ (if yes, attach a copy of the applicable documents) C. PROQF OF OWNERSDHIP: (Code Section 4202.A.5) ? ? SUBMITA? OW OOPY 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) Ax-f{eb 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. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent, properties. ORIGINAL RECEIVED UG 1 12 Z006 Page 2 of 8 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER . e t WRITTEN 1UBB'MI?TTA,L?REQUIREMENTS: (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria) ? Provide coTnplet?e repon esTbe 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. ORIGINAL RECEIVED r? yr ti Page 3 of 8 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 0 0 E. STORMWATER PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual and 4-202.A.21) 4-r7 P C VW0 ? 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 SURV EY (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 Q)ordinator 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; ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Page 4 of 8 CITY OF CLEARWATER • • • • • • • • i • • • • G. SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4202.A) A 1'i o o-vso ? 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 stormwater management facilities; Location of all outdoor lighting fixtures; and Location of all existing and proposed sidewalks. SITE DATA TABLE for existing, required, and proposed development, in written/tabular form: Land area in square feet and acres; _ Number of EXISTING dwelling units; Number of PROPOSED dwelling units; Gross floor area devoted to each use; Parking spaces: total number, presented in tabular form with the number of required spaces; Total paved area, including all paved parking spaces & driveways, _ expressed in square feet & percentage of the paved vehicular area; Official records book and page numbers of all existing utility easement; Building and structure heights; Impermeable surface ratio (I.S.R.); and Floor area ratio (F.A.R.) for all nonresidential uses. REDUCED COLOR SITE PLAN to scale (8'/z X 11); EXISTING REQUIRED PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENTS OVER ONE ACRE, provide the following additional information on site plan: One-foot contours or spot elevations on site; Offsite elevations if required to evaluate the proposed stormwater management for the parcel; All open space areas; Location of all earth or water retaining walls and earth berms; Lot lines and building lines (dimensioned); Streets and drives (dimensioned); Building and structural setbacks (dimensioned); Structural overhangs; ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPART E T CITY OF CLEAR Page 5 of 8 • • • • • • H. LANDSCAPING PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-1102.A) Prff Ac4eD ? LANDSCAPE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24"x 36"): All existing and proposed structures; Names of abutting streets; Drainage and retention areas including swales, side slopes and bottom elevations; Delineation and dimensions of all required perimeter landscape buffers; Sight visibility triangles; Delineation and dimensions of all parking areas including landscaping islands and curbing; Existing trees on-site and immediately adjacent to the site, by species, size and locations, including driplines (as indicated on required tree survey); Location, size, and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, indicated by a key relating to the plant _ schedule; Plant schedule with a key (symbol or label) indicating the size, description, specifications, quantities, and spacing requirements of all _ existing and proposed landscape materials, including botanical and common names; Typical planting details for trees, palms, shrubs and ground cover plants including instructions, soil mixes, backfilling, mulching and _ protective measures; Interior landscaping areas hatched and/or shaded and labeled and interior landscape coverage, expressing in both square feet and percentage covered; Conditions of a previous development approval (e.g. conditions imposed by the Community Development Board); Irrigation notes. ? REDUCED COLOR LANDSCAPE PLAN to scale (8 Y3 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) -rprG 4t(09 El 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 19. SIGNS / Section 3-1806) VJ ? 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 Y2 X 11) (color), if submitting Comprehensive Sign Program application. ORIGINAL RECEIVED Page 6 of 8 OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ORIGINAL. RECEIVED K. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: (Section 4-202.A.13 and 4-801.C) OCT 12 M6 ? Include if required by the Traffic Operations Manager or his/her designee or if the proposed development: PLANNING DEPARTIVIEN CITY OF CLEARWATER • 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 FL W CAALCUULLATIONS/ WATER STUDY: Provide Fire Flow IVIC0 ation- s. 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 afire 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): O`- 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: ? >-4 Z 1, the undersigned, acknowledge that all representations wed 0 in this application are true and accurate to the best of my--,,k4 knowledge and authorize City representatives to visit anO photograph the pr rty descri ed in this application. Uz~ _ STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLA Swo t an subscribed before me this 11t*r-day of , A.D. 20 or by Iis personally known as property clwn r r represefWa ' - O My com ?ag7 of 8 0 U NormPiac-SftbaFW* Om"M EON r 4Ni31X • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • Before me the undersigned, an officer dul commissioned by the Laws of the State of Florida, on this / /"k' day of October , 2 06. Personally appeared -6k s ia , .So? of Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, Inc. a Florida non-profit organization, who having been first duly sworn deposes and says that he/she fully understands the contents of the affidavit that he/she signed. My commission expires BRIAN A. ASAY afar n s U ?°r Public -State of Florida Notary Commission Expires Oct 4, 2008 Commission # DD 360208 9T P •. iFO11 F Fl?Bonded By NaiionaI Notary Assn. 111 ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • • • • N. AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHORIZE AGENT: 1. Provide names of all property owners on deed - PRINT full names: OLD L.D, s ?L 2. That (I am/we are) the owner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property (address or general location): 302 , soq 308, 31,x., 3141 , 44 00 , ado 303 -5 ooi ,J. 49Sceat.'A 40%3 4 to J L4 %'0 14 . ;:'s A a , V4 3. That this property constitutes the property for which a request for a: (describe request) 'S t ?OU 4?U JIAr? ?,? nnikS Tl: R Ply r. 4. That the undersigned (has/have) appointed and (does/do) appoint: ?A 7!?NQ 0A. 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 (1/we), the and iZau d o 't , h by certify that the foregoing is true a rec . o e er .SEEN . S , d. MET FSCU N'To Property Owner ACS SFRV1CF-PffMOWNIZATION, C STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS Before me the undersigned, an officer du -eommmi`ssi by the laws of the State of Florida, on this day of personally appeare 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 Signat re Notary Seal/Stamp My Commission Expiras- & £' M0?? P11?C • SOi1B ? Fb,IQd gy My C001111101M E4111114 Jtd24, 2009 Cam?ibn/OD4511? ORIGINAL RECEIVED Page 8 of 8 OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CIV OF CLEARWATER • 0 0 Before me the undersigned, an officer dulu commissioned by the Laws of the State of Florida, on this l!` day of October, 2006. Personally appeared G?. S?ifv , ,9Yj:An of Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, Inc. a Florida non-profit organization, who having been first duly sworn deposes and says that he/she fully understands the contents of the affidavit that he/she signed. My commission expires BRIAN A. ASAY `, FY PV Notary Public - State of Florida R 1 « =NyCommissionEx0esOct4,2008 Commission # DD 360208 " Bonded By National Nof ryAssn. ORIGINAL RECEIVE[ OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • • o "` Planning Department Cl earwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 u Telephone: 727-562-4567 Fax: 727-562-4865 • • ? SUBMIT ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION • ? SUBMIT 14 COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION - Plans and li ti i d t ll b d app ca on are requ re o e co ate , stapled, and folded into sets • ? SUBMIT APPLICATION FEE$ CASE #: RECEIVED BY (staff initials): DATE RECEIVED: ORIGINAL, RECEIVED QC.T 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT • *NOTE: ATOTAL OF 15 SETS OF THIS APPLICATION AND ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED IN • CONJUNCTION WITH ACOMPLETE LEVEL TWO FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION. • PUBLIC AMENITIES INCENTIVE POOL USE APPLICATION • (Revised 03/27/2006) • PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT- 9 • A. APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND AGENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A) • APPLICANTNAME: • MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER: . PROPERTY OW NER(S): List ALL owners on the deed r J • AGENT NAME: • MAILING ADDRESS: • PHONE NUMBER: CELLNUMBER: Old Bay Holdings, LLC Ben Kugler 727-446-0020 FAX N UM BER: 727-446-0002 Triangle Old Bay Holdings, LLC, Church of Scientology, Flag Service Organization Thomas Coates 797-44fi--noon FAX N UMBER: 797-Sn4:7a11 E-MAIL ADDRESS: B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A) PROJECT NAME: Island View / Harrison Village PROJECT VALUATION: $ 152m STREETADDRESS: 302,304,308,312,314,400,404,303,309 N. Osceola, 400,410 Jones, 410 N. Ft. Harrison PARCEL NUMBER(S): see attached A PARCEL SIZE (acres): 5.18 acres (4.98 useable) PARCEL SIZE (square feet): 225,644 sf (216,863 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: see attached HOW MANY DWELLING UNITS ARE PROPOSED TO BE USED FROM THE PUBLIC AMENITIES INCENTIVE POOL? 139 0 HOW MUCH SQUARE FOOTAGE IS PROPOSED TO BE USED FROM THE PUBLIC AMENITIES INCENTIVE POOL? IS THERE A HEIGHT INCREASE REQUESTED? YES X NO IF YES, HEIGHT REQUESTED: 50' Harrison Village C:IDocumerts and Setthgslderek./ergusonlDesMoplnewplenning/IleslPubfic Amentlw Incentive Pool Use Appketlon 2006.doc Page I of 2 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • PROVIDE ACOMPLETE DESCRIPTION OF THE-AMENITIES PROPOSED TO BE PROVIDED (attach drawings, photographs, etc. as applicable): C. 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 representa ' es to Hsit and photograph the propertyd,%'c7ibed in this ication. V LLlL• Vila-/v.vri v?----- CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SERVICE ORGANIZATION, INC known by r1 bk - SAM d FW* COtIHI 10m E*m Jul 24.20M CAtnetWM 9 W 454139 Before me the undersigned, an officer duly commissioned by the Laws of the State of Florida, on this Itt day of October, 2006. Personally appeared (-;& - 5+'La , S& of Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, Inc. a Florida non-profit organization, who having been first duly sworn deposes and says that he/she fully understands the contents of the affidavit that he/she signed. My commission expires STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELL Swor¢toanc?+su cubed before me this day of 6!55; LYE A.D. as lowntitication. Mycommission e)ires: BRIAN A. ASAP Notary Public - Stateof Florida _My CommMion Expires Oct 4, 2008 - M Commission # DD 360208 Bonded By National Notary Assn. ORIGINAL RECEIVED C C T 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER C:IDocuments and Settagslderek.fergusonOnktoplnewplanningfdeslPublic AmenR,es Incentive Pool Use Applk-etton 2000.doc Page 2 of 2 • . •I le D E V ELOPM ENT COM F ?qY • PUBLIC AMENITIES INCENTIVE POOL APPLICATION • • NEW COMMERCIAL AND MULTI-STORY RESIDENTIAL CONDO DEVELOPMENT • AT 302, 304, 308, 312, 314, 400, 404 AND 303, 309 N. OSCEOLA AVENUE; 400, • 410 ]ONES STREET AND 410 N. FORT HARRISON, DOWNTOWN CLEARWATER • Submission for CDB, 11 November 2006. • Provide a complete description of the proposed amenity to be provided. • • Summary Please see the attached Narrative (Flexible Development Application) for a complete description of the project. Included • here are the specific descriptions of the request from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool, and the amenities to be • provided. Density Pool • (Public Incentives Amenities Pool) • Application is being made for an increase in unit density due to the provision of a City-mandated commercial component • along Fort Harrison. This has incurred a significant hardship for the developer which necessitates an increased number of • residential units needed in order to make the project viable. • Application is being made to draw units from the Clearwater Downtown Density Pool. • Calculation • The lots comprising the site are contiguous and total approximately 5.18 acres. The allowable density on sites over two acres in this area is 50 units/acre. Portion of the site (0.1995 acres) is designated as an environmental area where only 1 • dwelling unit is allowed per acre. The balance available for development is therefore 4.98 acres. • The total office/retail component is 13.235 sf. The FAR (0.5) for the office/retail component equates to 26,470 sf. Total • site (4.98 acres, or 216,863 sf) less 26,470 sf = 189,763 sf or 4.36 acres. At 50 units/acre, this allows for 219 units. The total number of units planned is 358 or a pull from the Density Pool of 139 units. • • In the December-approved request, for a similar size development on this site, 141 units were allowed to be pulled from the Density Pool. This is 2 units less. • It is proposed that these units be granted from the Density Pool, with a concomitant increase in height from a limit of 40' • to 50' across the Harrison Village site. This height increase was previously approved in the last proposal. East of • Osceola Avenue, allowed height in this location is 150'. Per the Clearwater Development Code, an additional 20% can be granted in exchange for a significant Public Amenity contribution. This contribution is detailed in this Public Amenities • Incentive Pool Application. Thus the total height may not exceed 180'(150' + 30) above the mean elevation of the site (21'-6'?. The Towers as shown on this Application have their flat roof height beneath this level, as may be seen from • the elevation drawings. Also per the Code, parapets of and mechanical enclosures (which conceal the unsightly air- s conditioning equipment) are allowed to extend slightly above this height. ORIGINAL QECElV?EI, • TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC COT 12 2006 • • 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FL 33755 TEL: 727 446 0020 FAX: 727 446 0002 EMAIL: INFOOTRIANGLEDEVELOPMENT.C04v`ANNING DEPARTMENT 0 1 ?F 10 CITY OF CLEARWATER L J P - '?ff "', I -i\TM 17 D E V E t *- PII E N T C C „" ,? N y We investigated the Harrison Village and Island View sites before demolition began. We found on the site at least 52 separate dwelling units. They were identified by on-site visual inspection, consultation with the property manager and counting mailboxes. We also noted 7,933 sf office, and 14,120 sf retail components. The office and retail area was calculated from records at the Pinellas Property Appraisers Offices, and a visual inspection of the site. The increased density meets the intent of the Downtown Redevelopment Plan. Contributions to City In exchange for this allowance from the Density Pool, the developer proposes extensive provision of Streetscaping to meet City standards, which includes fountains, clocktowers, a public plaza (the Cross-Block Park.) Excess parking has also been provided, and the length of Osceola Avenue between Jones and Georgia has bee relocated and extensively upgraded. Major Contributions to Streetscape. The special sidewalk finishes, fences, bollards, benches, trash receptacles, bicycle racks, upgraded street lighting and more around the site will be brought up to the high standards of the Clearwater Streetscape, with lush landscaping including Medjool palms and live oaks. At the Fort Harrison corners of Jones and Georgia, attractive working clocktowers will be built to landmark the site along the Fort Harrison corridor, which forms the entrance and gateway to Downtown Clearwater. There will also be well-designed public fountains, located on Fort Harrison. These will most likely be individually designed and fabricated in cast glass by a nationally known local artist. By the end of construction some excess parking places will have been provided above requirements. These will be located in the Harrison Village garage. Cross Block Park Part of the design for Harrison Village is a break in the middle of the Harrison Village block. This will be landscaped and hardscaped to meet or exceed the City standards. This will provide a significant public amenity, breaking up the long block and providing place for, for example, outdoor cafes, and an upgraded urban experience. Osceola Avenue Rebuilt While it cannot be directly counted as a contribution to Streetscape, the Developer would like taken into consideration the Provision of a new road to replace the existing substandard Osceola Avenue. This entails extensive rerouting and upgrading of services and extensive infrastructure upgrades, in addition to the reconstruction of the road to City specifications. New curb and curb cuts will also be made as needed. Total Value The total value of the complete Streetscape package for the July 2005 proposal approached $2 million, where 119 units were requested, in this version where 139 units are requested, the Streetscape contribution alone is over $3 million, without counting the cost of the Cross-Block Park (a conservative estimate is $338,000). The Applicant's contribution to the Density Pool thus far significantly exceeds the previously approved contribution. ORIGINAL RECEIVED TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FL 33755 TEL: 727 446 0020 FAX: 727 446 0002 EMAIL: INFOC?TRIANGLEDEVELOPMENT. COM 2 OF 10 OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • -I., L? IN C- TT IL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY • • • PROPOSAL OF AMENITIES • to be provided in exchange for extra units from Density Pool • Contributions to Streetscape These items are noted below for an indication of the quality of the Streetscaping that is envisaged. Please see • Streetscape drawings for further data. Specifications are taken from City of Clearwater Master Streetscape and • Wayfinding Plan, dated January 27, 2003, and as updated with prices obtained by the City for the Cleveland Street streetscape, March 15, 2006. We acknowledge these are subject to change. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • For purposes of clarity, we used the 'Commercial A' and 'B' Streetscaping standards as our baseline. It was felt that the 'Downtown Corridor' grade of streetscaping was inapplicable in that it called for extensive provision of medians, crosswalks and work in the Right-of-Way, beyond the curb line. We will be providing extensive streetscaping in the areas behind the curb line and they will generally provide'a level above that of Commercial A and B and equivalent to the Downtown Corridor standards. There will be newspaper racks, bollards, and signage (indicating that this site is in the Old Bay neighborhood) and other items called for in the Downtown corridor standards but not in the Commercial A and B. While it cannot be directly counted as a contribution to Streetscape, the Developer would like taken into consideration the provision of a new road to replace the existing substandard Osceola Avenue. This entails extensive rerouting and upgrading of services in addition to the reconstruction of the road to City specifications between Jones and Georgia. New curb and curb cuts will also be made as needed. The contributions would comprise, generally Pavers and sidewalk to match Streetscape specification on each street as noted below Street lights Quality Hill, Hancock post or equal Bollards Hancock by Spring City or equal Signage To conform to City of Clearwater Wayfinding plan Benches Scarborough with center arm by Landscape Forms or equal Trash Cans Scarborough by Landscape Forms or equal Bicycle racks Gramercy by Madrax or as required Newspaper racks Spencer or equal Landscape fences on ground level planters Steel Bar by A & T Ironworks or equal Planting Medjool Palms, Crape Myrtle, and as required The palms on Fort Harrison would be planted not along the right-of-way but instead between the site boundary and the building, as the sidewalk is not very wide on this block and there is more space towards the buildings, which have been expressly set back to accommodate lush landscaping. Along Fort Harrison COMMERCIAL A Equivalent Streetscape will match that proposed in City document with regard to all items. behind (and including) curb on the west side of Fort Harrison. We will not differentiate between the treatment given to the area between the building and the site boundary and the area from the site boundary to the curb. The east side of Fort Harrison will be streetscaped to Commercial B standards as part of this proposal. Along Jones COMMERCIAL A Equivalent ORIGINAL. RECEIVED COT 12 2006 TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC PLANNING DEPARTMENT 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FL 33755 CITY OF CLEARWATER TEL: 727 446 0020 FAX: 727 446 0002 EMAIL: INFOCQ7TRIANGLEOEVELOPMENT.COM 3 OF 10 AJ& TT" t NU L DEVELOPMENT COMPANY • Same as for Fort Harrison, except trees at greater spacing, to suit layout of buildings. Palms would be used on the Fort Harrison end of Jones, changing to oaks at the Osceola end, to ease the transition into the oaks on Osceola. Pavers, • benches, and streetlights to suit. • Along re-aligned Osceola COMMERCIAL B Equivalent Palms at corners and trees elsewhere to match existing live oaks. Paving as above but much less of benches, signage • etc. • Along Georgia COMMERCIAL B Equivalent • Palms would be used on the Fort Harrison end, changing to oaks at the Osceola end, to ease the transition into the oaks • on Osceola. Paving as above but much less of benches, signage etc. If Fort Harrison is 100%, and Jones 80%, this street is 80% at the retail, 60% at the residential sections. The southern side of Georgia below Osceola will be provided with a sidewalk to the vehicular entrance to the Island View parking. Included is the enhancement of the area between the end of Georgia Street and the water, as noted below. The north side of Georgia will be streetscaped to Commercial B • standards as part of this proposal. • Cross Walks Two pedestrian crosswalks cross the re-aligned Osceola from Harrison Village to Island View. The intersections of Fort Harrison with Jones and Georgia will be upgraded to meet Streetscape standards with pavers similar to the • Downtown.Corridor. • Medians None. • Parking • As noted, the applicant proposes to make provisions for about 25 on-street parking places along the west side of Fort Harrison and on both sides of the newly re-aligned and widened Osceola, both between Jones and Georgia. Shoppers • and guests can be dropped off at the site at the designated laybys, which can be seen on the Streetscape plans. • Deliveries can also be made at these laybys. Additional parking places will be provided in the Harrison Village garage. Clock towers • Two individually designed clock towers anchor the north and south corners of the site, on Fort Harrison, and are an integral part of the design. They will each have purpose-made clocks on the street faces and are in fact signature • features of the development. Fountains A purpose-made fountain will be located on Fort Harrison at the cross-block park, and another two at either end of the • block. All will be accessible to the public. They will all be site-specific, individually tailored to their locations. At present • we anticipate using glass sculptures as an integral part of the fountains, purpose-made by a nationally known local glass sculptor. • • Cross Block Park As the Cross-block Park on Harrison Village will be landscaped and hardscaped to meet or exceed the City standards, the • following value has been put on this contribution. Value of land is about $40/sf, based on recently completed sales in the area. The area of the Park is about 50 x 80', or 4,000 sf. Total cost of the land only is therefore $40/sf x 4,000 = • $160,000. ORIGINAL RECEIVED • NIT 12 2006 • TRIAN13LE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC • 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FL 33755 PLANNING DEPARTMENT TEL: 727 446 0020 FAX: 7.27 446 0002 EMAIL: INFOC@TRIANGLEDEVELOPMENT.COM CITY OF CLEARWATER • 4 OF 10 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -TLU TIRIP D E V E %11 NT C0MP,'?AY Maintenance of items in Right-of-Way To be agreed. FDOT Permit Preliminary meetings have been held with Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and their approval, which is essentially simply for closure of several curb cuts, be required only prior to issuance of Building Permits. We anticipate that the transfer of Alt 19 back to the City will occur before the Harrison Village construction period. Any work done within the Right-of-Way on Fort Harrison would be done after it has been transferred back to the City, making FDOT approval superfluous. r IV?1? ??i? ?:?? •?'ltl?? ? fill?jl: ti ti i „',,.r - I q( Georgia Street to the Waterway In addition to the material described above, the Applicant proposes to add additional and upgraded Streetscape, 11 landscape and hardscape to the south side of Georgia between the relocated Osceola and the Island View garage ,11 entrance. This would be installed to City I A specifications on the right-of-way. Georgia Street will be extended from where it presently ends down the hill to the new entrance to the Island View parking garage. Trees growing in the Right-of-Way will be removed and replaced with more appropriate foliage at 'a the south side of the road. The view- corridor to the water will be restored, and the green area considerably „ ?. upgraded. ORIGINAL RECEIVE( 1 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FL 33755 TEL: 727 446 0020 FAX: 727 446 0002 EMAIL: INFOOTRIANGLEDEVELOPMENT.COM 5 OF 10 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • DEVELOPME?INI COMPANY Quantities Associated with Streetscape in Present Proposal The following estimated quantities and estimated costs are associated with the increased scope of work for Site Amenities for the present Application. OSCEOLA AVENUE Item ROW Material Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Pedestrian Lights 12 ea $4,800 $57,600 Bench 8 ea $2,000 $16,000 Bollards 3 ea $2,000 $6,000 Curb & Gutter 6" 1340 If $27 $36,180 Street Paving 21800 sf $5 $109,000 Walk w/Paver Banding 6070 sy $12 $72,840 H'cap Ramps 15 ea $1,500 $22,500 Trash Receptacle 8 ea $1,700 $13,600 Underground Site Utilities 1 ea $340,000 $340,000 Demolition 1 ea $25,000 $25,000 Directional Signage, Striping 1 ea $2,000 $2,000 General Conditions, O & P 10% $700,720 $70,072 Architectural/Engineering Fees 4% $700,720 $28,029 Subtotal $798,821 Public/Private Walk W/Paver Banding 3790 sf $12 $45,480 Unit Pavers 9000 sf $12 $108,000 Fountains 2 ea $25,000 $50,000 Live Oaks 16 ea $2,600 $41,600 Medjool Palms 11 ea $7,000 $77,000 Planting Areas 17550 sf $5 $87,750 Irrigation 4 ea $5,000 $20,000 Fence 300 If $60 $18,000 Bench 2 ea $2,000 $4,000 Bike Rack 2 ea $700 $1,400 Trash Receptacle 2 ea $1,700 $3,400 General Conditions O. & P. 10% $456,630 $45,663 Architectural/Engineering Fees 4% $456,630 $18,265 Subtotal $520,558 Total $1,319,379 30NES STREET ROW Curb & Gutter 6" 125 If $27 $3,375 Street Paving 1600 sf $5 $8,000 TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FL 33755 TEL: 727 446 0020 FAX: 727 446 0002 EMAIL: INFOOTRIANGLEDEVELOPMENT.COM 6 of 10 ORIGINAL RECEIVED E: T 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMEN "r"' OF CLEARWATER ?A• 't. T-0 LL Fl E `. D€L 0 P M E N I COM P A r y Walk w/Paver Banding 550 sf $12 $6,600 Bollards 3 ea $2,000 $6,000 H'cap Ramps 3 ea $1,500 $4,500 Demolition 1 ea $15,000 $15,000 Directional Signage, Striping 1 ea $1,000 $1,000 General Conditions 0. & P. 10% $44,475 $4,448 Architectural/Engineering Fees 4% $44,475 $1,779 Subtotal $50,702 Public/Private Walk w/Paver Banding 3250 sf $12 $39,000 Live Oaks 2 ea $2,600 $5,200 Planter/Landscape 3250 sf $5 $16,250 Irrigation 1 ea $5,000 $5,000 General Conditions 0. & P. 10% $65,450 $6,545 Architectural/Engineering Fees 4% $65,450 $2,618 Subtotal $74,613 Total $125,315 GEORGIA STREET ROW Pedestrian Lights 6 ea $4,800 $28,800 Curb & Gutter 6" 1470 If $27 $39,690 Walk w/Paver Banding 1300 sf $12 $15,600 Street Paving 11200 sf $5 $56,000 Demolition, and Grading 1 ea $25,000 $25,000 Directional Signage, Striping 1 ea $1,000 $1,000 Bollards 6 ea $2,000 $12,000 Trash Receptacles 4 ea $1,700 $6,800 H'cap Ramps 2 ea $1,500 $3,000 General Conditions O. & P. 10% $187,890 $18,789 Architectural/Engineering Fees 4% $187,890 $7,516 Subtotal $214,195 Public/Private Walk w/Paver Banding 3250 sf $12 $39,000 Medjool Palms 2 ea $7,000 $14,000 Live Oaks 11 ea $2,600 $28,600 Planting Areas 2800 sf $5 $14,000 Irrigation 1 ea $5,000 $5,000 Bench 2 ea $2,000 $4,000 Trash Receptacles 2 ea $1,700 $3,400 General Conditions 0. & P. 10% $108,000 $10,800 Architectural/Engineering Fees 4% $108,000 $4,320 Subtotal $123,120 Total $337,315 ORIGINAL RECEIVE[ TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FL 33755 TEL: 727 446 0020 FAX: 727 446 0002 EMAIL: INFO(*d)TRIANGLE D EVELOPM ENT. QOM 7 ?F 10 CZT 12 2606 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • FORT HARRISON AVENUE TT r DEVELOPMENT CC)MP A` ROW Pedestrian Lights 20 ea $4,800 $96,000 Bench 4 ea $2,000 $8,000 Curb & Gutter 6" 1184 If $27 $31,968 Walk w/Paver Banding 5840 sf $12 $70,080 Street Paving 12400 sf $5 $62,000 Bollards 6 ea $2,000 $12,000 Fountain w/Artwork 1 ea $50,000 $50,000 Trash Receptacles 4 ea $1,700 $6,800 H'cap Ramps 2 ea $1,500 $3,000 Demolition 1 ea $45,000 $45,000 Directional Signage, Striping 1 ea $1,500 $1,500 General Conditions O. & P. 10% $386,348 $38,635 Architectural/Engineering Fees 4% $386,348 $15,454 Subtotal $440,437 Public/Private Walk w/Pavers 12795 sf $12 $153,540 Fountain w/Artwork 1 ea $150,000 $150,000 Medjool Palm 12 ea $7,000 $84,000 Planting Areas 720 sf $5 $3,600 Irrigation 2 ea $5,000 $10,000 Clock 2 ea $50,000 $100,000 Bench 2 ea $2,000 $4,000 Bike Rack 2 ea $700 $1,400 Trash Receptacle 2 ea $1,700 $3,400 General Conditions O. & P. 10% $509,940 $50,994 Architectural/Engineering Fees 4% $509,940 $20,398 Subtotal $581,332 Total $1,021,768 SITE AMENITIES TOTALS Osceola Avenue ROW $798,821 Public/ Private $520,558 Jones Street ROW $50,702 Public/ Private $74,613 Georgia Street ROW $214,195 Public/ Private $123,120 ORIGINAL. RECEIVED TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FL 33755 TEL: 727 446 0020 FAX: 727 446 0002 EMAIL: IN FO(CDTRIANG LED EVELORMENT. COM B OF 10 C.T 12 2606 PLANNING DEPARTMEI CITY OF CLEARWATEI • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • f? DEVEL_0PMEP; i COMPA N Fort Harrison Avenue ROW Public/ Private $440,437 $1,021,768 Sub-Totals ROW $1,504,154 Public/Private $1,740,060 Total $3,244,213 Thus it can be seen that the total cost of the Streetscape Amenities provided totals over $3 million. Aditionally, the value of the land (only) of the Cross-Block Park is about $160k. And there is the intangible but significant benefit of the additional parking spots, in place to serve future development in the area. ORIGINAL, RECEIVE[ C',;1 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FL 33755 TEL: 727 446 0020 FAx: 727 446 0002 EMAIL: INFO(@TRIANGLEDEVELOPMENT.COM 9 OF 10 • i 3 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • M • • • • • • • • • • • • • • < DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Comparative Analysis of Approved Request and Present Submission Island View and Harrison Village, Approved at CDB 19 July 2005 HV and IV site area Retail/commercial area Area available after adjustment for FAR Units Units allowed after subtracting FAR area Request from Density Pool Parking total Parking for residents @ 1.5/unit Parking for retail @ 0/1,000 sf Balance Harrison Village, Island View (Approved at CDB December 2005) HV and IV site area Retail/commercial area Area available after adjustment for FAR Units Units allowed after subtracting FAR area Request from Density Pool Parking total Parking for residents @ 1.5/unit Parking for retail @ 2/1,000 sf Balance Present Request (August 30, 2006) HV and IV site area Retail/commercial area Area available after adjustment for FAR Units Units allowed after subtracting FAR area Request from Density Pool Parking supply total Required after application of Shared Parking Formula Balance 216,543 sf 4.97 ac 18,893 sf 0.43 ac 178,757 sf 324 205 119 503 486 0 17 211,626 Sf 4.86 ac 27,124 Sf 0.6 ac 159,378 Sf 324 183 141 633 486 54 93 216,863 Sf 4.98 ac 13.235 Sf 0.31 ac 189,763 Sf 358 219 139 548 540 8 ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2096 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FL 33755 TEL: 727 446 0020 FAX: 727 446 0002 EMAIL: INFOOTRIANGLEDEVELOPMENT.COM 10 OF 10 • ORIGINAL •RECEIVED .n OCT 12 2006 TRIA:NGLE • PLANNING DEPARTMENT ° F v E r, a. p M E N T c V `? ?? v CITY OF CLEARWATER • FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION • COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT • • NEW COMMERCIAL AND MULTI-STORY RESIDENTIAL CONDO DEVELOPMENT AT 302, 304, 308, 312, 314, 400, 404 AND 303, 309 N. OSCEOLA AVENUE; 400, • 410 JONES STREET AND 410 N. FORT HARRISON, DOWNTOWN CLEARWATER • Submission for CDB Meeting 11 November 2006 D. WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS (Section 3-913. A) • • PREAMBLE • History This project, in slightly differing form, has been approved by the CDB twice before, first in July 2005 (FLD2005-04034) • and then as revised in December 2005 (FLD2005 09098). Briefly, the July 2005 approval was for 324 units, of which 119 were drawn from the Density Pool. There was 18,893 sf of commercial space. The December design was substantially the same, and approval was granted for the same number of units, 324, with 141 being granted from the Density Pool • due to increased commercial space (26,124 sf) and a slightly reduced (4.97 to 4.86 acres) site area. • Summary This Submittal has a site area of 4.98 acres and contemplates the provision of 358 units, and 13,235 sf of commercial space. The total pull on the Density Pool in this Submission is 139 units, two less than previously approved. • • A table on page 28 shows the relative numbers associated with these previous Approvals in greater detail . Previous Approvals showed a single U-shaped tower on the Island View site. While this was fine for the economic circumstances at the time of its design, the market has changed and the Developer has realized they needed to build in • phases, so the market would not be flooded with too many units at one time, and financing would not become an issue. • The Developer decided to go with three separate towers, each of which can stand alone with regard to parking, amenities and so on. Another appealing aspect of the three-tower design is better sight lines (through the gaps between the buildings) for both the tower residents and those at street level, and increased opportunities for green space at the plaza level. Robotic Parking, which was also a feature of the previous Submittals, proved hard to phase, and was • replaced with conventional parking. "Brownstones" have been added along the relocated Osceola Avenue to give an • urban feel to the street. • The Harrison Village component remains low-rise mixed-use building, substantially as in previous Approvals. However, while the last design had retail/commercial on all four sides, the current design has residential along Osceola Ave., • mirroring the. brownstones across the street that are now part of Island View. The last design also had its parking across the street, in Island View's above-ground Robotic garage, whereas in the current design, Harrison Village has its own underground parking. The City has mandated that commercial development be built on Fort Harrison. The Developer • concurs with the City that commercial development is vital in this North Gateway to the City and is thus prepared to provide retail frontage lining three sides of the Harrison Village block, on Fort Harrison between Jones and Georgia • Streets. • The Applicant feels, as the City does, that this can only serve to enhance the viability of Downtown, but the FAR of 0.5 is too low to encourage mixed-use development and in fact places a large burden on the developer. An FAR of 0.5 means TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC • 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FL 33755 TEL: 727 446 0020 FAX: 727 446 0002 EMAIL: INFOOTRIANGLEDEVELOPMENT.COM • 1 of 36 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • RIL DE V[1.oPM[:Nr COMPANY • ORIGINAL RECEIVE[? OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER that for every square foot of retail/commercial use provided, two square feet have to be set aside from the total site. This results in a decrease in the number of dwelling units allowed on the site, and necessitates our pull of units from the Density Pool to ensure viability. A small change from the last Approvals has been the addition of a 24ft wide sliver of land on the south boundary, which will be used to provide better access to Tower 1 from the new Osceola Avenue. Naturally, additional contributions back to the City in the form of streetscape and other items have been made. Please see attached PUBLIC AMENITIES INCENTIVE POOL APPLICATION. Site The site for this development is located east and west of North Osceola Avenue, between Jones and Georgia Streets. Harrison Village is a low-rise, mixed use development over an underground parking garage, on the east of Osceola. Island View is located on the west of Osceola, and is three high-rise towers of condos, over a subterranean two-story conventional parking garage. They will be unified in design. The existing substandard Osceola Avenue will be relocated and upgraded to meet City requirements and widened to a 50' right-of way (from 40? and have two awkward bends removed. It will also have parking on both sides and be fully streetscaped. The Jones Street end of the Harrison Village block will have all the unsightly overhead power lines removed and relocated underground. The "Harrison Village" site was previously occupied on the west by four two-story dwelling units that were rented out on a weekly and monthly basis. They dated back to 1925 and 1939, and were not well maintained. The "Island View" site, to the east, had eight buildings, two residential and the rest for social services, offices and retail associated with the Salvation Army. Their construction dated from 1924 to 1992 with the bulk being older buildings dated around 1940 to 1960. The Salvation Army has since moved to newer and larger facilities in Clearwater and all the existing buildings on the sites have been demolished. We investigated the Harrison Village and Island View sites before demolition began. Existing on site we found at least 52 separate dwelling units. They were identified by on-site visual inspection, consultation with the property manager, local mailman and counting mailboxes. We also noted 7,933 sf office, and 14,120 sf retail space. The office and retail area was calculated from records at the Pinellas Property Appraisers Offices, and a visual inspection of the site. The parcels have been assembled into a single development site, for which this Master Plan is proposed. A Unity of Title document is in progress with our Counsel, Mr. E. D. Armstrong III, Esq., of Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP. Similarly, street vacation and dedication procedures are paralleling this application. All sites are within the Old Bay character district of Downtown Clearwater. The total area is 216,863 sf or 4.98 acres. Harrison Village The portion to the east of Osceola Avenue is called Harrison Village. The block is bounded by the re-located Osceola Avenue to the west, Jones Street to the south, Fort Harrison Avenue to the east and Georgia Street to the north. This portion of the project consists of a mixed used development with street level retail and commercial components (approximately 13,235 sf) along three sides of the block, and extensive streetscaping around the entire block. The block is split by a mini-park of landscape and fountains, on the axis the second of high-rise tower across Osceola. This site's residential component comprises 24 units. These are all entered from the new Osceola, and extend up all three floors on that side. Thus Osceola will have street-level residences on both sides. The residents will enter their units through entrances on the street or through the garage below. This large single story underground parking garage (below TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEARWATER; FL 33755 TEL: 727 446 0020 FAX: 727 446 0002 EMAIL: INFOCQTRIANGLEDEVELOPMENT.COM 2OF36 • D E V E L O P M E T U ?V Y • Harrison Village) will supply an excess of parking that will help spur future development in this area. Residents of • Harrison Village will also be able to enjoy the full amenities of the Island View site. • Island View The portion of the development to the west of Osceola is known as Island View, comprises three high-rise condo • towers. The towers each have 109 units. The towers will stand on a ground level Plaza with a two-story • subterranean conventional parking garage below, accessed off Georgia Street. A total of seven "brownstones" (defined here as two-story row-houses accessed primarily from the street) creating an interesting urban-scale • streetscape on Osceola. Island View will have a full Clubhouse with meeting facilities and a wonderful sunset view of the • waterway, a coffee bar, and various other amenities for the residents. There will be exercise rooms in each tower, and two pools, a spa, an outside barbecue area, as well as an interesting variety of landscaped "outdoor living rooms" on the • Plaza. • Triangle Development paid a total of $12,830,000 for the Harrison Village and Island View sites. The taxable • valuations for these sites total $3,964,700. The proposed value of the improvements for Harrison Village and Island View is in the region of $150mm. • 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! • This site is unique in its location. Proximity to the water, new Library, the Bluff, Coachman Park and the proposed • Marina, and the Pinellas Trail, as well as being a gateway for northern development from the Downtown core along • Osceola Avenue, all make it highly desirable. • Adjacent properties consist of, to the south, the Osceola Inn, a six-story mid-rise hotel; to the south-west, the SandCastle religious retreat, a newer seven story building; to the west and south, Belvedere Apartments, an older • (1950's) seven-story mid-rise condo block; to the north-west, a high rise condo (500 N Osceola); to the North, low-rise • residential and commercial including an automobile repair facility; and to the east, mixed use low-rise retail and commercial. • The scale of adjacent buildings varies greatly. Single family, one-story homes exist alongside mid-rise condos. Generally • speaking, the single-family residential structures are all older and most are in need of repair. As regards adjacent • buildings, there are none to the east and the west as these sides front entirely on Fort Harrison and Old Clearwater Bay. A parking lot and two seven-story towers occupy the block to the south, and to the north there is a condo tower, single • story commercial and garage buildings, and two-story residences. The larger buildings are newer or recently refurbished (SandCastle, Osceola Inn). The height of the proposed new buildings at Harrison Village is approximately 35', with • extensive variation in footprint and elevation. This scale thus forms an appropriate link between the higher structures to • the south and the lower building stock prevalent to the north and east. The Island View building aligns with existing high-rises on the Waterway. • No new low-rise single-family residential development has occurred in this area for about forty years. The last condo • development (500 N Osceola, a high-rise) was built in 1975, and recently a five-story condo was completed at 700 N • Osceola. • The bulk of the existing buildings around the site vary from one to seven-stories and from a tower (Osceola Inn) to • more traditional apartment prototypes. ORIGINAL • Prolific use has been made of setbacks and stepbacks in the proposed development. RECEIVE[' • OCT 12 2006 • TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC PLANNING DEPARTMENT • 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEAR WATER, FL 33755 CITY OF CLEARWATER TEL: 727 446 0020 FAX: 727 446 0002 EMAIL: INFOCQ?TRIANG LEDEV ELD PM ENT.COM • • 3 OF 36 ft • DEVF1,0PMf- NT C 0MPANY 1 _. Vl • On the Harrison Village site the units have had careful attention paid to the detailing of all facades visually to decrease • the bulk of the structures. They have been broken up with roofs, balconies, decks and trellises, as well as stepbacks. The Harrison Village retail buildings have been set back from the site boundary, which allows for extensive streetscape • and landscaping. The attached streetscape drawings show the considerable care that has been taken with the private • and public interface around the development. Extensive provisions have been made for a gradient from public to semi-public to semi-private to private space. Storefronts along North Fort Harrison will have a wide covered walkway in • front of them to break up the length of the block and to provide shelter to pedestrians, and shade storefronts against • direct sunlight. The Cross-Block Park crossing the site will provide to the public a green, fountained, relief. • The Island View towers have had considerable effort made to produce the "wedding cake effect" through setbacks and stepbacks. Stepbacks can be readily seen in the horizontal plane where the building narrows in steps towards the • water, allowing each unit a frontal view to the west. The east side has been shaped to emphasize the central vertical portion of the building. In the vertical plane, stepbacks can be seen where the lower 10 floors have been widened 4' out • and topped by a thick cornice. The levels above will appear to have been stepped in. On the two Penthouse levels the • east units are narrower and step inwards on the building. This level has been emphasized with color, and by varying the heights of the parapets around the roof. The trellis that appears on each side of the central vertical element, further • breaks up the roof line. • The two Island View towers have also had careful attention paid to detailing so that they do not appear to be simple • blocks extruded up into the sky. They follow very basic rules of design in being differentiated vertically into the three components of a base, a body, and a capital. The base, which will start at the parking level, has a different texture and • color from the body, where most of the units will be situated. The capital is the 2 topmost (penthouse) levels, where • decks have been increased and close scrutiny has been paid to the detailing of the parapets and pediments that form the roofline. The penthouse levels are different in plan and smaller than those below to create a "wedding cake" effect. • Additionally, care has been taken with the fenestration of the facades to break up any monolithic and repetitive • character that might mar the overall design. • The coverage of the site differs from those surrounding it in that all the surrounding buildings have extensive surface parking for their cars, mostly uncovered. In this development almost all the parking will occur inside the building in the • subterranean garage. The roof of the garage actually forms an open, ground level plaza between the buildings. Thus the • actual coverage will appear to be much less than a typical building of this type. • As regards density, the number of dwelling units being proposed is slightly higher than the norm for the area. This aligns with the Vision for the Downtown redevelopment which calls for the development of a variety of residential • projects to attract new residents to Downtown and which is critical to the success ofa revitalized Downtown. (Quotations in italics) The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent • land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. It will (and has already) significantly increase the value of • surrounding real estate. • The character of adjacent properties varies from newer high-rise condos in good shape to single-story rooming houses. • The immediate vicinity will be materially upgraded by the proposed development. The developers envisage that the proposed development will set the benchmark for future development across the whole area. • 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land • and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. • The residential land use in this development is at an increased density, as called for in the Redevelopment Plan. It will • encourage others in the area to develop residential units to fulfill the vision of the Plan. The value of surrounding land • has increased significantly, directly as a result of the present development. ORIGINAL RECEIVED • TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC • 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FL 33755 O CT 12 L 2l:oU TEL: 727 446 0020 FAX: 727 446 0002 EMAIL: INFOOTRIANGLEDEVELOPMENT.COM • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 0 4 OF 36 CITV OF CLEARWATER • ,' ORIGINAL RECEIVED r• ;, OCT 12 2@06 • PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER DEV F[.OPMF-N7 :)M PANY • b • The developers believe that by redeveloping this parcel in the Downtown area further redevelopment will be • encouraged, with a subsequent increase in property value. This will be the first significant residential building built in this immediate area since at least 1960. This can only result in an increase in property value for adjacent land, and • indeed it already has. Most of the smaller residential building stock in the immediate area no longer meets the • demanding standards of today's market, while the land on which they are located has increased significantly in value. This will give further incentive for future, similar redevelopment. This is a strong vote of confidence in the potential of • the area and of the positive effects envisaged to come from the proposed development. • 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the • neighborhood of the proposed use. • The proposed use is residential and commercial; this use is typical of this neighborhood. In addition, all relevant Codes • will be complied with from the inception planning to construction completion. • 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize trafc congestion. • Fort Harrison, Jones and Georgia Streets are two-way streets. Osceola Avenue is also a two-way street which becomes a • one-way street to the north from its intersection with Jones. It carries light local traffic (as do Georgia and Jones) and is not a major through-road. At present it is substandard in width and difficult or even hazardous to negotiate given its • winding character. The Applicant's proposal will eliminate two right-angle bends and widen the Right-of-Way to a generous two-way street width, enabling it to be converted to two-way traffic flow. • The only vehicular entrance to the Island View subterranean garage is on Georgia. This provides ample stacking space. • Drop-offs will be provided at each tower's entrance. Harrison Village residents will enter their underground parking • garage from Osceola. Pedestrian traffic will be protected by signage and any approaching traffic will be low-speed and • will be highly visible, providing a long reaction distance. • The applicant further proposes to make ample provision for on-street parking, along the west side of Fort Harrison between Jones and Georgia and also on both sides of the newly re-aligned and widened Osceola. Dropoffs can be made • at designated laybys which can be seen on the Streetscape plans. Furniture and other deliveries can also be made from • these laybys. • 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. • The community character is residential and commercial, ranging from condos to single-family houses and single-story • retail and commercial uses. This development provides an increased density for residential purposes and increased •. retail/commercial components, directly related to the streets. The immediate vicinity will be materially upgraded by the proposed development. The existing building stock has generally seen better days. The developers envisage that the • proposed development will provide the neighborhood with an upmarket structure, entirely within the community • character of the area and set the benchmark for future development in the entire area. • 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic, and olfactory • and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent propefties • For Island View, three separate trash collection and recycling rooms will be built within the parking garage below the towers, enclosed, cooled and ventilated to minimize olfactory and unsightly visual impact. Enclosed dumpsters will be • located off Georgia Street. This is in excess of Code requirements. Harrison Village has provision for two standard City • dumpsters in approved enclosures, with access off Osceola. Thus, no adverse visual, acoustic or olfactory impacts are • TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC • 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FL 33755 TEL: 727 446 0020 FAX: 727 446 0002 EMAIL: INFO cDTRIANGLEDEVELOPMENT.COM • • 5 OF 36 u f r L` DEVELOPMENT COMF,,-^ AY envisioned on adjacent properties. The location of the solid waste areas has also been chosen to minimize traffic disruption. The residential component will adhere to normal residential standards and residential hours of operation will apply. The retail component will operate under normal business hours. ORIGINAL, RECEIVED ou 12 N06 pLp Y Ov CLEARWA ERT CITY TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FL 33755 TEL: 727 446 0020 FAX: 727 446 0002 EMAIL: INFO(O)TRIANGLEDEVELOPMENT.COM 6OF36 t , • L)EVEL0PMENT COMPANY • ??L`z!:'`3VCr ?2.3;V11i1.t.?Zii ;3f?S4"a.'1 "1?" i t : ei,' 1'7Y?. WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment • Project Criteria) • 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use and/or • development standards set forth in this zoning district. • This proposed development does not deviate from the use standards, having only residential and commercial • components. Application is being made, however, for an increase in unit density due to the provision of a significant retail and commercial component along Fort Harrison. Given the historically weak retail environment Downtown, the • mixed-use aspect of the project and the restriction of 0.5 FAR create a significant hardship for the developer, which • necessitates an increased number of residential units needed in order to make the project viable. Application is thus being made to draw units from the Clearwater Downtown Density Pool. In exchange for this, substantial • . contributions will be made to City Streetscape and other items as discussed in the accompanying Public Amenities • Incentive Pool Application. • The increased density meets the intent of the Downtown Redevelopment Plan, as does the increased residential and retail/commercial component. • • The attached PUBLIC AMENITIES INCENTIVE POOL APPLICATION provides for further data on units requested, and contributions in exchange. • 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as • well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of • this zoning district. • This Development meets the goals of the Comprehensive Plan as outlined in a separate Analysis included in this Submission. This is a high-rise condo development on the water, which bring an increased population density to this • area. It also has a low-rise mixed-use component that provides a retail face onto Fort Harrison. It thus meets the • general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code and Zoning district as well. • 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of • surrounding properties • As has been indicated above, surrounding properties have increased in value, enticing further development and bringing new commercial and residential life to this area of the City. • • 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development. • Adjacent land uses are primarily residential, with commercial components along Fort Harrison. The proposed development is compatible with the existing residential components and provides upgraded retail and commercial • facilities with sheltered access along Fort Harrison, the major commercial thoroughfare. • • • • • • • • • The retail component will be neighborhood in character, with predominantly pedestrian patrons. The use of Osceola for vehicular access has freed up the entire west side of Fort Harrison for on-street parking, as well as both sides of Osceola, increasing the total of on-street parking (25-plus) directly contiguous to the site. This aligns strongly with the Vision of the Plan by providing an increased residential base, one of the primary building blocks for a flourishing Downtown. ORIGINAL. RECEIVED TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FL 33755 TEL: 727 446 0020 FAX: 727 446 0002 EMAIL: INFOCcDTRIANGLEDEVELOPMENT.COM 7 OF 36 OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • • • T-1-? ININ GLEE bF.VEl.OPMF.iJT COMP "?NY • D • The value of property depends on highest and best use improvements on the site and the market factors of supply and • demand. The value of abutting properties will not be compromised and will actually be significantly enhanced. A substantial public benefit will be created by the development itself and the creation of the highly streetscaped and lushly • landscaped pedestrian promenade along Fort Harrison and across the Harrison Village block, with significant retail and • commercial components. Downtown will gain over 300 new households in an upmarket environment, as well as a new retail and commercial destination for people living in Downtown and elsewhere in Clearwater. • The tax base will be considerably increased by this Development. • • Triangle Development paid a total of $12,830,000 for the Harrison Village and Island View sites. According to the Pinellas County Property Appraiser the total of the taxable valuations for all the existing sites is $3,964,700.The proposed • value of the improvements for Harrison Village and Island View is in the region of $150mm. • It should be clear from the above figures at least that not only has land become more valuable in this immediate area • but also that considerable money will be invested in the development and a sharp rise can be predicted in the value of the adjoining lots. This rise has ready been seen. • S. 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 re zoning would result in a spot land use or • zoning designation; or • f. The proposed use provides for the development of anew and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. • The proposed use is permitted under the future land use category and is compatible with adjacent land uses. • The following applicable objectives have been complied with: a. This use is permitted as a flexible development use. • b. Jobs will be created in the commercial component of the development and in the support staff required to • maintain and run the buildings. c. Not applicable. • d. Not applicable. e. Other similar land uses surround this development. • f. Not applicable. • 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified based on • demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives • a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; • b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; • c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; ORIGINAL • TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC RECEIVED • 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FL 33755 TEL: 727 446 0020 FAX: 727 446 0002 EMAIL: INFOCCDTRIANGLEDEVELOPMENT.COM DDT 12 2006 • • B OF 36 PLANNING DEPARTMENT ^r CLEARWATER • • ? ORIGINAL • RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER DEVF!LOPMF NT COMPANY 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 • This section addresses use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking in item 6 directly above. This lot use is allowed in this area. No flexibility is requested for lot width or required setbacks. Zero setbacks are r, permissible in the Downtown area. Compliance is made with the 20ft sight triangles at the applicable corners and • vehicular access points on the site. • As use of the Density Pool is being requested, the height of the Harrison Village building will be allowed to be lifted from the mandated 40' to the 50' limit. At present the design has a roof height of less than 40' so this provision may not be needed. The Developer would however, choose to retain the option of increased height, should it be needed. Above the roof height 42" parapets will be extended (per definition of Height in Section 8-102 of the Clearwater Community Development Code) and the elevator and mechanical equipment rooms may extend the full permitted 16' above the • allowed building height. The clocktowers on the corners of Jones, Georgia and Fort Harrison would take advantage of the definition of mechanical rooms to rise above the roof-lines to create architectural embellishments, which are functional and aesthetic landmarks. In order to calculate the permissible height for the Island View Towers, the mean elevation of the site was first • calculated. This came to 21'-6", somewhat lower than expected, as Osceola Avenue, on which the Towers front, varies in elevation from around 27 to 30' (although the site slopes down steeply towards the water). The allowed height in this location is 150'. Per the Clearwater Development Code, an additional 20% can be granted in exchange for a significant • Public Amenity contribution. This contribution has been detailed elsewhere in this Narrative, and is specifically dealt with in the accompanying Public Amenities Incentive Pool Application. Thus the total height may not exceed 180'(150' • + 30) above the mean elevation of the site. The Towers as shown on this Application have their flat roof height beneath • this level, as may be seen from the elevation drawings. Also per the Code, parapets and mechanical enclosures (which conceal the unsightly air-conditioning equipment) are allowed to extend slightly above this height. This creates an • attractive and varied profile of the building against the sky, further enhancing the "wedding cake" effect. Off-street parking is supplied in the parking in the Island View garage and the Harrison Village underground • garage. The required handicapped-compatible parking places are supplied. • Parking requirements for residential units in this area are 1 to 1.5 per unit. There are 358 units. At 1.5 per unit, 537 are required. Please see the Special Note on Parking in this Application for an accurate count. Excess places will be provided in the garages with a further 25-plus on-street parking places. Visitors may obviously park on the street, but • may also park in the Island View or Harrison Village underground garages, where the person whom they are visiting can arrange for the remote access to the parking garage. • Commercial parking requirements are 4 places per 1,000 sf. The commercial component is in use during the hours that there is least residential occupancy. Given the high density of the development, the commercial component will be • TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC • 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEAR WATER, FL 33755 TEL: 727 446 0020 FAX: 727 446 0002 EMAIL: INF.' TRIANGLEOEVELOPMENT.COM • • 9 OF 36 ORIGINAL. RECEIVE[ OCIT 12 2006 TRZ V\N GT I PLANNING DEPARTMENT • -- CIV OF DEVEt.OPMt INT COMPANY served by a larger percentage of foot traffic. More people living closer equals less vehicular traffic. The Shared Parking formula has thus been used. Please see attached calculations which show the provision of a surplus of parking. There are 25-plus additional on-street parking places created by the development, on Osceola and Fort Harrison, as mentioned above. On-street parking within 1,000 ft of the property totals somewhat over 100 spaces, not including the Steinmart/Library lot. • Additional units are being requested from the Density Pool. Specific details of this request and the Contributions given in exchange are included in the separate PUBLIC AMENITIES INCENTIVE POOL • APPLICATION. • This conforms to the spirit of increased density, one of the aims of the Downtown Redevelopment Plan. The developers have discussed a range of choices for the provision of Public Amenities, so the benefits that accrue to the developers from these units could be reciprocated. Significant contributions to Streetscape on the site were previously • approved at CDB and additional contributions for this proposal are also detailed elsewhere in this Application. The Developer is very confident this mutually beneficial arrangement, where the Downtown urban fabric is materially enhanced, is for the advantage of all. Major Contributions to Streetscape. • The special sidewalk finishes, fences, bollards, benches, trash receptacles, bicycle racks, upgraded street lighting and more around the site will be brought up to the high standards of the Clearwater Streetscape, with lush landscaping including Medjool palms and live oaks. At the Fort Harrison corners of ]ones and Georgia, attractive working clocktowers will be built to landmark the site along the Fort Harrison corridor, which forms the entrance and gateway to Downtown Clearwater. There will also be well-designed public fountains, located on Fort Harrison. These will most likely be • individually designed and fabricated in cast glass by a nationally known local artist. Part of the design for Harrison Village is a break in the middle of the Harrison Village block, referred to here as the • "Cross-Block Park". This will be landscaped and hardscaped to meet or exceed the City standards. This will provide a significant public amenity, breaking up the long block and providing place for, for example, outdoor cafes, and an • upgraded urban experience. Osceola Avenue Rebuilt • While it cannot be directly counted as a contribution to Streetscape, the Developer would like taken into consideration the Provision of a new road to replace the existing substandard Osceola Avenue. This entails extensive rerouting and • upgrading of services and extensive infrastructure upgrades, in addition to the reconstruction of the road to City • specifications. New curb and curb cuts will also be made as needed. • Bicycle Traffic As the Downtown area becomes more pedestrian and bicycle friendly, given the close proximity of the site to the Pinellas Trail (two blocks) and noting the relatively large amount of bicycle traffic, secure bicycle racks, to City standards, will be provided for residents and shoppers. It is anticipated a large number of people would avail themselves of this facility. The developer has met with Felicia Leonard of the City and briefed her on the project. She was pleased with the overall • project and she will monitor the progress and will have comments when more detailed plans are presented. This section addresses items 6 a. through e. above. a. The proposed development w111 not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the • surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; As has been indicated above, the surrounding lots are generally either already developed with higher density residential or are single-family homes waiting to be upgraded. The proposed development will serve as a forerunner for future • TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC • 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FL 33755 TEL: 727 446 0020 FAX: 727 446 0002 EMAIL: INFO(QDTRIANGLEDEVELOPMENT.COM • 10 OF 36 9 /'11 . • DE VE LOPMEN7' COMPANY development in this area and result in a general upgrade not only of the building stock but also of the streetscape and general ambiance of the area. A The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; See attached analysis of the Downtown Design Guidelines. • c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; Recent developments in the Downtown area and in this neighborhood (700 N Osceola) indicate that development • supports the emerging character of the 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 roof forms See attached plans and elevations, also see elsewhere in this Narrative, and the attached Analysis of the Downtown Design Guidelines. These criteria have been met. There are multiple changes in horizontal building planes, in the • low-rise as well as the high-rises. Architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, can all be seen. Not so easily shown are variety in materials, colors and textures, but these • are nevertheless used. Distinctive fenestration patterns are particularly visible on the towers where spandrel glass is used to extend windows over two floors, thus breaking the monotony and repetition of every floor being the same. Building stepbacks have been discussed are present in all buildings to some degree and especially in the Towers. • Distinctive roof forms can be seen in the parapets, barrel vaults, pediments and hipped roofs on Island View and Harrison Village. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings The Landscape Plans show the appropriate buffers and enhanced landscape design. Appropriate distances between buildings are achieved by splitting the Harrison Village with a Cross-Block Park, a public plaza which creates a pleasant rhythm to the long street face. This open plaza is directly on axis with the second Tower, which is thus framed by the three story buildings of Harrison Village. Across Osceola, this tower has its entrance flanked by brownstones. This creates an interesting set of facades down Osceola. Building 1 has its entrance set on a quiet court off Osceola, and the arrangement of the towers affords the best possible views from each tower for the residents, while the flanking Brownstones on Osceola present an open and friendly face to that street. ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 IN OF CLEARWATER PC T TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FL 33755 TEL: 727 446 0020 FAX: 727 446 0002 EMAIL: INFOOTRIANGLEDEVELOPMENT.COM 1 1 OF 36 • • • • • 1 D.FVr:t..OPKIf r,.r )MPANY Supplemental Data PHASING The Island View and Harrison Village properties have already had all of their existing structures demolished. A start on the Osceola relocation is planned for the immediate future. Because of the nature of this development, it must be phased, for financial and marketing and aesthetic reasons. The accompanying Development Agreement Application comprises the legal bases for the Phasing, but it is briefly discussed below. Master Plan The Submission comprises a Master Plan for the entire site. It is anticipated there will be three building Phases. Each Phase must be able to stand alone. Each Phase needs to provide for itself, not only financially, but also in terms of draws from the Density Pool and Amenities provided for the City in exchange. Thus, for instance, if the development were to stop after the completion of any Phase, it would have paid for itself and have no further unsatisfied draws on the Density Pool. Phase 0 Prior and during Phase 1, as a "Phase 0", Osceola Avenue will be moved. A temporary road will be constructed, with all utilities in place, before Old Osceola is closed. The temporary road will be available for emergency vehicles until the completion of Phase 1, when the final surface would be put onto it and it would be officially opened for use. Vehicular access to the site and emergency vehicle access up New or Old Osceola will be uninterrupted during the construction of all Phases. Phase 1 The first Phase will comprise Island View Building 1, located in the SW comer of the site, portions of the subterranean garage along the South side of the property and along Osceola. Brownstones will be built on the west side of Osceola. The required parking for this Phase will be provided in the portrion of the garage built in this Phase. The tower will be entirely 2-bedroom units, with 2 to 21/2 bathrooms. Phase 2 Island View Building 2 is the middle building, facing New Osceola. This Phase will also include the entire parking garage, the pool and Clubhouse on the garage. Building 2 will be a larger version of Building 1. This tower will be substantially the same as Building 1, except it will have 2- and 3-bedroom units, with 2 to 21/2 baths each. Provisions will be made for the foundation of Building 3 in the parking structure, although the building itself will be built in Phase 3. Phase 3 This will comprise of Island View Building 3 and Harrison Village. Building 3 will be substantially identical to Building 2. The Harrison Village site will comprise a residential and a retail component. It will be a true mixed-use building, with retail below and two levels of residential above, with on-site parking as well as a significant underground garage which will meet all site parking requirements. While it has the less expensive residential units of the project, it will be in a satisfying urban environment. The retail component comprises some 13,235 sf. ORIGINAL. RECEIVED TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC c,? r 12 2?os 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FL 33755 TEL: 727 446 0020 FAX: 727 446 0002 EMAIL: INFO(Ca TRIANGLEDEVELOPMENT.COM PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1 2 OF 36 -- ^, rADIAIATFR a ,f ?E D5VE'1,0PMFNI C:0M,P.ANY flr'3 I I Timeline The anticipated Timeline for this project requires a construction start date around December of 2006 and approximately 16 to 18 months for the construction of Phase 1. The Developer expects to be pre-selling Phase 2 while Phase 1 is under construction. Phase 2 could, however, begin immediately after Phase 1 if sales targets are met. This second Phase is anticipated to be under construction for 20 to 24 months; the possibility exists that these two Phases could be built simultaneously. The third Phase should take 16 to 18 months. As the construction time estimated for the Harrison Village is much shorter that that for Building 3 due to simpler construction, Harrison Village could start some time after Building 3, as long as a simultaneous completion date for Harrison Village and Building 3 is achieved. Throughout all this time, access will be maintained for emergency vehicles from Jones to Georgia. Signage will be installed on the old Osceola "stub" to prevent confusion with the relocation of Osceola. ORIGINAL. RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 PLANNING CITY OF CLLEA WA ERj TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FL 33755 TEL: 727 446 0020 FAX: 727 446 0002 EMAIL: INFO(@TRIANGLEDEVELOPMENT.COM 1 3 OF 36 • uEVELOPNI: Al COMPANY • DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN • An Analysis was made of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan in regard to this proposed • development. These are the findings: • Vision of Plan • The Vision section of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan calls for (quotations in italics) a vibrant downtown • that is mindful of its heritage, noting that the revitalization of Downtown Clearwater is critical to the City's overall success It calls for the development of an integrated community of retail, residential, office and recreation, especially a variety of residential projects to attract new residents, this being a critical factor in the success of a revitalized Downtown. A quick perusal of the Site Plan of this development will reveal all these elements. • It cannot be denied that the increase in upmarket residential units as close as these to the Downtown core signals the • start of a new impetus towards the revitalization of Downtown. The developers are aware of the potential of Downtown, • as shown by their confidence in property acquisition and willingness to build on the property they have acquired rather than leave it undeveloped 'as an investment'. They feel a responsibility towards their City and a strong desire for it to • grow strong and grow strong with it. • Further, the vision calls for Osceola and North For` Harrison to be redeveloped as pedestrian-oriented streets The • presence and siting of the new buildings, especially those along For` Harrison will strengthen this endeavor by responding at street level to create an attractive streetscape. • The Plan states that quality urban design is critical to new construction. The developers align strongly with this statement and feel that their contribution to the urban fabric is of the highest quality. Market related forces make this a • necessity. The proposed streetscape, as par` of the package proposed, will also enhance the experience and vitality of Downtown. Additionally, the elimination of blighting conditions is critical to the future health of Downtown. Attention is drawn to the attached photographs of the existing conditions on the site. While performing a necessary function of provision of • residential housing, the proposed upgrades will go a long way to increasing the tax base of the City, and also . encourage further economic revitalization. A cursory view of the existing conditions on the site will reveal the necessity of this development. • Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Plan • • Goal 1: Downtown shall be a place that attracts people for living. • The proposed development will and already has attracted people not only from Clearwater itself, but also from as far away as Australia. The waterfront location, combined with proximity to the facilities provided by the SandCastle Religious • Retreat, to Coachman Park and the new Main Library, and to the downtown core, will account, it is believed, for a • number of new residents. The upmarket stores planned will further attract non-residents, who will get to know and use downtown more and more. It will snowball. • Objective IA: All development within Downtown shall further the goals, objectives and policies of this Plan and shall be • consistent with the character districts, the design guidelines and the Downtown zoning district: • This development is consistent with the spirit of the neighborhood and will follow the directions of the Downtown Design • guidelines. ORIGINAL RTECENED(?? (??` • TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC OC 1 12 2006 • 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FL 33755 TEL: 727 446 0020 FAX: 727 446 0002 EMAIL: INFOQTRIANSLEOEVELOPMENT.COM PLANNING DEPARTMENT • 1 4 OF 35 CITY OF CLEARWATER • T'R ICTLE DF: V F1,OPMFNT' C:OM F,,', uY Objective IE.• A variety of businesses are encouraged to relocate and expand in Downtown to provide a stable employment center, as well as employment opportunities for Downtown residents Businesses will be encouraged to occupy the offices and stores planned along Fort Harrison, Georgia, and Jones. Objective IG.• Residential uses in Downtown are encouraged with a variety of densities, housing types and affordability consistent with the character districts This development provides residential condominiums in a range of sizes and a range of types (low-rise urban, high-rise water view) and is wholly consistent with this Objective and the character of this District. It provides a higher density of housing in an area that needs an increase in population for the good of the City. Objective IH. A variety of incentives shall be available to encourage redevelopment within the Downtown. This development will be one of the first to partake of the "Density Pool". Objective 11 The City shall use all existing incentives to encourage Downtown housing and shall evaluate other incentives to encourage residential uses to locate Downtown. Obviously this Objective has been more than met, with the quantity of housing to be provided. Objective IK.- Downtown shall be a safe environment for both residents and visitors by addressing real and perceived public safety issues By removing low-quality housing, a perceived public safety threat is ameliorated. These properties have had, in the past, a fairly high traffic of public safety officer visits. Movement Goal Objective 2A: The Downtown street grid should be maintained No change is made to the street grid. Osceola Avenue is relocated, realigned and improved. The pedestrian street grid is improved with the Cross-Block Park piercing the long Harrison Village block, allowing an easy flow through between Fort Harrison and Osceola. Objective 2H. A variety of parking solutions for motorized and non -motorized vehicles shall be pursued to support redevelopment while maintaining ease of access and parking throughout the Downtown. Bicycles and their like have not been forgotten, provision will be made for their safe and secure storage, with special attention being paid to the ease with which they may be accessed for use. On- and off-street parking has been increased. Objective 2I. Redevelopment shall create and contribute to pedestrian linkages throughout Downtown. By upgrading the sidewalks, providing streetscaping and building something attractive to walk past, this Objective will be reinforced. A new pedestrian linkage has been created in the middle of the long Fort Harrison block by the central "park" the traverses the site, providing visual and physical access to Osceola. ORIGINAL RECEIVER TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC OCT 12 2006 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FL 33755 TEL: 727 446 0020 FAX: 727 446 0002 EMAIL: INFO(@TRIANGLEDEVELOPMENT.COM PLANNING DEPARTMENT 15 OF 36 CITY OF CLEARWATER • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • - DEVELOPMEiIT CCOM PANY Amenity Goal Goal 3: Create Downtown as a memorable place to be enjoyed by residents and visitors that capitalizes on Clearwater's waterfront location, natural resources, built environment and history. This new development makes the most of its waterfront location, and upgrades the quality of the built environment and urban experience, creating a memorable place and experience for all who live and visit. Objective 38.• The new Main Library will serve as a cultural attraction and an anchor for the northern section of the downtown core. It is no coincidence that this development, which is the first residential project to be started in many years in the northern section of the downtown core, should be proposed so soon after the completion of the new Main Library. This cultural anchor, a visible show of confidence in the area, is one of the main reasons why this site is regarded as an ideal location for new development. Objective 3D: Redevelopment is encouraged to create a vibrant Downtown environment containing a variety of building forms and styles that respect Downtown's character and heritage. The Harrison Village buildings represent a particular building form, (multi-family, low-rise residential) which respects and enhances Downtown's character and heritage. Historical references are used in a context of modern design, forming a blend that will not look out of place in its surroundings, while preserving a very specific design identity of its own. The Island View high-rise continues the Mediterranean Revival design theme of the Village. A vibrant Downtown will be promoted by providing an ambient population who will live in and enjoy Downtown and contribute to the life in Downtown, both economically and culturally. Policies Policy 1: The design guidelines establish the quality and design features expected for renovation, redevelopment and new construction in Downtown with which all projects must be consistent. This project strives to be consistent and follow these excellent Guidelines. Policy Z: The character of each district shall be reinforced through the site plan and design review process Projects shall be consistent with and contribute positively to the vision of the character district in which it is located. We believe that this project sets the Gold Standard for the Old Bay district. Policy 3. The design of all projects in Downtown shall make meaningful contributions to the pedestrian environment through site and building design. • The pedestrian environment will be enhanced by this new development. As the vision statement of the Downtown Redevelopment Plan calls for Osceola to be regarded as a pedestrian-oriented street, the presence and siting of the new • buildings will respond at street level to create an attractive streetscape. Trees and planters will be provided and • maintained, shelter will be provided against showers and sun along the street facade and a park will cross the long Harrison Village block. The buildings were set back from the street at the request of the City to includeeMIN4 • landscaping (similar to that on the adjoining block on the south) and provide for extensive streetscaping. RECEIVED • TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC OCT 12 2006 • 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FL 33755 TEL: 727 446 0020 FAX: 727 446 0002 EMAIL: INFOCp7TRIANGLEDEVELOPMENT.COM • PLANNING DEPARTMENT 16 OF 36 f ITP nr r?1 ceo?ei?7Gp • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • DEVE1..OPMENT COME yY Storefronts will have awnings or covered walkways in front of them, providing shelter to pedestrians and shading storefronts against direct sunlight. This is a boon in typical Florida weather. Policy 6: The City shall establish a Public Amenities Incentive Pool that provides density and intensity increases for projects located in all character districts, except as limited in Old Bay, in excess of the allowable maximum development potential based on a provision of selected public amenities.. The Public Amenities Incentive Pool is the vehicle through which developers wish to increase the density and height allowances for this site, as referred to earlier. Such increases are allowable in this section of the Old Bay character district. The provisions of selected public amenities, such as streetscape contributions, parking and public art have also been referred to elsewhere. Policy 14: The education of Downtown property owners should be emphasized regarding Clearwater building and property maintenance standards Litter control and maintenance of landscaped areas shall be a priority for Downtown. The City will maintain its properties and public infrastructure as the example for other property owners Litter control and maintenance is vital to the continued positive perception of the development and the maintenance of its actual and perceived value. Litter bins consistent with the Streetscape requirements have been placed at strategic locations throughout the public areas of the project. Careful consideration has been put to the subject of solid waste, in consultation with the Solid Waste Department. Solid waste is handled within the garage of the high-rises, in cooled, insulated enclosures, with provision for recycling and cardboard disposal, while dumpsters are accessed off Georgia Street. Standard dumpsters and their enclosures will be provided on the Harrison Village site. Policy 17 Property owners/developers are encouraged to meet with area neighborhood associations/business groups prior to submitting a major redevelopment project for City review. This is ongoing. Neighbors have been contacted on all sides and support for this development is consistent. A presentation was made to the Downtown Development Board for a previous, similar version of this project and letters of strong support were received. Policy 18.• The City shall assist neighborhoods in the formation and development of neighborhood associations that empower residents to improve their neighborhood and strengthen ties between residents and government. This development will form a strong component of the neighborhood association and has a strong in interest in the maintenance of very high standards in the area. Policy 19: Residential development shall provide appropriate on-site recreation facilities based on the scale of the project A significant portion of the site and construction budget has been set aside for such facilities. These include clubhouses with flexible meeting/party rooms, a large swimming pool, hot tubs, exercise facilities, fountains and lavishly landscaped gardens. These facilities will be located at the Island View portion of the site. The Harrison Village residents will share in these. The Clubhouses at Island View are provided for the exclusive use of the owners at Island View. They will be able to conduct only private functions there, such as parties or small weddings. Facilities provided in the Clubhouses will be limited to bathrooms, wet bar, vending machines (directed to traffic from the pool) wash-up facilities (a sink) and a warm-up kitchen. No cooking. No renting out. ORIGINAL RECEIVED TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FL 33755 TEL: 727 446 0020 FAX: 727 446 0002 EMAIL: INFO(d)TRIANGLEDEVELOPMENT.COM 17 OF 36 OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (`IT/ r )c (`I rtawAixtro • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • TT 1,,'\NTZ.T DEVIL-OPMEP: COMPANY • The developers fully recognize the value of well maintained lush landscaping that in sets and keeps value for a property. The motif of the palms at the Library will be echoed on the site. Elsewhere landscaping is use to break the mass of the building and accentuate the stepbacks. Special attention has been paid to the landscaping and hardscaping of the Plaza between the towers. A series of 'Outdoor Rooms' has been created, with fountains, grassy areas, arbors, raised gardens and a 'Palm Court' for the pleasure and delight of the residents. Additionally, on the penthouse level of the buildings, trellises have been designed, to be overgrown with bougainvillea or the like to provide a softening of the roofline of the building when viewed from street level. Policy 23: The City prefers and shall encourage alternative stormwater management solutions rather than installation of on -site stormwater retention ponds These alternatives may include neighborhood or regional stormwater programs that make significant improvements to the overall stormwater system and environment. Our Civil Engineer is familiar with the requirements of the City and we will comply with them. Policy 24: The City shall give priority to sidewalk construction within Downtown that enhances pedestrian linkages and/or completes a continuous sidewalk system on all streets Pedestrian linkages across the Harrison Village site will be made by the central Cross-Block Park. Part of the Streetscape proposal includes Streetscape to the east side of Fort Harrison, across the street from Harrison Village as well as on the north side of Georgia Street. Sidewalk reconstruction is a matter of course in this project as the developer wishes to maximize the aesthetic impact of the project by putting it in the best surroundings possible, while meeting Streetscape standards. Extensive lush landscaping, planters, decorative railings, new trees and palms are planned. An analogy might be made with providing a beautiful frame for a beautiful picture. Policy 26.• The CRA will consider abatement of impact fees and permit fees as an incentive for redevelopment projects that are consistent with this Plan. The developers would welcome any abatement of fees, as we believe we are endeavoring to align with the stated goals and objectives of the Downtown Clearwater Redevelopment Plan wherever possible, as well as materially improving Osceola, ]ones, Georgia and Fort Harrison. Policy 27: Properties whose uses have resulted in a higher police level of service than typical properties are encouraged to redevelop with uses consistent with the applicable character district; if a higher police level of service continues, the use will be the focus of nuisance abatement strategies and law enforcement. The developers believe that the redevelopment of this area will lead to a dramatically decreased level of police service. Already the level of police service has decreased with the purchase and demolition of the existing buildings. ORIGINAL. RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FL 33755 TEL: 727 446 0020 FAX: 727 446 0002 EMAIL: INFOCCDTRIANGLEOEVELOPMENT.COM 1 B OF 35 • • ??? I IR- 1ETC F • DFVE.,? t,! i i1T ?Y • DOWNTOWN CHARACTER DISTRICT • An analysis of the Downtown Redevelopment Character District was made and the proposed development • was found to align with many specific points, as outlined below, and contradict none. • The lot concerned falls within the Downtown District, Old Bay Character area. The Old Bay District is a transitional area • between the Downtown Core and the low density residential areas to the north. Old Bay is comprised of a mix of land • uses including governmental, residential (including single-family dwellings), commercial, industrial, institutional and recreational. This mix, while giving the District great diversity, also results in incompatible development patterns and • uses • The developers believe the development proposed promotes the character of the Old Bay District. The uses are compatible; the site is located alongside lots with similar height restrictions, and it forms an easy gradient from these • structures to the finer scaled dwellings to the north. • • District Vision • Uses • The Old Bay District is envisioned to be a mixed-use neighborhood supporting the Downtown employment base with • residential, limited neighborhood commercial and office uses A variety of densities and housing styles are encouraged • throughout the District, as well as renovations of existing older structures This District provides an opportunity for higher-density residential uses along Clearwater Harbor west of Osceola Avenue, provided such development is sensitive • to the established low-rise historic character of the District: The eastern frontage of Osceola Avenue may retain its • residential use, convert existing buildings to offices, redevelop with residential scale offices or combine these two uses on the same site. • The site is located on the east and west sides of Osceola Avenue and adds considerably to the residential use. The • Harrison Village side provides an entire block of mixed-use retail and low-rise residential units in an exciting urban • location. A strong retail component surrounds three sides of this site, with condos on two levels above them, all over an underground garage. Thus the dense urban mixed-use character of this area will not be spoiled by large areas of surface • parking. The character of the district is respected through the use of an historical (Mediterranean Revival) design theme and the smaller scale nature of the development along Osceola, as well as the retail and commercial component along • Fort Harrison. • This higher-density residential uses occur in Island View side, along Clearwater Harbor west of Osceola Avenue, in the • towers. The eastern side of Osceola Avenue combines residential, retail and commercial facilities on the same site. • Function • The character of Old Bay should be strengthened through streetscaoe elements that identify the District as a Downtown • neighborhood. • As discussed above, this vision aligns exactly with the vision conceived for the site under question, especially as regards • Streetscape. Streetscape is a very strong design element of the entire development. ORIGINAL RECEIVED • OCT 12 2006 • TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC PLANNING DEPARTMENT • 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEAR WATER, FL 33755 CITY OF CL.EARWATER : 727 446 0020 FAX: 727 446 0002 EMAIL: IN FOC?TR IAN G LEDEV TEL ELOPMENT.COM • 1 9 OF 36 • r D t P M E N T A-?Y Development Patterns Greater heights in the higher density residential area west of Osceola Avenue may be considered. The development pattern in the balance of the District is expected to remain urban in character reflecting the low-rise scale (two to three stories) of the existing neighborhood. Renovation/restoration of existing historic homes is strongly encouraged and new development should provide references to the neighborhood's historic features in their design. Redevelopment should provide opportunities for comfortable pedestrian travel and access to public areas including the Seminole Street Launching Facility and Pinellas Trail. The proposed development forms an ideal gradient in height from the buildings to the east and south of it. A fifty-foot limit has been preserved along the east side of Osceola Avenue. Through the liberal use of setbacks, stepbacks and lowered rooflines, the structure of the building has been broken up to decrease the appearance of massiveness across the entire development. Its urban character respects and enhances Downtown's built environment and heritage. Historical references are used in a context of modern design, forming a blend that does not look out of place in its surroundings, while preserving a very specific design identity of its own. The proximity of the site to the Pinellas Trail (two blocks) means that provision will be made in the buildings themselves for secure bicycle and stroller storage. This is another reason the location is so good; and it means increased usage of the Trail. The extensive street level and cross-block park improvements will enhance comfortable pedestrian travel. It must be noted that the proximity of the building to so many key locations in downtown (Library, City Hall, Publix, Steinmart and so on) mean that the opportunity actually exists for people to walk to places and not use their vehicles. This approaches an ideal scene for a true urban environment. Prohibited Uses Automobile service stations, all types of vehicle sales and services, fast food restaurants with drive -through service, adult uses, industrial and problematic uses (examples include, but are not limited to, day labor, pawn shops, check cashing, blood plasma centers and body piercing and tattoo parlors). None of these uses are planned for this site. ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 1006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FL 33755 TEL: 727 446 0020 FAX: 727 446 0002 EMAIL: INFOOTRIANGLEDEVELOPMENT.COM 20 OF 36 • • • • • DI t.OPMF. NT " ANY Downtown Design Guidelines New Construction, Parts I, II and III. These Guidelines they form a strong basis for the design of this project. The document is very thorough and the developers believe the design of the proposed project aligns strictly with the spirit and intent of the vision of the document. Brief mention will be made here of the most pertinent points. Quotations from the Guidelines are shown in italics. Access, Circulation and Parking Parking lots and garages should be as unobtrusive as possible while maintaining easy accessibility. Appropriate: Parking areas for townhouse developments located within the interior of the development that maintain the integrity of the primary facade as the preferred design, attached garages in residential developments, architecturally integrated with the design of the principal structure... The proposed Island View design calls for an enclosed and concealed underground parking garage. Where visible (on the waterway side, as the bluff drops away) the facade is designed to hide motor cars from view and to disguise the use of the facility. In fact, residential units will be built on top of the subterranean parking garage, so from Osceola no trace of "garage" will be seen. The only clues to its use will be an entrance and exit for vehicles on Georgia. Similarly for Harrison Village, the underground parking will only be visible as an entrance off Osceola. Site Elements Buffering and Screening Buffering and screening help define spaces, block unsightly yet necessary elements and preserve and enhance an area's quality and character. Within an urban setting buffering will be achieved through the use of landscaping, decorative fences, walls, pots, planters, etc. Appropriate: When located on the roof of a building, mechanical equipment that is integrated into the design of the building through the use of parapet walls, towers or other architectural elements, service and loading areas accessed from secondary streets, screened from adjacent properties and rights-of-way and placed in visually unobtrusive locations Mechanical equipment will be concealed on roof level and screened behind parapet walls. Service and loading areas are accessed from secondary streets (there is no vehicular access from Fort Harrison) and are placed in visually unobtrusive locations. Landscaping Landscaping should be used as a design element fully integrated with a site and building while also recognizing and defining the urban setting. A well-designed landscape contributes to the site's aesthetics and improves the livability in a dense urban environment. Landscaping can also preserve and enhance the acoustic and visual privacy of a site while ORIGINAL RECEIVED TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FL 33755 TEL: 727 446 0020 FAX: 727 446 0002 EMAIL: INFO(@TRIANGLEDEVELOPMENT.COM 21 of 36 OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (`J V eW (`I CAD%AIATrn z, • DEV E t 0 P M F N E C () M P A N Y • , . . Li i,, .., t supporting and accentuating the architecture of a building. The use of indigenous species and other water-saving • techniques are encouraged. Appropriate: Landscaping compatible with the climatic conditions of West Central Florida that includes the use of native plant species and Xenscape landscape techniques, Landscape design which enhances and supports architectural features • of the building/site where located; Landscape design that visually screens unsightly views, strengthens important vistas • and reinforces the character district in which it is located; Plantings in landscape beds, planters or pots that soften the edges between buildings and pedestrian areas, Trees planted in paved areas provided with adequate room to grow (landscape beds, tree grates or other protective techniques). • Appropriate and full landscaping is an important element of the design. See attached Landscape Plan. Fences and Walls • Fences and walls shall be utilized around service/loading areas, dumpsters and mechanical/utility equipment to buffer • these uses from surrounding properties and rights of-way and to provide security for this equipment. • The service areas are largely internal in this development. • Fences and walls may be incorporated as a design element to assist in defining property boundaries and entrances, open • spaces and to provide a transition between public and private realms • Appropriate: Fences and walls that complement and are consistent with the principal structure with regards to materials, • texture, size, shape and color In most cases the buildings themselves form the wall to the development. Otherwise, an appropriate fence is planned, 3' high, with columns and substantial grillwork, per the Downtown Design Guidelines. • II. BUILDING PLACEMENT • • Orientation • Buildings should be oriented towards the street. The orientation of the front facade of buildings along the streetscape • contributes to pedestrian interest in an area. A high percentage of ground coverage is encouraged in a downtown to create a critical mass of activity. • Our buildings take a very urban stance towards the surrounding streets, especially Fort Harrison, with the retail and commercial component orienting towards this busy thoroughfare. • III. BUILDING DESIGN • Successful building design is a marriage between form and architecture to visually connect with the existing and/or desired character of the surrounding area. A compatible structure is one that possesses patterns of form and • architecture that are found in surrounding buildings creating 'points of agreement" between them while retaining the individuality of the building. Quality urban design balances a respect for an area's existing or desired pattern with the . design of new structures • Appropriate: Buildings that have a distinct 'base ; "middle"and "cap ; Low-rise buildings and/or those with long facade • widths that accentuate vertical elements such as entrances and columns, or by breaking up the facade plane into a greater number of smaller vertical masses; Mid- and high-rise buildings that utilize horizontal elements that minimize apparent height of a building such as balconies, banding, cornice and parapet lines, etc. MINAL . RECEIVED TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC • 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEAR W/?ATER, FL 33755?,? 12 2006 TEL: 727 446 ?O20 FAX: 727 446 0002 EMAIL: INFOI? TRIANGLEDEVELOPMENT. COM • 22 OF 36 PLANNING DEPARTMENT r-- + r ?-I rAn1A/ATCn • r • TR I , - t DFVE1,0PMFIv NF '+IY • These architectural tricks are used in full to break up a larger building into more comprehensible masses, with. horizontal divisions to minimize height, and vertically to make the building even more urban in scale. The development is broken down into finer detail by porticoes which announce and celebrate "entrance", clock towers on Harrison Vuiillage's busiest corners and pediments which refer to traditional symbols of residence. The buildings have a very definite division into base, middle and cap. Architecture The architectural style of new development or development should be consistent with the desired development in the surrounding Character Districts.. A variety of architectural styles exist within the Downtown and the Guidelines should not prescribe any one architectural style as being the most appropriate. New buildings may use a variety of architectural styles as appropriate to the intended use of the building and the context of the surrounding area. New design may use contemporary materials to adapt historic design elements into a new building. Various architectural elements that may be found on a building 1 - Cornice t 12 1 2 - Lintel 3-Sill 4 - String course 1 2, 0 S - Transom 6 - Bulk heads 7 - Kick plates \ `\ 8 - Double door entrance 9 - Fixed plate glass display window 10 - Double-hung sash window 11 - Parapet 12 - Parapet coping All the appropriate elements referred to above are used in this design. Facade Design 0 All facades of a building should reflect a unified architectural treatment; however, there is a hierarchy of facade treatment based on location, function and /eve/ of pedestrian interaction. Facades should use a combination of architectural details, materials, window and door patterns and other design features to form a cohesive and visually interesting design. The proposed buildings, both on Island View and Harrison Village, have hierarchies of facades. • Primary and Corner Facades . Buildings on corner lots at the intersections of streets designated on the Master Streetscape Plan are considered to have two primary facades and should receive the highest level of design treatment on those facades • Appropriate: The primary facades as the most highly designed facade utilizing the following elements: A change in plane, . building wall projection or recess, architectural details; variety /n color, material, texture, doors and/or windows; an • architecturally prominent entrance with door located on the primary facade. ORIGINAL RECEIVED TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC OCT 12 2006 • 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FL 33755 TEL: 727 446 0020 FAX: 727 446 0002 EMAIL: INFO @TRIANGLEOEVELORMENT.COM PLANNING DEPARTMENT 23 OF 36 (I'rv ()F f'I F4p1A/ATFR r1 U • • K 1: • DEVG6OPMFN1 C, CJ q'AY • This has been complied with in this proposal. Harrison Village has inm fact four primary facades, and all have been highly designed, to be in harmony with each other while using massing and detailing to differentiate the residential and commercial uses. • Primary entrances emphasized through the use of a combination of projection or recession in the building footprint, • variation in building height, canopy or portico; raised cornice or parapet over door... This has been complied with in this proposal. The primary entrances to the Towers are expressed in a projected vertical • element and emphasized by a porte cochere, the design of which echoes the shape of the parapet to the land and water • sides of the buildings. Harrison Village condo entrances on Osceola are recessed and have a raised cornice above to identify the stair access structure, while being sheltered by a simple canopy. • Primary facade, in keeping with established patterns, which include three articulated architectural parts a base, middle and cap. The proportion of these three elements will vary depending on the scale of the building. • This has been complied with in this proposal, and is most visible in the Towers. Color as well as cornice lines, detailing, • and stepbacks contribute to this arrangement. • Major architectural treatments on the principal building facade that are continued around all sides of the building that are • visible from the public realm. Buildings on corner lots that emphasize their prominent location through the use of additional height, massing, distinctive architectural treatments and/or other distinguishing features • This has been complied with on this proposal, with the corners of the Harrison Village site being specially articulated on Fort Harrison by clocktowers. Secondary Facade • A secondary facade faces alleys, parking areas and Old Bay district properties along Clearwater Harbor. The level of • design along a secondary facade, while perhaps not as intense as a primary facade should continue the architectural • style of the building and use the same quality of materials On Island View the waterfront face of the building will receive the same level of detailing as the others. The Osceola • face of Harrison Village could be regarded as a secondary facade but it will receive the same high level of detailing and care as the primary elevations. • Windows and Doors • • Windows are a vital element which link the private (space within a building) and public space (such as streets, sidewalks, etc.) realms visually drawing passersby into buildings Doors are also a vital element providing not only visual but, • physical connections between the public and private realms At street level, for the entire length and breadth of Harrison Village, pedestrians will enjoy visual and physical access • into the building through storefronts and windows on the retail and commercial component. Along the Osceola portion of Harrison Village, the pedestrian experience will be a friendly one. Osceola Avenue will become a pleasant tree-shaded • street to stroll. Lush landscaping, planters and railings will separate public and private spaces. • ORIGINAL, • RECEIVED • Roof Design OCT 12 2006 • TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC • 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FL 33755 PLANNING DEPARTMENT TEL: 727 446 0020 FAX: 727 446 0002 EMAIL: INFOCO-TRIANGLEDEVELOPMENT.COM CITY OF CLEARWATER • 24 OF 36 • • • DEV1.L0PMFNT COMPr '4.Y Roof forms are one of the most highly visible components of a building. Not only do they provide a vital function but they contribute and are integral to the overall building design through the use of distinctive, defined styles and decorative patterns and colors The style of the development, Mediterranean Revival, calls for smaller mansard roofs and trellises as well as pediments, and these are used to break the scale of the building by providing roof lines at varying heights across the facade. Other Architectural Features A variety of other features can provide the pen`ect accent or finish to a building or, conversely, ruin an otherwise wonderful structure. These may include door handles and hinges, mail slots, clocks, fir%mergency escapes, shutters, awnings etc. The same amount of thought and care should be put into the selection and installation of these features as for more obvious features such as roofs, doors and windows All the above are featured in the proposed development. Gutters, downspouts, utility boxes and the like will be handled within the parameters of the Downtown Design Guidelines and be painted to match the building where possible, or at least located as unobtrusively as possible, not visible from the street. At the present stage of development of the plans however, not all service locations have been finally identified. The design process includes a strong imperative that the Guidelines referenced above be followed. Materials and Color Materials The correct choices of building materials are paramount in the success of any building. Materials should be appropriate to the architectural style of the building to which they belong. The building is will be constructed in concrete masonry units with a stucco finish. Stucco banding, cornices and window detailing will be used. Relief and contrast from this texture will occur in windows and trellises which have a smoother finish. All surfaces will be painted or self-colored. The base of the building will be finished to emulate courses of stone blocks. Color The color palette of a building is composed of the colors of the main body of the building, trim and accent colors. The colors chosen for awnings, canopies, shutters and roofs also contribute to the overall color scheme of building. The overall color scheme of a building or project should reflect a cohesive pattern. These guidelines recognize that the review of a building's color scheme is a balance between an owner's creativity and individuality, the architectural style of the building and an overall harmonious vision for the Downtown. The use ofa single color on all surfaces should be avoided. A two- or three-color scheme is encouraged to provide visual appeal. The main body color should be the predominant color of the building. The color tone of the main body should be guided by the size and height of the building, its location (corner or interior lot), and architectural style. The trim color is applied to architectural elements such as windows, doors, columns, porches etc. The trim color should be a lighter or darker tone of the main body color, a complimentary color to the main body color or a neutral color. In a three-color scheme, the accent color should be used sparingly to highlight certain architectural elements such as a front door or awning. ORIGINAL RECEIVED TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FL 33755 TEL: 727 446 0020 FAX: 727 446 0002 EMAIL: INFO(C)TRIANGLEDEVELOPMENT.COM 25 OF 36 OCT 12 2@06 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (117- nr (`I FADIA/ATPP D EVE I. Q P M F N T C O M P A N Y • The color scheme is conceived as basically a three-color scheme with varying tones of terracotta, cream, ochre and/or mustard, offset by accents of deeper hue. Lighter tones will be used to accentuate advancing planes with areas where the color tone becomes progressively stronger on the building planes away from the street. The building bases and entrance porticoes will signal their function and importance by combining massing with areas of the strongest or most contrasting color. Window and doorframes will be lighter. Pediments and parapets will be the lightest color to outline the building against the sky. Contrasting color awnings will provide accent points. Trellises will be a lighter color to set off the greenery growing over them. The base of the building will have a finish of contrasting three-dimensional colored banding which will have the appearance of horizontal stone coursing (blocks). ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FL 33755 TEL: 727 446 0020 FAX: 727 446 0002 EMAIL: INFOC@TRIANOLEDEVELOPMENT.COM 26 OF 36 Ill ??li? Existing Conditions fAlready dellyloNgby structures noted) w I u'u lu`r 'I !` y e li polui n f ?a d n i III'lrI ?Ayl, III 10 a?NUa I I.?.IndA u dA 9 k'€' 6?aCM t d k CC wesL n nd??l d, p7 t II ,J,, ?I IrpFi ¢r' ?? II ?UI ? 4F h i AI F pap'1'{JI Ih a °i? IIIK III I' 191 ? ? r C I?' ?le?l? ?"?kd I. ? ? k I ? ? billl p A n a A NO ,. ° u4 ' hl ? a wh ?kdrlw. ' ? 'I F I I ? . J, I ouL ° w I I n'tluCCala f'Wd"?, d Y?? '? dn?" Fal Lul r,?l ? "' VIII uF"kJil? I I? '.I II??1I ^I? a m ml I n^ i ^ ? R : i 6 Awns "a",ayul Isar '? I Y ^I r I le I IIH .... k I I& ???Hla F"H Ip I ??w :: izaa "` IAP :. Ra i° g€a Ar eett, looking south , I I L f i 4111 r ? dllild I a I i , ? I „?,nd sue ? ?"I I ? P ? III dI?PN I ul uli!!! x I,In.r "H? a ' Iur I Iu?? ?? ^,?a ? , ?I I I aal w+? awl rwrl I w 9AAAIiAAAikNd 4 ASIAN. TwIRNO DIEV t,ppWI,:F'€`€° C€.:€MPArre, LLC' w37 446 0020 "": 727 446 SOW z _. o'' I S l h' P Noo h 0 ,,rva phi Av4r sm e ookin easy . lpr: ENO wr r ?r? I .I [N' rI ICII Ipl la ? dfMM' iq ? ? a Y k ? r n? . wk I ?? ?? ?? ? ?yw? (tl ?• " rr r i u " " N ?I?Uu ?? ?? bII?P. i ?° doi ? IpN 1101 V u E IrSI yr " u' all a IdIH fir" NI ti k? ey "I n?Nl,iPh?il H?pil ? aa,' ?F "?' ??I ih $? p `= aua p 6 r d??i? r ?I ? ;. 'Cl ??9gtl I ?? r IiN a'pgllq&! it Ali i ?g N?klr ??I'I? gpaY "i l ?1?? '.? h ?M"? I?FrN q"i ??M IIp E '..M M I?? lu ?P q I? I??r? '" N" iN?c H i i y i .wpkP JW ? i n k?Nn ul rr l..N M? I" -" I ,?rl'n " Nb?l ? Cpl ? ? dl n ,a ry :. ik H r W y ?? lik r ?6. III k 1.N?I Ike kl ?I?y ? ',?Ne i ?? „ h ?" ? ?' r?l ?7 lili ' ? ? i ? p?e r: ?p?Fh I oY .? @' n w"uu. I ? ? "u ,Pk"Ui "' ^?'- rk'h r p pllF? .ud ?'r'" rI^. it rdh uN7ryui Hl" a :b EAMlRL..3;.: 0KV'91 U 00d St -?Y C3 PA F1A.NY, 1-G.:..R',a f ; ?'T 446 f1IJ20 F`.t.X 7 ?? 44:. a.€0 t..':_: ? I ? I?I L.€xaMy PMn (Aerkd pholt€agr aPT r `P i l G! ajeba::;t ovtR ' e°.s ': W. I? ° ?? ? I j1 I rNn I ? nm ?Y??a?' Ndu uI4Nk I I e I NnW u4 I ?, I" axx. w` 8 h ?i E ? I I!S ? I .. 1 t k I ull Iii. I II Itilll lp F 4 r 1 ? I'°Ilt}11'IP N ?, r k ^^ It'll Iglu I u 1 I? ll NCI "411 th r IGpI ?Ir I?Ilf,llll I I i 11 . I Ilr ? Ilh I I„ u l 11 III'li=", 4 dl ' p 11 u I I'',IJ r ? I I _?.I I I fh k ? I I II ? I I C I I'r rll I I,II I h E I I III'k I' diH ° IIII I I ' ' VIII Lilll M I n I II r I r. I LI 11, 1 N gkl II ?l "" up p I,I I_ I I I I I I I Alm I h alr Idllp,ll IIII1?I.Ihe ?I,'I MAN INI d ?I j IILI I,1 r.?.r1, I li41I I IIII @ ? ?k1" ' I III, ? I III II!III I ." li? I? I 1r ' III: ! I' ?I' II I ?r x 1114 ?IB I 17 I i, I ',III II I I IIII III r III I I 1 '? I „I ,'„ I I I I I ? u'!I LI,I,Lu? F I ? FF' I I I II I f n l iI LIII' Iltll? I I L IIIIIII I I .tlib I I I r1, 1i1 I,.pe I?I !III II ? ! rvNll Ilkl dl Idl III ? ?° 'I I I EI . II I III I fl ?1i 1111'1 I?? b : r? 71 1411 III IIII I I,:I I,I d ?' 11d I I 4 nlrrplllll 11'111 4` n k Pia I w I '?I I I 1. IIII III ' rfi II I II r IInNINIk?I? ti IIIN I p? IV 44 ??lfi 'IIII . 6 u? ?.rF ?>r :` ?a I I II I II I" I? k '^ I I? II. 4 IHx I ,"? ?F I I r', I r ?t ?.,_ IIRI III 4 " I k In ? ?g4 I ?P4?{?'IIIIIIP LIpr11{ 1i1 I'I'I r r t IF ''i I I II r ? ? Igpltl?l ' II Ir'?'1'il irh ? ? ?,r ? a ? wfyi kClau : .r4 w r j r I' III III If. ?g r i Hklu?al'' d"hII?G R rvp `HBdH nu k?hl?h call il,.l N gkll l Idllll d I?Ilp UN ?: I?I 14r µl ll'1 Ilu I I ?I Nb p Iw , { II ? ? 11 I w u I op?kfNlEN I? I I? pW` ??r? }f d xu IF is I41I i ??P ? ?°?M UkUrl ?? ? ?"???INHN? u'H . WI ut {° ? fl ?u I "? 4 Ira ?I If{?? ? I w.. a,l dl N! ?MW? "F q'..I ?W IIII ! a, s g i H u y : l v :- I I II :, Llu? ' I li IN ?I? f'. 1111.E-- -' J r Id4 III IIII ' k N L q " II" IM' I ? till w Np :NI F w?m "«1 ?l NN den ' ? 0'1 ,?? N? Ixw :. a e fin' N I x TRIIA E41F 305 NOWN FIE m HAP 0 5.15 2 Cif • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • n q. I? L4 DFVEI.0PMFN7 COMPANY Street Addresses and Parcel Numbers HARRISON VILLAGE Common Name Street Address Former Markopoulos property 400, 410 Jones Street and 303 N Osceola Avenue Former Salvation Army ISLAND VIEW Former Osceola Bay property 410 N Fort Harrison and 309 N Osceola Avenue 302, 304, 308 N Osceola Avenue Former Rahddert property 312, 314, 400, 404 N Osceola Avenue Parcel Numbers 09/29/15/ 44352/ 002/ 0012 09/29/15/ 44352/ 002/ 0010 09/29/15/ 44352/ 002/ 0020 ,09/29/15/ 14310/ 000/ 0010 09/29/15/ 00000/ 430/ 0300 09/29/15/ 53370/ 000/ 0010 09/29/15/ 53370/ 000/ 0020 ? 09/29/15/ 00000/ 430/ 0600 09/29/15/ 00000/ 430/ 0500 -/09/29/15/ 00000/ 430/ 0400 09/29/15/ 14310/ 000/ 0100 09/29/15/ 14310/ 000/ 0080 ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2M PIANNOF C j CITY LEARWA ER TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FL 33755 TEL: 727 446 0020 FAX: 727 446 0002 EMAIL: INFOCO)TRIANGLEDEVELOPMENT.COM 30 OF 36 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ?J t D. EVEI.OPMFNT COMPANY Comparative Analysis of Approved Requests and Present Submission Island View and Harrison Village, Approved at CDB 19 July 2005 HV and IV site area 216,543 sf 4.97 ac Retail/commercial area 18,893 sf 0.43 ac Area available after adjustment for FAR 178,757 sf Units 324 Units allowed after subtracting FAR area 205 Request from Density Pool 119 Parking total 503 Parking for residents @ 1.5/unit 486 Parking for retail @ 0/1,000 sf 0 Balance 17 Harrison Village, Island View (Approved at CDB December 2005) HV and IV site area Retail/commercial area Area available after adjustment for FAR Units Units allowed after subtracting FAR area Request from Density Pool Parking total Parking for residents @ 1.5/unit Parking for retail @ 2/1,000 sf Balance Present Request for CDB 11 November 2006 HV and IV site area Retail/commercial area Area available after adjustment for FAR Units Units allowed after subtracting FAR area Request from Density Pool Parking supply total Required after application of Shared Parking Formula Balance 211,626 Sf 4.86 ac 27,124 Sf 0.6 ac 159,378 Sf 324 183 141 633 486 54 93 216,863 Sf 4.98 ac 13,235 Sf 0.31 ac 189,763 Sf 358 218 139 548 540 8 ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FL 33755 TEL: 727 446 0020 FAX: 727 446 0002 EMAIL: INFO(@TRIANGLEDEVELOPMENT.COM 31 OF 36 • h I? DEVE YMEN:7 ('0MPA.NY 3E;. Of .Ti:?.,? t .,. 7. SIGNAGE: (Division 19. SIGNS/Section 3-1806) The signage component will be the subject of a separate submittal. Although the tenants are not yet finalized, signage standards more strict than those of the City will be enforced. A full signage package will be submitted for review when more is known of the tenant requirements. Generally speaking, however, signage will be placed over the relevant storefronts, integrated into the overall architectural design. Signage for the development will most likely be made outside each entrance lobby, probably on the awning at the door. ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FL 33755 TEL: 727 446 0020 FAX: 727 446 0002 EMAIL: INFO(@TRIANGLEDEVELORMENT.COM 32 OF 36 • • • • • • • • Y r• MM," D-EV110PM ENT COMPANY SPECIAL NOTE ON FLOORS AND UNITS FLOOR NAMES AND UNIT COUNTS AS APPLIED TO THIS SUBMISSION Building 1 Floor Names Units Total Lower Level 2 x A 2 Lobby 2 x A 2 1 x B, 1 x Exercise room 1 1xC,1xClub 1 1 x Entrance Lobby 0 3 2xA,2xB,2xC,IxManager 6 4 2 x A, 2 x B, 2 x C, 1 x D 7 5 2 x A, 2 x B, 2 x C, 1 x D 7 6 2xA,2x6,2xC,1xD 7 7 2xA,2x13,2xC,IxD 7 8 2xA,2x6,2xC,1xD 7 9 2xA,2x13,2xC,1xD 7 10 2xA,2x13C, 1 x D 5 11 2xA.2x6,2xC,1xD 7 12 2xA,2x6,2xC,1xD 7 (No 13th Floor) 14 2xA,2x13,2xC,1xD 7 15 2xA,2x6,2xC,IxD 7 16 2xA,2x6,2xC,1xD 7 17 2xA,2x13,2xC,1xD 7 18 4 x Penthouse (F,G,H,I) 4 19 4 x Penthouse (F,G,H,I) 4 109 Brownstones 7 7 Building 2 Floor Names Units Total Lobby 2 x A 2 1 x B, 1 x Exercise room 1 1xC,1xClub 1 1 x Entrance Lobby 0 3 2xA,2xB,2xC,1xManager 6 4 2xA,2x13,2xC,1xD 7 5 2xA,2x13,2xC,IxD 7 6 2xA,2x6,2xC,1xD 7 7 2xA,2x6,2xC,IxD 7 8 2xA,2x13,2xC,1xD 7 9 2xA,2x6,2xC,1xD 7 10 2xA,2x13,2xC,1xD 7 • ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FL 33755 TEL: 727 446 0020 FAX: 727 446 0002 EMAIL: INFO QPTRIANGLEDEVELOPMENT.COM 33 OF 36 0 a: T `\ R D E V E L O P M F C M P A N Y 11 2 x A, 2 x B, 2 x C, 1 x D 7 12 2 x A, 2 x B, 2 x C, I x D 7 (No 13th Floor) 14 2 x A, 2 x B, 2 x C, 1 x D 7 i5 2 x A, 2 x B, 2 x C, 1 x D 7 16 2 x A, 2 x B, 2 x C, 1 x D 7 17 2 x A, 2 x B, 2 x C, 1 x D 7 i8 4 x Penthouse (F,G,H,I) 4 19 4 x Penthouse (F,G,H,I) 4 109 Buildings 3 Floor Names Units Total Lobby 2 x A 2 1 x B, 1 x Exercise room 1 2 x C 2 1 x Entrance Lobby 0 3 2 x A, 2 x B, 2 x C, 1 x Manager 6 4 2 x A, 2 x B, 2 x C, 1 x D .7 5 2 x A, 2 x B, 2 x C, I x D 7 6 2 x A, 2 x B, 2 x C, 1 x D 7 7 2 x A, 2 x B, 2 x C, I x D 7 8 2 x A, 2 x B, 2 x C, I x D 7 9 2 x A, 2 x B, 2 x C, 1 x D 7 10 1xAA,2x6,2xC,1xD 6 11 2 x A, 2 x B, 2 x C, 1 x D 7 12 2xA,2x6,2xC,1xD 7 (No 13th Floor) 14 2 x A, 2 x B, 2 x C, I x D 7 i5 2 x A, 2 x B, 2 x C, I x D 7 16 2xA,2xB,2xC,1xD 7 17 2 x A, 2 x B, 2 x C, 1 x D 7 18 4 x Penthouse (F,G,H,I) 4 19 4 x Penthouse (F,G,H,I) 4 109 Harrison Village Units Total North Building 4 4 4 4 South Building 8 8 8 8 24 Overall Total 358 ORIGINAL. RECEIVE[ OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FL 33755 TEL: 727 446 0020 FAX: 727 446 0002 EMAIL: INFOOTRIANGLEOEVELOPMENT.COM 34 OF 36 • DEVF[.OPMF.NT COMPANY SPECIAL NOTE ON PARKING SHARED PARKING FORMULA AS APPLIED TO THIS SUBMISSION Data It is the intention of the Applicant to apply the shared parking formula to the parking to be provided for the retail and residential portions of Harrison Village and Island View. A parking validation system can be used as needed to allow limited retail parking within the Island View garage. Per Community Development Code, Section 3-1395 Shared Parking, any land or building used for two or more purposes such as in Harrison Village (Residential and Retail), the minimum total number of spaces provided may be determined by the following calculation. Basic Residential minimum requ 358 x 1.5 = 537 Basic Retail minimum requ 13,235 x 4 per 1000 = 54 total 591 Weekday Weekend Day Evening Day Evening Night Midnight 9am to 6 pm to gam to 6pm to to 6 am 4 pm Midnight 4 m Midnight Residential 100% 537 600% 322 90% 483 80% 430 90% 483 Retail 5% 3 70% 38 90% 49 100% 54 70% 38 Totals 540 360 532 484 521 Total minimum required is 540. The total provided on site between Island View and Harrison Village is 548, 8 more than required. ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 1-1-13 CITY OF CLEARWATER 305 NORTH FORT HARRIsON AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FL 33755 TEL: 727 446 0020 FAX: 727 446 0002 EMAIL: INFO(a-)TRIANGLEDEVELOPMENT.COM 35 OF 36 • DEVII.OPMENT COMPANY SPECIAL NOTE ON PHASING Data This is an analysis of the draws on the Density Pool as the Phases of the building are completed. This analysis is further detailed in the accompanying Development Agreement Application. Phase 1 is Building 1, Brownstones W of Oseeola and part Garage only Land Area Commercial sf Planned in Phase From Pool Percent of total draw 4.98 acres 0 116 1 1% Phase 2 is Building 2 and all IV garage Land Area Commercial sf Planned in Phase From Pool Percent of total draw 4.98 acres 0 109 1 1% Phase 3 is Building 3 and Harrison Village and its parking garage Land Area Commercial sf Planned in Phase From Pool Percent of total draw 4.98 acres 13,235 133 138 98% Cumulative Totals Land Area Commercial sf Planned in Phase From Pool Percent of total draw 4.98 acres 13,235 358 139 100% OWNERSHIP DOCUMENTS All attached below. Letter Clarifying Ownership Proof of Corporate Merger Island View Properties LLC, Georgia Street Properties LLC, Harrison Village Properties LLC and Triangle S.A. Land LLC have merged into Triangle Old Bay Holdings LLC. Proof of Ownership 302-308 N Osceola Properties LLC (302-308 N Osceola Ave) Special Warranty Deed Proof of name change: 302-308 N Osceola Properties LLC changed name to Island View Properties LLC. Proof of Ownership Georgia Street Properties LLC (Old Rahddert property, 312-404 N Osceola) Agreement of Purchase Proof of Ownership Osceola-Jones Properties LLC (Old Markopoulos property) Bill of Sale Proof of name change: Osceola-Jones Properties LLC changed name to Harrison Village Properties LLC. Proof of Ownership Triangle S.A. Land LLC (Old Salvation Army site) Title Information (HUD Settlement Statement) FIRE FLOW CALCULATIONS Attached below. TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FL 33755 TEL: 727 446 0020 FAX: 727 445 0002 EMAIL: INFOna TRIANGLEDEVELOPMENT.COM ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 36 OF 36 mw RFCF ?N? ? SGT ?NNiNC 66 ciryoFC R p Wicj > • 6 ! d.. rk T 1430 7f? ?jltr6u T a ??I! ?"a 9n 1I"`l 3r?„? ` I g { TM s 1 I -T 17lai n 5 -9 Y F f_Ta 1'171 +iiii .5 'I.I tM'. 1r 1 yyt'-?t f 11 ?I? onl ?? I???f yyi FI -1??ii U'si???m i't lli 7i :? • r lli? 'N' 4 f 5 ?` - •- Y J?-? f!+I L ?Ii l ; - tt? riF1 - I-"r7 r r' ?N?I T Y? II IIl - I I ??• 7 I ., ?? - - ? ?? tQ I ?Ir« ?n 1 ?Itl t rm a I x TT fi l I 1 4 r I R - ? 4{ ! t r, 1 4 0.-a Y?? 1 1 4 14 Al ¦ >7 ?'L {E I; 1 j wy' _ a? ?` ;,.,??N.vyc•, 8 . II tl ? star w v ? I. 'l • ?1 e? I: ? I p ?,I, _ f ? - ` N u 0 lam' q? pig o fF?; ¢ +?1 r: !!t ..... ?.??? - > ?'' auwa Iwe a. awwm 7 19 ?s"I 3at• J? a91Y1 J.4.9a+ ., ?, II ?? i w ?r 1 L?? 1 - i'L'? to {? brta7i ' ? ¦ ¦ ?, _? e.. E -.`? uv n ? n m Mau 4PfT8 i-, Cb m ! [ f IsR O?.I o r Rtllt IiG ??r ? II ?.?r u P ,?E, ?d '?w'1 tom. s el? tea; ?` E ?? E d4 ?? a A + .1°.?. ? I 9M? ? 1 a at 'tll oit?i . MEN is- jr - U I • : -i 5 ,. , ^'?.iu. ° ?Il<, _al - I ..-- k, 411: Air eta J1.alyl f I tt'? air. 03'?71 w lu ?b ft ._a et ,? u M , 11 6?, T .. a k,Ji? w „ arty r 1e? F Exhibit 6 - CONCEPT PLAN 97 Intracoastal waterway ,w ??..,. ?di ll a l Gd5!M Z CD L r1 \ , O p ? 0G? m m m r D? rn r" m 70 Z 'mw'- loan F? OS(-e0a AVeII IIE' N -? rep Cr rr Mar son vdrdge snuff, ?jla.*4 41?/ New Osceola Avenue s a& :o y? s Forl. Harrison Avenue yy?y? YTN E E i 0 • C. Proof of Ownership ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2M PIANNIN?' DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARVNATER 305 North Fort Harrison Avenues Clearwater, Florida 33:55 Knvwttriangle(inelopment.com A. 727446.0020 (phone) A ;'2-.446.0002 (fax) ???Z.???cTLF August 22, 2006 City of Clearwater This letter is to clarify the intent with regards to certain properties owned by Triangle Old Bay Holdings LLC ("Old Bay"). Old Bay's majority owner is Ron Pollack, and it is managed by Triangle Property Holding LLC, which is jointly owned by Ron Pollack and Ben Kugler. Specifically at this time the property parcels marked below as 1, 2, 10 & 4 are being developed. The thin strip of land dividing 4 in two is the proposed new Osceola Ave, which we plan to dedicate to the city. Properties 1, 2, 10 and the part of property 4 west of the new Osceola Ave will be deeded to Island View Condominiums. Data on oroDerties being develoaed by Triangle Old Bay Holdings: Z 8 I r ?;:vt D 8 6 Ist Clearwater aka ?l s!a ORIGINAL RECENEb ocT 19 Mb PLANNING pEPAA ER C ITI OF CLEAR • • 0 0 Old Bay is using Triangle Development Company LLC (also jointly owned by Ron Pollack and Ben Kugler) to develop its properties. Ownership information: The data on the relevant properties shown above are as follows: 1. Name: former Rhaddert property: 310-404 N. Osceola. Size: 1.9 acres Owner: Georgia Street Properties LLC, which merged with Triangle Old Bay Holdings LLC (the surviving entity). 2. Name: former Ellenberg property: 302-308 N. Osceola. Size: 1.0 acres Owner: 302-308 N Osceola Properties LLC, which changed its name to Island View Properties LLC, which has merged with Triangle Old Bay Holdings LLC, (the surviving entity). 4. Name: former Salvation Army property: (part of what was once) 300-410 N. Fort Harrison, and 309-407 N. Osceola. Size: 2.42 acres Owner: Triangle S.A. Land LLC, which merged with Triangle Old Bay Holdings LLC, (the surviving entity). 10. Name: former Marcopoulos property: (part of what was once) 303&305 N. Osceola, and 400&410 Jones St. Size: 0.2 acres Owner: Osceola-Jones Properties LLC, which changed its name to Harrison Village Properties LLC, which has merged with Triangle Old Bay Holdings LLC, (the surviving entity). Sincerely, r' .A t a, Ron Pollack CEO and Manager Triangle Development Company LLC For: Triangle Property Holdings LLC, Manager For: Triangle Old Bay Holdings, Owner ORIGINAL RECEIVE[ OCT 12 2006 PLANNING CITY OF CLEARWA ERT 305 N. Ft. Harrison Ave. o Clearwater. FL 33755 o wtiNw.triangledeveloprnent.com o 727.446.0020 f 1HY-47b-?NJI?J 11 • J r Prepared by and return to: George K. Rahdert, Esq. R.ahdert, Steele, Bryan, Bole & Reynolds, P.A. 535 Central Avenue St,-Petersburg, FL 33701 WARRANTY DEED • THIS INDENTURE made this 6th day of May, 2005, between Sunset Properties, Inc., a Flo.nda-corporation, Grantor, and Georgia Street Properties, LLC, a Florida limited liability corhp,any, whose address is 714 N. Fort Harrison Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33755. ?. WITNESSETH: That said Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten and NoO.1-00 ($10:00) Dollars, and othergood and valuable considerations to said Grantor in hand paid'by said Graiitee, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained and 66M I6 the said Grantee, and Grantee's heirs, successors and assigns forever, the following described land, situate, lying and being in Pinellas County, Florida, to-wit: SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION PROPERTY APPRAISER'S PARCEL NUMBERS: 09/29/15/14310/000/0100 and said Grantor does hereby fully warrant the title to said land, and will defend the same against the law:' l claims of all persons whomsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has'hdreunto set grantor's hand and seal the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of. Printed Name: Print,e-1A Name: STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PINELLAS ORIGINAL RECEIVED I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day before me, an officer duly qualified to take OCT 12 2606 SUNSET PROPERTIES, INC., a Florida corporation By: George K. ahdert, President After . . dert, Secretary George R PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • IIY'1 I -CJO-GCICJJ 1 L • J .. _. ._, • • acknowledgements, personally appeared George K. Rahdert, as President and Secretary, • respectively, of Sunset Properties, Inc., a Florida corporation, who (SC) is personally known to me or who ( ) presented as identification, and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged before me the execution of same. • WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this 6th day or May, 2005. • Notary Public, St of Florida • My Commission Expires: EQ;:EOM artha Joan Foster Mmieabn a Dows3a9 Wvsmber 18, 2006 ORIGINAL, • RECEIVED OCT 12 2[06 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • f'IHY-I?Jb-?1410? 11 ? J f EXHIBIT A • Lot Ten (10) of A. B. and JENNIE CATES SUBDIVISION to Clearwater, Florida, as per plat filed in Plat Book 1, page 64, public records.of Pinellas County, Florida. Together with all riparian rights thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining. Also, the following described land, to wit: The submerged banks or shallow flats on East side of Clearwater Bay in Pinellas County, as follows: West of the above described premises beginning at the Northwest comer of said Lot ten, thence West 830 feet to the East edge of the Channel of Clearwater Bay, thence South 19 degrees West along the East edge of said channel 53 feet, thence East 830 feet to the highwater mark on the East shore of Clearwater Bay at a point at the Southwest corner of said Lot ten, thence Northeasterly along said highwater mark to the Northwest comer of said Lot ten, the point of beginning, containing 95 hundredths acres, more or less, and all lying and being in Section 9, Township 29 South, Range 15 East, County of Pinellas, State of Florida. ALSO, Lot eleven (11) of A. B. and JENNIE CATES SUBDIVISION according to the map or plat thereof as the same appears of record in Plat Book 1, page 64, public records of Pinellas County, Florida, together with all riparian rights thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining. TOGETHER with all lands and submerged lands lying between and bounded by Westerly extensions of the North and South boundary lines, extended to the hearest channel in Clearwater Bay of said Lot 11, and all littoral rights and rights of accretion appurtenant to both of said lots. ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2[66 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • MAY-06-2005 11:58 r.ei?ea Prepared by and return to: George K. Rahdert, Esq. Rahdert, Steele,'Bryan, Bole & Reynolds, P.A. 535 Central Avenue* . St.. Petersburg, 33701 WARRANTY DEED THIS INDENTURE made this 6th day of May, 2005, between Osceola Properties, Inc., • d: Florida corporation, Grantor, and Georgia Street Properties, LLC, a Florida limited liability • company, whose address is 714 N. Fort Harrison Avenue, Clearwater, 'FL 33 755. WITNESSETH: That said Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten and No/1A0 ($10.00) Dollars, and other good and valuable considerations to said Grantor in hand • paid by said Grantee, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained and sold to the said Grantee, and Grantee's heirs, successors and assigns forever, the following described land, situate, lying and being in Pinellas County, Florida, to-wit: SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION PROPERTY APPRAISER'S PARCEL NUMBERS: 09/29/15/04310/000/0080 and said Grantor does hereby fully warrant the title to said land, and will defend the same against • the lawful claims of a]1 persons whomsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has hereunto set grantor's hand and seal the day and year first above written. • Signed, sealed an d delivered OSCEOLA PROPERTIES, INC., ? a Florida corporatio in the presence of: By: • Printed Nam ft?2rf??9 t1?AN • s?? George K. Rahdert, Presi riName: LAyGQ McToivf}c Attest: 1 George K. Rahdert, Secretary STATE OF FLORIDA ORIGINAL COUNTY OF PINELLAS RECEIVED 0_1 11 12 2006 • [HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day before me, an officer duly qualified to take PLANNING DEPARTMENT • CITY OF CLEARWATER • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • f IHY-17b-?F7FJJ 11 • JrJ ? • r , cc? c.? acknowledgements, personally appeared George K. R.atidert, as President and. Secretary, respectively, of Osceola Properties, Inc., a Flori d'a corporation, who (Y? is personally known to me or who ( ) presented as identification, and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged before me the execution of same. WI'T'NESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this 6th day of May, 2005. Notary Public, a of Florida IV1y Commissio Expires: r. Martha Jean Foster C-"ft isslon s DD38s38g EXPru Novgrnber 19, 20M ORIGINAL RECEIVED Ou f 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • EXHIBIT A ? • GJ/ LJ Lots 8 and 9 of A. B. & Jennie Cates Subdivision, according to the map or plat thereof as regrdedan Plat Book 1, page 64, of the Public.Records of Pinellas County, Florida AND beginning at a point of intersection of the north line of Lot 8 of A.B. & Jennie Cates Subdivision with the government meander line; said intersection being north 868.2 feet more or less from the southeast comer of Section 9, Township 29 South, Range 15 East; thence along North line of said Lot 8 extended in westerly direction 675.0 feet, more or less to East edge of the Government Channel; thence along said Government Channel in a southerly direction 108.2 feet more or less to the point of intersection of south line of Lot'! ' d€AM. & Jennie Cates Subdivision, extended with said East edge of Government Channel; thence in an easterly direction along the south line of said Lot 9, extended 675 feet, more or less to the intersection with the Government Meander Line; thence north 22 degrees, 30 minutes east 108.2 feet along Government Meander Line to the point bf-Beginning. Containing 1.55- acres, more .or less, and lying and being in Section 9, Township 29 South, Range 1-5 Ease; iJn Pinellas County,'-Florida;', Sabject to easement in favor of West Coast Inland Navigation District ofFlorida over a part of the west portion of said tract. ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • • • • F 94WO228395 • • ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT • • Articla I. Name • The name of this Florida limited • liability con pauy is 302 - 308 N. Osceola Properties LZ,C • Article II. Date of Articles of Ornanization • The Company's Articles of Organization were filed on April 29, 2004. • Art1G o M, A__rncndment • The Articles of Organization of the Limited Liability Company are amended so that the name of the Limited Liability Company is cbanged from 302 - 308 N. Osceola • Properties LLC to Island View Properties, LLC • Article IV Date Amendment Adopted • The amendment set forth in these Articles of Organization was adopted on the date • shown below. • • The undersigned executed this document on the date shown below. • • 302 - 308 N, Osceola Properties LLC • • by D. Stoutt as attom-ey-in-fact for 13cnjamin Kugler e1q. ue: Begjamin Kugler r c 07nde: Manager r. *Date: November 12, 2004 4orporate Creations International Inc. 41 Fourth Street 491aml Beach FL 33139 &06) 872-0686 • 04000226395 COpyrlgM Q IW3-2004 GO • 0 00T 11,2 20'06 CITY OF DEPARTMENT Prepared by and return to: Thomas C. Nash; II, Esq. Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen 625 Court Street, Suite 200 (33756) P.O. Box 1669 Clearwater, FL 33757 AFFIDAVIT AS TO CORPORATE NAME STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PINELLAS BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Benjamin Kugler, Managing Partner of Island View Properties, LLC, a Florida limited liability company (the "Affiant"), who first being duly sworn, deposes and says: That Affiant is duly authorized to make this Affidavit. 2. That the Affiant is the Managing Partner of Island View Properties, LLC, a Florida limited liability company. 3. On April 29, 2004, Articles of Organization were filed with the Secretary of the State of Florida for 302-308 N. Osceola Properties LLC. 4. On November 12, 2004, 302-308 N. Osceola Properties LLC's name was changed to Island View Properties LLC (a copy of the Articles of Amendment are attached to this Affidavit). UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY, WE DECLARE THAT WE HAVE EXAMINED THIS CERTIFICATION AND TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF IT IS TRUE, CORRECT AND COMPLETE. ISLAND VIEW PROPERTIES, LLC, a Florida limited liability company B4'u STATE OF FLORIDA BMan g artner ) COUNTY OF PINELLAS ) n? The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 6 -2 day of May, 2006, by Benjamin Kugler, Managing Partner of Island View Properties, LLC, a Florida limited liability company. Personally Known -""?OR Produced Identification Type of Identification Provided ATU NAME LEGIBLY PRINT , TYPEWRITTEN OR STAMPED NOTARY PUBLIC My hldatalarylten4nercaniil6trianglelaffidavit.nameehange.doc AMELAJP Nomry Pubic - Stole of ®rF 4Y CortnrtbsbL:1 Jul ?.tire C-V63Bonded By NORIGINAL RECEIVE` OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER W0 D DOC STAMP COLLECTION $19250.00 KAR-LEE14 F. DE BLAKER, CLERK OF COURT &LAS COUNTY, FL BY DEPUTY CLERK: CLKDMC6 pared By and Return To: , nette Rushton del)ty National Title Insurance Company W. Cypress Street, Suite #E :a?o pa, FL 33607 e No. 04-054-1402870 Party Appraiser's Parcel I.D. (folio) Number (s) :/29/15/00000/430/0600 SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED `SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED made this June 9, 2004, by Osceola Bay Development, LLC, a Nevada Limited Company hereinafter called the grantor and 302-308 N. Osceola Properties, LLC, a Florida limited liability ny, whose post office address is 133 Candy Lane , Palm Harbor, Florida 34683, hereinafter called the grantee: (Wherever used herein the terms "grantor" and "grantee" include all the parties to the instrument and the heirs, legal representative and assigns of individuals, and the successors and assigns of • corporations) WSETH: That the grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of $10.00 and other valuable consideration, 0 whereof is hereby acknowledged, hereby grants, bargains, sells, aliens, remises, releases, conveys and s unto the grantee, all that certain land situated in Pinellas County, Florida viz: •See Legal Description Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. •to encumbrances, easements and restrictions of record and taxes accruing subsequent to December 31, 2003. ?ER with all the tenements, hereditarnents and appurtenances thereto belonging or in any wise appertaining. OF AND TO HOLD the same in fee simple forever. Ograntor hereby covenants with said grantee that the grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple; cantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land, and hereby warrants the title to said will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons claiming by, through or under the said grantor. L J ORIGINAL RECEIVED • OCT 12 2006 w PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER r eed ICorVOracioN .wpol Peoe t of 7 i f i r I' f is a. ?N WITNESS WHEREOF, the grantor has caused these presents to be executed in its name, and its corporate seal to e hereunto affixed, by its proper officers duly authorized, the day and year first above written. .ATTEST: Secretary the presence of: Signature tness Printed Name Osceola Bay. Development, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company By: Matrix Lodging, L.L.C., a Nevada limited liability com ny, as its Managing Member By: Ellenburg Fa it , LLC, a Florida limited liability c mpany /13y: Gerald D. enburg, 8 S Fort Harrison Ave., , ar, eter, FL 33756 • GAIXXc.amgy / OTE OF L D ,f°_ / l4 *NTY OF /L LS O.Cal? /( W CtMB,I ssm / Do 287200 EJ IFO: May a Zoos R+nwauro?„,?. I EBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an officer duly authofized in the t to aforesaid and in the ty aforesaid to take acknowfedgements, personally ppe red < f-oc Z- known ' LL?,ti bu y q ! e known to be the A 66 respectively of the I ration named as the grantor in the foregoing deed, or who have produced ntification and that they severally acknowledged executing the same in the presence of two subscribing I sses freely and voluntarily under the authority duly vested in them by said corporation and that the seal W thereto is the true corporate seal of said corporation. &SS my hand and official seal in the County and State last ores is day of u ,c/-'- 2-M y • o Public Printed Name of Notary 0 +rt=+ay oued ICinu.rm1-1 ORIGINAL RECEIVED 12 2006 .q,iNING DEPARTMENT ... - CADWATER • • ALtL R E S L cf3F')L !?'E? I D E N T I A L , 2-9 4 N i?SCELLPROPERTIES =i?Lr•; AVE • LLC use I'?jrj _ ('y0 Es c: e t •i _,_ CANDY LAS - Pry: (}]?? •'AL M HARBOR PAFt7'hr[f;:S'H1 PS L:Ti ?-468?- 54711 ri rv ; Liort rust: • A:i ie:. ' TJst 4- - ri:-. 4. T'iist. cw 4 1 r: Seri icr IDist. S ori a • 2004 VALUE Ex,emotiqns AIf NorxG`ao: Market: tip I,t No f 2 S5,4c Hi(: r Eem: Paid Date: ?ed Cae: 12) 8'5 4cin I3X ci O r e:t.:- . ?3CK) 0()3 Mill: 0 U pd.t: ,(_7C)0 Tax D1?: •Ta:rai;,.e; 8:5.40,r_) X ! T:,Pct: .000 Ta.x Note: 0 S-) X: . 1'R'ACT 6 _.r. BM LA4,4 DEED AQpr Ai°c+.: • • • • • • • • i • • ORIGINAL RECEIVED • • OCT 12 2006 • 7 ?x Ant a ? ( Sze i. 5.891 . 00000 00c. • OB51 :41.1?4 S PLANNING QEPARTMENT • CITY OF CLEARWATER • t- L J • LEGAL OESCRIPTION EXHIBIT "A" are ; Lots A and B OfCLOV1S C. LUTZ SUBDIVISION according to the nap or plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 35, Page 76, Public Records otPine[i's County; Florida. • Together with all submerged lands, bay bottoms, and riparian rights thcm,nto a • anywise belonging. more particularly 'describcd as follows; Ppcr [:fining or in Begin at the Northwest coma of CLOVIS C. L • Book 35, Page 76, public ?-SUBDIVISION as rccordcd in Plat t6" W, along the l public rrds 9f Pinclles County , Florida, and run thence S. 12 degrees 06' • 16" W.isio Y ine °r?d StiWivisiolL 65.48 feel to the southwest comer orsaid n;. thence S 89 degrees 54'00- W-630,0 rat • the channel in Cearwater Bay; thence NatthedY, al le or less to. the Eastcriy, bboundary of an intcrsccyion with the West along the Eatstttty bvitn orsaid hannel, to • SUBDIVISION, . thence Westerly extension of the Northerly, fine of said CL LO OVIS C. LUT-Z ftzt more ar less'to the po?inc o(beginning. Weste '? McMinn of the said Northerly line, 63 7.0 The above dcscnhed property is suect to an mirmem to the east Coast Inland Navigation District bj center Zinc of th on that part lying within M feet orthe • the West Coast Intracoastal Watciway Canal, containing 0.7 acre more or less. • That part ofa certain ((0) feel of unnamed alley extending West to the waters of Clearwater Harbor from the West right-of-way orp?ceola A'vcnuc and lying south of-tile Freilcr • pr'opcr ty and lying North ofL.ot A ofCLOVIS C. LUTZ SUBDIVI$10N as*mordcd in Plat Book 35, Page 76, public records orPinellas County; Florida. Said alley having bccn v4ratcd bti' • the City of Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida, • Clafrn Decd frorn A-K Frciler and S and being the same properly as shown Qui as Court aratr May Persia, his Wire, in 0,'R. 589, page 389, Public Records of pinell h, Florida • A parcel ofsubmaged land in Clearwater Harbor Range 15 East_ Pinellas Court Florider, more particularly in S described -don 9, rT .29 onowollowis South. ?'• as Fs: • Begin at the Northwest corner of Lot A ofthe CLOVIS C. LUTZ as recorded in Plat Book 35, Page 76, public records of Pinellas County. l SUBDIVISION • on the average high water line of Clearwater Harbor, said Point ofBeianirl'b said 555nt bri ng .97 • North and 1949.66 feet West of the Sro ?? corrtcr 6 n bung aid -P. foci run cheerer N 89 doCrrct 2 of said Section 9. From aforesaid PO.B. nut N 07 do 4' 16" W 282.41 feet to the city of Clearwater B ulkhead Line; thcride g3rees 28. 50" East 10.07 feel.along said Bulkhead Line; run thence-South 89 dcgrers 24'.16" East 28121 feet to the average high water line orClearwater • Natbo r, 1•W) lhapce South 00 degrees 38' 00" West 10.00 feet along'said average high water line to the P.O.H. • reel I: From the Southwest corner of the Southeast • Scction.9, TowrLSNp 29 South, Range 1,5 F? ? . m° West Qtt398,68 r8.69fe aet the Southeast Quarter or Avenue; thcnec- Noah 0 to the West lineofOsceola the North line oraa t dc-are= 38' East along the West line of Osceola Avenue 545.68 fret io • Florida thence alICY as shown in JONES SUBDIYISION to the Town of Clcarwater, East 59.0 feet to Point of Beginning; thence North 83.16 feet more or less: thence • West 250.55-fext, more or less, to the waters orClew"alerBay; thence South 22-5 deg. West 90.01 feet more or less to a point 295 feet West orthe Point of Beginning- chance East 285.0 rcct • to Point orucginning. Together with all submergcd land and riparian rights appurtenant to said tract described as follows: • Tract 2.3, rrom an lnncrsecLlon ofthc North Iinr ofJoncs S • Avenue of JONES SUBDIVISION in Cl pct and the Wcat line ine o f oJa nt'rnuc 190 fret; thence West 3 13.9 (a ave high %va(cr eanvata, Florida, r"rrNO1' along West line of Osccota • Beginning: thence 725 fact to channel intClearwagter Bay- thencerNortClearwater [i channel a disc ay to Point u(- ance of 83.17 feel due North, thence East 725 lrraslerly along Fast Side of • Clcn'tater Bzy: thence in a fen to average high touter line of southwestcriy course along the average high water line to Point or • Beginning. LESS that portion described In that certain Order for Taking riled 1-13-61 in O,R. Book 108 3, page 97. public records orPinellas County, Florida. ORI JINAL IVED REC OCT . .2 2006 TANNIN DEPARTMENT CITY 0 F LEARWATER • • AC DR _SS LEGAL R E S 1 DENT e p! ?•7 1 ?i j i_)ll(l(ll_) I a.,'Ji) l!L'•l_1!_i r . Prop A_C)l •?:r-T?i8 N L SCEOL PROPERTIES LL. • •i CANDY LN •FALM HARBOR OFL _3468: 5471 Country: • 1 1• .4 , i.? 4? Senior 6 Yr: 004 VALUE E xemptions Area: EW •: Market: 510 ,000 HX: c: WX: i) 0 Pct: 4sed / Cap: 1. 0, 000 DX: 0 U Pct: • TX G ."::•Pct: • Tax a.ble: 5-C), 000 AX: C) 1F,stX SR. • 14 2" OSCEOLA AVE r! Use T'iJdeS Esc: Pet# OR Bk : 1 Z650 Pu : c PARTNER=•H I PE: ETC: Light Dist : Annex Dist: Ta,; Am .2G04 2 D is t : CW ' ci 7 Jl7 . Spec Dist: r? If No cap: 388 . If No Exem: It',?BE.? Paid Date: 00(=)00(_-10 - 00() 200 Mill : . c;.3 .00 0 Ta x D l q : .000 Tax Note: .00o X: ?41,141 Y: 327,412, W1 RSEC S R/W GEDRGIA S3T W R/W OSCEOLA AVE TH Appr Area- `.r=) c_)FT < W 7c)FT FOR POB TH S S4FT TH W 170FT{Si TO ?-*MORE LEGAL S EXIST** • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ORIGINAL. RECEIVE[ OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • • • WILL— ?iLL))?.E"== L R.EI[.iEll' ll, 0 _ _. - _• t. L? ._ _ F )i Q=r-E!?LH )DRQPERTIE' L PALM iARB'CF: FL _5471 Coun try • 0 1) FL .-) 4) Senior O: t Y . . 0 N l_:SCECIL.A --IVE t lse_ Code=.: ?2-i; E=_.c: Pets . OR Bk:: 1`65C) PARTNER-17l)-1I P::S Eilr. L i c; Fr G i s t Anne,: Dist : Tom.:>; t '(-)r=14 Gist. CW 5,r=:9_...? Spec Dist: If No Ca c): L 7 1 . rJ? If No Exe(n: 5,841._ Paid Date: . (_?iir_' Tar, D 1 a : (J. Tax Note. f?iO X. X41,114 AGpr r'e.a 20 r? c1 VALUE Exemp tions Area: EW t Ma rk:et : 21E5, 40C, HX : r; WX = ci O Pct: j' essed i?a??: 2'35 ,40C) DX: t LI Pct: bl • f TX -,,Pct . a:,a e: 2551 4c_x_l ;rt=,t41 T? . CL CV I S C . SLID TRACT B & SUBM LAND GEED • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ORIGINAL RECEIVE OCT 12 2005 pLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER PARC EL A LOTS 8, 9, 10, 11 & ALL 8, A.8- & JENNIE C ATES PAGE 64 OF THE PUBLIC TOGETHER WITH OF GEORGIA STREET LYING NORTH OF SAID LOT SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN PLAT B00K I RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARC EL B BEGINNING WHERE THE WEST LINE OF NORTH OSCEOLA STREET, IN CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, OR THE WEST LINE OF SAID STREET EXTENDED NORTH AS SAID NORTH OSCEOLA STREET EXISTED ON OCTOBER 8. 1894, INTERSECTS THE SOUTH LINE OF A THREE ACRE TRACT OF LAND FORMERLY OWNED BY MARY C. NICHOLSON, WHICH SAID TRACT IS DESCRIBED AS (BEGINNING 17.85 CHAINS WEST AND 8.28 CHAINS NORTH OF THE S.E. CORNER OF SEC. 9, TWP. 29 S., RANGE 15 E, THENCE NORTH 2.52 CHAINS TO A STAKE, THENCE RUN WEST 11.40 CHAINS TO A STAKE, AT LOW WATER MARK ON CLEARWATER RAY. THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE MEANDERINGS OF SAID BAY 2.75 CHAINS MORE OR LESS TO A POINT DUE WEST OF THE STARTING; THENCE EAST 12.40 CHAINS MORE OR LESS TO A POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 3 ACRES MORE OR LESS; THENCE RUN EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NIC HOLSON TRACT 58 FT. FOR A POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE NORTH 84 FT., THENCE EAST 70 FT., THENCE SOUTH- 84 FT., THENCE EAST 70 FT., THENCE SOUTH 84 FT., THENCE WEST 70 FT. TO POINT OF.BEGINNING, IT BEING THE INTENTION HEREBY TO CONVEY THE LAND HERETOFORE CONVEYED BY J.E. ELDRIDGE TO -JAMES E. BEARING AND ROSE B. SCARLING BY DEED DATED APRIL 10, 1922, FILED SAME DATE, AND RECORDED IN DEED RECORD 116, PAGE 67, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARC EL C ALSO, BEGIN AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE TRACT OF LAND HERETOFORE DESCRIBED AND HEREBY CONVEYED, RUN THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF SAID ABOVE DESCRIBED TRACT 37 FEET 6 INCHES FOR A POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE CONTINUE ALONG SAID SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF SAID ABOVE DESCRIBED TRACT WESTERLY TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT, THENCE SOUTHE 7 FEET, THENCE EASTERLY IN A STRAIGHT LINE TO POINT OF BEGINNING, BEING A TRIANGULAR PIECE OF LAND, IT BEING THE INTENTION BY THIS DESCRIPTION TO CONVEY THAT CERTAIN SMALL TRIANGULAR PARCEL OF LAND HERETOFORE CONVEYED BY THE CITY OF C LEAR WA TER TO JAMES B. SCARING BY DEED DATED DECEMBER 13, 1922, FILED DECEMBER 14, 1922, RECORDED IN DEED RECORD 133, PAGE 483, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA. TOGETHER WITH: ORIGINAL RECEIVED 12 2006 INNING DEPARTMENT . , r-i r-aRWATER 0 0 PARC EL D BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, COUNTY OF PINELLAS, STATE OF FLORIDA, WHERE THE WEST LINE OF OSC EOLA AVENUE INTER SEC TS THE SOUTH LINE OF GEORGIA STREET, RUN THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID OSCEOLA AVENUE 200 FEET MORE OR LESS TO SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT ELEVEN (11), OF C ATES SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT THEREOF AS SAME APPEARS OF RECORD IN PLAT BOOK 1 PAGE 64 PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, FOR A POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF SAID OSCEOLA AVENUE 49 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WHAT IS KNOWN AS THE OLD JOHN E. LAMBETH PROPERTY, THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SAID LAMBETH LINE TO THE HIGH WATER MARK ON CLEARWATER BAY, THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID HIGH WATER MARK TO SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT ELEVEN (11) OF SAID CATES' SUBDIVISION. THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT ELEVEN (11) TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, TOGETHER WITH: PARCEL E THOSE SUBMERGED LANDS DESCRIBED IN OR BOOKS 351S), PAGE 221, OR 3557, PAGE 559 AND OR 1,324, PAGE 520 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA. ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER .04 23:18 4413069 UVP 205 0381 11/15/104 1,37 PACE 0011001 Florida lop t of sta.ta' Navembe'r 15, 2004 HARRYSON VIMAGE PROPERTIES, LLC 133 CANDY LAIM PALM ARBOR, FL 34 683 Re: Document Number L04000025398 The Articles of Amendment to tha Articles of Organization for OSCg0L&-j0M pROPWIES LLC which changad its name to SAMSON VILLAGE pRopERTIES, LIC, a Florida limited liability company, was filad on November 12, 2004. This doeumsnt was slactronically received and filed under rAE audit number 904000226391. Should you have ahy questions regarding this matter, please telephoto (530) 245-6051, the Registration Section. Jason Herrick Document Specialist Division of Corporation® Letter Number: 204A0006494$ Division of Corporations - P.O, BOX 6337 'IaUsha®see, Fioiida 82814 ORIGINAL. RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • • T'a305 • • BILL OF SALE - • I • Sale and Transfer of Assets and Contract Ri • consideration, the receipt, adequacy and legal sufficiency of ?.hg hsareFhereby ood acknowledged, and as contemplated by Section 5(b) of that certain Commercial b valuable • January 26, 2004 (the "Sale Agreement"), to Which Contract entered on or about • Restaurant, Inc., a Florida corporation, and Zeus Inn, Inc., Florida rkoPoulos Gulfview and collective) • Y, the "Seller"), and Osceola-Tones Properties LLC, a Corpo Floridailimitedividually • company (the "Purchaser"), are parties; Seller hereby sells, d liability and delivers to Purchaser, effective as ofApril 14, 20 transfers, assigns, conve s grants • right, title and interest in and to all of the assets of eaCh4esP?ectdosing Date"), all each ' Seller's or on that real property described on ESA hereto, e? L. e Seller (the "Assets") located at b-e ?r,,x,h 1-?-IA rc-s?,,-d67?- • 2• Further Actions. Seller and Purc 3? C *yc a I P necessary to establish the record of Pur haler 's e to >jt r agree to take all steps reasonably ( • Purchaser, to execute and deliver the Assets and, at the request of • other action as Purchaser may reason bly request to more ?fer and assignment vest in purchaser each of the Assets, all at the sole cost and and take such • effectively transfer and assign to and • expense of Seller. Miscellaneous. • 3.1- Governing Law. construed and enforced in accordance This Agreement shall be solely a o ed of conflict n laws. with, the laws of Florida without regard to an by, and Oactions involving or relatin to any principles The Seller and the Purchaser agree that venue of all lawsuits, disputes coverts Navin g this Bill of Sale or its interpretation or enforcement shall lie in • g jurisdiction within Pinellas Coun ? •tlun the Middle District of Florida ?`' Florida, and federal courts Navin courts , and each party agrees to submit to the • gtion said Jurisdiction o of s said • 3.2. Headings for Reference Only_ Of Sale are for convenience of reference only and The s not be deemed to paragraph h mod' dings ea ill ll Oons of this Bill of Sane or affect the meaning or be used 'in interpretation of this) ill of •-? I?. ?-? -,?? (? . (mac) C? zv shy c? CA - • ORIGINAL • RECEIVED • OCT 12 2096 • • PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • • ''?-+?mmw.Kdab2v\'t!:LY rMW! ? • • i • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • warrants his 3., 4uthoribl B of this Billngh? ability and By execution of this 'of Sale > and authority to si rel th this Bill of Sale each party may fillyY e eod hi s principal to allPeerson represents and WI ESS WHE n without verification. ns s and Provisio OF, Seller has executed this 81 .11 ntOMOS ll of Sale as of APri] 14 M?kopoulos , 2004. . ? . ? J1' Tip?,,,r. ""r?rV 1 ? ?C. By: Antonros arL _ . President By: --\ I \. Antonios , President AY-le-e" -?o 4?t P 4-41, S 5 i 1 C1 CE-0 PLC ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2[66 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • PARCEL #1: Exhlbit `A° • The West 2/3 of Lot 2, Slack 2, JONES SUBDIVISION OF NICHOLSONS ADOITLON TO CLEARWATER HARBOR. according to the plat thereof ds rsco Ted in plat Book 1. paga_13, of the Public records of Hillsborough County, Florida of which Pinellas County was formerly a part of,-LESS the • follows: ?lortliwest comer and being more pardculariy described as 8eglnning at the Southwest comer of Lot 2, Ellock 2, of said JONES SUBDIVISION for a Polrit of Beginnin • then 00 ° 23'00' West; along the West fine of said Lot 2,169.80 feed thence Northeast 8. Ce North edy, radius of 45.00 feet a tangent of 8.07'feet; a chord of M88'feek a chord'be ft North along a curve (sett) ctdrve Ong a • 1596 feel; thence North 89° 41'06" EEasi, along tho North line of said Lot n fi di 77 feet 149 42 46' ?, a dlS , E& of 1 so. 00 feet; thence-South Bg 0 41'06' W ance South QO 23'00' Easr. eGk 53-95 test to the Pofrrt of Beginning. • PARCEL #2: The South 76 feet of Lot 1, Block- JONES SUBDIVISION OFNICHOLSON-S ADDITION TO CLEARWA • according to the plat thereof MCOMed In Plat Book i, page 13, of the public records of HIDsborough C 7F_A HARBOR, which 17,11,111s; County was formerly a part, together with that cartain tract of [and, Hodes. of abOw dascnbsd Land and the East right-of-way line of Osceola Ave nu es the WM the of the e, lying and being in Pinellas County. Florida PARCEL #3: • Beginning at the Southeast comer of Lot 1 Block 2, of JONES SUBDIVISION O GL_EAAWAt7a HAA6pFl, F NICHOLSON'S ADDITION TO records of TER 14 MO g to the ov Mcted map or ffiereof receded In Plat gook 1, page 13, of the public Hillsburnugh , -of along the Fast firms of saldCom Lot 1, 157 ityy, Florida feet for a dcPoint h in Pinellas Comity waa fvrrneriy s part; ? thUnCe North 0 ° 23W Wed, 0 ° 4400' West; 1221 feet; thence East, paralial to the South Una said to#' ft o, M25 ? o, mo West, 8029 reef; East line 5f thence said Ion thence North along the East line of said lot, 27 ° or lest to the East line of feet; more or less„ to the Point of Beglnnirtg. ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 0 • A U.S.`DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND U N S ETTLEMENT STATEMENT 0 Astro Title Services, I • 510 N. Fort Harrison Aven Clearwater, Florida 3375. • C. NOTE: This form is furnished to give you a stall '(P-o.c.)' were pals outside the closing; ------------- D. NAME OF BORROWER: Triangle S.A. Land, L, A'DDRESSOF BORROWER: L0300007722.3 • 305 N. FrHarrisoiiA-v, E. NAME OF SELLER: ADDRESSOF SELLER: The Salvation Anny a C 1625 Belcher Road Non 0 F. NAME OF LENDER: SunTrust Bank • ADDRESSOF LENDER: 401 E. J2ckson Str ct Tarhpa. FL 33602. • G. PROPERTY LOCATION: 309 Osceola Avemle and Clearwater, Florida 3375 H. SETTLEMENT AGENT: Astro Title SErvi ts, Inc • PLACE OFSETTLEMENT... 510 N. Fort Hariisoh Atrt Clearwatct. Florida 33755 1. SETTLEMENTDATE: August 31, 2005 • J. SUMMARY OF BORROWER'S • ????•. ?? ?? TRANSACTIO 101. Conlracf sales I rice t. 102 Personal properly '2%4 1 . 103. Settlement charges to borrower. (from line 1400) 104. Y 2 • 105. ADJUSTMENTS FOR ITEMS PAID BY SELLER IN ADV 106. Cltyhown taxes AN to . 107. County taxes to . 106. Assessments to 109. 111 AL 112 GROSS AMOUNT DUE FROM BORROWER: W1. Deposit or eamesl money 02 Principal amount of new Idari(s) 3. Existing ban(s) taken subject to POJUSTMENTS FOR ITEMS UNPAID BY SELLER: 10. City/town taxes to .r. County taxes to 212. Assessments to 4. TAL PAID BY/FOR BORROWER: gross amount due from borrower (line 120) &s amount paid by/for bonower (line 220) ADJUSTMENTS FOR ITEMS UNPAID BY SELLER: 510. City/town lazes to 51.1. County taxes to 512 Assessments to 513. 514. 515: 516. 517. 516. 2 4 7,500 520. TOTAL REDUCTIONS .00 IN AMOUNT DUE 70 SELLER: 2,7 199.25TT:Ei4i7TniRAM>s> E 601. Gross a (2, 4' 7; 50 mount due to Boller (line 420) 0. 00)60t LBS$ fo111 reductions in amount due seller (fine CASH (® FROM) (? TO) BORROWER: 2 9 695 .25 603. CASH (®TO) (? FROM) SELLER: H 2, 073, 975.00 T$ 0HVO 2502-0I265 , rluo-, n.,,., ELOPMENT 7't-Ab !?t . B' TYPE O OF LOAN 1 FHA ? Z FMHA 3' QONV VMNS. 1. Il VA ? 5. CONY, INS. I- FILENUMSER 7681-PI-04 /' LCANNUNBER: a. MQ9TQA0E INS. CASE n1a tactual costs. Amounts pals to and b y the settlement a9enf ere rte shown here here for w informational purposes and are not included in the f0(aJs, marked shown Ifeins -;;i d Labllfty C- Registration no. Clearvrater, Florida 33755 a Corporation 'arwater, FL 33757 N. Fl. Harrison Ave 195'.25 Iw K' SUMMARY OF SELLER'S TFIANSACTTON Personal property ADJUSTMENTS FOR ITEMS PAID BY SELLER IN .. 466. Cityflown faxes to 407. County taxes to 406: "Assessments to 409. 410. 411. 412 2,7 , 195.25 420. GROSS AMOUNT DU ? .. E TO SELLER: Jib c..r '• ECl 2,600,000. 00 . 00' i LCl1][lw Sol, Excess deposll (Sao inslrucflms) s, w SUO".00:• Sul Set6e'mkrlt cha 500, 000.00 rtjes to seller (like 14oo) ...:.. y. ,. , .:. 503. ExisOng, ban(s) taken subject to 2 , 02 5 . 00 ,,.>. V... ..,,:.; SOq: P9yAff ot`fifsl mortgage foar 05. Payoff of second mortgage loan .. :. ..; 506: .: . 07. ° K 500.. 526,025.00 2,600,000.00 0 ( 526, 025.60) I ORIGINAL RECEIVED i I OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER n • L SETTLEMENT 700. TOTAL?S,ALES/BROKER'S COMMISSION: . 10 0 1/- 701 to 702. $ to w 703. Commission paid at settlement 704. Cornmission 63 %,$2,000,000.00.40 Remaz Action First(less$30,000.00 e=ado Ta3rENf91? ' A1?erEitdr'nrt4rJ?rr .; •.f.. ) 801• Loan Origination lee 802. Loan Discount % w 803. Appralsat Fee to: w 804. Credit Report to: 805. Landers Irispection. fee' . 808. Mortgage Insurance application lee to w 807. Assumption fee sob. Loan Fee to SunTrust Bank NA w 809. Flood Certification to SunTruSt Bank NA 810. all. ntttnn',sr ,•"cSCi :>e^:::V .?.. 1'AfD ( •3 901. Interest from w 902. Mortgage insurance premium for nlo, to • 903. Hazard Insurance premium for 17 _ m0. to 904. Flood Insurance premium for • ] 2 mo, to 905" 4??6?;3 F] ES?SfO?E'fJ?tfEb?yJflkI?EENI?EH k'?`???'? w loot Hazard Insurance months ® s 1002 Mortgage insurance months 0 $ • 1003. City p4larly taxes: morifh`s 1004. County property taxes months A $ 1005:.4nnual e3§esshiar W .. . inorlttis 1006. w months ® $ 1007. - - months 4-$ 1009. months as too 1101 Settlement or closing fee to 1 toe Abstract br uue see'r`6fi to '4stro TitJc Scrvices, Inc. StewartTitle 1103. Title examination 10 Astro Title Services, Inc" 01104. Tine InsUrance binder- to 1105. Document preparation to . • 1106. Notary fees to 1107. Attomey's fees to Holland & Knight, LLP (6lcludas above Items Numbers: 1108. Title insurance to Astor Title Services,: inc. Includes above-items Numbers: Owners RP $9075.00 1109. Lenders coverage $ 1,957,500.00 wt 110. Owners coverage S 600.000 00 1111. Electronic Servicing Fee to AStro Title Services, Inc_ w 112- FL Fra 9 Endorsement to AStro Title Services, Inc. 1113• Alta 8.1 6 i SLrvev & Contiguity to Astro Title Svr ta4hc i 4,500"00 25.00 7,4'00.00 125.00 916.00 S 201. Recordirig IBes:'LkO? $ 1`8.50 : 6A-046, S° - .°180.00 ; Releases S' - 2 Clty/county Iax/atamps: Deed $ - 19'8 50 Mortgage $ State tax/slampa: Deed $ 18,200 00 ; Mortgage $ . INTANGIBLE TAX to Clerk of the Circuit Couri 6,851.25 5 6, 651. 18 200 00 Rx rd till 'n iim f.Cootract. 00 , , 3, 915.00 '. I 1. Survey to . 3 5.50 i?o2 Peel inspection I. w13. Record-Cogattril Assighrnet to''Clerk:of.thc Cii>;iiiCCourt . 1304- Record Collateral Assignment to Clcrk of the Circuit Court R rd U 05 69.50 . eco CC-1 to Clerk of The Circuit Couii 61.00 Filing Fee UCC-1 to Transaction Registry 44.00' Lenders Attorney Costs to Holland & Knight 34 _00 TOTAL SETTLEMENT CHARGES (Ente(m Ane 103 Section J d 375.00 - an -Ana S02, Section K) ruryl+vl...aeIMHV0.1 emeMS"i""Mend 1-h- lelnab127,195.25 26,025.00 IMa Irenseellan I Ily IAoI 1 lave rxdved aeo 1 ?' MlwMadge eM bell.(, p 1.. we ens .ce q b" U0.1(ShclemeN Sl element. vrvle alalemeM d all -0- end 11.1b-ammla made M my accourN e, v{'Ytl.n GZ ??/. ?/ Triangle S. nd, LLC µV ?rs Sellers The Salvation Army 0Retstrauon no. L05000077223 1 Sealemml IelameM wMeh / have P-Pnred 6 e I- end xeunl. ecco,ml d Ohl. Irn,veellon, 1 have eeu<ed or will eeuse the lunch to be disbursed In --denea wllh Ohl. statement. 1nl Ageni ?? - /? Kathleen S. Pezone Dale August 31 2005 _ File No. 7681-PI-04 as 0 /day per month per month Pei month per month per month per month per ihonlh per month PAID FROM PAID FROM BORROWER'S SELLER'S FUNDS FUNDS AT AT SETTLEMENT SETTLEMENT 100,000.00 9,787.501, 14.00 150.001 100.00 275.06 50.00 ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER From: 8500381 Page: 1/2 Date: 8/9/200612:22:49 P10 Mate of 11ori I certify the attached is a true and correct copy of the Certificate of Merger or Articles of Merger, filed on August 8, 2006, for TRIANGLE OLD BAY HOLDINGS, LLC, the surviving Florida entity, as shown by the records of this office. I further certify the document was electronically received under FAX:audit number 806000199152 and this certificate issued in accordance with section 15.16, Florida Statutes, and authenticated by the code noted below. The document number of this limited liability company is L05000054976. Authentication Code: 906A00049499-080906-L05000054976-1/1 ORIGINAL RECEIVEr OCT 12 2[66 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Given under my hand and the Great Seal of the State of Florida, at Tallahassee, the Capital, this the Ninth day of August, 2006 4!5,r?.n_ !A. Co 66 hue :01. Cobb §btattaitp of Otaite This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http:/twww.gfi.com Wfuriment of Otatt • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • CERTIFICATE OF MERGER OF • (((H06000199152 3))) GEORGIA STREET PROPERTIES, LLC (a Florida limited liability company) and ISLAND VIEW PROPERTIES, LLC (a Florida limited liability company) and TRIANGLE S.A. LAND, LLC (a Florida limited liability company) and HARRISON VILLAGE PROPERTIES, LLC (a Florida limited liability company) with and into TRIANGLE OLD BAY HOLDINGS, LLC (a Florida limited liability company) Pursuant to Sections 608.4382 of the Florida Limited Liability Company Act Pursuant to Section 608.4382 of the Florida Limited Liability Company Act, this Certificate of Merger provides as follows: ARTICLE I State of Organization; Surviving Company 1.1 The name and state of organization of each of the constituent companies of the merger is as follows: Name Georgia Street Properties, LLC Island View Properties, LLC Triangle S.A. Land, LLC Harrison Village Properties, LLC Triangle Old Bay Holdings, LLC State of Organization Florida Florida Florida Florida Florida 1.2 Triangle Old Bay Holdings, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, shall be the surviving entity. ORIGINAL RECEIVEI OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (((H060001991.52 3))) CITY OF CLEARWATER • ARTICLE II Agreement and Plan of Merger 0 (((H06000199152 3))) The Agreement and Plan of Merger providing for the merger of the above entities is attached hereto as Exhibit A. ARTICLE III Approval of the Plan 3.1 In accordance with Florida Law and the operating agreement of Georgia. Street Properties, LLC, the sole member of Georgia Street Properties, LLC approved and adopted the Agreement and Plan of Merger on August 8, 2006. 3.2 In accordance with Florida Law and the operating agreement of Island View Properties, LLC, the sole member of Island View Properties, LLC approved and adopted the Agreement and Plan of Merger on August 8, 2006. 3.3 In accordance with Florida Law and the operating agreement of Triangle S.A. Land, LLC, the managing member of Triangle S.A. Land, LLC approved and adopted the Agreement and Plan of Merger on August 8, 2006. 3.4 In accordance with Florida Law and the operating agreement of Harrison Village Properties, LLC, the sole member of Harrison Village Properties, LLC approved and adopted the Agreement and Plan of Merger on August 8, 2006. 3.5 In accordance with Florida Law and the operating agreement of Triangle Old Bay Holdings, LLC, the managing member of Triangle Old Bay Holdings, LLC approved and adopted the Agreement and Plan of Merger on August 8, 2006. ARTICLE IV Effective Time of Merger This merger shall become effective on the date and time this Certificate of Merger is filed by the Department of State of the State of Florida. [Signature Pages Follow] ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 2 (((H06000199152 3))) (((H06000199152 3))) IN Wl'fNESS NVREREOF, the undersigned have caused this Certificate of Merger to be cxccuted this 8th clay of August _,2006. GL4 ORGIA. STRUT PROPERTIES, LLC a Florida limited liability company By Triangle Old Bay Holdings, LLC Its, Sole Member By: Triangle Property Holdings, LLC Its: Managing Member By By ISLAND VIEW PROPERTIES, LLC a Florida limited liability con,Pany By, Triangle Old Bay Holdings, LLC - . - - - - . - . its:- -Sole Member By: Triangle Property Holdings, LLC Its: Managing Member Ron Pollao Mana .'M9 Member By: Be ogler, g Member TRIANGLE S.A. LAND, LLC a Florida limited liability company Ron Pollack, Manager ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 3 (((H06000199152 3))) • • (((H06000199152 3))) HARRISON VILLAGE PROPERTIES, LLC a Florida limited liability company By Triangle Old Bay Holdings, LLC Its: Solc Member By. Triangle Property Holdings, LLC Tts: Managing Member By: ::-I'/ -1 Ron >'al1ack ana ' g Member By: Ben ug er, M g Member TRIANGLE OU) BAY HOLDINGS, LLC a Florida limited liability company By: Triangle Property Holdings, LLC Its: Managing Member By. Ron-poll aMember By, 4 Be ugler, M o Bing Member ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 4 (((H06000199152 3))) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • EXHIBIT A AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF MERGER I? (((H06000199152 3))) THIS AGREEMENT AND PLAN OF MERGER (this "Agreement") is made and entered into this 8th day of August, 2006, by and between TRIANGLE OLD BAY HOLDINGS, LLC, ("Triangle"), GEORGIA STREET PROPERTIES, LLC ("Georgia Street"), ISLAND VIEW PROPERTIES, LLC ("Island View"), TRIANGLE S.A. LAND, LLC ("Triangle S.A.") and HARRISON VILLAGE PROPERTIES, LLC ("Harrison"), all being limited liability companies organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida. Triangle, Georgia Street, Island View, Triangle S.A. and Harrison are sometimes collectively referred to in this Agreement as the "Constituent Companies" and are sometimes referred to individually as a "Constituent Company." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the manager or member, as the case may be, of each Constituent Company deems it advisable and for the general welfare of such company and its members that Georgia Street, Island View, Triangle S.A. and Harrison merge with and into Triangle, pursuant to this Agreement and the applicable laws of the State of Florida; and WHEREAS, upon the Effective Date of the merger, Triangle shall be the surviving entity. NOW, THEREFORE, the Constituent Companies, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants, agreements and provisions hereinafter contained, do hereby agree upon and prescribe the terms and conditions of said merger and the method of carrying the same into effect in this Agreement as follows: ARTICLE I PLAN OF MERGER The Constituent Companies have agreed and do hereby agree each with the other that Georgia Street, Island View, Triangle S.A. and Harrison shall be merged with and into Triangle. Triangle shall be the surviving company in the merger and shall be governed by the laws of the State of Florida, which state shall continue to be its domicile. ARTICLE II EFFECTIVE DATE The merger .provided for in this Agreement shall become effective and the Constituent Companies shall be deemed to have merged as of date and time the Certificate of Merger is filed by the Department of State of the State of Florida. (the "Effective Date"). ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (((H06000199152 3))) CITY OF CLEARWATER • 0 (((H06000199152 3))) ARTICLE III MANNER OF CONVERTING INTERESTS Pursuant to the merger, all of the outstanding membership interests of Georgia Street, Island View, Triangle S.A. and Harrison will be cancelled. No new membership interests in Triangle will be issued. Each membership interest in Triangle that is outstanding on the Effective Date shall continue and remain unchanged. ARTICLE IV EFFECT OF THE MERGER 4.1 Existence. On the Effective Date, the separate existences of Georgia Street, Island View, Triangle S.A. and Harrison shall cease and they shall be merged with and into Triangle. Thereupon, the title to all real estate and other property, or any interest therein, owned by each of Georgia Street, Island View, Triangle S.A. and Harrison shall be vested in Triangle without further act of deed and without reversion or impairment. Triangle shall thenceforth be responsible and liable for all the liabilities and obligations of Georgia Street, Island View, Triangle S.A. and Harrison. 4.2 Articles of Organization. The Articles of Organization of Triangle, in effect on the Effective Date, shall continue in full force and effect as the Articles of Organization of Triangle and shall not be changed or amended by the merger. 4.3 Operating Agreement. The Operating Agreement of Triangle, as in effect on the Effective Date, shall continue in full force and effect as the Operating Agreement of Triangle and shall not be changed or amended by the merger. ARTICLE V GENERAL PROVISIONS 5.1 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties and supersedes and cancels any other agreement, representation or communication, whether oral or written, among the parties hereto relating to the transactions contemplated herein or the subject matter hereof. 5.2 Headings. The headings in the Agreement are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect in any way the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement. 5.3 Expenses. Triangle shall pay all expenses of carrying this Agreement into effect and of accomplishing the merger. 5.4 Counterparts. This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which as executed shall be deemed to be an original; and such counterparts shall together constitute one and the same instrument. ORIGINAL RECEIVE[ 0 C T 1121.6 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER (((H06000199152 3))) -AUG-28-2006(MON) 11:19 • • Prepared by and return to: Thomas C. Nash; II, Esq. Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen 625 Court Sftct, Suite 200 (33756) P.O. Box 1669 Clearwater, FL 33757 AFFIDAVIT AS TO CORPORATE NaMr STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PINELLAS BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Benjamin Kugler, Managing Partner of Island View Properties, LLC, a Florida limited liability company (the "Affiant"), who rht being duly sworn, deposes and says: I. That Affianl is duly authorized to make this Affidavit 2. That the Afftant is the Managing Partner of Island View Properties, LLC, a Florida limited liability company. 3. On April 29, 2004, Articles of Organization were filed with the Secretary of the State of Florida for 302-309 N. Osceola Properties LLC, 4. On November 12,2004,302-308 N. Osceola Properties LLC's name was changed to Island View Properties LLC (a copy of the Articles of Amendment are attached to this Affidavit). UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY, WE DECLARE 714AT WE HAVE EXAMINED THIS CERTIFICATION AND TO T1•IE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF TT IS TRUE, CORMCT AND COMPLY. ISLAND VIEW PROPERTIES, LLC. a Florida limited liability company By: ?f' Qcn u r, M artner STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF PINELLAS } nd The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this jbV_ day of May, 2006, by Betiamin Kugler, Managing Partner of Island View Properties, LLC, a Florida limited liability company. Perasunally Known L,?OR Produced Identificntion Typc of IdeatifleaOiTu Provided z- A- ATUR Eer) NAME LEGIBLY P '1' , TYPEWRI'1" CEN OR STAMPED NOTARY PUBLIC h: damwyllcnlmereanLitesW ngfatomdwil,namceLmyu.doc My ?? uJ p rPaa-snra? >N?ca?r?nE1Vft ld2c,21)W 9ab?d NOfDAl Amy P. 0011004 ORIGINAL RECEINEI, OCT 12 2@06 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 f1UG-28-2006(MON) 11;19 H94=2,20395 ARTICLES OF A NDWNT Awdrk The natmc of this Florida limited liability compsay is 302 - 30$ N. Osceola Properties LLC Articie II. Date of :Articles of QEgW The Company's Articles of Organization were filed on April 29, 2004. 'fhe-Articles of Organization of the Limited Liability Company are amended so that the name of the UnVted Liability Comp=y is &anged 6tom 302 - 308 N. Osceola Properties LLC to Island View Properties, LLC Art dle IV. Q enchrtent Adauted The amendment set forth, in these Aarkles of Organbadon was adopted on the date shown below. The undersigned excreted this document on the date shown below. 302 - 308 N. Osceola Properties LLC By: by D Stoutt as 2#t0r=Y4n-factfor Bgjamin Kugler Nm= Benjamin Kugler 'TYlde: Manager Date: November 12, 2004 C,opmft Croatloris [Memational Inc. 941 Fourth Street Miami Beach FL 33139 (305) 972-0688 H04000228398 G ORIGINAL •• RECEIVED c OCT 12 2096 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER r. M1rQnr C 1W3.20U 0C P. 002/004 I 'I RUG-28-2006(MON) 11:20 P.003/004 • ?• • H0400022M91 • ?` ARTICLO OF ANIFFNDUMM • Addy L Nam The dame of thus Florida limited liability aompauy is Osceola-Jones Popotties LLC • A c? n: ale of rdC19A of OrX1j93Md2R • The Company's Ar isles of orgaWzadon were filed an Apxd 2, ?.004. • • Wig, M. A?_mendment • The Arficles of Orswization of d w Limited LiaN ity Company are amended so that the name of the Liu*ed Liability Company is changed from Osceola-Jones Prhpaties LLC • to Hcrison Village Prupades, LLC • 'The aamendm nt set forth in these Articles of Organization was adopted on tha dfe shown below. • ?.? The tmdenigned executed this document on the date shown below. • • • • Osceola-Jones T mPmtiee LLC • ? By bg? D. Susan ag attoriuy fcr)aq?jsmia Kagla_ -„?--`--w Nam; Es?m K?er TatjC Manager • _November 12, 2004 Corporate Credom lnterrmftW Inc. • 941 Fourth Street Miami Beach FL 33139 (305) 872-0899 r-- H040002M91 Gopyr?rn?+?laa zcosc c • ORIGINAL RECEIVED • OCT 12 2006 pLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • 41UG-28-2006(MON) 11:20 ? - l??p?zoswo3s? - • • i • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • i • • • 0 povamber IS., 2004 ID156bo 1137 PACE 001100X 1101 =Aa= P>Z+ w, Lac 133 C P = LOS pVX i C? n 34633 gas Doaswwt Ihmabsr L04000015395 Florida Ot of 5tLta Tba Aftic lam of AmUdmnt to VIA Utscslas of organization lox _ jCW pig = VMCLU ohawlas its now to IDIAR 205 VE6LAM ppplpMMjU, LW, a >ploridn limited Umbiltty company, was fi.].ad as Diovsar 12, 2004, mds doc =cut was ejectronically received and filed undar rAX wvAlt numbox ?tl?,000??6301. 3bould rm bave any questions s%agdrd1jW thLa mAttar, please t4XephoM (ego) 243»6051,, the IAgi•attation Section. Jason xo=ick Doeu=mt: Specialist Dsvision of Corporat+lons Lettex ftmb"- 204A00064933 Alvinion cf Clo?poa'ai3aag - l'.0. M7 -T*Vxbauw% Ada =14 P. 004/004 ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER N I ISLAND VIEW/HARRISON VILLAGE STORMWATER NARRATIVE The stormwater system associated with this project is divided into two systems. The first system is the private stormwater conveyance and treatment system serving the on-site project. Stormwater runoff from the Harrison Village parcel and the Island View parcel are conveyed by an underground pipe system to the proposed normally dry treatment pond located in the southwest corner of the project. The stormwater pond is designed to treat the first 3/a" of runoff from the site and percolate into the ground. A control structure elevation of 6.85 ft allows stormwater runoff in excess of the treatment volume to discharge thru the control structure into Clearwater Bay. The second system is the public stormwater system designed to convey the runoff from the relocated Osceola Drive and Ft. Harrison Ave. to the existing collection system in Jones Street. The stormwater is conveyed by an underground piping system connecting to the existing conveyance system. The stormwater treatment calculations are located on the grading and drainage plan within the site plan submittal package. ORIGINAL. RECEIVED C?"T 12 2666 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • A w • • • • • • • • • • PMENT ,?F'?=,NY 110 7 H. Tree Survey ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 305 Norrh Fort Harrison Avenue A Clearwater, Florida 33:55 A www.rriangiedevelopment.com 727.446.002 (phone) A 727.446.0002 (fax) • • ORIGINAL • RECEIVEr • • BOEN'S TREE SERVICE KT 12 2006 • P.O. Box 86 PLANNING DEPARTMENT • Ozona, M., 34660-0086 CITY OF CLEARWATER • Tree Inventory - Prepared for Triangle Development Inc. • • To: Mr. Thomas Coates, Triangle Development Inc. 4/5/2005 • • Re: Tree Inventory: 312 - 404 North Osceola Avenue Site overview and canopy analysis • The following report is submitted by Boen's Tree Service, Inc., and includes findings that • we believe are accurate based on our education, experience and knowledge in the field of • Arboriculture. Boen's Tree Service has no interest personally or financially in this • property and our report is factual and unbiased. This report is the property of Triangle Development Inc., and will not be given to other entities unless so directed • • Site Overview and Canopy Analysis • • The subject property is located on a bluff that slopes down to the shoreline of Clearwater • Harbor and has historically been utilized for single family homes. The site has been essentially cleared of all old growth trees and native mid-story and understory vegetation. • The tree canopy is comprised of second growth native tree species typical of the bluff • environment and dominated by live oak (Quercus virginiana), laurel oak (Quercus • laurifolia), pignut hickory (Carya glabra) and the native sabal palm (Sabal palmetto). The invasive exotic Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius) has colonized • throughout the site forming dense thickets close to the shoreline. The inter-tidal zone • supports a moderate population of mangroves including red mangrove (Rhizophora • mangle), black mangrove (Avicennia germinans) and white mangrove (Laguncularia ' racemosa). The site s understory vegetation is an admixture of ornamental shrubs, • grasses and vines. • The site supports few high quality trees but is laden with valuable palms including • picturesque mature sabal palms and two potential high quality clusters of the Senegal • date palm (Phoenix reclinata). The preservation of the high quality palms should be a • priority. The palms can be preserved in place or transplanted on site. The overall • condition of the site trees is below average as they reflect general neglect and improper maintenance. Several trees have suffered from natural stresses including wind damage, • drought, lightning and vine accumulations in the crown. In addition, numerous trees had • poor form and weak structure. This site does not contain trees of the quality that would • warrant major site plan modification to ensure their preservation. There are howe trees that are sufficient in health, structure and appearance that should be prese 'if 0 • possible. The ultimate purpose of a tree inventory is to provide the development IV a • hierarchy of existing trees by identifying the trees and palms most worthy of ! Ia AN ,v 0 • preservation. The criteria used for evaluating individual trees are described in the following narrative. Tree Inventory Data A tree inventory is a written record of a tree's condition at the time of inspection. It is a valuable tool to prioritize tree maintenance and remove trees with problems that could lead to failure and cause personal injury or property damage. The tree inventory lists four codes and also has a comment section. The following is an explanation of the inventory data: Tree# - location - Each tree is assigned a number for reference in the inventory that corresponds with a number on the site plan that identifies the location of the tree in the field. Size - Tree size is a measure of the tree's trunk diameter measured at 4.5' above grade. If there is a fork in the trunk at that point the diameter is measured at the narrowest area below the fork. Species - Each tree is listed by its common and botanical name the first time it is listed in the inventory. For simplicity the tree is listed by its common name thereafter. Condition Rating - The condition rating is an assessment of the tree's overall structural strength and systemic health. Elements of structure include: 1) the presence of cavities, decayed wood, split, cracked, rubbing branches etc., 2) branch arrangements and attachments, i.e., well spaced vs. several branches emanating from the same area on the trunk, codominant stems vs. single leader trunk, presence of branch collars vs. included bark. Elements of systemic health relate to the tree's overall energy system measured by net photosynthesis (food made) vs. respiration (food used). A tree with good systemic health will have a vascular system that moves water, nutrients and photosynthate around the tree as needed. Indicators of a healthy systemic system used in the overall condition rating include: 1) live crown ratio (the amount of live crown a tree has relative to its mass), 2) crown density (density of the foliage), 3) tip growth (shoot elongation is a sign that the tree is making and storing energy. The overall condition rating also takes into consideration the species, appearance and any unique features. The rating scale is 0-6 with 0 being a dead tree and 6 a specimen. Increments of 0.5 are used to increase accuracy. Examples of the tree rating system are as follows: 0- A dead tree ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 pLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • • • 1- A tree that is dying, severely declining, hazardous, harboring a communicable disease • or a tree designated by the State of Florida's Exotic Pest Plant Council as a category #1 • ecological pest i.e., Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius). A tree with a rating of 1 should be removed as it is beyond treatment and is a threat to cause personal injury • or property damage. • • 2 - A tree exhibiting serious structural defects such as codominant stems with included bark at or near the base, large cavities, large areas of decayed wood, crown dieback • , cracked/split scaffold branches etc. In addition, a tree with health issues such as low • energy, low live crown ratio, serious disease or insect problems, nutritional deficiencies • or soil pH problems. A tree with a rating of #2 should be removed unless the problem(s) can be treated. A tree with a #2 condition rating will typically require a considerable • amount of maintenance to qualify for an upgrade of the condition rating. • • 3- A tree with average structure and systemic health and with problems that can be • corrected with moderate maintenance. A tree with a codominant stem not in the basal h area t at will be subordinated or cabled and braced or a codominant stem that will soon • have included bark can be included as a #3. A tree with a rating of #3 has average • appearance, crown density and live crown ratio and should be preserved if possible. • 4- A tree with a rating of 4 has good structure and systemic health with minor problems • that can be easily corrected with minor maintenance. The tree should have an attractive • appearance and be essentially free of any debilitating disease or insect problem. The tree • should also have above average crown density and live crown ratio. Mature trees exhibiting scars, old wounds, small cavities or other problems that are not debilitating can • be included in this group particularly if they possess unique form or other aesthetic • amenities relating to their age. A tree with a rating of 4 is valuable to the property and • should be preserved. • 5 - A tree with very high live crown ratio and exceptional structure and systemic health • and virtually free of insect or disease problems or nutritional deficiencies. A tree in this • category should have a balanced crown with exceptional aesthetic amenities. A tree in this category should be of a species that possesses characteristics inherent to longevity • and withstanding construction impacts. A tree with a #5 rating lends considerable value • to the site and should be incorporated into the site design. A tree with a #5 rating is • worthy of significant site plan modification to ensure its preservation. • 6 - A specimen tree. A specimen tree is a tree that possesses a combination of superior • qualities in regards to systemic health, structural strength, crown density, live crown • ratio, form (balanced crown), overall aesthetic appeal, size, species, age and uniqueness. • A great effort should be made to preserve a specimen tree including shifting structures that would adversely impact the tree. In addition, a specimen tree should have an • undisturbed area equal to its dripline (equal to the branch spread) to grow in. Only an • experienced and competent International Society of Arboriculture (I.S.A.) Certified • Arborist should be allowed work on a specimen tree. ORIGINAL • RECEIVED • OUCT 12 2006 • • PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Comments: The comment section serves to note observations relative to the tree but not covered in the inventory data or expands on information in the inventory data. It may include maintenance recommendations to improve the tree's overall condition rating. It may also have recommendations on whether to remove or preserve a tree. NOTE: A tree inventory is typically valid for 3-5 years. However, events such as drought, lightning, mechanical root damage, freeze, improper maintenance and severe storms can downgrade the rating value of a tree. Conversely, remedial maintenance can upgrade the value. If you suspect that a tree has been adversely affected have the tree inspected by a qualified International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * NOTE: This inventory was performed on March 29 & 30 and at that time deciduous trees such as the pignut hickory (Carya glabra) had no foliage present and trees such as the evergreen live oak (Quercus virginiana) and semi-evergreen laurel oak (Quercus laurifoha)trees were in flower (catkins) and had very little foliage present. The systemic health and live crown ratio was determined by the presence and concentration of flowers and leaf buds. ****************** Tree Inventory Tree# Size Species Rating Crown Spread 1 30" red bay (Persea borbonia.) 2.0 Comments: This tree's crown is composed of four large scaffold branches two of which have severe dieback and large dead wood and will need to be removed. The deadwood is over the public sidewalk and constitutes a hazard. The tree is in an overall state of decline and should be removed. 2 12" podocarpus (Podocarpus macrophyllus) 3.0 6' radius Comments: This tree has a codominant stem with included bark in the upper crown but it is not considered a hazard in this species. This tree has an attractive crown and could be preserved. 3 9" laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) 3.0 13'N, 12'S, 15'E, 14'W Comments: 4 4", 5" arborvitae (Thuja orientalis) 2.0 Comments: This tree is growing between the steps of the house's porch and has no crown on the west side. The tree has very poor aesthetic appeal. ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CCTV OF CLEARWATER • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 11 NOTE: All tree species identified as invasive exotic trees on the category #1 list published by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council will be given a rating of 1.5 or less and recommended for removal. 5 8" camphor (Cinnamomum camphora) 1.5 Comments: Invasive exotic. 6 10" laurel oak 3.0 10'N, 7'S, 9'E, 12'W Comments: n/a 7 8" laurel oak 2.5 Comments: This tree has a mistletoe infestation on two branches and has flush cuts on the trunk that will cause decay. This tree also has a codominant stem in the scaffold branches of the crown that down grades the tree. Recommend removal. *8 6' Canary Island palm (Phoenix canariensis) 3.0 Comments: *This palm is not protected by City code as it has less than 10' of clear trunk. However, it is healthy and could be utilized in the site landscaping and if maintained properly will evolve into a good palm. This palm could be preserved in place or transplanted on site. 9 12' C. T. sabal palm (Sabal palmetto) 3.0 6' radius 10 13' C.T. queen palm (Syagrus romanzofana) 3.5 6' radius Comments: 11 39" live oak (Quercus virginiana) 3.5 20' N, 40'S, 33'E, 2FW Comments: n/a 12 4" pignut hickory (Carya glabra) 2.5 Comments: This tree is young and healthy but is growing directly into the lateral branches of tree #I I and has no where for the crown to grow. 13 6" hickory 2.0 Comments: The crown of this tree has been smothered by vines and the live crown ratio is very low. ORIGINAL, 14 40" strangler fig (Ficus aurea) 1.5 RECEIVEC OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Comments: This native ficus tree is a menace to properties as it can reach a width of 90' and produce massive surface roots that damage pavements and other structures. Recommend removal. 15 18' C.T. sabal palm 3.5 6' radius Comments: n/a 16 15' C.T. sabal palm 4.0 6' radius Comments: n/a 17 20' C.T. sabal palm 3.5 6' radius Comments: n/a 18 7" camphor 1.5 Comments: category #1 invasive exotic 19 28" live oak 3.0 30'N, 25'S, 35'W, WE Comments: This tree has a sound trunk, root flare and very good overall structure. The down grading factor of this tree is the below average live crown ratio and twig dieback. It is difficult to pinpoint the source of the dieback but it could be a combination of root loss, wind damage from last year's severe storms and a vine infestation. Even minimal impact to the root system from new construction will adversely affect this tree. This tree is only recommended for preservation if a rooting area equal to the dripline formula can be provided. This tree's crown is one-sided to the west. 20 16' C.T. sabal palm 4.5 6' radius Comments: n/a 21 7", 711, 6", 6", 5", 4", 4" laurel oak 1.0 Comments: This tree has seven stems that emerge from a single trunk and they are all codominant to one another 1' above grade. This type of attachment is a prescription for future failure and cannot be corrected through pruning. The tree has very good systemic health but the structure is severe, recommend removal. 22 14' C.T. sabal palm 5.0 6' radius Comments: This palm is at the shoreline and has a sweeping trunk It would provide hig?RIGINAI aesthetic value. Recommend preservation. RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 23 13' C. T. sabal palm 5.0 6' radius Comments: See comment for #22. 24 10' C.T. sabal palm 2.5 Comments: This palm has a trunk restriction 7' above grade and the crown has been impacted by Brazilian pepper trees. This palm could be preserved however and the condition should improve when the pepper trees are removed. 25* < 10' C.T. cluster Senegal date palm (Phoenix reclinata) n/a Comments: This palm cluster does not have a stem with at least 10' of clear trunk and therefore is not protected by city code. However, it is identified in the inventory because it is healthy and has high aesthetic appeal and commercial value. The palm has not been pruned but once pruned and maintained properly should evolve into a landscape centerpiece. 26 28" live oak 3.0 20'N, 30'S, 24E, 26'W Comments: This tree is covered with vines. The structure is above average but the down grading factor is the below average live crown ratio. The crown has dieback and deadwood but if pruned will improve in appearance. Recommend preservation only if a rooting area equal to the dripline formula is provided. 27 10' C.T. sabal palm 3.0 6' radius Comments: n/a 28 20" red bay 3.5 30'N, 34'S, 28E, 0'W Comments: A one-sided tree that needs pruning to improve the appearance. It has good structure and above average live crown ratio. 29 12" laurel oak 3.0 0'N, 15"S, 10'E, 12'S Comments: This tree has a one-sided crown with very good live crown ratio and overall structure. The trunk is growing 6" from a sabal palm and 2' from an oak to the north. If the sabal palm and oak tree were removed this tree would evolve into a good tree. 30 26' C.T. sabal palm 3.0 6' radius Comments: This palm is downgraded because it is growing against an oak tree trunk for 5' above grade. It cannot be transplanted and will likely be injured when the oak is ORIGINAL, RECEIVER Ou"T 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT ( "V OF CLEARWATER removed. However, if the oak is removed very carefully this palm could stay and would be upgraded as it is a beautiful palm. 31 18" laurel oak 2.5 Comments: This tree is growing in competition with tree #29 and palm #30. The palm is actually growing against the trunk and causing a slight indentation. This tree has below average upper crown structure and poor form and is downgraded accordingly. If this tree is careMy removed the palm could be preserved. 32 cluster ear tree (Pnterolobium cyclocarpa) 0.5 Comments: This exotic tree species is highly undesirable as the wood is very brittle and it shears readily in high winds. In addition, the ear tree has weak roots and is prone to uplift completely during severe weather. Recommend removal. 33 27" hickory 4.5 25'N, 21'S, 24'E, 30'W Comments: This tree was completely bare when it was assessed however, it had an extremely high concentration of leaf buds indicating high live crown ratio. The overall structure is very good. The tree, needs pruning to remove stubs and minor deadwood Recommend preservation. 34 14" cherry laurel (Prunus carohniana) 1.5 Comments: This tree has decay in the trunk and upper scaffold branches. It is in an overall state of decline and should be removed. 35 4" citrus (Citrus spp.) 1.0 Comments: This tree has a fungus disease that is causing decline. It is irreversible and the tree needs to be removed. 36 20' C.T. queen pahn 3.0 6' radius Comments: n/a 37 23" laurel oak 1.0 Comments: This tree has a large cavity in the main crotch that has weakened the crotch and predisposed it to failure. The tree is a hazard and a threat to fail. Remove as soon as possible. 38 8" camphor 1.5 ORIGINAL. RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • w- • w • w w • • • • w • • • • w • w • • w w • w • • w • • w • w w w w • w w w w w w w Comments: Category #I invasive exotic 39 10' C.T. sabal palm 3.0 6' radius Comments: n/a 40 12" laurel oak 3.0 15'N, 13'S, 15'E, 14'W Comments: This tree has a symmetrical crown with above average overall structure. The live crown ratio is good. This tree could evolve into a good tree if preserved and maintained properly. 41 10" Chinaberry (Melia azedarach) 0.5 Comments: This tree has very poor form and structure as it has been topped. In addition, it is a category #I invasive exotic. Recommend 'removal. 42 5" chinaberry 0.5 Comments: category# 1 invasive exotic 43 6" red bay 2.0 Comments: This tree has very poor structure and form. Recommend removal. 44 25' C.T. queen palm 4.0 6' radius Comments: This palm is a very good palm but is growing 2' from the existing house and will need to be protected during demolition if the palm is to be preserved. 45 <10' C.T. Canary Island palm n/a Comments: This palm has only 4' of clear trunk and as such is not protected by city code. However, it has a beautiful crown and could be preserved in place or moved on site. Recommend preservation. 46 12' C. T. sabal palm 3.5 6' radius Comments: This palm is growing against the foundation of the house and will be very hard to preserve. ORIGINAL RECEIVE[ 47 20' C.T. sabal palm 3.5 6' radius 00'T 12 2006 Comments: n/a PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 48 27" live oak 4.0 45'N, 42'S, 25'E, 45'W Comments: This tree has a good root flare and trunk. In addition, it has good form and • structure in the upper crown. The most downgrading factor is that large diameter branches have been stubbed off on the east side due to the presence of utility wires. The • stubs need to be removed. However, this is a very good overall tree. Recommend preservation. 49 12" cherry laurel 2.5 Comments: This tree is starting to show dieback in the crown and it has a damaging girdling root at the base. 50 8" cherry laurel 2.0 Comments: This tree has a one-sided crown and is starting to dieback. In addition, it has a • large wound on the trunk. 51 ' 14" live oak 3.0 20'N, 18'S, 25'E, 0'W • Comments: This tree has below average structure and form. The tree is rated 3.0 because it is systemically healthy and could evolve into a good tree if preserved and maintained properly. • 52 20' C.T. sabal palm 5.0 6' radius Comments: n/a 53 11' C.T. sabal palm 3.0 6' radius Comments: n/a 54 17" red bay 2.0 Comments: This tree has poor form and structure and has several broken branches in the crown. • 55 6" laurel oak 2.5 Comments: This tree is downgraded because it has very poor form. • 56 4" cherry laurel 2.0 Comments: The top has been broken out of this tree and it needs to be removed. ORIGINAL, 57 7" cherry laurel 1.5 RECEIVEC OCT 12 2[06 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Comments: The crown of this tree is bent over due to the overhead canopy of adjacent trees. The tree has poor form and structure. 58 8" cherry laurel 2.0 Comments: This tree has poor form and structure. 59 9" cherry laurel 2.0 Comments: This tree has poor form and structure and dieback in the crown. 60 12" cherry laurel 0.0 Comments: dead tree 61 4" cherry laurel 1.0 Comments: This tree has very poor overall form and structure. 62 11" cherry laurel 1.5 Comments: This tree has a codominant in the main fork and very poor form. 63 20", 10", 6" red bay 1.5 Comments: This tree was shown on the survey as a 13" tree but is actually 28" diameter at the base and 36" in diameter at 4.5' above grade. The 10" diameter leader has a large vertical crack and it will have to be removed. The remainder of the tree has very poor structure. Recommend removal. 64 4" red bay 1.5 Comments: This tree has very poor form as it bends beneath the canopy of an adjacent tree. 65 12" chinaberry 1.0 Comments: This tree is a category #1 invasive exotic species and an overall noxious tree. Recommend removal. 66 5", 5", 6" red bay 1.5 Comments: This tree is tri-dominant at the base and has very poor overall structure and form. ORIGINAL, RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 9", 11" laurel oak 0 2.0 Comments: This tree has a severe codominant attachment with included bark 1' above grade. Recommend removal. 68 11' C.T. sabal palm 3.0 6' radius Comments: n/a 69 24' C.T. sabal palm 4.0 6' radius Comments: This tree is very attractive but needs vines removed from trunk if it is preserved. 70 8" hickory 2.5 Comments: This tree has a one-sided crown growing to the southeast. It has a codominant stem with included bark 6' above grade in two scaffold branches. 71 23' C.T. sabal palm 5.0 6' radius Comments: This palm is exceptionally attractive and healthy. It is located on the slope of the bluff and could be preserved in place or transplanted on site. Recommend preservation. 72 22' C.T. cabal palm 5.0 6' radius Comments: This palm has a superb crown and should be preserved or transplanted on site. 73 11 ", 6" camphor 1.5 Comments: This tree has poor form, dieback, a codominant stem and is a category #I invasive exotic species. 74 29" live oak 3.5 0'N, 50'S, 0'E, 42'W Comments: This tree has a sound trunk and root flare. The overall structure is exceptional and live crown ratio is above average. The form is slightly below average as it is essentially a one-sided tree. 75 7-stems >I 0' Senegal date palm cluster 5.0 12' radius Comments: The Senegal date palm (Phoenix reclinata) is extremely valuable as a landscape feature. This cluster has seven stems with over 10' of clear trunk and several ORIGINAL others of various sizes. The palm has not been pruned for an extremely long time and RECEIVE[ G r 19 2[06 PLANNING DEPARTMENT '" '`F CLEARWATER presently presents a shabby appearance. However, once pruned it will be striking. It is • located at the toe of the slope and could be preserved in place if it is not in conflict with the site development. Otherwise the palm should be transplanted on site if feasible. Recommend consulting with a palm broker. • 76 30' C.T. sabal palm 5.0 6' radius Comments: This palm has an attractive curve to the west. There is a branch from a nearby oak tree that is rubbing the crown. This branch should be removed if the palm is • preserved. 77 17" red bay 0.5 Comments: This tree has a 12" diameter dead stem and the remainder of the tree is in • decline. This tree is a hazard, recommend removal. 78 4 -stems >10' Senegal date palm cluster 4.5 12' radius • Comments: This palm cluster is located by the shoreline in an area where it should be able to be preserved. It will make a beautiful landscape feature if pruned properly. Recommend preservation. • 79 20" C.T. sabal palm 4.5 6' radius Comments: This palm is located by the shoreline and is a beautiful palm. Recommend preservation. 80 12' C. T. sabal palm 3.0 6' radius Comments: n/a 81 32' C.T. sabal palm 5.0 6' radius Comments: This palm would be a specimen except for a few small wounds on the trunk. Recommend preservation. 82 12' C. T. sabal palm 4.0 6' radius Comments: n/a 83 20' C.T. sabal palm 5.0 6' radius Comments: This palm has an attractive trunk that curves to the east and then back to the • west. Recommend preservation. ORIGINAL RECEIVED 84 8" camphor 1.5 OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • • Comments: This tree is covered with vines and has poor form. It is also a category # 1 invasive exotic. Recommend removal. 85 4" laurel oak 0.5 Comments: The crown of this tree was blown off in the storm. Recommend removal. 86 6" hickory 2.5 Comments: This tree has suffered storm damage to the crown on the south side and the crown is saturated with vines. Recommend removal. 87 8" hickory 3.5 10'N, 5'S, WE, 15'W Comments: This tree has a straight trunk with good overall structure. The live crown ratio is above average. The form is irregular which downgrades the tree's value. If this tree is preserved and maintained properly it will evolve into a good tree. Recommend preservation. 88 10" hickory 0.5 Comments: The top of this tree has suffered irreparable damage. Recommend removal. 89 30' C.T. sabal palm 5.5 6' radius Comments: A near specimen quality palm. It is picturesque. There are a few blemishes on the trunk that downgrade this palm. Recommend preservation. 90 30' C.T. sabal palm 5.0 6' radius Comments: This palm has an attractive curve in the trunk. This palm if preserved with #89 would make an attractive feature. If they are in the way of new construction recommend transplanting on site. 91 20' C.T. sabal palm 4.5 6' radius Comments: A beautiful palm, recommend preservation. 92 4" hickory Comments: This tree has poor form and is covered with vines. 93 12' C.T. sabal palm 3.5 6' radius 2.5 Comments: A good palm, recommend preservation. ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 0 0 94 10' C.T. sabal palm 3.5 6' radius Comments: A good palm, recommend preservation. 95 11' C.T. sabal palm 3.0 6' radius Comments: n/a 96 6" cherry laurel 2.0 Comments: This tree has below average form and structure. 97 11" hickory 4.5 15'N, 15' S, WE, 15'W Comments: This tree has a sound trunk and root flare and good overall structure. The form is basically symmetrical and the live crown ratio is very good. Recommend preservation. 98 20' C.T. queen palm 2.5 Comments: This palm has a beautiful crown but has a large decayed area on the north side of the trunk that is a significant down grade. 99 10' C.T. queen palm 2.5 Comments: This palm has wires wrapped around the trunk and an anemic trunk. 100 14" laurel oak 2.5 Comments: This tree has a codominant stem 7' above grade that has included bark. It has a bulge at the fork indicating interior wounding. This tree also has a minor mistletoe infestation. Recommend removal. 101 16", 15", 15", 8" hickory 2.0 Comments: This tree is downgraded because of the severe codominant attachment at the base of the three large codominant stems. The 16" diameter stem is severely included to one of the 15" diameter stems. The two 15" stems have connective tissue between the stems but there is some decay in the crotch. There is also a girdling root that is causing a problem. The upper crown structure is very good and the live crown ratio is superb. The form is also exceptionally good and the tree has high aesthetic value. However, the codominant situation in the base is a major concern as this type of a situation can lead to dramatic failure. If the tree was braced with rods its condition would be upgraded however, this procedure is relatively expensive. This tree may be in the public right of way, if so check with the City of Clearwater's Urban Forestry Division (562-4950) to ORIGINAL RECEIVED O0.T 12 2[06 PLANNING DEPARTMENT reTV OF CI.FARWATER i inquire if they would be willing to perform cabling and bracing on this tree. Recommend removal if this tree is not secured by cabling and bracing. 102 23" laurel oak 3.5 25'N, 22'S, 20'E, 14'W Comments: This tree has good upper crown structure and above average live crown ratio. The tree has a cavity 8' above grade but the tree should solve this wound. The overall form is good and this tree will evolve into a good tree if preserved. Recommend preservation. 103 21' C.T. sabal palm 5.0 6' radius Comments: This palm is almost a specimen. Recommend preservation. 104 18' C.T. sabal palm 5.0 6' radius Comments: This palm has a beautiful crown and an almost flawless trunk. 105 21' C.T. sabal palm 4.5 6' radius Comments: A very good palm. 106 20' C.T. sabal palm 4.5 6' radius Comments: A very good palm. 107 19' C.T. sabal palm 4.0 6' radius Comments: A very good palm. 108 14' C. T. sabal palm 3.5 6' radius Comments: A good palm. 109 18" laurel oak 2.5 Comments: This tree has two large branches that are rubbing against each other causing a wound. The tree has a large trunk canker on the west side. The main fork has poor structure. The upper crown structure has mostly epicormic growth likely from topping or storm damage along time ago. The live crown ratio is very good. Recommend removal. 110 15' C.T. sabal palm 3.5 - 6' radius Comments: A good palm. 111 15' C.T. sabal palm 4.0 6' radius ORIGINAL. RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • • • • Comments: A very good palm. • 112 20' C.T. sabal palm 4.5 6' radius • • Comments: A very good palm. • • 113 17' C.T. sabal palm 4.5 6' radius • Comments: A very good palm. • • 114 20' C.T. sabal palm 3.5 6' radius • Comments: A good palm. • • 115 16' C.T. sabal palm 4.5 6' radius • Comments: A very good palm. • • 116 20' C.T. sabal palm 5.0 6' radius • Comments: A superb palm. • • 117 20' C.T. sabal palm 5.0 6' radius • Comments: A superb palm. • • 118 19' C.T. sabal palm 4.5 6' radius • Comments: A very good palm. • 119 20' C.T. sabal palm 4.5 6' radius • Comments: A very good palm. • • 120 24' C.T. sabal palm 4.5 6' radius Comments: A very good palm. • • 121 13" laurel oak 2.5 • Comments: This tree is growing next to a laure l oak tree, # 122, and is codominant at the • base with that tree. The two trees are fused together at the root collar. The upper crown • structure and live crown ratio are average. • ORIGINAL • 122 10" laurel oak 2.0 RECEIVE[ • 00T 12 2666 • PLANNING DEPARTMENT • CITY OF CLEARWATER • 0 Comments: This tree is attached at the base to tree # 121 which downgrades the tree's overall condition. In addition, it has poor form and is covered with vines. 123 12" camphor 1.5 Comments: This tree is diseased, has deadwood and is a category #I invasive exotic species. Recommend removal. 124 18' C.T. sabal palm 3.5 6' radius Comments: A good palm. 125 14' C.T. sabal palm 2.5 Comments: This palm is covered with vines and Brazilian pepper trees. If the vines and peppers trees are removed it will evolve into a good palm. 126 5" laurel oak 3.0 7'N, 7'S, 7'E, 5'W Comments: This tree has average structure and form. The live crown ratio is above average. It is surrounded by pepper trees. If they are removed the tree will evolve into a good tree. Note: Tree's #127 & 128 appear just south of the property line of 312 N. Osceola Avenue and may have been inventoried in the previous tree inventory for the property south of 312 N. Osceola. If this determination is made the trees will be removed from the survey to avoid incorrect assessments in the tree mitigation process. 127 17' C.T. sabal palm Comments: A very good palm. 128 16" laurel oak 3.5 6' radius 3.5 15'N, 24'S, 12"E, 18'W Comments: This tree has very good upper crown structure and a high live crown ratio. The crown is somewhat one-sided to the south but is attractive. The tree has a palm growing into its base that has caused a slight indentation but it is not at all debilitating. 129 25" live oak 3.5 40'N, 37'S, 25'E, 30'W Comments: This tree was not located on the original tree survey but was field located and the location has been identified on that survey. It will appear on the revised tree survey. This tree has average live crown ratio and good overall structure. It has a vase shaped crown and needs pruning to remove minor deadwood and heavy moss accumulations. Recommend preservation. ORIGINAL RECEIVED 0 CT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • BOEWS TREE SERVICE P.O. Box 86 Ozona, Fl., 34660-0086 Tree inventory for Harrison Village and Island View Condominium Site overview and tree canopy analysis; The subject property consists of two parcels. The first parcel is located west of North Osceola Avenue and is a natural bluff that slopes to the shoreline of Clearwater Harbor. The property consists of two single family home lots with old houses perched atop the bluff. The property contains relatively few of the older native shade trees typical of the bluff environment. Many properties ringing the bluff in Clearwater still retain mature specimen quality trees that pre-existed development on the bluff. Native tree species that are common to the bluff include live oak (Quercus virginiana), Southern red cedar (Juniperus silicicola) and pignut hickory (Carya glabra) on the uplands and sweetbay (Magnolia virgintana) which grows on the slopes where seepage creates a moist environment. Additionally, the native sabai palm (Sabal palmetto) grows throughout the bluff. There were no trees inventoried that approached specimen quality and only one tree, a 38" diameter live oak tree (rated in the inventory) warrants consideration to alter the site design to preserve. Existing trees have suffered from improper tree care and general neglect. Essentially all native understory vegetation has been removed and exotic invasive species such as the Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) tree and air potato vine (Dioscorea bulbifera) have colonized on the property. The second parcel inventoried is a mixed commercial/residential tract located between North Fort Harrison Avenue and North Osceola Avenue and between Jones Street and Georgia Street. This parcel has retained only a few of the mature live oak or hickory trees such as those that are commonly observed flanking the Ft. Harrison corridor in Clearwater. The parcel is for the most part characterized by younger second growth trees or trees that have been planted for landscape purposes. The one commonality of the trees growing on this parcel is that they have been poorly maintained. Many shade tree species have experienced flush and stub cuts or have been repeatedly topped to the extent that their structure is ruined. In addition, many trees have suffered from insufficient irrigation and in some cases nutritional deficiencies. The native understory vegetation has been removed and replaced by sod or common hedge plant species. In summary, neither of the parcels supports trees or native vegetation of a quality that enhances the uniqueness and beauty of the bluff environment while providing a vegetative link to Clearwater's past. Consequently, the impact of development to either site's urban forestry resources will be minimal ORIGINAL. RECEIVED OCT 12 2096 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER ? I! G. F: 1? ":° i Tree Inventory Data The tree inventory provides a "snapshot" of the property and establishes a hierarchy of existing trees to assist the site designer in the process of choosing trees to be incorporated into the site design. The inventory includes the following information: 1. Tree location - Each tree is listed by a number that corresponds to the same number physically located on the site plan indicating the location of the tree in the field. 2. Tree size is expressed as diameter at breast height (DBH - the trunk diameter measured at 4.5'above grade). If there is a fork at 4.5', the measurement is taken at the narrowest point below the fork. 3. Tree species are shown by both common and botanical names the first time listed in the inventory and only by common name thereafter. 4. The trees overall value rating ranks the tree on. a scale of 0-6 (half increments are used to increase accuracy) based on the trees overall health (condition). Factors such as the size, species and appearance are also considered. An explanation of the overall value rating system is provided below. 5. The crown spread for larger shade trees is shown as distance and direction from the trunk (the crown spread is only shown within the property lines). 6. The comment section provides commentary discussing specific points both positive and negative of the subject tree. NOTE: The Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius) and the punk tree (Melaleuca quinquenervia) are invasive exotic trees that are recognized as category one ecological pests by the State of Florida's Exotic Pest Plant Council and consequently have been so designated with an IE (invasive exotic) on the inventory and assigned a zero value in the inventory. There are other trees such as the camphor tree (Cinnamomum camphora) that have also been recognized as ecological pests but have not been recognized as such in the inventory as their degree of invasiveness is not as severe in the bluff environment in Clearwater. ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2096 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • • • • • • w • • w • • Rating System 0 - A dead tree. 1 - Trees that are dying, severely declining, or hazardous and trees designated by the State of Florida's Exotic Pest Plant Council as a category #1 ecological pest, i.e., Brazilian pepper tree. A tree with a #1 rating should be removed. • 2 - Trees exhibiting serious structural defects (i.e., codominant stems with included • bark), large cavities, crown dieback, low energy, low live crown ratio, serious disease or insect problems, nutritional deficiencies or pH related problems. A tree with a #2 • rating should be removed unless the problems will be mitigated. • • 3 - Trees that have good overall structure, crown density and systemic health with • problems that can be corrected with moderate maintenance. A tree with a #3 rating h ld s ou be preserved if possible. • • 4 - Trees with good structure and systemic health with problems that can easily be • corrected with minor maintenance. Trees should exhibit good form with above average crown density. Mature trees exhibiting scars, old wounds, small cavities or • other problems that are not debilitating can be included in this group particularly if • they possess unique form or other aesthetic amenities relating to their age. Trees with • a #4 rating should be preserved and warrant site plan modification for preservation. • 5- Trees with high live crown ratio, exceptional structure, systemic health, good form • and free from any serious disease, insect problem or nutritional deficiency. A tree in • this. category should have a balanced crown with exceptional aesthetic qualities. Trees with a #5 rating lend considerable value to the site and should be incorporated into • the site design. • • 6- Specimen tree - A specimen tree is a tree that possesses a combination of superior qualities relating to size, specie, form, uniqueness, structure, systemic health and • crown density. A specimen tree must be preserved and incorporated into a site design • with an undisturbed area equal to the tree's dripline. • • • • • • • ORIGINAL • RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 • • PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATFR • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • E U Tree Inventory Tree# Size Species Rating Crown spread I - 25" Laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) 2.5 24'-N, 14'-S, 21'-E, 15'-W Comments: This tree has overall poor structure and an asymmetrical root flare due to the presence of asphalt and a curb. The tree has experienced flush cuts that will cause cavities to develop in the trunk and has old stub cuts present that will also promote decay. Recommend removal. 2- 11" Podocarpus (Podocarpus macrophyllus) 2.0 N/A Comments: This tree has stubs left on the tree and has poor overall structure. 3 - 20" Laurel oak 2.5 12'-N, 18'-S, 24'-E, 20'-W Comments: This tree has a potentially hazardous codominant stem in the trunk 10' above grade. The tree will experience structurally weakness due to previous flush cuts and small cavities on the main leaders. It also has a thinning canopy with minor dieback occurring in the upper crown. Recommend removal. 4 - 3" Citrus (Citrus spp.) 2.0 N/A Comments: Not protected under the City's tree ordinance due to size. This tree is poor specimen - recommend removal. 5 - 12" Camphor (Cinna'momum camphora) 2.0 12'-N, 5'-S, 18'-E, 0'-W Comments: IE, This tree is one-sided with the canopy growing to the east. It has an under-developed crown. Recommend removal. 6 - 13" Podocarpus 2.0 N/A Comments: Poor form, recommend removal. 7 - 25" Laurel oak 2.5 15'-N, 20'-S, 16'-E, 18'-W Comments: This tree has a sparse crown and low energy. The upper crown has a large percentage of dieback, recommend removal. 8 - 20" Laurel oak 2.5 18'-N, 15'-S, 20'-E, 20'-W ORIGINAL. RECEIVED Oi,T 12 2[06 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Comments: This tree has overall poor structure with a thinning crown and dieback in the canopy. The tree has suffered from stub cuts and flush cuts and decay will increase in the future. Recommend removal. 9 - 10" Podocarpus 1.0 N/A Comments: This tree is located on the property line and has poor structure and is covered with vines. Recommend removal. 10 - 16" Laurel oak 1.5 18'-N, 20'-E, 5'-W Comments: This tree has large deadwood and vines in the canopy. Very poor tree overall, recommend removal. 11 - 23" Laurel oak 2.0 25'-N, 20'-E, 20'-W Comments: This tree is located on the property line and has an asymmetrical base due to the presence of a concrete slab on the north side. The tree also has a thinning canopy, mistletoe, trunk cankers, crossing branches, surface roots and a large rebar imbedded in the trunk- Recommend removal. 12 - 10" Laurel oak 1.5 5'-N, 0'-E, 20'-W Comments: This tree is located on the property line and has very poor overall structure. It is covered with vines and has a one-sided crown. Recommend removal. 13 - 18" Laurel oak 2.5 14'-N, 22'-E, 15'-W Comments: This tree is located on the property line and has poor structure with the root flare located 6" from a 3'high retaining wall. The tree will cause problems in the future due to its location. 14 - 8" Podocarpus Comments: This tree has poor form. Recommend removal. 2.0 N/A 15 - 10" Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) 0 Comments: IE, Recommend removal. 16 - 10" Sabal palm (Sabal palmetto) 2.0 N/A PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Comments: Tree has 6' of clear trunk (C.T.) and is not protected by the City of Clearwater's Tree Protection Ordinance which protects palms with a clear trunk of 10' or greater. This tree is growing under the canopy of an adjacent 38" diameter live oak tree. Recommend removal. ORIGINAL RECEIVEC N/A (ALT 12 2@06 17 - 38" Live oak (Quercus virginiana) 0 4.0 28"-N, 22'-S, 20'-E, 29'-W Comments: This tree has above average structure with minor basal decay on the southwest side and an old wound that is closing on the west side. The tree has a healthy systemic system and average crown density. The tree is pushing over a 4' high retaining wall. This is a good tree and warrants consideration for preservation. If the tree is incorporated into the site design, the original grades will have to be maintained through new retaining walls. 18 - 2-10" Jacaranda (Jacaranda mimosifolia) 2.0 18'-N, 25'-E, 12'-W Comments: This tree is on the property line and has a codominant stem low in the trunk. This species is weak wooded and susceptible to periodic freeze damage. It could be preserved for aesthetic amenities (only blue flowering tree). 19 - 14" Camphor 1.0 N/A Comments: This tree is on the property line and has been severely topped. The structure is permanently ruined. Recommend removal. 20 - Row of Pittosporum (Pittosporum tobira) 3.5 N/A Comments: A row of mature pittosporum is located near the south property line and provides screening from the adjacent property. If pruned they will provide both a functional and aesthetic amenity. 21 - Brazilian pepper cluster 0 N/A Comments: IF,, Recommend removal. ORIGINAL. RECEIVED 22 - Brazilian pepper cluster 0 N/A 01-IT 12 2006 Comments: IE, Recommend removal PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 23 - Senegal date palm cluster (Phoenix reclinata) 2.5 N/A Comments: Multi-stem cluster with 8-9' of clear trunk. The palms have been neglected and need pruning. An adjacent oak tree is interfering with the crown development. Could prune oak to accommodate the palm cluster or move on site. If palm cluster will not be utilized contact a palm broker who may be willing to purchase. 24 - 19" Live oak 3.0 20'-N, 20'-S, 15'-E,18'-W Comments: This tree is systemically healthy and has average structure and canopy. The tree is covered with vines and could be a good tree with pruning and vine removal. • 25 - Senegal date palm cluster Comments: There is minor damage from bird pecking on one trunk but could be an asset if cleaned up, 26 - 29" Laurel oak Comments: This tree has minor basal decay, a thinning canopy and large deadwood. It also has poor structure and a heavy vine infestation. Recommend removal. 27 - 9",17" Live oak Comments: Severe dieback and decline. Recommend removal. 28 - 18" Southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora) 1.5 15'-N, 15'-S, 10'-E, 141-W 3.5 N/A 2.0 18'-N, 26'-S, 23'-E, 18'-W 1.5 N/A • This tree has a severely thinning canopy with a high percentage of dead wood. It is also covered with vines. Recommend removal. 29 - 6" Laurel oak 1.0 N/A Comments: This tree has severe dieback and virtually no crown. Recommend removal. 30 - 6" Laurel oak 1.0 N/A Comments: This tree is severely declining and should be removed. 31 - 40" Laurel oak 1.5 16'-N, 24'-S, 20'-E, 14'-W Comments: This tree has extremely poor structure and heavy dieback on the west side. Recommend removal. 32 - 6" Citrus 2.0 N/A Comments: This tree has severe crown dieback. Recommend removal. 33 - 10" Sabal palm 3.0 N/A Comments: This tree has a heavy vine infestation but will be a good palm once vines are removed. 34 - 10" Sabal palm 3.5 N/A Comments: This tree has heavy vine infestation but will be a good palm once vines are removed. ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT t-.Tv nr ri FAMA/ATER Comments: No clear trunk - remove. 44 - 6" Podocarpus 2.5 N/A Comments: Below average form, recommend removal. 45 - 10" Sabal palm 2.0 N/A Comments: This palm has 4' of clear trunk and is not a protected tree by City ordinance. Recommend removal. • 46 - 30" Live oak 3.0 28'-N, 22'-S, 26'-E, 21'-W Comments: This tree has a thinning crown with 15% dieback and is covered with vines. It could be preserved but will require substantial pruning. 47 - 38" Ficus (Ficus spp.) N/A N/A Comments: This tree is located on the adjacent property to the north. It is a poor • specimen but its root system should be protected during construction to prevent further decline. • 48 - 12" Sabal palm 3.5 N/A Comments: Good palm with gentle curve in trunk. Recommend removing vines and preserve palm or transplant on site. • 49 - 12" Sabal palm 3.5 N/A Comments: Tall palm with healthy crown. Recommend preserving. • 50 - 10' Sabal palm 4.5 N/A Comments: Located just north of property line. Protect during construction. • 51 - 10" Sabal palm 3.0 N/A Comments: Located off property line, protect during construction. • 52 - 10" Sabal palm 3.0 N/A Comments: Good palm, remove vines and preserve if possible. • 53 - 12" Laurel oak 3.0 8'-N, 18'-S, I2'-E, 16'-W ORIGINAL. • RECEIVED • a%3 12 2006 • PLANNING DEPARTMENT r-,Ty OF CLEARWATER Comments: This tree has a one-sided crown but has good structure and systemic health. Remove vines if tree will be preserved. 54 - 10" Sabal palm 3.0 N/A Comments: Located on property line, good palm, preserve if possible. 55 -12 stem Senegal date palm 3.5 N/A Comments: This palm cluster has been neglected and needs heavy maintenance to restore appearance. However, it could be a very valuable addition to the site landscaping. 56- 15" Brazilian pepper cluster 0 N/A Comments: IE, Recommend removal. 57 -12" Sabal palm 3.5 N/A Comments: Good palm, worthy of preservation. 58 -12" Sabal palm 3.5 N/A Comments: Good palm, worthy of preservation. 59 - Brazilian pepper cluster 0 N/A Comments: IE, Recommend removal. 60 - 6" Hickory 3.0 101-S Comments: Located on adjacent property, protect during construction. ORIGINAL 61 - 40" Punk tree (Melaleuca quinquenervia) 0 N/A RECEIVED Comments: IE, Recommend removal. QCT 12 2096 62 - 37" Punk tree 0 N/A PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CL.EARWATER Comments: IE, Recommend removal .63 - 4" Hickory 3.0 N/A Comments: Tree is located on the property line at the northeast corner of the property and is growing beneath the canopy of an adjacent oak tree. 64 - 14" Live oak 3.0 18'-N, 16'-S, 10'-E, 16'-W 0 0 Comments: This tree has a one-sided crown and several large stubs. It is located 1' from a building foundation. It has good structure but will probably have to be removed due to proposed demolition. 65 - Senegal date palm cluster N/A N/A Comments: Palm stems have 1' of clear trunk and are not protected by City ordinance. The cluster could be moved and allowed to grow. 66 -11" Washington palm (Washingtonia robusta) 3.0 N/A Comments: Palm is located on the street right of way and belongs to the City of Clearwater. All trees growing in City rights of way should be protected during construction. If a tree needs maintenance or removal contact the City's Urban forestry Division @ 5624950 x7220. 67 - 11" Washington palm 3.0 N/A Comments: Palm is located on street right of way. 68 - 12" Washington palm 3.0 N/A Comments: Tree is located on street right of way. 69 -10" Norfolk Island pine (Araucania heterophylta) 3.5 N/A Comments: Attractive tree with good form and overall health. This tree is susceptible to freeze damage and should only be preserved if it is desired in the proposed landscape theme. 70 - 3" Live oak 2.5 N/A Comments: Tree is not protected under City code due to size. It has an underdeveloped crown and is growing beneath trees # 69&71. Recommend removal. 71- 10" Live oak 3.0 15'-N, 12'-S, 13'-E, 12'-W Comments: This tree has poor structure but good systemic health. It has a codominant stem that can be mitigated through subordinate pruning. 72 - 28" Live oak 3.5 33'-N, 36'-S, 31'-E, 12'-W Comments: This tree is located on the City right of way and has a codominant stem on the southwest side with included bark. Tree is pushing out curb and has a girdling root, ORIGINAL. RECEIVED, GCi 12 2606 PLANNING DEPARTMENT - nF CI FARWATER deadwood, and dead palm stump next to the trunk - all should be removed. Call City to perform required maintenance. 73 - 40" Live oak 4.0 25'-N, 39'-S, 27'-E, 30'-W Comments: This tree has good structure and average systemic health. The crown is not developed on the north side due to competition from tree #74. Good tree - preserve if possible. 74 - 50" Live oak 3.5 36'-N, 24'-S, 37'-E, 28'-W Comments: This tree is located on the City right of way and has a codominant 3.5' above grade but it has a wide crotch with the branch bark ridge present. The west side of the tree has minor damage at the root flare and basal decay that is not debilitating. The systemic system is healthy. The tree's root system has broken the curb which could be repaired by City crews. The crown is open and aesthetically appealing. This tree compliments tree # 73, protect during construction. 75 - 6" Slash pine (Pinus elliottii) 3.0 7' radius all directions Comments: This tree is systemically healthy but has a sparse crown. Could be preserved and appearance will improve with proper care. 76 - 6" Slash pine 3.0 7' radius. in all directions Comments: See comments for tree # 75 above. 77 - 13" Crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica) 5.0 N/A Comments: This is a beautiful tree with a full well developed crown. It has no diseases or insect problems and would lend aesthetic qualities to this site. Recommend preservation. 78 - 10" Washington palm 3.0 N/A Comments: This palm is located on the right of way and has an interesting crook in the trunk. Protect during construction. 79 - 6" Live oak 2.0 N/A Comments: This tree is located in a buffer strip and has been topped (lollipop). It is also growing under a rack of utility wires. Recommend replacing with an accent tree. 80 - 6" Live oak 2.0 N/A Comments: See comments for tree # 79. ORIGINAL. RECEIVE[ OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • - • 81 - 8" Crape myrtle 3.5 N/A Comments - This tree is growing in an interior landscape island. It has an attractive crown and is healthy. Minor decay is present from improper pruning at base. This tree will develop into a good tree if cared for properly. 82 - 8" Crape myrtle Comments: See comments for tree # 81. 83 - 15" Laurel oak 3.5 N/A 2.5 20'-N, 15'-S, 15'-E, 2'-W Comments: This tree has a good systemic health but has a one sided crown due to competition from adjacent tree. It is growing 6" from building wall. Recommend removal. 84 - 14" Laurel oak 2.5 19'-N, 18'-S, 2'-E, 9'-W Comments: This tree is located 1.5' from building and will develop basal decay from injury. Recommend removal. 85 - 17" Laurel oak 2.5 15'-N, 16'-S, 10'-E, 16'-W Comments: This tree has good structure and systemic health but two 7" long flush cuts on leader will cause serious decay. If preserved it will have to be periodically monitored. 86 - 42" Live oak 4.5 27'-W, 40'-S, 48'-E, 42'-W Comments: This tree has a large spreading crown with good systemic health except for a thinning upper center crown. It has minor dieback and deadwood. If tree is properly pruned it would be worthy of shifting structures to incorporate into site plan design. Recommend preservation. 87 - 23" Camphor 2.0 10'-N, 21'-S, 15'-E, 16'-W Comments: This tree has two fissures in trunk from crotch to the base that will compromise the structural integrity of the tree. It also has poor form. Recommend removal. 88 - 25" Live oak 3.0 39'-N, 27'-S, 28'-E, 24'-W Comments: This tree has'an irregular form and is suffering from previous poor pruning. It could develop into a better tree with proper maintenance. 89 - 22" Live oak 3.0 0'-N, 36'-S, 24'-E, 24'-W ORIGINAL RECEIVED GOT 12 2@06 PLANNING DEPARtMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Comments: This tree has a pronounced lean to the south due to competition from tree #90. The trunk has a corkscrew effect and tree has a large stub and heavy moss. This tree needs proper pruning. It could be preserved as a stand with trees #88, 89 & 90. 90 - 24" Live oak 3.0 7'-N, 21'-S, 15'-E, 24'-W Comments: This tree has a narrow crown due to competition from adjacent trees. It has a large stub that needs removal and heavy moss. 91- 15" Hickory 3.5 5'-N, 23'-S, 16'-E, 24'-W Comments: This tree has a lean to the south due to competition from tree #92. It has good crown density and systemic health. It has surface roots and is growing 3' from adjacent hickory. Preserve if possible. 92 - 15" Hickory 3.5 22'-N, 7'-S, 12'-E, 22'-W This tree has an arrow straight trunk with good structure and crown density. Preserve along with adjacent hickory, tree# 91, if possible. 93 - 5" Hickory 2.0 N/A Comments: This tree is growing beneath the canopy of tree # 92. It has poor structure. Recommend removal. 94 - 14" Hickory 3.5 18'-N, 12'-S, 24'-E, 10'-W Comments: One sided crown to east due to competition. Good structure and systemic health. Utility wires are growing through canopy. Good tree to preserve, especially if wires will be relocated. 95 - 13" Laurel oak 2.0 12'-N, 15'-S, 8'-E, 16'-W Comments: This tree has poor form and minor damage to root flare on the southwest side. It has a large cavity in crotch with sporophores present. It is growing 1' from parking lot edge. Recommend removal. 96 - 30" Live oak 4.5 15'-N, 36'-S, 16'-E, 27'-W Comments: This tree has good structure and crown density and an exceptional systemic system. It is growing into the edge of the parking lot. This tree should be preserved but will need the pavement to be saw-cut to accommodate the expanding root flare. 97 - 9" Crape myrtle 3.0 N/A ORIGINAL. RECEIVED OvT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Comments: This tree has a symmetrical crown and good systemic health but is growing under tree #96. It could be preserved with minor pruning on the oak to accommodate the crown. 98 - 9" Crape myrtle 3.5 N/A Comments: A good tree with symmetrical crown and above average systemic health. • 99 - 8" Crape myrtle 2.5 N/A Comments: This tree has a below average crown and systemic health but would improve with a program of watering and fertilization. 100 - 6" Multi-stemmed Wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera) 2.0 N/A Comments: This tree has considerable dieback and decay in the trunks. Recommend removal. 101- 9" Crape myrtle 3.0 N/A Comments: Tree is in overall good shape but has minor decay at base where stems were removed. 102 - 10" Crape myrtle 4.0 N/A Comments: A multi-stemmed tree with a full healthy crown. Recommend preservation. 103 -10" Sabal palm - 8' Clear trunk (C.T.) 3.0 Comments: This palm is growing in a raised planter along N. Ft. Harrison Avenue. Planter is too small for this tree. Recommend removal. 104 - 8" Queen Palm (Syagrus romanzofflana) 2.0 N/A N/A Comments: This palm is in the same planter as tree # 103. Recommend removal. 105 - 13" Sabal palm 9'C.T. 3.5 N/A Comments: In planter, good tree - could preserve or transplant on site. 106 - 13" Sabal palm 9' C.T. 3.5 N/A Comments: See comments for tree # 105. 107 - 12" Sabal palm 8' C.T. 3.5 N/A ORIGINAL RECEIVE[' C VT 12 2006 PtAIM O NF CLEARWA ERA • • Comments: This palm is a healthy specimen with a good appearance. It is located in a landscape buffer located between a parking lot and N. Ft. Harrison Avenue. It is growing with trees # 105, 106 & 108. Recommend preserving all of these palms. 108 -14" Sabal palm 6' C.T. 3.0 N/A Comments: See remarks for tree # 107. 109 -11" Sabal palm 10' C.T. 3.5 N/A Comments: This is a healthy palm that is located in a landscape buffer along N. Ft. Harrison Avenue. It is located in a row with trees # 110, 111, & 112. The buffer is conducive to a palm landscape. Recommend preservation. 110 -13" Sabal palm 9' C.T. 3.5 N/A Comments: See comments for tree # 109. 111 - 11" Sabal palm 2.5 N/A Comments: This palm has a small crown and has pits on the trunk. Recommend replacing with a new sabal palm to blend in with trees # 109 & 110 if they are preserved. 112 -11" Live oak 2.0 N/A Comments: This tree has poor structure with two codominant stems at the main fork located 6' above the grade. It is in a planter too small to accommodate its future growth. Recommend removal. 113 -12" Sabal palm 9' C.T. 3.5 N/A Comments: This palm along with trees # 114 & 115 are all growing in a planter between a parking lot and N. Ft. Harrison Avenue and are in very good condition. As the buffer is sure to remain they can be used to meet buffer landscape requirements. Recommend preservation of all three. 114 -12" Sabal palm 10' C.T. 4.0 N/A Comments: See continents for tree # 113. 115 - 13" Sabal palm 8' C.T. 3.5 N/A Comments: See comments for tree # 113. ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 0 • Note: Recommend a landscape of sabal palms along N. Ft. Harrison Avenue tying trees # 103, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 113, 114 & 115 together and fill in the gaps with new sabal palms. 116 - Brazilian pepper 0 N/A Comments: IE, Recommend removal. 117 - 5" Live oak 1.0 N/A Comments: This tree has been repeatedly topped. Recommend removal. 118 - 5" Live oak 1.0 N/A Comments: This tree has been repeatedly topped. Recommend removal. 119 - 6" Live oak 1.0 N/A Comments: This tree has been repeatedly topped. Recommend removal. 120 -12" Sabal palm 8' C.T. 3.0 N/A ORIGINAL RECEIVED U "T 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Comments: This is a good palm but is growing against the building and cannot be transplanted. Recommend removal. 121- 5" Hickory 3.0 N/A Comments: This tree is growing in a parking lot island and has been topped - but with proper pruning will regain good structure. Recommend preservation. 122 - 35" Laurel oak 2.5 27'-N, 25'-S2 35'-E, 30'-W Comments: This tree has a dense crown and a healthy systemic system but is loaded with stub cuts. It also has cavities in two of the leaders and one leader has been stubbed. It has poor structure with 6 codominant leaders emanating from the main crotch, with a canker beneath. Recommend removal- °3 - 8" Multi-stemmed (6) Crape myrtle 2.5 N/A Comments: This tree has below average crown. Could be removed or preserved if maintained properly to restore. 124 -10" Crape myrtle 3.0 N/A Comments: This tree has an average crown that will improve if incorporated into a maintained landscape. 125 - 10" Crape myrtle Comments: Trees # 123, 124 & 125 are a cluster growing in a landscape planter at the corner of Jones Street and N. Ft. Harrison Avenue. They could be used for landscaping and will improve with proper maintenance. Recommend preservation. 126 - 5" Bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) 3.0 N/A Continents: This tree is growing in a retention pond adjacent to Jones Street and has been previously topped along with trees # 127 & 131. Proper pruning can restore the structure. Recommend preservation if retention pond will remain. 127 - 6" Bald cypress 3.0 N/A Comments: See comments for tree #126. 128 -13" Sabal palm 6' C.T. 3.5 N/A 3.0 • N/A Comments: Good palm growing on the top of bank of retention pond. Recommend preservation. 129 - 11" Sabal palm 5' C.T. 3.5 N/A Comments: Good palm on top of bank of retention pond. Recommend preservation. 130 - 9" Live oak 2.0 N/A Comments: This tree is located on the slope of the retention pond and has poor structure with a codominant stem 3' above grade. Recommend removal. 131 - 7" Bald cypress Comments: See comments for tree # 126. 132 -19" Live oak 3.0 N/A 3.5 27'-N, 26'-S, 40'-E, 5'-W Comments: This tree has a lean to the east due to competition from tree # 133. The tree has good crown density, a healthy systemic system and good structure. Recommend preservation. 133 - 16" Laurel oak 1.0 N/A Comments: This tree is severely declining and has dieback in leaders with sporophores present on the trunk. The upper crown is mostly dead. Recommend removal. ORIGINAL. RECEIVED C12 2@06 PLANNING DEPARTMENT r'TV OF CLEARWATER • 134 - 3" Live oak 1.5 N/A Comments: This tree is growing in a landscape buffer near Jones Street and has been severely topped and is in poor condition. Recommend removal. 135 - 24" Jacaranda 2.0 22'-N, 24'-S, 25'-E, 20'-W Comments: This tree is located 2' from the edge of the parking lot pavement. It has decay in several leaders and some leaders have been previously topped. The tree also has large surface roots, deadwood and stubs. Recommend removal. 136 -14" Arbor vitae (Platwladus orientalis) 2.5 N/A Comments: This tree has an average crown that has been somewhat suppressed by tree # 135. The foliage on the west side is sparse and detracts from appearance. 137 - 5" Live oak 1.5 N/A Comments: This tree is located in a parking lot island and has been'repeatedly topped and has poor structure. Recommend removal. 138 - 6" Crape myrtle 2.5 N/A Comments: This tree has nutrient deficiencies, has been pruned too hard and has a poor appearance. Recommend removal or treatment to improve overall health. 139 -10" Saba1 palm 1" C.T. 1.0 N/A Comments: This palm is growing against the building and cannot be transplanted. Recommend removal. 140 - 30" Hickory 1.5 24'-N, 27'-S, 30'-E, 22'-W Comments: The upper crown of this tree is dead. Recommend removal. 141 - 5" Laurel oak 2.0 N/A Comments: This tree is growing in a narrow area between a building and the sidewalk. There is no room for the canopy to develop. Recommend removal. 142 -11" Washington palm 3.0 N/A Comments: Tall palm growing in the City right of way. Bark has sloughed off in some spots and needs pruning. Protect during construction. 143 -10" 12- stemmed Crape myrtle 2.0 ORIGINAL. N/A RECEIVED C 1 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CL.EARWATER • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Comments: This tree has poor form due to competition from other trees. Recommend removal. 144 - 20" Live oak 3.0 N/A Comments: This tree is growing in a tight area between two buildings. It has stubs and the bark. on the lower east side is sloughing off. Paint has been sprayed on the trunk. It has a good systemic system but an irregular crown. This is a borderline tree that could be removed or preserved if maintained. 445 -18" 4 trunk Podocarpus 3.0 NIA Comments: This tree has good form and appearance but is growing against a building. It can be preserved after demolition. 146 - 5" Live oak 1.5 N/A Comments: This tree has no form due to competition from adjacent tree. Recommend removal. 147 - 24" Schefflera (Schefflera actinophylla) 0.5 N/A Comments: This is a weak wooded tree with decay present. Recommend removal. 148 -15" Cherry laurel 1.0 N/A Comments: This tree is severely declining with large deadwood. It is a hazardous tree and should be removed. 149 12" Sabal palm 9' C.T_ 3.0 . N/A Comments: This tree is healthy with an average crown. Recommend preservation. 150 -13" Sabal palm 20' C.T. 3.0 N/A Comments: This would be a very good palm but the crown has been pruned back to accommodate adjacent power wires. Recommend transplanting on site. 151- 7" Golden rain tree (Koelreuteria elegans) 2.0 N/A Comments: This tree is growing into the wires and has a lop-sided crown. Recommend removal. 152 -15" Golden rain tree 2.5 5'-N, I0'-S, 8'-E, 16'-W ORIGINAL. RECEIVED C,"11 12 2006 POt%'PIING DEPARTMENT r: '`F CtEARWATER • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Comments: This tree has a large cavity developing in the base and is growing into the wires. It has poor form and should be removed. 153 -13" Golden rain tree 2.5 N/A Comments: This tree has an irregular crown and a cavity in the trunk 2' above the grade. It has poor form and should be removed. 154 - 8" Cherry laurel 2.0 N/A Comments: This tree has virtually no crown formation. Recommend removal 155 -15" Cherry laurel 2.0 6'-N, 21'-S, 7'-E, 12'-W Comments: This tree has decay in the trunk and mistletoe in the crown. Recommend removal. 156 -15" Cherry laurel 1.5 N/A Comments: This tree has a wound on the trunk, mistletoe in the crown. The crown is thinning and dying back. Recommend removal. 157 - 23" Jacaranda 2.0 34'-N, 28'-S, 9'-E, 15'-W Comments: This tree has a large cavity at the base on the southwest side and a small cavity on the east side. It has a codominant stem with included bark in the main crotch. Recommend removal. 158 -15" sabal palm 8' C.T. 3.5 N/A Comments: Tree is growing in the Osceola street right of way. It is a good palm, protect during construction. 159 - 20" Sabal palm 3.0 N/A Comments: This palm has a lean to the west due to the presence of a three story house. Recommend preserving at its present location or transplant on site. 160 -16' hickory 3.0 18'-N, 14'-S, 15'-E, 15'-W Comments: This tree is growing 1' from a house but has good crown density and a healthy systemic system. It can develop into a good tree with proper pruning. Recommend preservation. ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • DEVELOPMEN COMPANY L. Fire Flow Calculations ORIGINAL RECEIVED i 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITV OF CLEARWATER 305 North Fort Harrison Avenue ,a Clearwater, Florida 33755 A wnvwxriangledevelopment.com A. 727446.0020 (phone) w. 727.446.0002 (far) • • U1 • ii • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 10 06 01:33P • f ACCURATE SYSTEMS Fire Protection, Inc. July 10, 2006 David Wallace Assoc. Attn.: Josh Fax. Number: 738 8343 Re: Island View From. Williaun Wilson Fire flow form and city flow test attached Sincerely, William Wilson Number of pages including cover: 3 P.1 ORIGINAL RECEIVED 12391 138" ST. N., LARGO, FLORIDA 33774 Ph. 727 596 8507 Fax 727 596 3503 U„T 12 2066 PLANNING DEPARTMENT . CITY OF CLEARWATER Received Time Jul 10 12 2 9 P M • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Jul lu Ura ul:Jjp • P . C- Clearwater Fire S Rescue earwater 010 Fraftw Rreet . Gea water, n."w 73756 Public Works Administration- Engineering Clepartnlent 100 S. Mlynle Avenue. Suho 200 - Cleamatar. Flodda 33766 Fire Flow and Hydrant Worksheet This worksheet is required to rte subemtied to and approved by tin Authority Having Jurisdiction (AH.1) before any permits for new building eonstntdlon, building expansion or fire hydrants well be Issued by the City of Clearwater. Information and design must campy with Standard BUlldIrIg CDda, Charter 9 - Mrs Protection, Systems, appgas" 14f-PA Code R "PA 13, 13D, 13E, 13R. 14, 15 1141, a",ur 1142) and AWWA M-1? - tnstartation, Field Testing and Maintenance of Fire ttydroms. Project Name: PmJectAddress: -So Proiact Address: Lenetal WaturS?stem lnforrnatton__ _ ? ? ?j ,,( t?(? ?-?_-?. _ +r Location of nearest Fire Hydrant: d S fQ C lr__, ty to _-._. Size of Water Main supplying Finn Flow: LOOPed Syste m or Dead-end WM? ,(" Static: Psi Residua,: '4 Lry _Psi Flow: ?? _- C Dtstonea of test gauges tOI.*- tU the bass of the rissar.. [?Horizo-nttaal. Ve.rticsl (oovalton) C?_ n Hydrant Tost Conducted by: -rl-y'_) (Ind.delahaeh mpg of acAuSl lost sheet) (NFPA Hazard ClasSificafion lCamntltr EOU-M?'iR eeraecl,eM}I,l e-J o[feyweitl tJDh) ...? rwn.iNlMN Hnsant Pynt-fed "; t e e'D U 4'Yl S aJ 1 U wri _ - _.. Oealgn Ponmefars __ .-._ .._. Aura 9 S stem' woo sr ?„sK ..... ..._.__ .--._ _. 1 92 C: attectt aaamona? s+x ?. ,ey?„?... TOTAL NEEDED FIRE FLOW (N.F.F.): O GPrx9 IS EX)SMG SYSTEM SUPPLY SUFFICIENT MEET N.F.F. ABOVE? YES COtbtTa erM Standards a]ystem Component ?11-Me NFPA Standard Near E4[tion artd QUwr Appgcabi2 Lades Dr Sbtutes _ ?= _ _ _ PterJt addAionei shoots if tegtnred. ..... _._.?_ f ••Pmiecr includes a Fire PumP, supply the followhg: bai Fire PUMP information: Pump Capaory: ' Rated PtessUte: -,157Psi On-sil a Storage Tank Capchy(?): Pros6urv ? 150% Ibw: - _?? Pa Prep.-Name: , 1, company Name: Ma Wing Address- -- City: Slats: 23p: Xr Phone: ORIGINAL RECEIVED U,T 12 2096 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Received Time J u l .10. 12:29N -----.-e1,Y 4F-Cd?.n_RWAT.ER _ • JUd lU UO U1 . JJ(+ 05/17/2606 -...15: 39 • 7. /-n/2ee5 14:55 • • • 7277239210 ZAYAC 40 ??75E,24963 ruJlLxl- L11 1 -••.,, FLOW TEST ?- CITY OF CLEARWATER WATER DEPARTMENT. LOCA'r N; 405- 407 FL Hsrriwm Ava. Grid 277 B. Hyd. 0 21 • OATir OF TEST; 9120M • STATIC: 71 • • RESIDUAL. 47 . PITOT: 45 PI OWL 113A • • • . Misc. • • • • • • • • • • • • • KI th 7,aftc & Aswc. • Tel,- 7'93-98Brs8 Face- 793< 9855 • • • • • PSI PSI PSI GPM Received Time May-17• 2:42PN Received Time JulJ0. 12:29PM • F- 4 PAGE ?? -c,"-I C uwater U ORIGINAL RECEIVED C :- T 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT EI?•:. _ Mfr . va `y LONG RANGE PIANNING DrvFLOPMENT RFVIFW November 21, 2006 Mr. Thomas Coates 305 N. Fort Harrison Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33755 CITE' OF C LEARWAT.E R PLANNING DEPARTMENT Posr OrFIcF Box 4748, CLEARWATFR, FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL. SFRvICI:s BUILDING, 100 SOU'rH MYR•rI.F. AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA.33756 TrLr:PHONI: (727) 562-4567 FAx (727) 562-4865 Re: FLD2006-05030 (410 N. Fort Harrison Avenue) Dear Mr. Coates: This letter constitutes a Development Order pursuant to Section 4-206.D.6 of the Community Development Code. On November 21, 2006, the Community Development Board (CDB) reviewed your Flexible Development application for a mixed-use development within the Downtown (D) District consisting of 358 attached dwellings and 13,235 square feet of non-residential floor area with increases in height to 48 feet (east side) and 180 feet (west side) as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project as per Section 2-903.C of the Community Development Code. The CDB APPROVED the application with conditions based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. Findings of Fact: 1. That the 5.18 acre subject property is generally located on the west side of North Fort Harrison Avenue and bounded by Jones Street to the south, Georgia Street to the north and Clearwater Harbor to the west; 2. That the property is located within the Downtown (D) District and the Central Business District (CBD) and Preservation (P) Future Land Use Plan categories; 3. That the portion of the subject property (0.2 acres) located within the Preservation (P) Future Land Use Plan category does not generate density; 4. That the development proposal is subject to the requirements of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the Design Guidelines contained therein as the property is located within the Old Bay character district; 5. That the development proposal is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts; and 6. That there are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. Conclusions of Law: 1. That the proposed use of 109 attached dwellings and 13,235 square feet of non-residential floor area from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool is consistent with the provisions of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan; 2. That the proposed increases in height via the Public Amenities Incentive Pool from 40 feet to 48 feet (Harrison Village) and from 150 feet to 180 feet (Island View) are consistent with the provisions of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan; 3. That the development proposal is consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines; PRANK I I11MAI U, MAYOR .101IN DORAN, COMCII.?.1h:MBER IIOYf ILAmirl m, Ccx:Ncai.w:.\1m:1; BILL oNSON, Cot:Ncu ..%tr:,\1isi:R ® G\ia.rN A. PrreI'seN• CoI:Cll.,\IF.NIRI?R "Iic)I IA I, ISMPLOYMRNT AND Arr•iRMATIvi; AcTU>N I",,I I'l.mi:R" November 21, 2006 . 0 FLD2006-05030 (410 N. Fort Harrison Avenue) Page 2 of 3 4. That the development proposal is consistent with the Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the Old Bay character district; 5. That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards and Criteria as per Section 2-903 of the Community Development Code; 6. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Sections 2-9033, 2-903.C and 2-903.N of the Community Development Code; and 7. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level One and Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-913 of the Community Development Code. Conditions of Approval: 1. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the civil drawings must be revised to remove the conflicting refuse enclosure detail; 2. That prior to the issuance of any building permits for vertical improvements, a Final Subdivision Plat must be recorded; 3. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, all Fire Department conditions are addressed; 4. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, all applicable open space/recreation impact fees are paid; 5. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, separate right-of-way permits must be acquired for any/all work within the rights-of-way of any of the adjacent street(s) that are assigned to the City; 6. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the plans are revised so that all mechanical equipment is screened from view from rights-of-way per the requirements of Section 3-201.D.1 of the Community Development Code and the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan; 7. That prior to the issuance of any building permits a notation must be added to the plans stating that all on-site utility facilities, whether they be existing or proposed, are to be placed underground as part of the redevelopment of the site; 8. That prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, a condominium plat must be recorded; 9. That prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant must comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule; 10. That Osceola Avenue shall remain open to use by the public at all times until vacation of the street is approved by the City Council. All work related to existing Osceola Avenue and the proposed new Osceola Avenue right-of-way shall be in accordance with the terms and conditions of the vacation ordinance, once approved; 11. That the final design and color of the building must be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to (or as modified by) the CDB, and be approved by Staff; 12. That if the proposed project necessitates infrastructure modifications to satisfy site-specific water capacity and pressure requirements and/or wastewater capacity requirements, the modifications shall be completed by the applicant and at their expense and that if underground water mains and. hydrants are to be installed, the installation shall be completed and in service prior to construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements; 13. That any/all wireless communication facilities to be installed concurrent with or subsequent to the construction of the subject development must be screened from view and/or painted to match the building to which they are attached, as applicable; 14. That any/all future signage must meet the requirements of Code and be architecturally integrated with the design of the building with regard to proportion, color, material and finish as part of a final sign package submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any permits which includes: (a) All signs fully dimensioned and coordinated in terms of including the same color and font style and size; and (b) All signs be constructed of the highest quality materials which are coordinated with the colors, materials and architectural style of the building; 15. That the first building permit must be applied for within one year of the Community Development Board approval (by November 21, 2007); f November 21, 2006 FLD2006-05030 (410 N. Fort Harrison Avenue) Page 3 of 3 16. That this Flexible Development approval is subject to the vacation of the existing Osceola Avenue right-of- way by the City (Ordinance No. 7769-07); and 17. That this Flexible Development approval is subject to the approval of the associated Development Agreement with the City (DVA2006-00001). Pursuant to Section 4-407 of the Community Development Code, an application for a building permit shall be made within the timeframes set forth in the Development Agreement, which still must be approved by the City Council (DVA2006-00001). All required certificates of occupancy must be obtained within the timeframes set forth in the Development Agreement. Timeframes do not change with successive owners. The Community Development Coordinator may grant an extension of time for a period not to exceed one year and only within the original period of validity. The Community Development Board may approve one additional extension of time after the community development coordinator's extension to initiate a building permit application. The issuance of this Development Order does not relieve you of the necessity to obtain any building permits or pay any impact fees that may be required. In order to facilitate the issuance of any permit or license affected by this approval, please bring a copy of this letter with you when applying for any permits or licenses that require this prior development approval. Additionally, an appeal of a Level Two approval (Flexible Development) may be initiated pursuant to Section 4- 502.13 of the Community Development Code 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 December 5, 2006 (14 days from the date of the CDB meeting). Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Robert G. Tefft, Planner III at (727) 562-4539 or via e-mail at robert.tefft@myclearwater.com. Sincerely, Michael Delk, AICP Planning Director S: (Planning DepartmentlC D BIFLEX (FLD)lInactive or Finished ApplicationslFt Harrison Ave N0410 -Island View (D) - ApprovedW1 Harrison Ave N 410 - Development Order 11-21-06.doc I 0 Major Issues: REPLIES IN CAPS (23 OCTOBER 2006) 0 Show on the plan how private force mains for the Sand Dollar Resort and the Belvedere Apartments will pump into City of Clearwater's sanitary sewer system after sewer main is plugged at south end of project. THE SEWER WILL NO LONGER BE PLUGGED. 2. Applicant shall provide a revised Traffic Impact Analysis due to the increase of condominium units and commercial building area (sq. ft.), also to include the Level of Service (LOS) for the intersections of Osceola & Georgia and Osceola & Jones [We are waiting on a response from Traffic to see if this comment still exists or not - I do not believe that it does]. RESPONSE WAS INCLUDED IN SUBMISSION. 3. The north setback for Harrison Village has been increased from 12.42 feet to 24.15 feet; the south from 6.88 feet to 10.45 feet; and the west from 22 feet to 26.11 feet (south building) and 4.67 feet to 17.79 feet (north building). Based upon the building placement design guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the Harrison Village development component should be repositioned consistent with the previous submittal. BUILDING HAS BEEN REPOSITIONED. 4. Pursuant to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, multiple buildings within a single project shall relate architecturally to one another. The revised design of the brownstones has moved away from the common architectural themes of the project. The elevations proposed with the previous version of the development were more consistent with the overall architectural theme. ELEVATIONS HAVE BEEN REVISED TO BE MORE CONSISTENT WITH OVERALL ARCHITECTURAL THEME. 5. The architectural site plans and the civil plans differ from one another. Revise the plans so that they are consistent. Also, the plaza level 3rd floor plan (A-0.00) is inconsistent with the other plans. CIVIL AND ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLANS HAVE BEEN REVISED. 6. The building footprint for the north Harrison Village building is not consistent with the floor plan. Please revise. FOOT PRINT HAS BEEN REVISED. 7. The phase I garage does not meet standards. The drive aisle on the north side of the 18-space parking tier does not meet minimum width. THIS AISLE IS INTENDED FOR ONE-WAY ACCESS ONLY IN THIS PHASE, NO PARKING, AND WILL BE SIGNED AS SUCH. Also, the two (2) spaces at the very west end of this drive aisle do not have an area to turn around in. THESE HAVE BEEN DELETED FOR THIS PHASE. 8. The architecture of the entries for the tower buildings do not seem to be consistent with the balance of the building with the exception of the central elements of the 11th and 19th levels. Consider modifying these elements. UPDATE 10-17-06: The response provided states that the Spanish Mediterranean Revival roof element is repeated on the north and south facades. Even if this element is repeated on other elevations, it still appears inconsistent with the architecture of the balance of the building. THE BASE OF THE BUILDING HAS BEEN SIMPLIFIED AND HEADERS LOCATED OVER WINDOWS IN BASE OF BUILDING. THESE HEADERS REFLECT THE ROOF ELEMENT. 9. How is refuse generated by the Brownstones being handled? The retail? The Harrison Village residential component? UPDATE 10-17-06: The response letter states that individual bins will be used by the brownstones - where will they be located/stored? BINS LOCATED AT SOUTH END OF BROWNSTONES FOR THOSE IN THE SOUTHERN HALF. THOSE IN THE NORTHERN UNITS WILL USE THE ISLAND VIEW REFUSE BINS LOCATED ON GEORGIA STREET. The response letter also states that the Harrison Village retail/residential will be handled by roll-out dumpsters - where will they be located/stored? THESE HAVE BEEN SHOWN ON THE PLAN. 10. Are any parking spaces being reserved for residents? Retail? Employees? Guests? ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 2 4 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 0 ! UPDATE 10-17-06: The response letter states that you are undecided. The decision to reserve parking can effect your parking requirements. A determination needs to be made prior to proceeding to CDB. THERE WILL BE NO RESERVED PARKING, THUS NO IMPACT ON PARKING REQUIREMENTS. Minor Issues: 1. Provide evidence that property owner(s) of property lying on south side of Jones Street have no objections to elimination of sanitary sewer in Jones Street. SANITARY SEWER WILL NO LONGER BE ELIMINATED, RENDERING APPROVAL OF NEIGHBORS UNNECESSARY. 2. With regard to all of the towers: Where is the second floor? What is the purpose/use of the unit being reserved for management? UPDATE 10-17-06: The response letter indicates that the second floor is incorporated into the plaza level; however this does not seem to be consistent with the architectural elevations and floor plans. The plaza level includes dwelling units - are these dwelling units two-levels in height? Where do the windows on the second level elevations look out from? THE FLOOR NUMBERING SCHEME STARTS WITH FLOOR 1 ON THE UPPER PARKING LEVEL, WHERE TWO UNITS ARE LOCATED IN TOWER 1. THE NEXT LEVEL UP IS THE PLAZA LEVEL, FLOOR 2, WHERE THE LOBBY IS LOCATED. FLOOR 3 IS ABOVE THAT, AND SO ON UP TO 19. THERE IS NO FLOOR 13. 3. With regard to tower 1: The number of floor plan units (111) is inconsistent with the number of units in the application (109); The floor plans for levels 18 and 19 are unclear as to the number of units being proposed; and The roof plan does not resemble a roof plan. UPDATE 10-17-06: The response letter references page 33 of your narrative as to the number of units in tower #1. Please be advised that page 33 incorrectly denotes there being 2 units on the lobby floor - there are actually 4 as per the floor plans. THERE ARE 4 UNITS. 4. If two buyers are purchasing double sized units and those double-sized units are being counted as one unit each, then depict these units as single units on the floor plans. TWO DOUBLE SIZE UNITS HAVE BEEN DEPICTED ON THE PLANS, REDUCING THE TOTAL UNIT COUNT TO 109. 5. The west elevation of the clubhouse appears to depict a considerable amount of glass. On the interior side of the majority of the glass is parking garage - how are the vehicles obscured/screened from view by glass? THIS ELEVATION HAS BEEN REVISED TO SHOW A DOUBLE STAIR LEADING TO THE BEACH. 6. Pursuant to Section 3-1202.6.1 of the Community Development Code, at the time of installation, shade trees shall have a minimum caliper of 2.5" and shall be planted a minimum of five feet (6) from any impervious area. The proposed Live Oaks do not meet the minimum caliper and are typically proposed within five feet (5') of impervious areas. The proposed Southern Magnolia trees also do not meet the five foot (6) separation from impervious areas. UPDATE 10-17-06: Several Live Oak and Southern Magnolia trees are still proposed within five feet (5') of impervious surfaces. THIS WILL BE ADDRESSED IN THE CIVIL LANDSCAPE PLANS. 7. Pursuant to Section 3-1202.E.1 of the Community Development Code, a minimum of six (6) interior trees are required for the Island View portion of the development. Also, a minimum of 470 square feet of shrubs are required. The landscape plan depicts the interior landscape areas; however it does not propose any actual landscaping. Revise to meet the above requirements. THIS WILL BE ADDRESSED IN THE CIVIL LANDSCAPE PLANS. 8. Barring the existence of structural columns that are not depicted, the northwest quadrant of the Island View parking garage could be more efficiently designed - possibly yielding three (3) more parking spaces. UPDATE 10-17-06: The response letter states that there are, in fact, structural columns that are not It ing depicted - please depict these columns. PARKING LAYOUT HAS BEEN UPDATED. K &AL RECEIVED 9. Provide building height dimensions to the top of the parapets (all buildings). OCT 2 4 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER _v E UPDATE 10-17-06: Some buildings have this dimension provided (although not to the top of the parapet) and some buildings do not. Revise elevations so that all drawings depict the height of the building to the top of the parapet. ELEVATIONS HAVE BEEN REVISED TO CORRECTLY INDICATE HEIGHT. 10. The downstairs living spaces for Harrison Village (south building) have two doors opening onto the west side of the building. One of these doors opens onto an elevated porch, while the other opens at grade. Please clarify and revise plans as necessary. UPDATE 10-17-06: This comment has not been addressed. PLANS HAVE NOW BEEN REVISED. 11. The phase I garage does not include the brownstone elevators that are in the final garage. THESE HAVE BEEN INDICATED ON THE UPPER PARKING LEVEL. 12. Clarify why nine (9) of the parking spaces in the 18 space parking tier are crosshatched (phase 1). THESES ARE INACCESSIBLE DUE TO THE NARROWNESS ON THE (ONE-WAY) AISLE BEHIND THEM. 13. The built-out Island View garage contains 222 parking spaces, not 223 as stated. THIS FIGURE HAS BEEN REVISED AGAIN. SEE PLANS FOR ACTUAL TOTAL. PARKING MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET OR EXCEEDED. 14. With regard to the east brownstone elevation, what is being depicted between the front doors of the units? It would appear to be another door or opening; however no door or opening exists on the floor plan. ELEVATIONS HAVE BEEN UPDATED TO SHOW A MORE PLEASING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DOORS AND PORCHES ON THE ELEVATIONS. ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 24 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER ft x. 49 ?'/M ? 3? 1 23" R=2.0 P R=3.5 +1_172 j SS F .344 J4li ?A ?tr3J c? fir ?, a R=0.0 '-` z 1 43 63 R=2.0 f "1,, 0 42 - 26.12 ?1f2 15.6 #3 t EMOVE--E ISTING ?AS? NITAR `o R=2 5344 ?., SEWER z? AIN N RTH F? 2" Q M.I._ 1 4 \ THE P OPOS D' R .5 16 R=2,, . 7 AS DPICTE AND ?R= .o ECONIv CTED SEWER ?MAk a AS PROPOSED ON?SHEEf C"J IT RIMLE - i = 25.81 r \ 1E = 23.03 6 0 S IE = ?f SIR •'?,i f # `? S IE 11 _40< R=4.fl \ N? IE = 23.39 16' X,0 K, . i? n ( ! #8 X/ C7 ,'V r9ey C, 1 R=2,5 ?) 1 27" 14» 05-T-22 W 167 7 14----- 0 R=2 0 Ln Ltj a 0 P SANITARY MANHOLE E RIM EL = 23.78 : ?. IF- 22.98 j- - 1116 ---- FM F"! FM - FM -?- ? r END E = 24,02 (i. on T 2 4 2006 PLANNING DEP CITY OF CLW THE T WATER c .7? FO SAW CUT & REMOVE EX ASPHALT • N ti7 ' C14 4. ` STANDPIPE SYSTEMS SHALL BE PLACED BEFORE CONSTRUCTION CAN PROCEED TO ?t NEXT LEVEL. 25. EXISTING SANITARY RIM AND INVERTS SHALL BE FIELD VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR r ?' PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. i, NiAI1 26. ALL SANITARY SEWER PIPES LOCATED UNDER ROADS AND VEHICLE ACCESS AREAS SHALL BE D.I.P WITHINTERIOR OF PIPE COATED WITH EPOXY "PROTECTO 401". W > - (!) - O Z C? ` 27. DUCTILE IRON PIPE MUST BE INSTALLED BETWEEN ANY TAP AND WATER METER. DUCTILE IRON PIPE MUST BE INSTALLED BETWEEN ANY TAP AND BACKFLOW PREVENTER. AT LEAST ONE JOINT OF DUCTILE IRON PIPE SHALL BE INSTALLED ON j?. ANY SERVICE SIDE OF ANY BACKFLOW PREVENTER. I? 28. GATE VALVES SHALL BE INSTALLED ON BOTH SIDES OF ANY PROPOSED BACKFLOW DEVICES. 29. THE PORPOSED SANITARY SEWER RE-ROUTE SHALL BE INSTALLED AND INPLACE BEFORE THE EXISTING SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM IS REMOVED SO THAT THERE IS I ?' CONTINUOUS S SERVICE. tl0 r I? + `ExIST F RE H Ob .N.T ?..... p fZ 207 'i .? PROJECT #: 511-04 1 /4" FIE ORGINAL DATE: 05.18.06 E M !NJ CHECKED BY: KEZ q. ifi i DRAWN BY: RJM i i a PERMIT SET ONLY SHEET NO. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION r of Cll ISSUE DATE: 10.13.06 C-7 n? z ? z o a z 0 ti 44- ? z 'Y w O Z 0 a 0 zo Of w wN wy Z z2 ww w-6 cc w w w t- Z U) 0 ofU) Q J m 7 0 0 • Major Issues: 1. Show on the plan how private force mains for the Sand Dollar Resort and the Belvedere Apartments will pump into City of Clearwater's sanitary sewer system after sewer main is plugged at south end of project. 2. Applicant shall provide a revised Traffic Impact Analysis due to the increase of condominium units and commercial building area (sq. ft.), also to include the Level of Service (LOS) for the intersections of Osceola & Georgia and Osceola & Jones [We are waiting on a response from Traffic to see if this comment still exists or not - I do not believe that it does]. 3. The north setback for Harrison Village has been increased from 12.42 feet to 24.15 feet; the south from 6.88 feet to 10.45 feet; and the west from 22 feet to 26.11 feet (south building) and 4.67 feet to 17.79 feet (north building). Based upon the building placement design guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the Harrison Village development component should be repositioned consistent with the previous submittal. 4. Pursuant to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, multiple buildings within a single project shall relate architecturally to one another. The revised design of the brownstones has moved away from the common architectural themes of the project. The elevations proposed with the previous version of the development were more consistent with the overall architectural theme. 5. The architectural site plans and the civil plans differ from one another. Revise the plans so that they are consistent. Also, the plaza level 3rd floor plan (A-0.00) is inconsistent with the other plans. 6. The building footprint for the north Harrison Village building is not consistent with the floor plan. Please revise. 7. The phase I garage does not meet standards. The drive aisle on the north side of the 18-space parking tier does not meet minimum width. Also, the two (2) spaces at the very west end of this drive aisle do not have an area to turn around in. 8. The architecture of the entries for the tower buildings do not seem to be consistent with the balance of the building with the exception of the central elements of the 11th and 19th levels. Consider modifying these elements. UPDATE 10-17-06: The response provided states that the Spanish Mediterranean Revival roof element is repeated on the north and south facades. Even if this element is repeated on other elevations, it still appears inconsistent with the architecture of the balance of the building. 9. How is refuse generated by the Brownstones being handled? The retail? The Harrison Village residential component? UPDATE 10-17-06: The response letter states that individual bins will be used by the brownstones - where will they be located/stored? The response letter also states that the Harrison Village retail/residential will be handled by roll-out dumpsters - where will they be located/stored? 10. Are any parking spaces being reserved for residents? Retail? Employees? Guests? UPDATE 10-17-06: The response letter states that you are undecided. The decision to reserve parking can effect your parking requirements. A determination needs to be made prior to proceeding to CDB. Minor Issues- 1. Provide evidence that property owner(s) of property lying on south side of Jones Street have no objections to elimination of sanitary sewer in Jones Street. 2. With regard to all of the towers: Where is the second floor? What is the purpose/use of the unit being reserved for management? UPDATE 10-17-06: The response letter indicates that the second floor is incorporated into the plaza level; however this does not seem to be consistent with the architectural elevations and floor plans. The plaza level includes dwelling units - are these dwelling units two-levels in height? Where do the windows on the second level elevations look out from? 3. With regard to tower 1: The number of floor plan units (111) is inconsistent with the number of units in the application (109); The floor plans for levels 18 and 19 are unclear as to the number of units being proposed; and The roof plan does not resemble a roof plan. UPDATE 10-17-06: The response letter references page 33 of your narrative as to the number of units in tower #1. Please be advised that page 33 incorrectly denotes there being 2 units on the lobby floor - there are actually 4 as per the floor plans. 4. If two buyers are purchasing double sized units and those double-sized units are being counted as one unit each, then depict these units as single units on the floor plans. 5. The west elevation of the clubhouse appears to depict a considerable amount of glass. On the interior side of the majority of the glass is parking garage - how are the vehicles obscured/screened from view by glass? 6. Pursuant to Section 3-1202.6.1 of the Community Development Code, at the time of installation, shade trees shall have a minimum caliper of 2.5" and shall be planted a minimum of five feet (6) from any impervious area. The proposed Live Oaks do not meet the minimum caliper and are typically proposed within five feet (5) of impervious areas. The proposed Southern Magnolia trees also do not meet the five foot (6) seperation from impervious areas. UPDATE 10-17-06: Several Live Oak and Southern Magnolia trees are still proposed within five feet (6) of impervious surfaces. 7. Pursuant to Section 3-1202.E.1 of the Community Development Code, a minimum of six (6) interior trees are required for the Island View portion of the development. Also, a minimum of 470 square feet of shrubs are required. The landscape plan depicts the interior landscape aresa; however it does not propose any actual landscaping. Revise to meet the above requirements. 8. Barring the existence of structural columns that are not depicted, the northwest quadrant of the Island View parking garage could be more efficiently designed - possibly yielding three (3) more parking spaces. UPDATE 10-17-06: The response letter states that there are, in fact, structural columns that are not being depicted - please depict these columns. 9. Provide building height dimensions to the top of the parapets (all buildings). UPDATE 10-17-06: Some buildings have this dimension provided (although not to the top of the parapet) and some buildings do not. Revise elevations so that all drawings depict the height of the building to the top of the parapet. X The downstairs living spaces for Harrison Village (south building) have two doors opening onto the west side of the building. One of these doors opens onto an elevated porch, while the other opens at grade. Please clarify and revise plans as necessary. UPDATE 10-17-06: This comment has not been addressed. 11. The phase I garage does not include the brownstone elevators that are in the final garage. 12. Clarify why nine (9) of the parking spaces in the 18 space parking tier are crosshatched (phase 1). 13. The built-out Island View garage contains 222 parking spaces, not 223 as stated. 14. With regard to the east brownstone elevation, what is being depicted between the front doors of the units? It would appear to be another door or opening; however no door or opening exists on the floor plan. i?+?ff11*+b? • b"rb$l/1? Engineering Condition 09/21/2006 Prior to CDB: • Conditions Associated With FLD2006-05030 410 N FT HARRISON AVE Steve Doherty 562-4773 1.0sceola Avenue shall remain open to use by the public at all times until vacation of the street is approved by the City Council. All work related to existing Osceola Avenue and the proposed new Osceola Avenue right-of-way shall be in accordance with the terms and conditions of the vacation ordinance, once approved. 10/17/06 - ACKNOWLEDGED 2. Provide evidence that property owner(s) of property lying on south side of Jones Street have no objections to elimination of sanitary sewer in Jones Street. 10/17/07 - MOT MET - NOTHING PROVIDED 3. Show on the plan how private force mains for the Sand Dollar Resort and the Belvedere Apartments will pump into City of Clearwater's sanitary sewer system after sewer main is plugged at south end of project. 10/17/06 - NOT MET 4. Show on the plan the addition of a sanitary sewer lateral to serve property located at the N.W. corner of Jones Street and the proposed new Osceola Avenue. 10/17/06 MET Prior to building permit: 10/17/06 - ACKNOWLEDGED 5. Applicant shall vacate an alleyway portion, an ingress/egress easement and utility easements located on the property lying east of Osceola Avenue. No encroachments into easements shall be permitted. 6. Show on the utility plan lengths of all water main segments. 7. Provide a copy of an approved D.E.P. permit for the installation of the sanitary sewer extension prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. Provide a copy of an approved health permit for the installation of the domestic water main prior to issuance of a building permit. The health permit application form(s) can be found at: www.dep.state.fl.us/water/drinkingwater/forms.htm. 9. A separate right-of-way permit will be required for all work within the right-of-way of any of the adjacent street(s) that are assigned to the city. See Don Melone (727) 562-4798 in Room #220 at the MSB (Municipal Services Building). 10. Sanitary sewer manhole covers to be located within street rights-of-way shall be stamped "City of Clearwater" per index # 301 page 1 of 2. Sanitary sewer manhole covers to be located on private property shall not be stamped "City of Clearwater" per index # 301 page 2 of 2. 11. Sidewalks and sidewalk ramps adjacent to or a part of the project shall be designed and constructed consistent with City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards Index #109, including the A.D.A. (Truncated domes per D.O.T. Index #304.) 12. Add a note or depict on the plan the provision of a minimum 2-foot horizontal clearance from the edge of all sidewalks to vertical obstructions. 13. Provide evidence that proposed tree grates will not adversely impact disabled pedestrians. 14. Ductile iron pipe must be installed between any tap and water meter. Ductile iron pipe must be installed between any tap and backflow preventor device. At least one joint of ductile iron pipe shall be installed on the service side of any backflow preventor device. 15. Applicant shall install a gate valve on both sides of proposed backflow device(s). 16. Replace "Typical Fire Hydrant Setting" (cross section) detail #402 page 2/4 with most current revision (09/04). 17. Add Sanitary Lateral Detail City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards Index #305, page 1/3. Prior to a Certificate of Occupancy: 18. If Island View is to be a condominium, the condominium plat shall be recorded prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 19. Applicant shall submit 5 sets of as-built drawings that are signed and sealed by a professional engineer registered in the State of Florida, prior to any C.O. being issued. Public Print Date: 10/19/2006 Not Met CaseConditons Page 1 of 5 • • FLD2006-05030 Engineering Condition Steve Doherty 562-4773 Works/Engineering to field inspect as-built drawings for accuracy. General Note: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review, additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. 410 N FT HARRISON AVE General Note: If the proposed project necessitates infrastructure modifications to satisfy site-specific water capacity and pressure requirements and/or wastewater capacity requirements, the modifications shall be completed by the applicant and at their expense. If underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, the installation shall be completed and in service prior to construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. Fire Condition James Keller 562-4327 x3062 09/29/2006 Georgia is more than 150'. Provide reinforcement to use garage entrance as a T-turn Not Met Landscape Robert Tefft 562-4539 09/14/2006 Pursuant to Section 3-1202.13.1 of the Community Development Code, at the time of installation, Not Met shade trees shall have a minimum caliper of 2.5" and shall be planted a minimum of five feet (6) from any impervious area. The proposed Live Oaks do not meet the minimum caliper and are typically proposed within five feet (6) of impervious areas. The proposed Southern Magnolia trees also do not meet the five foot (6) seperation from impervious areas. UPDATE 10-17-06: Several Live Oak and Southern Magnolia trees are still proposed within five feet (6) of impervious surfaces. 10/17/2006 Pursuant to Section 3-1202.E.1 of the Community Development Code, a minimum of six (6) Not Met interior trees are required for the Island View portion of the development. Also, a minimum of 470 square feet of shrubs are required. The landscape plan depicts the interior landscape aresa; however it does not propose any actual landscaping. Revise to meet the above requirements. 10/17/2006 What is proposed along the south side of the drive aisle within the Island View portion f the Not Met development? Land Resource Condition Rick Albee 727-562-4741 09/25/2006 No Issues. Not Met Parks & Recs Condition Debbie Reid 562-4818 09/19/2006 Open space/recreation impact fees are due prior to issuance of building permits or final plat (if Not Met applicable) whichever occurs first. These fees could be substantial and it is recommended that you contact Art Kader at 727-562-4824 to calculate the assessment. Traffic Eng Condition Bennett Elbo 562-4775 09/20/2006 1. Applicant shall provide a revised Traffic Impact Analysis due to the increase of condominium Not Met units and commercial building area (sq. ft.), also to include the Level of Service (LOS) for the intersections of Osceola & Georgia and Osceola & Jones. 2. Increase the ingress curb radius from R10' to R15' for Harrison Village's driveway along Osceola Avenue or demonstrate that a scaled 19' passenger vehicle can turn into the garage without encroaching into the opposing lane. 10/17/06 - RADIUS INCREASED TO 15' 3. Trees planted near the driveways must not obstruct motorist's sight visibility. Therefore, provide trees that have a trunk growth diameter of no greater than 8" . Also the vertical height clearance of the canopy must be 8'. 10/17/06 - ACKNOWLEDGED Print Date: 10/19/2006 CaseConditons Page 2 of 5 • FLD2006-05030 410 N FT HARRISON AVE Traffic Eng Condition Bennett Elbo 562-4775 The above to be addressed prior to a Community Development Board (CDB) hearing. Prior to Building Permit: 10/17/06 - ACKNOWLEDGED Island View parking garage - 1. Strategically provide "exit" signage for better internal traffic flow to minimize confusion. 2. Consider eliminating two-way traffic for better internal flow to minimize conflict points by creating circular one-way traffic patterns. 3. Paint a stop bar with the word stop for both the East and West leg of the ramped intersection for both 2nd and 1st parking levels to eliminate conflict points. 4. On sheet A-0.02 change the text to read" Ramp Up to 2nd Level' and 'Ramp down from 2nd level'. 5. On sheet A-0.01, correct the number of parking spaces to read "24" for the southern row. 6. On sheet A-0.02, correct the number of parking spaces to read "4" for the center row. Harrison Village parking garage - 1. Provide a stop bar with the word stop at the south end of 2-way drive aisle. 2. Strategically install an "exit" sign with left arrow sign at the south end columns of 2-way drive aisle. 3. Strategically install "Do not enter signs" on columns where appropriate. 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. Zoning Condition Robert Tefft 562-4539 09/22/2006 The architecture of the entries for the tower buildings do not seem to be consistent with the Not Met balance of the building with the exception of the central elements of the 11th and 19th levels. Consider modifying these elements. UPDATE 10-17-06: The response provided states that the Spanish Mediterranean Revival roof element is repeated on the north and south facades. Even if this element is repeated on other elevations, it still appears inconsistent with the architecture of the balance of the building. 09/14/2006 With regard to all of the towers: Not Met Where is the second floor? What is the purpose/use of the unit being reserved for management? UPDATE 10-17-06: The response letter indicates that the second floor is incorporated into the plaza level; however this does not seem to be consistent with the architectural elevations and floor plans. The plaza level includes dwelling units - are these dwelling units two-levels in height? Where do the windows on the second level elevations look out from? 09/14/2006 With regard to tower 1: Not Met The number of floor plan units (111) is inconsistent with the number of units in the application (109); The floor plans for levels 18 and 19 are unclear as to the number of units being proposed; and The roof plan does not resemble a roof plan. UPDATE 10-17-06: The response letter references page 33 of your narrative as to the number of Print Date: 10/19/2006 CaseConditons Page 3 of 5 FLD2006-05030 410 N FT HARRISON AVE • Zoning Condition Robert Tefft 562-4539 units in tower #1. Please be advised that page 33 incorrectly denotes there being 2 units on the lobby floor - there are actually 4 as per the floor plans. 09/14/2006 Barring the existence of structural columns that are not depicted, the northwest quadrant of the Not Met Island View parking garage could be more efficiently designed - possibly yielding three (3) more parking spaces. UPDATE 10-17-06: The response letter states that there are, in fact, structural columns that are not being depicted - please depict these columns. 09/14/2006 How is refuse generated by the Brownstones being handled? The retail? The Harrison Village Not Met residential component? UPDATE 10-17-06: The response letter`states that individual bins will be used by the brownstones - where will they be located/stored? The response letter also states that the Harrison Village retail/residential will be handled by roll-out dumpsters - where will they be located/stored? 09/14/2006 Are any parking spaces being reserved for residents? Retail? Employees? Guests? Not Met UPDATE 10-17-06: The response letter states that you are undecided. The decision to reserve parking can effect your parking requirements. A determination needs to be made prior to proceeding to CDB. 09/14/2006 The maximum permissable height of the Harrison Village portion of the development is 48 feet, Not Met inclusive of the increase in height that may be gained through the Public Amenities Incentive Pool. The Harrison Village tower has a height of 62 feet. 09/14/2006 Provide building height dimensions to the top of the parapets (all buildings). Not Met UPDATE 10-17-06: Some buildings have this dimension provided (although not to the top of the parapet) and some buildings do not. Revise elevations so that all drawings depict the height of the building to the top of the parapet. 09/14/2006 Provide the locations of all mechanical and utility equipment for Harrison Village, the brownstones, Not Met the towers and the means by which the equipment will be screened pursuant to code requirements. UPDATE 10-17-06: Clarify if the proposed mechanical equipment is to be located on the roof tops or at ground level. Also, provide notations on the plans with regard to screening. 09/14/2006 The downstairs living spaces for Harrison Village (south building) have two doors opening onto the Not Met west side of the building. One of these doors opens onto an elevated porch, while the other opens at grade. Please clarify and revise plans as necessary. UPDATE 10-17-06: This comment has not been addressed. 10/18/2006 If two buyers are purchasing double sized units and those double-sized units are being counted as Not Met one unit each, then depict these units as single units on the floor plans. 10/18/2006 The architectural site plans and the civil plans differ from one another. Revise the plans so that Not Met they are consistent. 10/18/2006 The phase I garage does not meet standards. The drive aisle on the north side of the 18-space Not Met parking tier does not meet minimum width. Also, the two (2) spaces at the very west end of this drive aisle do not have an area to turn around in. 10/18/2006 The phase I garage does not include the brownstone elevators that are in the final garage. Not Met Print Date: 10/19/2006 CaseConditons Page 4 of 5 • 0 FLD2006-05030 410 N FT HARRISON AVE Zoning Condition Robert Tefft 562-4539 10/18/2006 Clarify why nine (9) of the parking spaces in the 18 space parking tier are crosshatched (phase 1). Not Met 10/18/2006 The built-out Island View garage contains 222 parking spaces, not 223 as stated. Not Met 10/18/2006 The west elevation of the clubhouse appears to depict a considerable amount of glass. On the Not Met interior side of the majority of the glass is parking garage - how are the vehicles obscured/screened from view by glass? 10/18/2006 The plaza level 3rd floor plan (A-0.00) is inconsistent with the other plans. Not Met 10/19/2006 The north setback for Harrison Village has been increased from 12.42 feet to 24.15 feet; the south Not Met from 6.88 feet to 10.45 feet; and the west from 22 feet to 26.11 feet (south building) and 4.67 feet to 17.79 feet (north building). Based upon the building placement design guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the Harrison Village development component should be repositioned consistent with the previous submittal. 10/19/2006 The building footprint for the north Harrison Village building is not consistent with the floor plan. Not Met Please revise. 10/19/2006 The back of the parapets should be finished in the same manner as the front. Not Met 10/19/2006 Pursuant to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, multiple buildings within a single Not Met project shall relate architecturally to one another. The revised design of the brownstones has moved away from the common architectural themes of the project. The elevations proposed with the previous version of the development were more consistent with the overall architectural theme. 10/19/2006 With regard to the east brownstone elevation, what is being depicted between the front doors of Not Met the units? It would appear to be another door or opening; however no door or opening exists on the floor plan. 10/19/2006 The dumpster enclosure detail (sheet C8) does not indicate the materials the swing gates are to Not Met be constructed from. Print Date: 10/19/2006 CaseConditons Page 5 of 5 ANSWERS TO DRC COMMENTS Case Number: FLD2006-05030 -- 410 N FT HARRISON AVE TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Owner(s): Triangle S A Land LLC 305 N Fort Harrison Ave Clearwater, F133755 Representative: Thomas Coates 305 N Fort Harrison Ave Clearwater, F133755 TELEPHONE: 727-446-0020, FAX: 727-446-0002, E-MAIL: tomas@triangledevelopment.com Location: 4.85 acres located west of N. Fort Harrison Avenue between Jones and Georgia Streets. Atlas Page: 277B Zoning District: D, Downtown Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a mixed-use development within the Downtown (D) District consisting of 358 attached dwelling units and 13,235 square feet of non-residential floor area as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project as per Section 2-903.C of the Community Development Code. Proposed Use: Mixed use Neighborhood Association(s): Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Clearwater, F133758 P O Box 8204 Neighborhood Association(s): Old Clearwater Bay Neighborhood TELEPHONE: 461-0564, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: southem@tampabay.rr.com Clearwater, F133767 1828 Venetian Point Drive Neighborhood Association(s): North Greenwood Association, Inc. TELEPHONE: 560-4382, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: WADENWADE@AOL.COM Clearwater, F133755 1201 Douglas Road Presenter: Robert Tefft, Planner III Development Review Agenda - Thursday, October 5, 2006 The DRC reviewed this application with the following comments: General Engineering: Prior to CDB: 1. Osceola Avenue shall remain open to use by the public at all times until vacation of the street is approved by the City Council. All work related to existing Osceola Avenue and the proposed new Osceola Avenue right-of-way shall be in accordance with the terms and conditions of the vacation ordinance once approved. AGREED. 2. Provide evidence that property owner(s) of property lying on south side of Jones Street have no objections to elimination of sanitary sewer in Jones Street. AGREED. ' 3. Show on the plan how private force mains for the Sand Dollar Resort and the Belvedere Apartments will pump into City of Clearwater's sanitary sewer system after sewer main is plugged at south end of project. AGREED. 4. Show on the plan the addition of a sanitary sewer lateral to serve property located at the N.W. corner of Jones Street and the proposed new Osceola Avenue. AGREED. Prior to building permit: 5. Applicant shall vacate an alleyway portion, an ingress/egress easement and utility easements located on the property lying east of Osceola Avenue. No encroachments into easements shall be permitted. AGREED. 6. Show on the utility plan lengths of all water main segments. AGREED. ORIGINAL. RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER r • 7. Provide a copy of an approved D.E.P. permit for the installation of the sanitary sewer extension prior to issuance of a building permit. AGREED. 8. Provide a copy of an approved health permit for the installation of the domestic water main prior to issuance of a building permit. The health permit application form(s) can be found at: www.dep.state.fl.us/water/drinkingwater/forms.htm. AGREED. 9. A separate right-of-way permit will be required for all work within the right-of-way of any of the adjacent street(s) that are assigned to the city. See Don Melone (727) 562-4798 in Room #220 at the MSB (Municipal Services Building). AGREED. 10. Sanitary sewer manhole covers to be located within street rights-of-way shall be stamped "City of Clearwater" per index # 301 page 1 of 2. Sanitary sewer manhole covers to be located on private property shall not be stamped "City of Clearwater" per index # 301 page 2 of 2. AGREED. 11. Sidewalks and sidewalk ramps adjacent to or a part of the project shall be designed and constructed consistent with City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards Index #109, including the A.D.A. (Truncated domes per D.O.T. Index #304.) AGREED. 12. Add a note or depict on the plan the provision of a minimum 2-foot horizontal clearance from the edge of all sidewalks to vertical obstructions. AGREED. 13. Provide evidence that proposed tree grates will not adversely impact disabled pedestrians. AGREED. 14. Ductile iron pipe must be installed between any tap and water meter. Ductile iron pipe must be installed between any tap and backflow preventor device. At least one joint of ductile iron pipe shall be installed on the service side of any backflow preventor device. AGREED. 15. Applicant shall install a gate valve on both sides of proposed backflow device(s). 16. Replace "Typical Fire Hydrant Setting" (cross section) detail #402 page 2/4 with most current revision (09/04). AGREED. 17. Add Sanitary Lateral Detail City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards Index #305, page 1/3. AGREED. Prior to a Certificate of Occupancy: 18. If Island View is to be a condominium, the condominium plat shall be recorded prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. AGREED. 19. Applicant shall submit 5 sets of as-built drawings that are signed and sealed by a professional engineer registered in the State of Florida, prior to any C.O. being issued. Public Works/Engineering to field inspect as-built drawings for accuracy. General Note: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review, additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. General Note: If the proposed project necessitates infrastructure modifications to satisfy site-specific water capacity and pressure requirements and/or wastewater capacity requirements, the modifications shall be completed by the applicant and at their expense. If underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, the installation shall be completed and in service prior to construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. AGREED. Environmental: 1 . Section A-A does not correlate with site plan details, please revise AGREED. Fire: 1 . Move fire hydrant from rear of phase 1 building to T-turn area for firefighter use AGREED. 2. Georgia is more than 150'. Provide reinforcement to use garage entrance as a T-turn Harbor Master: No Comments Legal: No Comments Land Resources: 1. No Issues. Landscaping: 1. Pursuant to Section 3-1202.B.1 of the Community Development Code, at the time of installation, shade trees shall have a minimum caliper of 2.5" and shall be planted a minimum of five feet (5') from any impervious area. The proposed Live Oaks do not meet the minimum caliper and are typically proposed within five feet (5') of impervious areas. The proposed Southern Magnolia trees also do not meet the five foot (5') separation from impervious areas. AGREED. ORIGINAL RECEIVFr CST 12 2[06 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER M 2 Pursuant to Section 3-1202.E.I of the Community Development Code, interior landscaping is to be provided in a manner consistent with the Code when the paved vehicular use area is greater than 4,000 square feet. The Island View portion of the development proposal exceeds this standard; however no landscape plan has been provided for Island View. AGREED. Parks and Recreation: 1. Open space/recreation impact fees are due prior to issuance of building permits or final plat (if applicable) whichever occurs first. These fees could be substantial and it is recommended that you contact Art Kader at 727-562-4824 to calculate the assessment. AGREED. Stormwater: 1. No Issues Solid Waste: No Comments Traffic Engineering: 1. Applicant shall provide a revised Traffic Impact Analysis due to the increase of condominium units and commercial building area (sq. ft.), also to include the Level of Service (LOS) for the intersections of Osceola & Georgia and Osceola & Jones. AGREED. 2. Increase the ingress curb radius from R10' to R15' for Harrison Village's driveway along Osceola Avenue or demonstrate that a scaled 19 'passenger vehicle can turn into the garage without encroaching into the opposing lane. AGREED. 3. Trees planted near the driveways must not obstruct motorist's sight visibility. Therefore, provide trees that have a trunk growth diameter of no greater than 8". Also the vertical height clearance of the canopy must be 8'. AGREED. The above to be addressed prior to a Community Development Board (CDB) hearing. Prior to Building Permit: Island View parking garage - 1. Strategically provide "exit" signage for better internal traffic flow to minimize confusion. AGREED. 2. Consider eliminating two-way traffic for better internal flow to minimize conflict points by creating circular one-way traffic patterns. WILL CONSIDER 3. Paint a stop bar with the word stop for both the East and West leg of the ramped intersection for both 2nd and 1st parking levels to eliminate conflict points. AGREED. 4. On sheet A-0.02 change the text to read" Ramp Up to 2nd Level" and "Ramp down from 2nd level". WILL COMPLY 5. On sheet A-0.01, correct the number of parking spaces to read "24" for the southern row. WILL COMPLY 6. On sheet A-0.02, correct the number of parking spaces to read "4" for the center row. WILL COMPLY Harrison Village parking garage - 1. Provide a stop bar with the word stop at the south end of 2-way drive aisle. WILL COMPLY 2. Strategically install an "exit" sign with left arrow sign at the south end columns of 2-way drive aisle. WILL COMPLY 3. Strategically install "Do not enter signs" on columns where appropriate. WILL COMPLY 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: /1` Are surrounds being provided for the windows, or are the plans simply depicting the window frames? THESE ARE WINDOW FRAMES, NOT SURROUNDS. HEADERS AND SILLS ARE PROVIDED ON THE SMALLER SCALE HARRISON VILLAGE AND BROWNSTONE BUILDINGS. (22. 'he architecture of the entries for the tower buildings do not seem to be consistent with the balance of the building with the exception of the central elements of the 11th and 19th levels. Consider modifying these elements. THIS MOTIF, A SPANISH MEDITERRANEAN REVIVAL ROOF ELEMENT, IS REPEATED ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH FACADES AS WELL ORIGINAL RECEIVEr OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER r • 3 The parking spaces on the north/south sides of the western stairwell beneath tower 2 are excessively deep. Reduce these spaces to comply with the standard parking space dimensions. PROVIDED. 4 The height of the parapet associated with the brownstones appear disproportionate to the balance of the building. THIS WILL BE ADDRESSED IN DETAILING. 5 With regard to all of the towers: Where is the second floor? AT PLAZA LEVEL What is the purpose/use of the unit being reserved for management? BUILDING MANAGEMENT SERVICES, SECURITY 6. Clarify the acreage associated with phase I and phase II. Please be advised that your "special note on phasing" states acreage of 4.98 throughout all phases of the project where all other acreage notations identify acreage of 5.18. THE ACTUAL USABLE ACREAGE IS 4.98. THE 5.18 NUMBER REFERS TO AN ENVIRONMENTAL BUFFER THAT HAS A ONE UNIT PER ACRE LIMIT AND WHICH CANNOT BE COUNTED TO OVERALL ACREAGE FOR DENSITY PURPOSES. 7. Refuse collection is occurring on the 1st and 2nd parking levels of the towers. How is this refuse being transported to the dumpsters on Georgia Street? REFUSE COLLECTION IS DONE ON THE UPPER PARKING LEVEL AT EACH TOWER BASE. 2 FOUR-YARD ROLLING DUMPSTERS PER TOWER WILL BE TAKEN OUT TO THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE ON GEORGIA STREET ON PICKUP DAYS, PULLED BY A GATOR. 8 The large tower associated with the south Harrison Village building seems less detailed than the balance of the building . architecture. THIS WAS PRINTED WITH INCORRECT LINE WEIGHT. WE ALSO FELT THAT SOME PLAIN SURFACE WAS NEEDED TO BALANCE TO REST OF THE BUILDING. 9. On the 2nd floor of the north elevation of Harrison Village, the doors lack the headers found similarly on the south and east elevations. PROVIDED. 10 The floor plans do not depict the steps leading to the front entry of the brownstones. They actually appear to depict windows. WILL PROVIDE. SOME INTERNAL WORK WAS DONE TO THE BROWNSTONE LAYOUTS RESULTING IN A MORE PLEASING FENESTRATION AND DOOR PATTERN. 11 The entry for the southernmost brownstone is centered on the porch entrance; however the entrance for the northernmost brownstone is shifted off to the right of the porch and partially behind a column. It is suggested that the entry is realigned to be consistent with the southernmost brownstone. Also, consider realigning the second northernmost entry to be consistent with the balance of the entries. PROVIDED. 12 The corners of the Harrison Village buildings along N. Fort Harrison Avenue are proposed to be landscaped; however these are entrances to the retail spaces. Revise the plans to eliminate the landscaping and provide hardscaping. PROVIDED. 13 The landscape plan does not take into account the west entries for Harrison Village. Please revise. WILL COMPLY. 14 In order to build phase 1 as proposed, the property committed to the phase will need to equal 2.34 acres. THE FULL PHASING AND DENSITY POOL ARRANGEMENT HAS BEEN DELINEATED ELSEWHERE. 15. Clarify the design intent of the northwest corner of the Island View parking garage. PROVIDED. SEE ELEVATION. 16 With regard to tower 1: The number of floor plan units (111) is inconsistent with the number of units in the application (109); TWO UNITS HAVE BEEN DOUBLED UP (ONE LARGER UNIT MADE FROM TWO SMALLER) RESULTING IN TWO LESS NITS PER TOWER TOTAL. THIS IS SPECIFIED IN THE NARRATIVE ON PAGE 33. The floor plans for levels 18 and 19 are unclear as to the number of units being proposed; and THESE WILL BE PURPOSE DESIGNED FOR SPECIFIC BUYERS AND NOT MORE THAN FOUR UNITS WILL BE PROVIDED ON EACH PENTHOUSE (18TH AND 191") LEVEL. The roof plan does not resemble a roof plan. PROVIDED. 17 With regard to the "special note on phasing", how does the request from the Public Amenities ORIGINAL RECEIVED C -,of 12 2096 PLANNING DEPARTMEN1 CITY OF CLEARWATER M Incentive Pool remain the same through phases I and II when the number of units increases and the acreage of the site remains unchanged? THE FULL PHASING AND DENSITY POOL ARRANGEMENT HAS BEEN DELINEATED ELSEWHERE. 18. The location of the buildings is not consistent between the site and landscape plans. WILL DRAW CORRECTLY. 19. Barring the existence of structural columns that are not depicted, the northwest quadrant of the Island View parking garage could be more efficiently designed - possibly yielding three (3) more parking spaces. COLUMNS, UNDRAWN, PRECLUDE THESE. 20. Parking level 1 (Island View) has 232, not 231 parking spaces. Parking level 2 has 235, not 234 parking spaces. OK. 21. How is refuse generated by the Brownstones being handled? INDIVIDUAL BLACK BINS (AS AGREED WITH SOLID WASTE.) The retail? DEPENDING ON THE FINAL TENANT MIX, ROLL OUT DUMPSTERS WILL BE PROVIDED, TO BE TAKEN ON PICKUP DAYS TO THE ENCLOSURE ON GEORGIA. The Harrison Village residential component? AS FOR RETAIL COMPONENT. 22. General note #8 denotes the provision of two double dumpster enclosures, one compactor and roll-out dumpsters. The note is inconsistent with the actual proposal. NOTE WILL BE REVISED. 23. Are any parking spaces being reserved for residents? Retail? Employees? Guests? UNDECIDED. 24 As a portion of the parking garage is to be constructed as part of phase I, provide a floor plan depicting the parking at the end of phase I. PROVIDED. 25 The site data table states the existing site area as 4.85 acres and the proposed as 5.18 acres. Clarify how new land is being created. THE ACTUAL USABLE ACREAGE IS 4.98. THE NOTE WILL BE AMENDED. 26. The site date table denotes a non-residential square footage of 13,550; however the individual figures noted on the floor plans total 13,235 square feet. Please clarify. 13,235 IS CORRECT. DATA TABLE WILL BE AMENDED. 27 Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Downtown Redevelopment Plan, buildings shall have a distinct "base", "middle" and "cap". These elements need to be better defined on the brownstone elevations. WILL PROVIDE. SOME INTERNAL WORK WAS DONE TO THE BROWNSTONE LAYOUTS RESULTING IN A MORE PLEASING FENESTRATION AND DOOR PATTERN. 28 Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Downtown Redevelopment Plan, bulkheads should be provided beneath the storefront windows of Harrison Village. PROVIDED. 29 On the north/south elevations of Harrison Village the standing seam metal roof ends very cleanly at the second level; however on the west elevation the standing seam metal roof has a horizontal banding where the roof abuts the building. Please revise for consistency. PROVIDED. 30 The posts and brackets supporting the standing seam metal roof for Harrison Village seem to be out of place with the balance of the architecture. PROVIDED. 31 Clarify the purpose of the tower for Harrison Village - architectural? mechanical equipment? MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SCREENING. Also, what is the purpose of the antenna atop the tower? LIGHTNING PROTECTION. 32 The maximum permissible height of the Harrison Village portion of the development is 48 feet, inclusive of the increase in height that may be gained through the Public Amenities Incentive Pool. The Harrison Village tower has a height of 62 feet. THE ADDITIONAL 14 FT IS USED AS A MECHANICAL ENCLOSURE. 33. The base of the tower (architectural elevations) does not appear to be consistent with the floor plan. It still depicts the pass through associated with the previous project design. Also, there are ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2096 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER two other prominent "blanks" along the base that would seem to be storefronts according to the floor plans. PROVIDED. 34. Please clarify whether the architectural features immediately to the right of the parking garage entrance for Harrison Village are open or closed. CLOSED. THEY LOOK DOWN OVER THE RAMP TO THE UNDERGROUND PARKING. 35. Provide building height dimensions to the top of the parapets (all buildings). PROVIDED. 36. Provide the locations of all mechanical and utility equipment for Harrison Village, the brownstones, the towers and the means by which the equipment will be screened pursuant to code requirements. NOT ALL THIS DATA IS AVAILABLE AS YET. TOWER 1 IS COMPLETE AND THIS DATA WILL BE SHOWN. HARRISON VILLAGE AND THE BROWNSTONES WILL HAVE THEIR EQUIPMENT SCREENED PER CODE. 37. What do the brownstone doors look like? PROVIDED. 38. The downstairs living spaces for Harrison Village (south building) have two doors opening onto the west side of the building. One of these doors opens onto an elevated porch, while the other opens at grade. Please clarify and revise plans as necessary. WILL REVISE. 39. According to the elevations there are 12 doors on the west elevation of the south Harrison Village building; however there are only 10 doors based upon the floor plan. WILL REVISE. 40. Provide a detail (elevation) of the dumpster enclosure. WILL COMPLY (SEE NORTH ELEVATION). 41. Provide elevations for the clubhouse building. WILL COMPLY. 42. Phase 2 will consist of 3.97 acres (not including the Harrison Village component) which will enable 198 units (phase 1 units and phase 2 units). The request from the "pool" at this stage will be 29 units. THE FULL PHASING AND DENSITY POOL ARRANGEMENT HAS BEEN DELINEATED ELSEWHERE. Notes: The application can be deemed sufficient subject to the attached conditions being addressed with 15 sets of revised plans to be submitted by Noon, October 12, 2006. ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 12 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMEN1 CITY OF CLEARWATER 10:50 am Case Number: FLD2006-05*-- 410 N FT HARRISON AVE 0 Owner(s): Triangle S A Land Llc 305 N Fort Harrison Ave Clearwater, Fl 33755 TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Representative: Thomas Coates 305 N Fort Harrison Ave Clearwater, Fl 33755 TELEPHONE: 727-446-0020, FAX: 727-446-0002, E-MAIL: thomas@triangledevelopment.com Location: 4.85 acres located west of N. Fort Harrison Avenue between Jones and Georgia Streets. Atlas Page: 277B Zoning District: D, Downtown Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a mixed-use development within the Downtown (D) District consisting of 328 attached dwelling units and 10,031 square feet of non-residential floor area as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project as per Section 2-903.C of the Community Development Code. Proposed Use: Mixed use Neighborhood Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Association(s): Clearwater, Fl 33758 P O Box 8204 TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Neighborhood Old Clearwater Bay Neighborhood Association(s): Clearwater, Fl 33767 1828 Venetian Point Drive TELEPHONE: 461-0564, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: southern@tampabay.rr.com Neighborhood North Greenwood Association, Inc. Association(s): Clearwater, Fl 33755 1201 Douglas Road ?-*.???? TELEPHONE: 560-4382, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: WADENWADE@AOL.COM `_-_Presenter: Robert Tefft, Planner III Attendees Included: The DRC reviewed this application with the following comments: General Engineering: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, October 5, 2006 - Page 18 Prior to CDB: • L Osceola Avenue shall remain open to use by the public at all times until vacation of the street is approved by the City Council. All work related to existing Osceola Avenue and the proposed new Osceola Avenue right-of-way shall be in accordance with the terms and conditions of the vacation ordinance, once approved. 2. Provide evidence that property owner(s) of property lying on south side of Jones Street have no objections to elimination of sanitary sewer in Jones Street. 3. Show on the plan how private force mains for the Sand Dollar Resort and the Belvedere Apartments will pump into City of Clearwater's sanitary sewer system after sewer main is plugged at south end of project. 4. Show on the plan the addition of a sanitary sewer lateral to serve property located at the N.W. corner of Jones Street and the proposed new Osceola Avenue. Prior to building permit: 5. Applicant shall vacate an alleyway portion, an ingress/egress easement and utility easements located on the property lying east of Osceola Avenue. No encroachments into easements shall be permitted. 6. Show on the utility plan lengths of all water main segments. 7. Provide a copy of an approved D.E.P. permit for the installation of the sanitary sewer extension prior to issuance of a building permit. . 8. Provide a copy of an approved health permit for the installation of the domestic water main prior to issuance of a building permit. The health permit application form(s) can be found at: www.dep.state.fl.us/water/drinkingwater/fortns.htm. 9. A separate right-of-way permit will be required for all work within the right-of-way of any of the adjacent street(s) that are assigned to the city. See Don Melone (727) 562-4798 in Room #220 at the MSB (Municipal Services Building). 10. Sanitary sewer manhole covers to be located within street rights-of-way shall be stamped "City of Clearwater" per index # 301 page 1 of 2. Sanitary sewer manhole covers to be located on private property shall not be stamped "City of Clearwater" per index # 301 page 2 of 2. 11. Sidewalks and sidewalk ramps adjacent to or a part of the project shall be designed and constructed consistent with City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards Index #109, including the A.D.A. (Truncated domes per D.O.T. Index #304.) 12. Add a note or depict on the plan the provision of a minimum 2-foot horizontal clearance from the edge of all sidewalks to vertical obstructions. 13. Provide evidence that proposed tree grates will not adversely impact disabled pedestrians. 14. Ductile iron pipe must be installed between any tap and water meter. Ductile iron pipe must be installed between any tap and backflow preventor device. At least one joint of ductile iron pipe shall be installed on the service side of any backflow preventor device. 15. Applicant shall install a gate valve on both sides of proposed backflow device(s). 16. Replace "Typical Fire Hydrant Setting" (cross section) detail #402 page 2/4 with most current revision (09/04). 17. Add Sanitary Lateral Detail City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards Index #305, page 1/3. Prior to a Certificate of Occupancy: 18. If Island View is to be a condominium, the condominium plat shall be recorded prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 19. Applicant shall submit 5 sets of as-built drawings that are signed and sealed by a professional engineer registered in the State of Florida, prior to any C.O. being issued. Public Works/Engineering to field inspect as-built drawings for accuracy. General Note: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review, additional - comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. General Note: If the proposed project necessitates infrastructure modifications to satisfy site-specific water capacity and pressure requirements and/or wastewater capacity requirements, the modifications shall be completed by the applicant and at their expense. If underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, the installation shall be completed Development Review Agenda - Thursday, October 5, 2006 - Page 19 and in service prio0construction in accordance with Fire Departnorequirements. Environmental: Fire: Section A-A does not correlate with site plan details, please revise Move fire hydrant from rear of phase 1 building to T-turn area for firefighter use Georgia is more than 150'. Provide reinforcement to use garage entrance as a T-turn Harbor Master: No Comments Legal: No Comments Land Resources: I . No Issues. Landscaping: Pursuant to Section 3-1202.B.1 of the Community Development Code, at the time of installation, shade trees shall have a minimum caliper of 2.5" and shall be planted a minimum of five feet (5') from any impervious area. The proposed Live Oaks do not meet the minimum caliper and are typically proposed within five feet (5') of impervious areas. The proposed Southern Magnolia trees also do not meet the five foot (5') seperation from impervious areas. Pursuant to Section 3-1202.E.I of the Community Development Code, interior landscaping is to be provided in a manner consistent with the Code when the paved vehicular use area is greated than 4,000 square feet. The Island View portion of the development proposal exceeds this standard; however no landscape plan has been provided for Island View. Parks and Recreation: 1 . Open space/recreation impact fees are due prior to issuance of building permits or final plat (if applicable) whichever occurs first. These fees could be substantial and it is recommended that you contact Art Kader at 727-562-4824 to calculate the assessment. Stormwater: 1 No Issues Solid Waste: No Comments Traffic Engineering: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, October 5, 2006 - Page 20 1. Applicant shaoovide a revised Traffic Impact Analysis due t9e increase of condominium units and commercial building area (sq. ft.), also to include the Level of Service (LOS) for the intersections of Osceola & Georgia and Osceola & Jones. 2. Increase the ingress curb radius from RIO' to R15' for Harrison Village's driveway along Osceola Avenue or demonstrate that a scaled 19 'passenger vehicle can turn into the garage without encroaching into the opposing lane. 3. Trees planted near the driveways must not obstruct motorist's sight visibility. Therefore, provide trees that have a trunk growth diameter of no greater than 8" . Also the vertical height clearance of the canopy must be 8'. The above to be addressed prior to a Community Development Board (CDB) hearing. Prior to Building Permit: Island View parking garage - 1. Strategically provide "exit" signage for better internal traffic flow to minimize confusion. 2. Consider eliminating two-way traffic for better internal flow to minimize conflict points by creating circular one-way traffic patterns. 3. Paint a stop bar with the word stop for both the East and West leg of the ramped intersection for both 2nd and 1 st parking levels to eliminate conflict points. 4. On sheet A-0.02 change the text to read" Ramp Up to 2nd Level" and "Ramp down from 2nd level". 5. On sheet A-0.01, correct the number of parking spaces to read "24" for the southern row. 6. On sheet A-0.02, correct the number of parking spaces to read "4" for the center row. Harrison Village parking garage - 1. Provide a stop bar with the word stop at the south end of 2-way drive aisle. 2. Strategically install an "exit" sign with left arrow sign at the south end columns of 2-way drive aisle. 3. Strategically install "Do not enter signs" on columns where appropriate. 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 21 Are surrounds beinoovided for the windows, or are the plans simoepicting the window frames? 2 . The architecture of the entries for the tower buildings do not seem to be consistent with the balance of the building with the exception of the central elements of the 1 1 th and 19th levels. Consider modifying these elements. / The parking spaces on the north/south sides of the western stairwell beneath tower 2 are excessively deep. Reduce these spaces to comply with the standard parking space dimensions. The height of the parapet associated with the brownstones appear disproportionate to the balance of the building. With regard to all of the towers: Where is the second floo What is the purpose/use of the unit being reserved for management? Clarify the acreage associated with phase I and phase II. Please be advised that your "special note on phasing" states an acreage of 4.98 throughout all phases of the project where all other acreage notations identify an acreage of 5.18. Refuse collection is occuring on the 1 st and 2nd parking levels of the towers. How is this refuse being transported to the dumpsters on Georgia Street? The large tower associated with the south Harrison Village building seems less detailed than the balance of the building architecture. On the 2nd floor of the north elevation of Harrison Village, the doors lack the headers found similarly on the south and east elevations. The floor plans do not depict the steps leading to the front entry of the brownstones. They actaully appear to depict windows. The entry for the southernmost brownstone is centered on the porch entrance; however the entrance for the northernmost brownstone is shifted off to the right of the porch and partially behind a column. It is suggested that the entry is realigned to be consistent with the southernmost brownstone. Also, consider realigning the second northernmost entry to be consistent with the balance of the entries. j The corners of the Harrison Village buildings along N. Fort Harrison Avenue are proposed to be / landscaped; however these are entrances to the retail spaces. Revise the plans to eliminate the landscaping and provide hardscaping. 1AV' . The landscape plan does not take into account the west entries for Harrison Village. Please revise. Xo! In order to build phase 1 as proposed, the property committed to the phase will need to equal 2.34 acres. ylf. Clarify the design intent of the northwest corner of the Island View parking garage. 16. With regard to tower 1: {` The number of floor plan un t (111) is inconsistent with the number of units in the application 2 uuns esLt 05*?T (109); .tU7 i 4 0he floor plans for levels 18 and 19 are unclear as to the number of units being proposed; and Ohe roof plan does not resemble a roof plan. ;l Y. With regard to the "special note on phasing", how does the request from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool remain the same through phases I and 11 when the number of units increases and the acreage of the site remains unchanged? -;:T*. The location of the buildings is not consistent between the site and landscape plans. Barring the existence of structural columns that are not depicted, the northwest quadrant of the Island View parking garage could be more efficiently designed - possibly yielding three (3) more parking spaces. 20. Parking level 1 (Island View) has 232, not 231 parking spaces. Parking level 2 has 235, not 234 parking spaces. 21 . How is refuse generated by the Brownstones being handled? e retail. The Harrison Village residential component? General note #8 denotes the provision of two double dumpster enclosures, one compactor and roll-out dumpsters. The note is inconsistent with the actual proposal. 23 . Are any parking spaces being reserved for residents? Retail? Employees? Guests? As a portion of the parking garage is to be constructed as part of phase I, provide a floor plan depicting the parking at the end of phase I. '. The site data table states the existing site area as 4.85 acres and the proposed as 5.18 acres. Clarify how new land is being created. ,05. The site date table denotes a non-residential square footage of 13,550; however the individual figures noted on the floor plans total 13,235 square feet. Please clarify. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, October 5, 2006 - Page 22 o 27 . n, buildings shall have a Pursuant to the DeloGuidelines of the Downtown Redevelopmen distinct "base", "middle" and "cap". These elements need to be better defined on the brownstone elevations. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Downtown Redevelopment Plan, bulkheads should be provided beneath the storefront windows of Harrison Village. On the north/south elevations of Harrison Village the standing seam metal roof ends very cleanly at the second level; however on the west elevation the standing seam metal roof has a horizontal banding where the roof abuts the building. Please revise for consistency. G34'. The posts and brackets supporting the standing seam metal roof for Harrison Village seem to be out of place with the balance of the architecture. Clarify the purpose of the tower for Harrison Village - architectural? mechanccal equipment? Also, what is the purpose of the antenna atop the tower? 32 . The maximum permissable height of the Harrison Village portion of the development is 48 feet, inclusive of the increase in height that may be gained through the Public Amenities Incentive Pool. The Harrison Village tower has a height of 6,,2 feet. y3 The base of the tower (architectural elevations) does not appear to be consistent with the floor plan. It still depicts the pass through associated with the previous project design. Also, there are two other prominent "blanks" along the base that would seem to be storefronts according to the floor plans. 1r?>? t'z? Fem. Please clarify whether the architectural features immediately to the right of the parking garage a? ('/rT AD ?? 5 entrance for Harrison Village are open or closed. h ll b ildi h f i i 3 ?rwPC--r- e top o t e parapets (a u ngs). ons to t mens Provide building height d Provide the locations of all mechanical and utility equipment for Harrison Village, the a2oti ?'?? brownstones, the towers and the means by which the equipment will be screened pursuant to code g2oA?? ?b requirements. What do the brownstone doors look like? 38 . The downstairs living spaces for Harrison Village (south building) have two doors opening onto the west side of the building. One of these doors opens onto an elevated porch, while the other opens at grade. Please clarify and revise plans as necessary. According to the elevations there are 12 doors on the west elevation of the south Harrison Village 00 building; however there are only 10 doors based upon the floor plan. Provide a detail (elevation) of the dumpster enclosure. Provide elevations for the clubhouse building. 2=. Phase 2 will consist of 3.97 acres (not including the Harrison Village component) which will enable 198 units (phase 1 units and phase 2 units). The request from the "pool" at this stage will be 29 units. Other: No Comments Notes: The application can be deemed sufficient subject to the attached conditions being addressed with 15 sets of revised plans to be submitted by Noon, October 12, 2006. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, October 5, 2006 - Page 23 10:50 am Case Number: DVA2006-06* -- 410 N FT HARRISON AVE • Owner(s): Triangle S A Land Llc 305 N Fort Harrison Ave Clearwater, Fl 33755 TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Representative: E. D. Armstrong Iii, Esquire Po Box 1368 Clearwater, Fl 33757 TELEPHONE: 727-461-1818, FAX: 727-441-8617, E-MAIL: ed@jpfirm.com Location: 4.85 ACRES LOCATED WEST OF N. FORT HARRISON AVENUE BETWEEN JONES AND GEORGIA STREETS. Atlas Page: 277B Zoning District: D, Downtown Request: Review of, and recommendation to the City Council, of a Development Agreement between Triangle Old Bay Holdings, LLC and Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization Inc. and the City of Clearwater, Florida. Proposed Use: Mixed use Neighborhood Old Clearwater Bay Neighborhood Association(s): Clearwater, FI 33767 1828 Venetian Point Drive TELEPHONE: 461-0564, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: southern@tampabay.rr.com Neighborhood Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Association(s): Clearwater, F] 33758 P O Box 8204 TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Neighborhood North Greenwood Association, Inc. Association(s): Clearwater, FI 33755 1201 Douglas Road TELEPHONE: 560-4382, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: WADENWADE@AOL.COM Neighborhood Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Association(s): Clearwater, Fl 33758 P O Box 8204 TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Presenter: Robert Tefft, Planner III Attendees Included: The DRC reviewed this application with the following comments: General Engineering: 1 . Regarding Section 6.2.2: Add the words, "and the vacation of three drainage and utility easements and one ingress/egress easement" after "The City shall consider the vacation of Osceola Avenue". Environmental: No Comments Fire: No Issues Harbor Master: No Comments Legal: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, October 5, 2006 - Page 24 I . Are parties correceamed? • 2 . Church is named as a party but its obligations/benefits need to be set forth. 3 . Para. 6.1.4: Omit "which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld" re City Attorney and "which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld" re City. We have objected to such provisions in previous DVAs drafted by Johnson Pope and my recollection is that they omitted the language following objection. 4. Para. 6.2: City will approve site and construction plans: add "and that go through any applicable approval processes". 5 . The placing of all except 2 bonus units in Phase III removes my previous issue with ensuring that all Phases are actually constructed and that the amenities are provided. 6. Show evidence of Ben Kugler's status as Managing Partner or Agent of Triangle Old Bay Holdings, LLC and evidence of Mergers described on Ownership Information summary. Land Resources: No Comments Landscaping: No Comments Parks and Recreation: No Comments Stormwater: 1 . No Issues Solid Waste: No Comments Traffic Engineering: 1 , 1. Roadway shall not be used for a staging area and shall be maintained free from any obstructions. 2. Provide a detailed plan for Maintenance of Traffic prior to issuance of a building permit. Planning: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, October 5, 2006 - Page 25 I . Recital C denotes a&eage of 4.98; however the actual acreage is 0 2 . Recital C identifies the provision of an Exhibit "A"; however no such exhibit has been provided. 3 . Recital D denotes 358 residential units and 13,550 square feet of retail; however the acutal number based upon the plans are 360 and 13,235, respectively. 4. Recital D identifies the provision of an Exhibit "B"; however no such exhibit has been provided. 5 . Section 6.1.3.1 states that the proposed shall be developed substantially in conformance with the concept plan. What is meant by "substantially"? The eventual development shall be built in conformance with the approved plans. 6. Section 6.1.3.1 states the estimated population density and maximum building intensity are shown on the concept plan. What is being estimated about the population density? There are, per the plans, 360 units, no more, no less. 7 . Section 6.1.3.1 has several numerical errors. It states that the site consists of 4.98 acres - this is actually 5.18 acres. It states that 249 units are permitted - this is actually 259 units. It states that 116 units will be built in phase 1 - this is actually 118 units. It states that 13,550 square feet of retail is a part of phase 3 - this is actually 13,235 square feet. It states that 138 additional units will be drawn from the "pool" - this is actually 101 units (not additional) and 13,235 square feet of non-residential floor area. Finally, it states that a total of 140 units will be drawn from the "pool" - this is actually 101 units and 13,235 square feet of non-residential floor area. 8 . Section 6.1.3.1 states that one (1) units is being drawn from the "pool" in phase 1 and one (1) additional units is being drawn is phase 2; however the Section also denotes that the entire property is being committed during phase 1. If all of the property is committed from the start, then no density or floor area will need be drawn from the "pool" until phase 3. 9. Section 6.1.3.3 states that the architectural style shall be substantially as shown on Exhibit "C". First, no such exhibit has been provided with the DVA. Second, the word "substantially" should be stuck - the building will need to be as shown. 10. Section 6.1.5 references a Unity of Title. Why is a Unity of Title being used? The property will need to be platted. 11 . Section 6.2.1 states that the City will approve site and construction plans... No guarantee can be given through the DVA as to the approval of the site plans, nor the construction plans. 12. The start/finish dates set forth in Exhibit "E" will need to be revised as the site plan and DVA cannot be approved until 11/21/06 at the earliest. 13 . In order to build phase 1 as proposed, the property committed to the phase will need to equal 2.34 acres. 14. Phase 2 will consist of 3.97 acres (not including the Harrison Village component) which will enable 198 units (phase I units and phase 2 units). The request from the "pool" at this stage will be 29 units. 15 . Section 6.1.3.6 includes a reference to "public art". No "public art" is associated with this development proposal; therefore the reference should be removed. 16 . Section 6.1.3.6 needs to be revised to identify the actual physical streetscape improvements to be completed. Other: No Comments Notes: THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS INSUFFICIENT TO PROCEED TO THE CDB AT THIS TIME; HOWEVER THE DVA SHALL BE PERMITTED TO PROCEED FORWARD IN THE HOPE THAT IT WILL BE READY FOR THE CDB SHORTLY. REVISIONS MUST BE SUBMITTED BY NOON, OCTOBER 12, 2006. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, October 5, 2006 - Page 26 0 Keith Zavac & Associates. Inc. Civd Engineering, Landscape Architecture, Planning General Engineering: 0 701 Enterprise Road E., Ste 404 Safety Harbor, FL 34695 (727) 793-9888 Phone (727) 793-9855 Fax keith@keithzayac.com Prior to Community Development Board review, applicant shall address the following: 1. Ordinance vacating Osceola Avenue is currently in default. Applicant shall submit a new vacation application pursuant to direction of the City Attorney. Contact Steve Doherty at (727) 562-4773 for further information. This is in process of being reinstated. 2. Sheet #2 will be reviewed when submitted as part of a building permit application; no review/comment will be provided at this time. Acknowledged 3. Turning radii at all driveways shall be a minimum of 30 feet per City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards Index #108. The turning radii at all public road intersections have been designed as 30 ft. The radii at driveway entrances along Osceola have been designed as 10 ft per previous approval. 4. Existing sanitary manhole rim and invert elevations shall be field verified by the applicant and noted on the utility plan. Confirmed elevations will be needed to verity appropriate sanitary slopes This note has been added to the Utility Notes on Sheet 7. 5. Indicate on the plan that all sanitary sewer pipes located under roadways and other vehicular access areas shall be constructed of ductile iron pipe with interior of pipe epoxy coated with Protecto 401. This note has been added to the Utility Notes on Sheet 7. 6. Show on the plan minimum sidewalk width of 5-feet along North Fort Harrison Avenue and a minimum width of 4- feet along all other streets: All sidewalks are a minimum of 5 feet along both Fort Harrison Ave and all other streets. Prior to issuance of a building permit: 7. Provide a copy of an approved D. E. A permit for the installation of the sanitary sewer extension prior to issuance ofa building permit. We acknowledge this statement. 8. Provide a copy of an approved health permit for the installation of the domestic water main prior to issuance ofa building permit. The health permit application form(s) can be found at.- www dep.state. fl us/water/drinkinQwater/forms htm. We acknowledge this statement. 9. A separate right-of-way permit will be required for all work within the right-of-way of any of the adjacent street(s) that are assigned to the city. See Don Melone (727) 562-4798 in Room #220 at the MSB (Municipal Services Building). We acknowledge this statement. ORIGINAL RECEIVED JUL 112006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 0 0 10. Provide City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards Index #301, pages 1 and 2, for sanitary sewer manhole covers The City of Clearwater Standards of index #301 page 1 & 2 have been added to the General Detail, sheet 8. 11. Sanitary sewer manhole covers to be located within street rights-of-way shall be stamped "City of Clearwater"per index # 301 page 1 of 2. Sanitary sewer manhole covers to be located on private property shall not be stamped "City of Clearwater" per index # 301 page 2 of 2. We acknowledge this statement. General Note: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review, additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. We acknowledge this statement. General Note: If the proposed project necessitates infrastructure modifications to satisfy site specific water capacity and pressure requirements and/or wastewater capacity requirements, the modifications shall be completed by the applicant and at their expense. If underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, the installation shall be completed and in service prior to construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements We acknowledge this statement. Environmental: 1. On Sheet #6, Section A -A does not correlate with site plan details, please revise. Section A -A has been revised to reflect the outfaii detail and drainage plan information. ORIGINAL 2. Revise plan view to clarify pond construction details RECEIVED The grading and drainage plan has been revised to coordinate the detail and section. JUL 1 1 2006 3. Submit required storm water calculations PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEAWWATER The retention calculations are shown on the grading and drainage plan 4. All trees in buffer zone shall be labeled and identified in key table. A key table has been added to the landscape plan. 5 Observational boardwalk is located in the wetland buffer zone, please revise. Note: A 25' wetland buffer zone is required from any wetland jurisdictional line. The observational boardwalk is elevated above the wetland buffer zone, not in the buffer zone. This will be submitted as part of the permit modification to the SWFWMD. 6. All of the above to be addressed prior to CDB. We acknowledge this statement. Fire: 1. Provide Turn-around in the form of a cul-de-sac, a T-turn or a Y-turn on Georgia St. Show on plan PRIOR TO CDB A T-turn has been added along Georgia Street for fire truck access. 2. This building is determined to meet the criteria of a High Rise Building as defined by the Florida Fire Prevention Code, 2004 Edition, therefore the requirements of a High Rise structure must be met. These requirements include, 0 0 but are not limited to Fire Code items such as. Fire Pump and generator if pump is electric, sprinkler system throughout with control valve and water flow device on each floor, Automatic Class I Standpipe System, Fire Alarm using voice/alarm communication, Central Fire Control Station, firefighter phone system, Emergency lighting, and Standby Power as per NFPA 70, Pressurized Stairwells, Stairwell marking and Elevator Lobbies Please acknowledge PRIOR TO CDB. We acknowledge this statement and will comply. 3. 50% of exit stairs in each building must exit directly to the outside of the building. To be addressed further at permit stage. Acknowledge PRIOR TO CDB We acknowledge this statement and will comply. 4. Fire hose valves/standpipe for dock area protection must be provided in accordance with NFPA 303. They must be connected to Are pump/wet standpipe system. Acknowledge and Show on plan PRIOR TO CDB As in the previously requested and added to the approved plans, a fire hydrant is shown in the rear of the property to provide a connection point close to any future docks. Harbor Master: No Comments Legal: No Comments Land Resources: 1. Provide the tree inventory report for the trees on parcel 4, south of Georgia St, and west of Osceola Ave. prior to building permit. Acknowledged 2. Show to be preserved all trees within the wetlands buffer prior to building permit. Acknowledged Landscaping: 1. Pursuant to Section 3-1202.E.1 of the Community Development Code, the minimum size for an interior landscape island shall be 150 square feet. Further, such islands shall have a minimum dimension of eight feet from back of curb to back of curb and contain one tree per island. As proposed, none of the interior landscape islands meet the minimum dimensions or size requirements and two of these islands do not provide the required tree. The outdoor parking spaces have been relocated on top of a proposed underground concrete parking garage. 2. Pursuant to Section 3-1202.8.1 of the Community Development Code, shade trees shall have a 2.5" caliper at time of installation and shall be planted a minimum of five feet from any impervious area. Revise the plans so that the proposed Live Oaks meet this requirement. The shade tree sizes have been revised to 2.5" caliper. 3. Pursuant to Section 3-1202.6.1 of the Community Development Code, accent trees shall have a 2 inch caliper at the time of installation. ORIGINAL The accent tree sizes have been revised to 2.0" caliper. RECEIVED JUL 11 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • • 4. Pursuant to Section 3-1202. B.1 of the Community Development Code, palm trees can be used to satisfy 25% of the total trees required. A total of 8 interior trees are required based upon the final project design (i. e. end of Phase 3) and all of the interior trees proposed are palms Additional shade and intermediate trees have been added to augment the palms shown, however the outdoor parking spaces previously shown have been deleted and replaced with a parking garage and deck. 5. Pursuant to Section 3-1202.8.4 of the Community Development Code, each tree species provided shall constitute a minimum of 10% of the total number of trees The proposed Crape Myrtle and Medjool Date Palm do not meet this requirement. Additional tree species have been added to the landscape plan. 6. Pursuant to Section 3-1202.E.2 of the Community Development Code, foundation plantings shall be provided for 100% of a building facade with frontage along a right-of-way, excluding space necessary for building ingress/egress within a five foot landscape area composed of two accent trees or three palms for every 40 linear feet of building facade and one shrub for every 20 square feet of required landscape area. Foundation plantings have not been provided along either N. Fort Harrison Avenue or Osceola Avenue and those planting provided along Georgia and Jones Streets would seem to prevent access to the buildings Planting areas have been added along Ft. Harrison and planted with palms and shrubs. Additional planting beds have also been added to Osceola Avenue. 7 Revise the landscape plan to include, or provide a separate streetscape plan consistent with the typical streetscape improvements along N. Fort Harrison Avenue (Downtown Corridor) as set forth in the City's Master Streetscape and Wayfinding Plan. The plan must also depict all streetscape improvements proposed along Osceola, Georgia and Jones rights-of-way being used to obtain density and height from the Pool. The streetscape improvements along the public rights of way are shown on the landscape plan. Additional details have been added to augment the information provided. Parks and Recreation: 1. Open space/recreation impact fees are due prior to issuance of building permits or final plat (if applicable) whichever occurs first. These fees could be substantial and it is recommended that you contact Art Kader at 727- 562-4824 to calculate the assessment. Acknowledged Stonmwater: 1. Prior to CDB approval the engineer is to address the stormwater criteria in Section E of the submittal. As the stormwater area was redesigned from the previous FLD submittal, the engineer is to demonstrate that this redesign meets City criteria. The stormwater calculations are shown on the grading and drainage plans. Solid Waste: 1. Please explain how Solid Waste will be serviced at these locations and also at high rise Recycling location will be needed for residents of living units Three rooms will be provided at the upper parking level where the trash chutes end. There will be space for recycling. Rolling trash receptacles will convey trash to a compactor discreetly located on Georgia Street, where recycling will also be picked up. ORIGINAL RECEIVED JUL 11 2006 PLANNING Uin i,,, I MF wT CITY OF CLEARWATER • Traffic Engineering: 1. Provide a note on both the civil and architectural plans that the vertical clear height of parking garage shall be 8' 2"minimum to accommodate handicapped van parking per ADA standards Note has been added to plans. 2. Strategically locate handicapped parking spaces adjacent an accessible entrance, i. e. elevator. Additional handicapped spaces have been added within the rights of way and within the parking garage. 3. On the architectural site plan, dimension a typical parking space with drive aisle per City standards Will comply. See Plans. 4. Remove stacked parking spaces (Community Development Code Section 3-14-4.C.). Will comply. See Plans. 5 Re-locate columns away from the end of parking stalls and inside of 90 degree turns for better maneuverability. Unable to comply because of prohibitive structural cost. Extensive use will be made of mirrors, crash barriers and the like to ensure vehicular safety. 6. Remove angled parking on 1st and 2nd floor or redesign for better maneuverability for motorists Will comply. See Plans. 7 Remove any obstructions that block sight visibility of parked motorists Unable to comply completely because of prohibitive structural cost. Extensive use will be made of mirrors, crash barriers and the like to ensure vehicular safety. 8. Provide signage such as "exit" signs and 'To 2nd floor" signs for better internal trafc flow. Will comply. 9. Provide Level of Service for Osceola and Georgia intersection. See Attached Traffic Study from Gulfcoast engineering. 10. Clarify wall legend. Will comply. See Plans. 11. Provide a handicapped parking space for the southern parking lot of Harrison pillage. Space has been added to parking deck. 12. Provide a 6' wide gap/buffer spacing for every two parallel parking spaces along Fort Harrison Road for better maneuverability for motorists General Note(s): I) 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. A 6ft gap has been added between every two parallel parking spaces. ORIGINAL RECEIVED JUL 11 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • • Planning: 1. Pursuant to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, within the Old Bay District the maximum height for buildings west of Osceola Avenue and between Drew and Georgia Streets is 150 feet. The proposed 17-story towers all appear to be in excess of 160' It is noted that the CDB may consider granting an increase in height not to exceed 20 percent of the maximum based upon the pro vision ofa major public amenity. This has been addressed in discussions with the City and is addressed in full in the accompanying Narrative. A request for increase in height will be made based on the provision of major public amenities. 2. Pursuant to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, within the Old Bay District (Policy #4) City rights-of- way that dead-end at the harbor shall be retained and improved for public access to the water. The rights of way that dead-end at the harbor are being retained and improved. 3. Pursuant to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, within the Old Bay District (Policy #9) mixed-use development with office and/or retail on the ground floor and residential uses above are encouraged along N. Fort Harrison Avenue. Consider revising the development proposal to include residential development on the second floor of the proposed retail buildings along N. Fort Harrison A venue. This has been addressed in discussions with the City and is addressed in full in the accompanying Narrative. A second and third residential floors have been added. 4. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, parking lots adjacent to rights-of-way shall be screened with either a landscape buffer or a solid wal%fence three feet in height. The parking deck along Osceola has been revised to be screened with a three foot wall and landscaping. 5 Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, parking lots shall be functionally designed as small lots with landscape islands and tree canopies The parking lots associated with the retail portion of the development has been designed as per the above with the noted exception of the tree canopy. The parking spaces have been revised to be part of a parking structure and deck. 6. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the use of interlocking pavers, brick or other similarly textured materials shall be used for parking lot surfacing and/or accents: Parking lots have been deleted and replaced with garage and deck. 7 Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, parking garages accessory to a principle use shall be architecturally integrated with the design materials, Anish and color of the principle structures The submittal includes combined Building 2 and 3 floor plans and architectural elevations, however Building 3 is quite different from Building 2 in that it consists of the parking garage entrance on its north elevation. The plans do not depict the existence of the parking garage entrance on this north elevation. Revise the plans to depict the garage entrance ensuring that it meets the above referenced design guidelines Will comply. See Plans and Elevations. 8. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, clearly defined, safe, direct, convenient and landscaped pedestrian pathways shall be provided between streets parking areas and buildings If Building 1 is to be the first phase built what pathways wi/l exist in a manner consistent with the above at the time of its construction? Additional pathways have been added across Osceola which connect the public sidewalks provided. ORIGINAL RECEIVED JUL 112006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • 0 9. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, open space shall have dearly defined entrances with direct access from adjacent streets and adequate buffering from vehicular traffic. The proposed open space at the center of the Harrison Village portion of the development does not provide adequate buffering from vehicular traffic. Will comply. See Plans. 10. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, open spaces shall utilize an aesthetically coordinated marriage between hadscape and landscape elements Large open spaces shall be broken into smaller human scale spaces through changes in grade, planters, pots, landscape, sculpture, fences, wall, etc. Further, open spaces should function as transitions between the public sidewalk and streets and the use of the property. Will comply. See Plans. 11. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, when located at grade mechanica%utility equipment shall be placed in the least obtrusive location possible and screened from adjacent properties and rights-of-way with fencing, walls or landscaping. The transformers proposed are inadequately screened. Identify the locations of all mechanical and utility equipment including air conditioning for the development and the means by which the equipment will be screened. The transformers have been screened with shrubs but still provide access. 12. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be integrated into the design of the building through the use of parapet walls, towers or other architectural elements Parapet walls of varying height on the roofs form the mechanical enclosures. 13. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, solid waste containers shall be placed in the most unobtrusive location possible and screened from adjacent properties and rights-of-way. The proposed solid waste facilities on the east side of Osceola Avenue are in highly visible and obtrusive locations and are inadequately screened. Additionally, where are the solid waste facilities for those dwellings on the west side of Osceola Avenue? Harrison Village Dumpsters have been moved to a location that meets Solid Waste's requirements and have been enclosed. West of Osceola, see #! Under Solid Waste above. 14. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, fences and/or walls shall compliment and be consistent with the principle structure with regard to materials, texture, size, shape and color. The proposed six-foot high vinyl fence is not materially consistent and does not compliment the building architecture. A three foot high wall with columns and substantial grill work would be a more appropriate fence/wall option The fence has been deleted. I5. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, vertical elements such as posts, columns, etc should be incorporated into the design of fences and/or walls and spaced at appropriate intervals in relation to materials used and overall length. Will comply. See Plans. 16. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, buildings should be oriented toward the street as the orientation of the front facade along the streetscape contributes to pedestrian interest in an area. The proposed residential component of Harrison Villas and the Esplanade Villas orient their entrances toward the interiors of the developments These components must be redesigned. ORIGINAL Will comply. See Plans. RECEIVED JUL 112006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • 17 Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, separation between buildings should be determined based upon its surroundings, the character districts vision and development pattern, intensity of development, pedestrian activity and building height. The separation between buildings proposed in not conducive to a quality pedestrian environment and generally makes for a poor overall architectural appearance. Will comply. See Plans. 18 Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, buildings shall not break-up the common build-to line by locating further back/forward except to provide a courtyard, steps, entryway, arcade, plaza or other pedestrian oriented design features Will comply. See Plans. This has been addressed in discussions with the City and is addressed in full in the accompanying Narrative. 19. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, building form shall visually relate to surrounding buildings and the desired character of the area with regard to mass, scale, height, width and depth. The proposed retail buildings are inconsistent with this guideline in comparison to each other as well as within the individual buildings The towers of R-1 and R-4 do not relate to the height, width or depth of the balance of the buildings Further, the depth of the colonnaded wing of R-1 and R-4 is disproportionate to its width and height. The depth of R-2 (north/south elevation) does not visually relate to the height or width. Also, the heights of the outer portions of R-2 do not visually relate to the interior segment. The individual segments of R-3 provide a great deal of variation to the roof line; however this variation creates inconsistencies in the relationship between the segments and as this roof line is exaggerated parapet height, does not relate well to the depth. Harrison Village has been completely redesigned to comply. 20. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, low-rise buildings and/or those with long facade widths should accentuate vertical elements such as entrances and columns or by breaking up the facade into a greater number of smaller vertical masses The architecture of the Harrison Villas provides very little emphasis on vertical elements, instead emphasizing a very elongated facade with horizontally stretched windows With regard to the retail buildings R-1 and R-4, columns have been provided; however the columns do little to accentuate verticality in the structures and instead do more to accentuate the horizontal design of the buildings Harrison Village has been completely redesigned to comply. 21. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, with regard to high-rise buildings, building stories or stepbacks shall be differentiated by architectural features such as coping, balustrades, cornice lines, changes in materials, etc. Further, there shall be a proportional relationship between the height of a building and the number and dimensions of stepbacks used to mitigate the height of the building. The proposed towers include stepbacks to the horizontal planes; however the building consists of no stepbacks to the vertical planes until the 17th floor which does little to mitigate the mass of the building. More proportional stepbacks need to be provided to mitigate the height in accordance with the above Guidelines Island View has had 12" stepbacks introduced with wider cornices at the 10th floor 22. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, buildings shall correspond to the existing and/or desired rhythm and spacing of surrounding buildings through the use of common points of agreement such as windows, doors, recesses, reliefs and other architectural elements Additionally, buildings shall maintain the existing and/or desired pattern of the placement and size of windows and doors, shutters and other architectural elements on adjacent buildings with regard to both the ground floor and upper stories How will the architectural elements for Esplanade Villas correspond to the rhythm and spacing along Osceola with the base of the windows roughly seven feet above adjacent grade and the balconies five feet above adjacent grade? Also, the ground level of the Harrison Villas is nearly devoid of any architectural detail. How will this be consistent with the Design Guiddelines? ORIGINAL Esplanade Villas and Harrison Village have been redesigned to comply. RECEIVED JUL 112006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 23. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, finished floor heights should be a minimum of two feet above the sidewalk grade for residential buildings within predominantly mixed-use or commercial areas The residential buildings are inconsistent with this requirement. Esplanade Villas, and Harrison Village have been redesigned to comply. 24. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, buildings should not visually overpower adjacent buildings The proposed towers at heights greater than 160 feet will be more the six times the size of the Esplanade Villas and five times that of the Harrison Villas This has been addressed in discussions with the City. 25 Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, multiple buildings within a single project shall relate architecturally with each other and the surrounding neighborhood. The architecture of the proposed towers and retail buildings differ substantially from the residential buildings as well as from each other. A more unified architectural treatment needs to be applied to the various buildings in the development. Will comply. See Plans and Elevations. 26. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the primary facade shall be the most highly designed facade and utilize elements such as changes in plane, variety in color, materials, texture, doors and/or windows As designed, the primary facade of the Esplanade Villas in the "courtyard" elevation, however the primary facade as per the Guidelines is the facade facing Osceola Avenue. Also, the primary facade of the Harrison Villas has been designed as the interior facing facade and not the Osceola Avenue facing facade as it should be. Esplanade Villas, and Harrison Village have been redesigned to comply. 27 Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, an architecturally prominent entrance with door shall be located on the primary facade. Neither the Esplanade Villas, Harrison Villas, nor the retail buildings comply with this Guideline. As previously expressed, the entrances for the Villas are not even located on the primary facade. The corner retail buildings (R-1 and R-4) have architecturally prominent features in the towers (despite their disproportionate relationship to the balance of the buildings); however the buildings do not make use of these prominent features for entrances Esplanade Villas, and Harrison Village have been redesigned to comply. 28. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, major architectural treatments on the principle facade shall be continued around all sides of the building visible from the public realm. Aside from a stringcourse, comice and parapet the side elevations of the Harrison Villas are blank. Additionally, the sides and rears of the retail buildings have high visibility from the public realm and would be better served by stronger architectural elevations Harrison Village has been redesigned to comply. 29. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, buildings on corner lots shall emphasize their prominent location in the use of additional height, massing, distinctive architectural treatments, and/or other distinguishing features Tower #3 is located near to the corner of Osceola A venue and Georgia Street yet is situated approximately 100 feet from the corner and does not differ itself in any noteworthy regard from the other two towers Tower #3 should be resituated adjacent the corner and designed in a different matter from the other towers while taking advantage of the desire for greater massing. When relocating the building to the corner please be advised that an architecturally prominent entrance will need to be provided in accordance with these Guidelines In addition to the above, buildings R-1 and R-4, while located at the corners of N. Fort Harrison and Georgia/Jones Streets are also located on the corners of Osceola and Georgia/Jones Streets The design of these buildings ignores these prominent locations by not buildings out to the corners and orienting blank, unattractive facades toward the corners This has been addressed in discussions with the City and is addressed in full in the acco iRk Narrative. RECEIVED JUL 11 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • • 30. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, entrances should be provided along secondary facades especially where such facades face parking areas With regard to the retail buildings R-1 and R-4, secondary entrances have been provided for on the corresponding floor plans and elevations, however the location of the adjacent parking lots appears not to have been taken into consideration. Neither of the entrances will actually function with vehicles parked in the adjacent parking spaces Harrison Village has been redesigned to comply. 31. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the overall design of the side facade of the building shall be consistent with regard to architectural style, materials, color, finish and detail. The south elevation of R-1 and the north elevation of R-4 have portions which are visible from N. Fort Harrison Avenue and are inconsistent with the above Harrison Village has been redesigned to comply. 32. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, windows within a building/development shall create a consistent and cohesive fenestration pattern, and further incompatible window types/shapes on the same structures is inappropriate within the downtown. Along the elevations of the Harrison villas there are five differently sized windows occurring throughout the elevation, which results in an erratic and aesthetically awkward appearance to the building. Along the "courtyard" elevation of the Esplanade villas the two centrally located windows on the first level are inconsistent with the fenestration pattern across the balance of the elevation. On the tower elevations the fenestration pattern seems to be constantly changing. On the north/south elevations a new window size is introduced nearly every time a window appears as you read the elevation from left to right. Conversely to the above, the fenestration pattern of the Beach Side Villas is too consistent - to the point of being overly repetitive. All of the windows and surrounds do not need to be identical, some level of variation/diversity should be incorporated into the design. Harrison Village and Esplanade Villas have been redesigned to comply. Beach Side Villas have been removed. Tower elevations have been adjusted. 33. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, bulkheads shall be provided below display windows None of the retail building display windows include bulkheads Will comply. 34. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, doors shall enhance and support the architectural style of the building. The doors for the Esplanade Villas do little to enhance the building architecture. The main entry or "front" door should be more architecturally prominent. The balcony doors should be more in keeping with the style of those found on the Harrison Villas balconies and less with the "front" doors Esplanade Villas have been redesigned to comply. 35 Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, roofs shall be consistent with the style of the building. The "courtyard" elevation for the Esplanade Villas is inconsistent with the roof for the balance of the building. Arched parapet elements should be added to the two, vertical 'bump-outs" on the "courtyard" elevation. With regard to the Harrison Villas, the elongated curved parapets may be consistent stylistically to the architecture; however their positioning on the building seem awkward and added to an appearance of the building being vertically cluttered and unbalanced. With regard to the retail buildings, the style of the building appears to be dictated by the roof/parapet as, in many cases, the parapet is nearly as large or large than the building itself. Harrison Village and Esplanade Villas have been redesigned to comply. 36. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, awnings should be provided to protect pedestrians from inclement weather This is particularly applicable fro the retail buildings The north elevation of R-1 and the south elevation of R-4 should be revised to include awnings The central segment of the east elevation of R-2 provides awnings that none of the entrances to the outer segments along the north, south or east elevations have. Regarding R-3, the majority of the storefronts include awnings; however it would still seem appropriate that those remaining storefronts are provided with awnings as well. It is suggested that these R-3 storefronts be provided with barrel style awnings consistent with the use of the arches in the build&gft Lure RECEIVED IUL 112006 PMNING DEPAkk : (? ,1T -- ?r nI EAMAV • .0 (this will also add variety to the elevations). Lastly, while not always associated with protecting pedestrians from inclement weather, the Harrison Villas and Esplanade Villas should also include awnings in their redesign. Harrison Village and Esplanade Villas have been redesigned to comply. 37 Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, first floor awnings should be placed no higher than the mid point between the top of the first stor y window and the bottom of the second story windowsi/l. The shed style roofs, which effectively function as awnings, on the west elevation of the Esplanade Villas need to be lowered to meet this Guideline. The shed roofs over the entries on the east elevation of the Harrison Villas also need to be lowered (roughly 2.5 feet) to be consistent with this requirement. Harrison Village and Esplanade Villas have been redesigned to comply. 38. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, gutters, downspouts, utility boxes, meters, etc shall be located so as to be as visually unobtrusive as possible and should not be visible from the street. Downspouts have been depicted for the retail buildings; however utility boxes, meters, etc have not been depicted for these buildings and none of the above have been depicted for any residential building. Will comply. A note has been added to plans. 39. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, building materials shall be consistent with and relate to the architectural style of the building. It appears as if many of the materials proposed will meet this, however many materials are not identified on the plans Will comply. 40. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, light fixtures shall be designed to respect, enhance and contribute to the architectural style, detailing and elements of a building. Further, light fixtures should reinforce the overall composition of the facade with regard to color, material, size, scale and shape. The proposed site and buildings appear not to have taken the use of lighting into consideration. Light fixtures should be provided in accordance with the above, as well as the other standards listed in the Design Guidelines Light fixtures are shown along the public rights of way and detailed on the landscape plan. 41. Pursuant to Section 3-904 of the Community Development Code, sight visibility triangles are to be measured from the point where two or more rights-of-way intersect: The sight visibility triangles depicted at the intersection of Osceola Avenue with Georgia and Jones Streets are incorrect (they're taken from crosswalk and edge of pavement). Within those sight visibility triangles associated with the surface parking lots, a total of four parking spaces encroach as well as the southernmost dumpster enclosure. The sight triangles have been revised. 42. Pursuant to Section 3-908 of the Community Development Code, no provision exists for the encroachment of balconies into public rights-of-way. The balconies along the east elevation of the Esplanade Villas encroach into the Osceola Avenue right-of-way at a height of approximately five feet. Balconies will be removed. 43. Pursuant to Section 3-911 of the Community Development Code, all utilities including individual distribution lines shall be installed underground. Provide a notation on the utilities plan to this effect. Acknowledged and a note added to the plans. 44. Pursuant to Section 3-1402.A, of the Community Development Code, the minimum length of a standard parking space is 18 feet. Revise the proposed surface parking and garage spaces to meet this standard. ORIGINAL Will comply. RECEIVED JUL 112006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 0 0 45. Pursuant to Section 3-1404.C of the Community Development Code, all required parking spaces, including appropriate access thereto, shall remain unobstructed and available for use in accordance with their purpose. The use of 104 tandem parking spaces is in direct conflict with this requirement. Further, the six two-car garages proposed with the Harrison Villas are in conflict with the above code requirement. Will comply. Tandem parking places removed, and Harrison Village garages replaced. 46. Pursuant to Section 3-1406.A of the Community Development Code, off-street loading spaces shall measure not less than 12 feet in width and 35 feet in length exclusive of aisle and maneuvering space. The proposed loading zones within the N. Fort Harrison Avenue and Osceola Avenue rights-of-way do not meet these standards Per our DRC meeting a loading area has been added midway along Osceola Avenue. 47 Clarify the purpose of the large maneuvering area and bollards on the north side of the Harrison Village Plaza. This appears to serve no purpose and should be eliminated and replaced with additional retail space for R-2 and/or landscaping. Eliminated. Harrison Village has been redesigned. 48. Sheet 5 of 12 denotes that the hardscape plan has details pertaining to the central planter within the Harrison Village Plaza. Please provide the hardscape plan. The hardscape details are shown on the landscape plan. The note on sheet 5 has been deleted. 49. Note #8 on sheet 5 of 12 indicates the provision of two double dumpster enclosures, two compactors and roll-out dumosters These facilities are not found on this development proposal. Sheet has been corrected. See note above. 50. Provide handicap accessible parking for the retail buildings within the surface lots The surface parking has been amended. Handicapped parking is provided. 51. Depict the turning movements necessary by solid waste vehicles to access the refuse enclosures The solid waste receptacles have been relocated to provide adequate access. 52. A review of the floor plan for tower #1 indicates that the building will contain 96 dwelling units, not 100 as indicated. Revise the plans, site data and application as necessary. There are now 113 units in this Tower, See Narrative for list of units. 53. Without an easement from the property owner to the south, how is access envisioned to be achieved to tower #1 following the vacation of the existing Osceola Avenue right-of-way. A sidewalk has been added to the south side of tower #1 to provide access. 54. The location of the entrance to the parking garage along Georgia Street as per the site plans (sheet 5 of 12 and A- 0.02) is inconsistent with its location on the garage floor plan (A-0.01). The garage entrance is inconsistent by roughly 29 feet. The entrance location has been revised and coordinated. 55 Three trash rooms have been identifled within the sublevels of the tower buildings (one in each tower). There are some issues that must be clarified with regard to these rooms First, how is the refuse collected in these areas intended to be picked-up? There is no possible means by which solid waste vehicles can access these areas; it is not conceivable that dumpsters will be rolled out through the garage, up a ramp onto Georgia Street and then to some yet to be determined mass staging area. A second issue, how do the residents of the Beach Side Villas and Esplanade Villas dispose of waste? Is it envisioned that they will walk through the parking garage to one of the tower trash areas every time there is trash to be disposed of7 ORIGINAL RECEIVED ?L 11 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER . 1 0 0 0 A third issue, there are two sublevels within the garage and each sublevel appears to have a trash room for each building (six total) - is this intended to be the case? If so, this will only exacerbate the first issue raised as to the means by which refuse is removed from the building. Also, keep in mind that these dumpster would need to be rolled back down into the parking garage. See note above. 56. The south elevation of the southernmost of the Esplanade Villas will face the abutting property to the south. This parcel is under development review and the abutting portion will likely become a 'service courtyard" for the parcel and include their waste facilities This will not be the most enjoyable/attractive view for the residents Strongly consider relocating this building in the redesign of the project. This will most likely become an access road. 57 The floor plans for tower #2 depict a drop-off area for the building; however no driveway will exist to provide access to this area. As such, tower #2 will need to be redesigned to eliminate the drop-off area. Plans have been amended to show a drop-off. 58. Sheet A-0.02 depicts a flared 12 foot wide walkway leading to the aforementioned tower #2 drop-off area. This raises two issues. first, why is this walkway flared? Second, if this is a delineated paved walkway what is the make-up of the surrounding area? With regard to the latter issue, the entire surrounding area appears to be paved. How is this consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines? Plans have been amended to show a drop-off. Surrounding area will be land- and hardscaped to create a pedestrian-friendly plaza. 59. Many of the handicap accessible parking spaces within the parking garage do not have an accessible route to an elevator and/or unit Will comply. 60. It would seem very apparent based upon the design of the site that parking spaces will be reserved for individual dwellings As such, identify on the plans those spaces that are being reserved. No spaces have been allocated as yet. 61. In the area beneath tower #1 adjacent the stairs and elevator, what is proposed to occur in the large open area? Maintenance and Storage. 62. Please clarify if the following statement is accurate., on the ground level of the Beach Side Villas the entries and east elevation windows will open directly out to the parking garage. Beachside Villas have been removed. 63. Provide wheelstops for those parking spaces that abut a walkway and that abut the front of another parking tier Will comply. 64. Sheet A-0.03 depicts buildings sections (segments) that are not included as part of either the Beach Side Villas or the towers Additionally, the floor plans show virtually no information regarding these portions of the building. Beachside Villas have been removed. Plans have been revised accordingly. 65. Revise sheet A-0.03 to clearly depict1denote the proposed building heights as measured from base flood elevation. Height is shown from Mean Site Elevation to top of Roof Slab, (179'-10") ORIGINAL RECEIVED JUL 112006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER . ", > 0 0 66. Sheet A-0.05 depicts an unattractive blank wall along Georgia Street. Provide improved architectural plans consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines Will comply. 67 Sheets A-1.11 and A-1.12 provide floor plans for the first floor and floors 5-17 as well as the roof. Where would the plans for the 2nd - 4th floors be? Drawings will be corrected. 68. Provide correct height measurements on all building elevations Be advised that with the Beach Side Villas and towers height is to be measured from the base flood elevation (SFE). All other buildings shall be measured from the existing grade. In no case is building height to be measured from the finished floor. Height is shown from Mean Site Elevation to top of Roof Slab, (179'-10") 69. Identify the floors of the building correctly and consistently. The floor plans call out 17 floors not including the sublevels within the towers; however according to the elevations there are only 15 floors not including the sublevels This means that you either have three towers that are taller than you think and possibly than can be approved (and the elevations are wrong), or you have fewer units than you think and the floor plans are wrong. Revise the plans accordingly. Drawings will be corrected. 70. On the tallest "tower" of the tower buildings there appears to be a cut-out. Is this a cut-out or simply architectural detailing? Architectural detailing. 71. The measurement from finished floor of the first floor to the top of the roof deck on sheet A-1.24 states a height of 152' 10" The actual dimension is 154' 10': The actual height from BFE to roof deck appears to be 162'-10" Drawings will be corrected. 72. Pursuant to Section 8-102 of the Community Development Code, elevator equipment rooms and like mechanical equipment enclosures shall be permitted to project up to 16 feet higher than the maximum for the district. The easternmost elevator tower projects more than 21 feet above the roof deck and must be reduced. Additionally, clarify the composition of these towers - what is within them? Also, adjacent the towers are pitched roofs - as the building is reviewed as a "flat roof' these are looked at as parapets, which pursuant to the definition of height referenced above (Section 8-102), are not permitted to exceed 42 inches over the maximum height permitted. The same parapet height issue exists with the parapet at the face of the west elevation. Height is shown from Mean Site Elevation to top of Roof Slab, (179'-10"). Varying heights of parapet will be used to provide mechanical enclosures and hide the air-conditioning compressors. 73. The roof on the Porte cochere for the towers appears awkward as viewed from the north/south elevations Consider utilizing a roof style other than pitched and flat. These have been redesigned. 74. The intermittent use of sculpted balconies does not correctly appear on all elevations Many times they are depicted as aluminum rail from the side. Drawings will be corrected. 75 The stringcourses proposed for towers should be more architecturally substantia%significant. ORIGINAL A: Drawings will be corrected. RECEIVED JUL 112006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 76. The shed roofs proposed over the balconies on the "west" elevation (actually the north and/or south elevations) of the Esplanade Villas should be lowered. Also, the outlookers beneath this roof should be more substantial in size (width). They should appear consistent with the bulk of what they appear to support. Drawings will be corrected. 77 The "courtyard" elevation of the Esplanade Villas depicts several 'bump-outs" that do not appear on the corresponding floor plans Drawings will be corrected. 78. On the west elevation of the Beach Side Villas (A-1.44) decorative aluminum barriers are depicted apparently as a means of screening vehicles within the parking garage. How do these "barriers" accomplish this Low (42" high) walls will be shown to screen the vehicles. 79. Explain the purpose of the brackets beneath the third floor windows of the Harrison Villas It doesn't seem as if these serve any purpose. Correct. Drawings will be fixed. 80. The shed roofs over the doors of the Harrison Villas should be lowered. Also, the bracket supporting this shed roof should be more substantial in width. Harrison Village has been extensively redesigned and this bracket no longer exists. 81. The parapet for the Harrison Villas seems oddly low in comparison to the balance of the facade, especially along the east elevation. Additionally, the east1west elevation doesn't agree with the location of parapet features Harrison Village has been extensively redesigned. 82. The notes along side the west elevation of the Harrison Villas call out decorative aluminum railings/barriers and outlookers that do not seem to be depicted. Provide revised notations for the elevation. Also, assure that the notations for the other elevations are correctlaccurate. Will comply. Harrison Village has also been extensively redesigned. 83. Provide a revised Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application restating the proposed use with the dwelling units and non-residential floor area correctly denoted. Also, the description of request is inadequate. Revise the request to be consistent with the requirements of the application. Please see attached Narrative for restated data. 84. Please be advised that the response to General Applicability criterion #6 will need to be revised based upon the revisions to the plans Please see attached Narrative for a revised response. 85 The response provided for Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criterion #2 does not state how the development is consistent with the Goals and Policies of the Cl" Comprehensive Plan. Please see attached Narrative for an extended response. 86. The response provided to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criterion #6 contains factual errors when compared to the plans and must be revised. ORIGINAL Will comply. RECEIVED JUL 112006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEAARWATER 87 A completed Development Agreement Application must be submitted to the Planning Department. This was submitted on 7 July 2006 88 The project phasing cannot be accomplished as proposed. The towers all exceed the standard allowable height of 150 feet and would require the use of additional height from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool in order to be built. Please be advised that the height allowable through the Pool may not be enough to accommodate the buildings as proposed. The first phase in this redesigned Submission has 113 unit and is 2 acres, thus requiring use of the Density Pool. 89. With regard to Phase 1, all parking is identified as "temporary parking': If Phase I is ultimately the extent of the project, this parking will be permanent. How would this comply with the Downtown Plan? Provide plans for Phase 1 as if it was the full extent of the development proposal. Per the DRC discussion, a description of the proposed phase one and phase two landscaping is provided in the Development Agreement and shown conceptually on the phasing landscape plans. 90. In the construction of tower #1, what is the extent to which the sublevels are to be constructed? 2 sublevels below the Osceola grade, which will actually daylight on the west side due to the steep bluff into which they are built. 91. The Phase 2 during construction plan identifies a temporary 55-space parking lot to the east of N. Fort Harrison Avenue. Provide plans that depict how the parking lot meets the City's Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the location/ requirements of Section 3-1404.A of the Community Development Code. Will comply. 92. Provide plans for Phase 2 as if it were the full extent of the development. Per the DRC discussion, a description of the proposed phase one and phase two landscaping is provided in the Development Agreement and shown conceptually on the phasing landscape plans. 93. The phasing timeline for the project indicates an expectation of "designing" Phase 2 during the construction of Phase 1. If site plan approval has already been granted by the Board, what "designing" would be necessary for Phase 2? Typo. Should have been "building" 94. The functionality of the proposed 55 space temporary parking lot during Phase 2 seems unrealistic. Will residents actually traverse the distance proposed from the parking lot to tower 1, which takes them across N. Fort Harrison Avenue and Osceola Avenue for the two years that Phase 2 is anticipated to be under construction? The Developer anticipates providing some alternative solution, perhaps in the form of valet parking. ORIGINAL RECEIVED JUL 112006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 9.15 am; Case Number: FLD2006-05*- 410 N FT HARRISON AVE • Owner(s): Triangle S A Land Llc _ 305 N Fort Harrison Ave Clearwater, FI 33755 TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Representative: Thomas Coates 305 N Fort Harrison Ave Clearwater, F133755 TELEPHONE: 727-446-0020, FAX: 727-446-0002, E-MAIL: thomas@triangledevelopment.com Location: 4.85 acres located west of N. Fort Harrison Avenue between Jones and Georgia Streets. Atlas Page: 277B Zoning District: D, Downtown Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a mixed-use development within the Downtown (D) District consisting of 328 attached dwelling units and 10,031 square feet of non-residential floor area as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project as per Section 2-903.C of the Community Development Code. Proposed Use: Mixed use Neighborhood Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Association(s): Clearwater, F133758 P O Box 8204 TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Neighborhood Old Clearwater Bay Neighborhood Association(s): Clearwater, Fl 33767 1828 Venetian Point Drive TELEPHONE: 461-0564, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: southern@tampabay.rr.com Neighborhood North Greenwood Association, Inc. Association(s): Clearwater, Fl 33755 1201 Douglas Road TELEPHONE: 560-4382, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: WADENWADE@AOL.COM Presenter: Robert Tefft, Planner III Attendees Included: The DRC reviewed this application with the following comments: General Engineering: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 29, 2006 - Page 7 Prior to Communit0velopment Board review, applicant shall add0the following: 1. Ordinance vacating Osceola Avenue is currently in default. Applicant shall submit a new vacation application pursuant to direction of the City Attorney. Contact Steve Doherty at (727). 562-4773 for further information. 2. Sheet #2 will be reviewed when submitted as part of a building permit application; no review/comment will be provided at this time. K3 urning radii at all driveways shall be a minimum of 30 feet per City of Clearwater Contract -Specifications and Standards Index #108. 4. Existing sanitary manhole rim and invert elevations shall be field verified by the applicant and noted on the utility plan. Confirmed elevations will be needed to verify appropriate sanitary slopes. 5. Indicate on the plan that all sanitary sewer pipes located under roadways and other vehicular access areas shall be constructed of ductile iron pipe with interior of pipe epoxy coated with Protecto 401. 6. Show on the plan minimum sidewalk width of 5-feet along North Fort Harrison Avenue and a minimum width of 4-feet along all other streets. Prior to issuance of a building permit: 1. Provide a copy of an approved D.E.P. permit for the installation of the sanitary sewer extension prior to issuance of a building permit. 2. Provide a copy of an approved health permit for the installation of the domestic water main prior to issuance of a building permit. The health permit application form(s) can be found at: www.dep.state.fl.us/water/drinkingwater/forms.btm. 3. A separate right-of-way permit will be required for all work within the right-of-way of any of the adjacent street(s) that are assigned to the city. See Don Melone (727) 562-4798 in Room #220 at the MSB (Municipal Services Building). 4. Provide City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards Index #301, pages 1 and 2, for sanitary sewer manhole covers. 5. Sanitary sewer manhole covers to be located within street rights-of-way shall be stamped "City of Clearwater" per index # 301 page 1 of 2. Sanitary sewer manhole covers to be located on private property shall not be stamped "City of Clearwater" per index # 301 page 2 of 2. General Note: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review, additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. General Note: If the proposed project necessitates infrastructure modifications to satisfy site-specific water capacity and pressure requirements and/or wastewater capacity requirements, the modifications shall be completed by the applicant and at their expense. If underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, the installation shall be completed and in service prior to construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. Environmental: l . 1. On Sheet #6, Section A-A does not correlate with site plan details, please revise. 2. Revise plan view to clarify pond consruction details. 3. Submit required stormwater calculations. 4. All trees in buffer zone shall be labeled and identified in key table. S-'Observational boardwalk is located in the wetland buffer zone, please revise. Note: A 25' wetland buffer zone is required from any wetland jurisdictional line. Fire: All of the above to be addressed prior to CDB. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 29, 2006 - Page 8 1 . Provide Turn-aro*in the form of a culdesac, a T-turn or a Y-tur*Georgia St. Show on plan PRIOR TO CDB 2. This building is determined to meet the criteria of a High Rise Building as defined by the Florida Fire Prevention Code, 2004 Edition, therefore the requirements of a High Rise structure must be met. These requirements include, but are not limited to Fire Code items such as: Fire Pump and generator if pump is electric, sprinkler system throughout with control valve and water flow device on each floor, Automatic Class I Standpipe System, Fire Alarm using voice/alarm communication, Central Fire Control Station, firefighter phone system, Emergency lighting, and Standby Power as per NFPA 70, Pressurized Stairwells, Stairwell marking and Elevator Lobbies. Please acknowledge PRIOR TO CDB. 3 . 50% of exit stairs in each building must exit directly to the outside of the building. To be addressed further at permit stage. Acknowledge PRIOR TO CDB 4. Fire hose valves/stndpipe for dock area protection must be provided in accordance with NFPA 303. They must be connected to firepump/wet standpipe system. Acknowledge and Show on plan PRIOR TO CDB Harbor Master: No Comments Legal: No Comments Land Resources: 1 . Provide the tree inventory report for the trees on parcel 4, south of Georgia St. and west of Osceola Ave. prior to building permit. 2. Show to be preserved all trees within the wetlands buffer prior to building permit. Landscaping: 1 , Pursuant to Section 3-1202.E.1 of the Community Development Code, the minimum size for an interior landscape island shall be 150 square feet. Further, such islands shall have a minimum dimension of eight feet from back of curb to back of curb and contain one tree per island. As proposed, none of the interior landscape islands meet the minimum dimensions or size requirements and two of these islands do not provide the required tree. 2. Pursuant to Section 3-1202.13.1 of the Community Development Code, shade trees shall have a 2.5" caliper at time of installation and shall be planted a minimum of five feet from any impervious area. Revise the plans so that the proposed Live Oaks meet this requirement. 3. Pursuant to Section 3-1202.13.1 of the Community Development Code, accent trees shall have a 2 inch caliper at the time of installation. 4. Pursuant to Section 3-1202.13.1 of the Community Development Code, palm trees can be used to satisfy 25% of the total trees required. A total of 8 interior trees are required based upon the final project design (i.e. end of Phase 3) and all of the interior trees proposed are palms. 5 . Pursuant to Section 3-1202.13.4 of the Community Development Code, each tree species provided shall constitute a minimum of 10% of the total number of trees. The proposed Crape Myrtle and Medjool Date Palm do not meet this requirement. 6. Pursuant to Section 3-1202.E.2 of the Community Development Code, foundation plantings shall be provided for 100% of a building facade with frontage along a right-of-way, excluding space necessary for building ingress/egress within a five foot landscape area composed of two accent trees or three palms for every 40 linear feet of building facade and one shrub for every 20 square feet of required landscape area. Foundation plantings have not been provided along either N. Fort Harrison Avenue or Osceola Avenue and those planting provided along Georgia and Jones Streets would seem to prevent access to the buildings. 7. Revise the landscape plan to include, or provide a seperate streetscape plan consistent with the typical streetscape improvements along N. Fort Harrison Avenue (Downtown Corridor) as set forth in the City's Master Streetscape and Wayfinding Plan. The plan must also depict all streetscape improvements proposed along Osceola, Georgia and Jones rights-of-way being used to obtain density and height from the Pool. Parks and Recreation: I . Open space/recreation impact fees are due prior to issuance of building permits or final plat (if applicable) whichever occurs first. These fees could be substantial and it is recommended that you contact Art Kader at 727-562-4824 to calculate the assessment. Stormwater: 1 . Prior to CDB approval the engineer is to address the stormwater criteria in Section E of the submittal. As the stormwater area was redesigned from the previous FLD submittal, the engineer is to demonstrate that this redesign meets City criteria. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 29, 2006 - Page 9 Solid Waste: • 1 . Please explain how Solid Waste will be serviced at these locations and also at high rise Recycling location will be needed for residents of living units. Traffic Engineering: 1 . Provide a note on both the civil and architectural plans that the vertical clear height of parking garage shall be 8'2" minimum to accommodate handicapped van parking per ADA standards. 2. Strategically locate handicapped parking spaces adjacent an accessible entrance, i.e. elevator. 3. On the architectural site plan, dimension a typical parking space with drive aisle per City standards. 4. Remove stacked parking spaces (Community Development Code Section 3-14-4.C.). 5. Re-locate columns away from the end of parking stalls and inside of 90 degree turns for better maneuverability. 6. Remove angled parking on 1 st and 2nd floor or redesign for better maneuverability for motorists. 7&Remove any obstructions that block sight visibility of parked motorists. 8. Provide signage such as "exit" signs and "To 2nd floor" signs for better internal traffic flow. 9O. Provide Level Of Service for Osceola and Georgia intersection. 10. Clarify wall legend. 11. Provide a handicapped parking space for the southern parking lot of Harrison Village. (fl.)Provide a 6' wide gap/buffer spacing for every two parallel parking spaces along Fort Harrison Road for better maneuverability for motorists. General Note(s): 1) Comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule. 2) DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Planning: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 29, 2006 - Page 10 I . Pursuant to the Cleater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, within tod Bay District the maximum height for buildings west of Osceola Avenue and between Drew and Georgia Streets is 150 feet. The proposed 17-story towers all appear to be in excess of 160'. It is noted that the CDB may consider granting an increase in height not to exceed 20 percent of the maximum based upon the provision of a major public amenity. 2. Pursuant to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, within the Old Bay District (Policy #4) City rights-of-way that dead-end at the harbor shall be retained and improved for public access to the water. 3 . Pursuant to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, within the Old Bay District (Policy #9) mixed-use development with office and/or retail on the ground floor and residential uses above are encouraged along N. Fort Harrison Avenue. Consider revising the development proposal to include residential development on the second floor of the proposed retail buildings along N. Fort Harrison Avenue. 4. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, parking lots adjacent to rights-of-way shall be screened with either a landscape buffer or a solid wall/fence three feet in height. 5 . Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, parking lots shall be functionally designed as small lots with landscape islands and tree canopies. The parking lots associated with the retail portion of the development has been designed as per the above with the noted exception of the tree canopy. 6. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the use of interlocking pavers, brick or other similarly textured materials shall be used for parking lot surfacing and/or accents. 7. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, parking garages accessory to a principle use shall be architecturally integrated with the design materials, finish and color of the principle structures. The submittal includes combined Building 2 and 3 floor plans and architectural elevations; however Building 3 is quite different from Building 2 in that it consists of the parking garage entrance on its north elevation. The plans do not depict the existance of the parking garage entrance on this north elevation. Revise the plans to depict the garage entrance ensuring that it meets the above referenced design guidelines. 8. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, clearly defined, safe, direct, convenient and landscaped pedestrian pathways shall be provided between streets parking areas and buildings. If Building 1 is to be the first phase built what pathways will exist in a manner consistent with the above at the time of its construction? 9. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, open space shall have clearly defined entrances with direct access from adjacent streets and adequate buffering from vehicular traffic. The proposed open space at the center of the Harrison Village portion of the development does not provide adequate buffering from vehicular traffic. 10. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, open spaces shall utilize an aesthetically coordinated marriage between hardscape and landscape elements. Large open spaces shall be broken into smaller human scale spaces through changes in grade, planters, pots, landscape, sculpture, fences, wall, etc. Further, open spaces should function as transitions between the public sidewalk and streets and the use of the property. 11 . Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, when located at grade mechanical/utility equipment shall be placed in the least obtrusive location possible and screened from adjacent properties and rights-of-way with fencing, walls or landscaping. The transformers proposed are inadequately screened. Identify the locations of all mechanical and utility equipment including air conditioning for the development and the means by which the equipment will be screened. 12. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be integrated into the design of the building through the use of parapet walls, towers or other architectural elements. 13. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, solid waste containers shall be placed in the most unobtrusive location possible and screened from adjacent properties and rights-of-way. The proposed solid waste facilities on the east side of Osceola Avenue are in highly visible and obtrusive locations and are inadequately screened. Additionally, where are the solid waste facilities for those dwellings on the west side of Osceola Avenue? Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 29, 2006 - Page 11 1.4 . Pursuant to the DesoGuidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redcoopment Plan, fences and/or walls shall compliment and be consistent with the principle structure with regard to materials, texture, size, shape and color. The proposed six-foot high vinyl fence is not materially consistent and does not compliment the building architecture. A three foot high wall with columns and substantial grill work would be a more appropriate fence/wall option 15. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, vertical elements such as posts, columns, etc. should be incorporated into the design of fences and/or walls and spaced at appropriate intervals in relation to materials used and overall length. 16. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, buildings should be oriented toward the street as the orientation of the front facade along the streetscape contributes to pedestrian interest in an area. The proposed residential component of Harrison Villas and the Esplanade Villas orient their entrances toward the interiors of the developments. These components must be redesigned. 17. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, seperation between buildings should be determined based upon its surroundings, the character districts vision and development pattern, intensity of development, pedestrian activity and building height. The seperation between buildings proposed in not condusive to a quality pedestrian environment and generally makes for a poor overall architectural appearance. 18. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, buildings shall not break-up the common build-to line by locating further back/forward except to provide a courtyard, steps, entryway, arcade, plaza or other pedestrian oriented design features. 19. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, building form shall visually relate to surrounding buildings and the desired character of the area with regard to mass, scale, height, width and depth. The proposed retail buildings are inconsistent with this guideline in comparison to each other as well as within the individual buildings. The towers of R-1 and R-4 do not relate to the height, width or depth of the balance of the buildings. Further, the depth of the colonnaded wing of R-1 and R4 is disproportionate to its width and height. The depth of R-2 (north/south elevation) does not visually relate to the height or width. Also, the heights of the outer portions of R-2 do not visually relate to the interior segment. The individual segments of R-3 provide a great deal of variation to the roof line; however this variation creates inconsistencies in the relationship between the segments and as this roof line is exaggerated parapet height, does not relate well to the depth. 20. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, low-rise buildings and/or those with long facade widths should accentuate vertical elements such as entrances and columns or by breaking up the facade into a greater number of smaller vertica masses. The architecture of the Harrison Villas provides very litte emphasis on vertical elements, instead emphasizing a very elongated facade with horizontally stretched windows. With regard to the retail buildings R-1 and R4, columns have been provided; however the columns do little to accentuate verticality in the structures and instead do more to accentuate the horizontal design of the buildings. 21 . Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, with regard to high-rise buildings, building stories or stepbacks shall be differentiated by architectural features such as coping, balustrades, cornice lines, changes in materials, etc. Further, there shall be a proportional relationship between the height of a building and the number and dimensions of stepbacks used to mitigate the height of the building. The proposed towers include stepbacks to the horizontal planes; however the building consists of no stepbacks to the vertical planes until the 17th floor which does little to mitigate the mass of the building. More proportional stepbacks need to be provided to mitigate the height in accordance with the above Guidelines. 22. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, buildings shall correspond to the existing and/or desired rhythm and spacing of surrounding buildings through the use of common points of agreement such as windows, doors, recesses, reliefs and other architectural elements. Additionally, buildings shall maintain the existing and/or desired pattern of the placement and size of windows and doors, shutters and other architectural elements on adjacent buildings with regard to both the ground floor and upper stories. How will the architectural elements for Esplande Villas correspond to the rhythm and spacing along Osceola with the base of the windows roughyl seven feet above adjacent grade and the balconies five feet above adjacent grade? Also, the ground level of the Harrison Villas is nearly devoid of any architectural detail. How will this be consistent with the Design Guildelines? Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 29, 2006 - Page 12 23 . Pursuant to the DesoGuidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Red*pment Plan, finished floor heights should be a minimum of two feet above the sidewalk grade for residential buildings within predominantly mixed-use or commercial areas. The residential buildings are inconsistent with this requirement. 24. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, buildings should not visually overpower adjacent buildings. The proposed towers at heights greater than 160 feet will be more the six times the size of the Esplanade Villas and five times that of the Harrison Villas. 25 . Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, multiple buildings within a single project shall relate architecturally with each other and the surrounding neighborhood. The architecture of the proposed towers and retail buildings differ substantially from the residential buildings as well as from each other. A more unified architectural treatment needs to be applied to the various buildings in the development. 26. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the primary facade shall be the most highly designed facade and utilize elements such as changes in plane, variety in color, materials, texture, doors and/or windows. As designed, the primary facade of the Esplanade Villas in the "courtyard" elevation; however the primary facade as per the Guidelines is the facade facing Osceola Avenue. Also, the primary facade of the Harrison Villas has been designed as the interior facing facade and not the Osceola Avenue facing facade as it should be. 27. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, an architecturally prominent entrance with door shall be located on the primary facade. Neither the Esplanade Villas, Harrison Villas, nor the retail buildings comply with this Guideline. As previously expressed, the entrances for the Villas are not even located on the primary facade. The comer retail buildings (R-I and R-4) have architecturally prominent features in the towers (depite their disproportionate relationship to the balance of the buildings); however the buildings do not make use of these prominent features for entrances. 28. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, major architectural treatments on the principle facade shall be continued around all sides of the building visible from the public realm. Aside from a stringcourse, cornice and parapet the side elevations of the Harrison Villas are blank. Additionally, the sides and rears of the retail buildings have high visibility from the public realm and would be better served by stronged architectural elevations. 29. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, buildings on corner lots shall emphasize their prominent location in the use of additional height, massing, distinctive architectural treatments, and/or other distinguishing features. Tower #3 is located near to the corner of Osceola Avenue and Georgia Street yet is situated approximately 100 feet from the corner and does not differ itself in any noteworthy regard from the other two towers. Tower #3 should be resituated adjacent the corner and designed in a different matter from the other towers while taking advantage of the desire for greater massing. When relocating the building to the corner please be advised that an architecturally prominent entrance will need to be provided in accordance with these Guidelines. In addition to the above, buildings R-1 and R-4, while located at the corners of N. Fort Harrison and Georgia/Jones Streets are also located on the corners of Osceola and Georgia/Jones Streets. The design of these buildings ignores these prominent locations by not buildings out to the corners and orienting blank, unattracitve facades toward the corners. 30. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, entrances should be provided along secondary facades especially where such facades face parking areas. With regard to the retail buildings R-I and R-4, secondary entrances have been provided for on the corresponding floor plans and elevations; however the location of the adjacent parking lots appears not to have been taken into consideration. Neither of the entrances will actually function with vehicles parked in the adjacent parking spaces. 31 . Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the overall design of the side facade of the building shall be consistent with regard to architectural style, materials, color, finish and detail. The south elevation of R-1 and the north elevation of R-4 have portions which are visible from N. Fort Harrison Avenue and are inconsistent with the above. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 29, 2006 - Page 13 32 . Pursuant to the DesoGuidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Red4opment Plan, windows within a building/development shall create a consistent and cohesive fenestration pattern, and further incompatible window types/shapes on the same structures is inappropriate within the downtown. Along the elevations of the Harrison Villas there are five differently sized windows occuring throughout the elevation, which results in an erratic and aesthetically awkward appearance to the building. Along the "courtyard" elevation of the Esplanade Villas the two centrally located windows on the first level are inconsistent with the fenestraction pattern across the balance of the elevation. On the tower elevations the fenestration pattern seems to be constantly changing. On the north/south elevations a new window size is introduced nearly everytime a window appears as you read the elevation from left to right. Conversly to the above, the fenestration pattern of the Beach Side Villas is too consistent - to the point of being overly repetitive. All of the windows and surrounds do not need to be identical, some level of variation/diversity should be incorporated into the design. 33 . Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, bulkheads shall be provided below display windows. None of the retail building display windows include bulkheads. 34. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, doors shall enhance and support the architectural style of the building. The doors for the Esplanade Villas do little to enhance the building architecture. The main entry or "front" door should be more architecturally prominent. The balcony doors should be more in keeping with the style of those found on the Harrison Villas balconies and less with the "front" doors. 35 . Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, roofs shall be consistent with the style of the building. The "courtyard" elevation for the Esplanade Villas is inconsistent with the roof for the balance of the building. Arched parapet elements should be added to the two vertical "bump-outs" on the "courtyard" elevation. With regard to the Harrison Villas, the elongated curved parapets may be consistent stylistically to the architecture; however their positioning on the building seem awkward and addes to an appearance of the building being vertically cluttered and unbalanced. With regard to the retail buildings, the style of the building appears to be dictated by the roof/parapet as, in many cases, the parapet is nearly as large or large than the building itself. 36. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, awnings should be provided to protact pedestrians from inclement weather. This is particularly applicable fro the retail buildings. The north elevation of R-I and the south elevation of R4 should be revised to include awnings. The central segment of the east elevation of R-2 provides awnings that none of the entrances to the outer segments along the north, south or east elevations have. Regarding R-3, the majority of the storefronts include awnings; however it would still seem appropriate that those remaining storefronts are provided with awnings as well. It is suggested that these R-3 storefronts be provided with barrel style awnings consistent with the use of the arches in the building architecture (this will also add variety to the elevations). Lastly, while not always associated with protecting pedestrians from inclement weather, the Harrison Villas and Esplanade Villas should also included awnings in their redesign. 37 . Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, first floor awnings should be placed no higher than the mid-point between the top of the first story window and the bottom of the second story windowsill. The shed style roofs, which effectively function as awnings, on the west elevation of the Esplanade Villas need to be lowered to meet this Guideline. The shed roofs over the entries on the east elevation of the Harrison Villas also need to be lowered (roughly 2.5 feet) to be consistent with this requirement. 38. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, gutters, downspouts, utility boxes, meters, etc shall be located so as to be as visually unobtrusive as possible and should not be visible from the street. Downspouts have been depicted for the retail buildings; however utility boxes, meters, etc have not been depicted for these buildings and none of the above have been depicted for any residential building. 39. Pursuant to the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, building materials shall be consistent with and relate to the architectural style of the building. It appears as if many of the materials proposed will meet this; however many materials are not identified on the plans. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 29, 2006 - Page 14 40. Pursuant to the DesoGuidelines of the Clearwater Downtown ReApment Plan, light fixtures shall be designed to respect, enhance and contribute to the architectural style, detailing and elements of a building. Further, light fixtures should reinforce the overall composition of the facade with regard to color, material, size, scale and shape. The proposed site and buildings appear not to have taken the use of lighting into consideration. Light fixtures should be provided in accordance with the above, as well as the other standards listed in the Design Guidelines. 41 . Pursuant to Section 3-904 of the Community Development Code, sight visibility triangles are to be measured from the point where two or more rights-of-way intersect. The sight visibility triangles depicted at the intersection of Osceola Avenue with Georgia and Jones Streets are incorrect (they're taken from crosswalk and edge of pavement). Within those sight visibility triangles associated with the surface parking lots, a total of four parking spaces encroach as well as the southernmost dumpster enclosure. 42. Pursuant to Section 3-908 of the Community Development Code, no provision exists for the encroachment of balconies into public rights-of-way. The balconies along the east elevation of the Esplanade Villas encroach into the Osceola Avenue right-of-way at a height of approximately five feet. 43 . Pursuant to Section 3-911 of the Community Development Code, all utilities including individual distribution lines shall be installed underground. Provide a notation on the utilities plan to this effect. 44. Pursuant to Section 3-1402.A, of the Community Development Code, the minimum length of a standard parking space is 18 feet. Revise the proposed surface parking and garage spaces to meet this standard. 45 . Pursuant to Section 3-1404.C of the Community Development Code, all required parking spaces, including appropriate access thereto, shall remain unobstructed and available for use in accordance with their purpose. The use of 104 tandem parking spaces is in direct conflict with this requirement. Further, the six two-car garages proposed with the Harrison Villas are in conflict with the above code requirement. 46. Pursuant to Section 3-1406.A of the Community Development Code, off-street loading spaces shall measure not less than 12 feet in width and 35 feet in length exclusive of aisle and maneuvering space. The proposed loading zones within the N. Fort Harrison Avenue and Osceola Avenue rights-of-way do not meet these standards. 47. Clarify the purpose of the large maneuvering area and bollards on the north side of the Harrison Village Plaza. This appears to serve no purpose and should be eliminated and replaced with additional retail space for R-2 and/or landscaping. 48. Sheet 5 of 12 denotes that the hardscape plan has details pertaining to the central planter within the Harrison Village Plaza. Please provide the hardscape plan. 49. Note #8 on sheet 5 of 12 indicates the provision of two double dumpster enclosures, two compactors and roll-out dumpsters. These facilities are not found on this development proposal. 50. Provide handicap accessible parking for the retail buildings within the surface lots. 51 . Depict the turning movements necessary by solid waste vehicles to access the refuse enclosures. 52. A review of the floor plan for tower #1 indicates that the building will contain 96 dwelling units, not 100 as indicated. Revise the plans, site data and application as necessary. 53 . Without an easement from the property owner to the south, how is access envisioned to be achieved to tower #1 following the vacation of the existing Osceola Avenue right-of-way. 54. The location of the entrance to the parking garage along Georgia Street as per the site plans (sheet 5 of 12 and A-0.02) is inconsistent with its location on the garage floor plan (A-0.01). The garage entrance is inconsistent by roughly 29 feet. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 29, 2006 - Page 15 55 . Three trash rooms 10 been identified within the sublevels of the toauildings (one in each tower). There are some issues that must be clarified with regard to these rooms. First, how is the refuse collected in these areas intended to be picked-up? There is no possible means by which solid waste vehicles can access these areas; it is not concieveable that dumpsters will be rolled out through the garage, up a ramp onto Georgia Street and then to some yet to be determined mass staging area. A second issue, how do the residents of the Beach Side Villas and Esplanade Villas dispose of waste? Is it envisioned that they will walk through the parking garage to one of the tower trash areas everytime there is trash to be disposed of? A third issue, there are two sublevels within the garage and each sublevel appears to have a trash room for each building (six total) - is this intended to be the case? If so, this will only exacerbate the first issue raised as to the means by which refuse is removed from the building. Also, keep in mind that these dumpster would need to be rolled back down into the parking garage. 56. The south elevation of the southernmost of the Esplande Villas will face the abutting property to the south. This parcel is under development review and the abutting portion will likely become a "service courtyard" for the parcel and include their waste facilities. This will not be the most enjoyable/attractive view for the residents. Strongly consider relocating this building in the redesign of the the project. 57. The floor plans for tower #2 depict a drop-off area for the building; however no driveway will exist to provide access to this area. As such, tower #2 will need to be redesigned to eliminate the drop-off area. 58. Sheet A-0.02 depicts a flared 12 foot wide walkway leading to the aforementioned tower #2 drop-off area. This raises two issues: first, why is this walkway flared? Second, if this is a deliniated paved walkway what is the make-up of the surrounding area? With regard to the latter issue, the entire surrounding area appears to be paved. How is this consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines? 59. Many of the handicap accessible parking spaces within the parking garage do not have an accessible route to an elevator and/or unit. 60. It would seem very apparent based upon the design of the site that parking spaces will be reserved for individual dwellings. As such, indentify on the plans those spaces that are being reserved. 61 . In the area beneath tower #1 adjacent the stairs and elevator, what is proposed to occur in the large open area? 62. Please clarify if the following statement is accurate: on the ground level of the Beach Side Villas the entries and east elevation windows will open directly out to the parking garage. 63. Provide wheelstops for those parking spaces that abut a walkway and that abut the front of another parking tier. 64. Sheet A-0.03 depicts buildings sections (segments) that are not included as part of either the Beach Side Villas or the towers. Additionally, the floor plans show virtually no information regarding these portions of the building. 65. Revise sheet A-0.03 to clearly depict/denote the proposed building heights as measured from base flood elevation. 66. Sheet A-0.05 depicts an unattractive blank wall along Georgia Street. Provide improved architectural plans consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines. 67. Sheets A-1.11 and A-1.12 provide floor plans for the first floor and floors 5-17 as well as the roof. Where would the plans for the 2nd - 4th floors be? 68. Provide correct height measurements on all building elevations. Be advised that with the Beach Side Villas and towers height is to be measured from the base flood elevation (BFE). All other buildings shall be measured from the existing grade. In no case is building height to be measured from the finished floor. 69. Identify the floors of the building correctly and consistently. The floor plans call out 17 floors not including the sublevels within the towers; however according to the elevations there are only 15 floors not including the sublevels. This means that you either have three towers that are taller than you think and possibly than can be approved (and the elevations are wrong), or you have fewer units than you think and the floor plans are wrong. Revise the plans accordingly. 70 . On the tallest "tower" of the tower buildings there appears to be a cut-out. 1s this a cut-out or simply architectural detailing? Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 29, 2006 - Page 16 71 . The measurement t* finished floor of the first floor to the top of toof deck on sheet A-1.24 states a height of 152'-10". The actual dimension is 154'-10". The actual height from BFE to roof deck appears to be 162'-10". 72. Pursuant to Section 8-102 of the Community Development Code, elevator equipment rooms and like mechanical equipment enclosures shall be permitted to project up to 16 feet higher than the maximum for the district. The easternmost elevator tower projects more than 21 feet above the roof deck and must be reduced. Additionally, clarify the composition of these towers - what is within them? Also, adjacent the towers are pitched roofs - as the building is reviewed as a "flat roof' these are looked at as parapets, which pursuant to the definition of height referenced above (Section 8-102), are not permitted to exceed 42 inches over the maximum height permitted. The same parapet height issue exists with the parapet at the face of the west elevation. 73 . The roof on the porte cochere for the towers appears awkward as viewed from the north/south elevations. Consider utilizing a roof style other than pitched and flat. 74. The intermitant use of sculpted balconies does not correctly appear on all elevations. Many times they are depicted as aluminum rail from the side. 75. The stringcourses proposed for towers should be more architecturally substantial/significant. 76. The shed roofs proposed over the balconies on the "west" elevation (actually the north and/or south elevations) of the Esplanade Villas should be lowered. Also, the outlookers beneath this roof should be more substantial in size (width). They should appear consistent with the bulk of what they appear to support. 77. The "courtyard" elevation of the Esplanade Villas depicts several "bump-outs" that do not appear on the corresponding floor plans. 78. On the west elevation of the Beach Side Villas (A-1.44) decorative aluminum barriers are depicted apparently as a means of screening vehicles within the parking garage. How do these "barriers" accomplish this. 79. Explain the purpose of the brackets beneath the third floor windows of the Harrison Villas. It doesn't seem as if these serve any purpose. 80. The shed roofs over the doors of the Harrison Villas should be lowered. Also, the bracket supporting this shed roof should be more substantial in width. 81 . The parapet for the Harrison Villas seems oddly low in comparison to the balance of the facade, especially along the east elevation. Additionally, the east/west elevation doesn't agree with the location of parapet features. 82. The notes along side the west elevation of the Harrison Villas call out decorative aluminum railings/barriers and outlookers that do not seem to be depicted. Provide revised notations for the elevation. Also, assure that the notations for the other elevations are correct/accurate. 83 . Provide a revised Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application restating the proposed use with the dwelling units and non-residential floor area correctly denoted. Also, the description of request is inadequate. Revise the request to be consistent with the requirements of the application. 84. Please be advised that the response to General Applicability criterion #6 will need to be revised based upon the revisions to the plans. 85 . The response provided for Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criterion #2 does not state how the development is consistent with the Goals and Policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 86. The response provided to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criterion #6 contains factual errors when compared to the plans and must be revised. 87. A completed Development Agreement Application must be submitted to the Planning Department. 88. The project phasing cannot be accomplished as proposed. The towers all exceed the standard allowable height of 150 feet and would require the use of additional height from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool in order to be built. Please be advised that the height allowable through the Pool may not be enough to accommodate the buildings as proposed. 89. With regard to Phase 1, all parking is identified as "temporary parking". If Phase 1 is ultimately the extent of the project, this parking will be permanent. How would this comply with the Downtown Plan? Provide plans for Phase 1 as if it was the full extent of the development proposal. 90. In the construction of tower #1, what is the extent to which the sublevels are to be constructed? 91 . The Phase 2 during construction plan identifies a temporary 55-space parking lot to the east of N. Fort Harrison Avenue. Provide plans that depict how the parking lot meets the City's Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the locational requirements of Section 3-1404.A of the Community Development Code. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 29, 2006 - Page 17 92. Provide plans for A 2 as if it were the full extent of the develop I 93 . The phasing timeline for the project indicates an expectation of "designing" Phase 2 during the construction of Phase 1. If site plan approval has already been granted by the Board, what "designing" would be necessary for Phase 2? 94. The functionality of the proposed 55-space temporary parking lot during Phase 2 seem unrealistic. Will residents actually traverse the distance proposed from the parking lot to tower 1, which takes them across N. Fort Harrison Avenue and Osceola Avenue for the two years that Phase 2 is anticipated to be under construction? Other: No Comments Notes: A determination of sufficiency cannot be made for this development proposal at this time. In order to be scheduled for the DRC meeting of August 31, 2006, please submit 15 sets of revised plans addressing these comments by August 8, 2006. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 29, 2006 - Page 18 9 • CITY OF C LEARWATE R PLANNING DEPARTMENT POST OFFICE Box 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAI. SF.RVICEiS BUILDING 100 SOUTH MYRTLE: AVENUE, CLEARWATFR, FLORIDA 33756 TFLEPE-IONE (727) 562-4567 FAx (727) 562-4865 LONG RANGE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT RFVIFW June 6, 2006 Mr Thomas Coates 305 N. Fort Harrison Avenue Clearwater, FL 33755 Re: FLD2006-05030 - 410 N. Fort Harrison Avenue - Letter of Completeness Dear Mr Coates: The Planning Department staff has entered your application into the Department's filing system and assigned the case number FLD2006-05030. 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 Thursday, June 29, 2006, in the Planning Department Conference Room (Room 216), which is located on the second floor of the Municipal Services Building at 100 South Myrtle Avenue. 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. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Robert G. Tefft, Planner III Tel: (727) 562-4539 Fax: (727) 562-4865 E-Mail: robert.tefigmycleanvater.conz FRANK HIBBARD, MAYOR BILL JONSON, VICE: MAYOR JOIIN DORAN, COUNCILMENIBFR HOYr HAMILTON, COUNCILMEN111r:lt ® CARLRN A. Pr°rr:RSI:N, COUNC:n[I]:[? "EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND AI'I'IRMATM: ACTION EMPLOYEW, • • CITY OF CLEARWATER LL PLANNING DEPARTMENT °'F r ater arw 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE ~_ CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 U TEL: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4865 FACSIMILE COVER SHEET Date: To: From: Re: June 6, 2006 Thomas Coates, Triangle Development Company, (727) 446-0002 Robert G. Tefft, Planner III FLD2006-05 03 0 / 410 N. Fort Harrison Avenue Number of Pages Including Cover Sheet: 2 Comments: ** Please confirm receipt via e-mail at: robert.tefftDamyclearwater.con: ** ** Visit the Planning Department online at www.mvclearwater.com ** r: Jun. 06 2006 08:18AM YOUR LOGO YOUR FAX NO. 7275624865 NO. OTHER FACSIMILE START TIME USAGE TIME MODE PAGES RESULT 01 94460002 Jun.06 08:17AM 00'59 SND 02 OK TO TURN OFF REPORT, PRESS 'MENU' #04. THEN SELECT OFF BY USING '+' OR '-'. FOR FAX ADVANTAGE ASSISTANCE, PLEB CALL 1-800-HELP-FAX (435-7329). CITY OF C LEARWAT E R PLANNING DEPARTMENT POST OFFICE Box 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL. SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVI?NUF,, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TFI.EPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAx (727) 562-4865 LONG RANGE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW May 30, 2006 Mr Thomas Coates 305 N. Fort Harrison Avenue Clearwater, FL 33755 Re: FLD2006-05030 - 410 N Fort Harrison Avenue (Island View) - Letter of Incompleteness Dear Mr Coates: The Planning Department staff has entered your application into the Department's filing system and assigned the case number FLD2006-05030. After a preliminary review of the submitted documents, staff has determined that the application is incomplete with the following comments: Based upon a brief review of the site data table on the site plan (sheet 5 of 12), less parking is indicated as required for the retail use than would be required at the standard retal parking ratio of 4.0 per 1,000 SF. However, the application contains no reference to any deviation being requested and adequate parking would appear to exist for the project at the time of completion. If a deviation is not requested, then provide a revised site plan correcting the site data table; however if a deviation is being requested, then revise the application to request such a deviation and provide a parking demand study as per Section F of the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application. 2. Pursuant to Section G of the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application, the site plan shall include the size of all proposed buildings; and lot lines and building lines dimensioned. These are with regard to the retail buildings only. Pursuant to Section H of the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application, the landscape plan shall include interior landscape areas hatched and/or shaded, labled and interior landscape coverage expressed in both square feet and percentage covered. While calculations have been provided for the above, the areas have not been depicted on the plan. 4. Are the northernmost and southernmost retail buildings single-tenent only? The floor plans would indicate that they are not, but the landscape plan depicts landscaping as blocking most access points into the buildings. This is not a "completeness" item, but you might want to look at revising the plan at this time. Pursuant to Section 4-202 of the Community Development Code, if an application is deemed incomplete, the deficiencies of the application shall be specified by Staff and no further development review action shall be taken until those specified deficiencies are corrected and the application is deemed complete. Please resubmit FRANK HIBBARD, MAYOR 1311.1. JONSON, VICE-MAYOR JOIIN DORAN, COUNCILMEN1BIT HOYf HAM11:1.ON, COUNCILMI-NMER ® CARLEN A. PI:I'1'.RSEN, COUNCILMENIBIT "EIQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATIvF ACIION EMPLOYER" • • revised plans and application materials as per the above comments no later than Noon, Tuesday, June 6, 2006. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Robert G. Tefft, Planner III Tel: (727) 562-4539 Fax: (727) 562-4865 E-Mail: robert.tefft@myclearwater.com CITY OF CLEARWATER LL PLANNING DEPARTMENT ° } arwater 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 U TEL: (727) 562-4567 FAx: (727) 562-4865 FACSIMILE COVER SHEET Date: To: From: Re: May 30, 2006 Thomas Coates, Triangle Development Company, (727) 446-0002 Robert G. Tefft, Planner III FLD2006-05030 - 410 N. Fort Harrison Avenue (Island View) Number of Pages Including Cover Sheet: 2 Comments: ** Please confirm receipt via e-mail at: robert.te{ftnnayclearwater.com ** ** Visit the Planning Department online at www.nrvclearwater.com ** 0 o' May. 30 2006 08:43AM YOUR LOGO YOUR FAX NO. 7275624865 NO. OTHER FACSIMILE START TIME USAGE TIME MODE PAGES RESULT 01 94460002 May.30 08:42AM 01'21 SND 03 OK TO TURN OFF REPORT, PRESS 'MENU' #04. THEN SELECT OFF BY USING '+' OR '-'. FOR FAX ADVANTAGE ASSISTANCE, PLEASE CALL 1-800-HELP-FAX 0435-7329). 0 W - 7- CITY OF CLEARWATER NOTICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD PUBLIC HEARINGS The Community Development Board of the City of Clearwater, Florida, will hold public hearings on Tuesday, November 21, 2006, beginning at 1:00 PM, in the City Council Chambers, in City Hall, 3rd floor, 112 South Osceola Ave, Clearwater, Florida, to consider the following requests: NOTE: All persons wishing to address an item need to be present at the BEGINNING of the meeting. Those cases that are not contested by the applicant, staff, neighboring property owners, etc. will be placed on a consent agenda and approved by a single vote at the beginning of the meeting. 1. Triangle Old Bay Holdings, LLC, Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization, Georgia Street Properties, LLC and 302-308 N Osceola Properties LLC (Thomas Coates, Triangle Development) are requesting Flexible Development approval for a mixed-use development within the Downtown (D) District consisting of 358 attached dwellings and 13,235 sq ft of non-residential floor area with increases in ht to 48 ft (east side) and 180 ft (west side) as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project as per Sec 2-903.C of the Community Development Code [Proposed Use: Mixed-Use (358 attached dwellings and 13,235 sq ft non-residential floor area)] at 302, 303, 304, 308, 309, 312, 314, 400 and 404 North Osceola Avenue; 400 and 410 Jones Street; and 410 North Fort Harrison Avenue, 09-19-15-430, M & B 0400, 0500 & 0600; 09-29- 15, M & B 0010, 0080 & 0100; Jones sub of Nicholson's add to Clw Harbor Blk 2, S'ly 75.99ft of Lot 1 & S'LY 75.94ft of 2/3 of Lot 2; 09-29-15, M & B, 0010-0020 Assigned Planner: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III. FLD2006-05030 2. Kenyon Dodge Inc. (Glenn B. Giles, Arc Avenue, Inc) are requesting Flexible Development approval to redevelop an existing Vehicle Sales establishment, in the Commercial District, with an increase to the maximum building ht of an attached entrance feature from 25 ft to 36.5 ft, a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 ft to 15 ft (to pavement), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 ft to 5 ft (to pavement), and a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 ft to 5 ft (to pavement), as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, per Sec 2-704.C. Also included is a reduction to front (north) landscape buffer from 10 ft to 5 ft, a reduction to the side (south) landscape buffer from 5 ft to zero ft, and a reduction to the side (west) landscape buffer from 5 ft to zero ft, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, per Sec 3-1202. (Proposed Use: Vehicle Sales) at 19400 US Highway 19 N. 9-29-16-110, M & B, 0500; 0600; 0610 and Kenyon Dodge Motor Vehicle Boat Showroom Unit 1. Assigned Planner: John Schodtler, Planner Il. FLD2006-08047 3. Harborside Condominiums LLC and Bel Crest Condo, Inc (Janice Sands Ash, President, Ash Engineering, Inc.) are requesting Flexible Development approval to permit a multi-use dock for eight slips totaling 687 sq ft, under the provisions of Section 3-601. [Proposed Use: Multi-use docks of 687 sq ft for eight wet slips, in conjunction with a 15-unit attached dwelling use (condominiums)] at 706 Bayway Blvd, Bel Crest Condo (Common Area). Assigned Planner: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III FLD2006-06033 4. Dorothy B. LeBlanc and Sexton Enterprises, Inc. (Housh Ghovaee, Northside Engineering Services, Inc) are requesting Flexible Development approval to permit a • • 20,050 sq-ft office building in addition to existing retail sales and services with a reduction to the front (north) setback from 25 ft to 7.29 ft (to existing pavement), a reduction to the front (west) setback from 25 ft to 5.53 ft (to . existing pavement), reductions to the front (east) setback from 25 ft to 22.91 ft (to existing building) and from 25 ft to 10.82 ft (to existing pavement), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 ft to 5.33 ft (to existing pavement), a reduction to the side (north) setback from 10 ft to 6.48 ft (to existing pavement), reductions to the side (south) setback from 10 ft to 5 ft (to proposed building) and from 10 ft to 7 ft (to existing pavement), a reduction to the rear (west) setback from 20 ft to 4.77 ft (to existing pavement), an increase to building height from 25 ft to 50 ft (to roof deck) and a reduction to required parking from 193 spaces to 104 spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Sec 2-704.C, and a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along Gulf to Bay Blvd from 15 ft to 7.29 ft (to existing pavement), a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along Duncan Ave from 10 ft to 5.53 ft (to existing pavement), a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along the west from 5 ft to 4.77 ft (to existing pavement), and a reduction to the required foundation landscape area along the north side of the West Marine building from 5 ft to 3 ft, 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 and part of lot 16, lot 17 - 21. Assigned Planner: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III FLD2006-05032 5. Society of St. Vincent de Paul of Upper Pinellas County, Inc (Sidney Klein, City of Clearwater Police Chief) are requesting an amendment to a condition of approval requiring neighborhood meetings from not less than quarterly to not less than bi-annually on a previous Conditional Use application permitting a residential shelter and police substation (condition of approval adopted November 5, 1996, and re-adopted July 15, 2003, by the Community Development Board). (Existing Use: Residential shelter, police substation and parking lot) at 1339, 1341, 1345 Park Street/1344 Pierce Street, Assigned Planner: Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III. CU96-46 Interested parties may appear and be heard at the hearing or file written notice of approval or objection with the Planning Director or City Clerk prior to the hearing. Any person who decides to appeal any decision made by the Board or Council, with respect to any matter considered at such hearings, will need to request a record of the proceedings and, for such purpose, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based per Florida Statute 286.0105. Community Development Code Sec 4-206 states that party status shall be granted by the Board in quasi-judicial cases if the person requesting such status demonstrates that s/he is substantially affected. Party status entitles parties to personally testify, present evidence, argument and witnesses, cross-examine witnesses, appeal the decision and speak on reconsideration requests, and needs to be requested and obtained during the case discussion before the CDB. An oath will be administered swearing in all persons giving testimony in quasi-judicial public hearing cases. If you wish to speak at the meeting, please wait to be recognized, then state and spell your name and provide your address. Persons without party status speaking before the CDB shall be limited to three minutes unless an individual is representing a group in which case the Chairperson may authorize a reasonable amount of time up to 10 minutes. • Five days prior to the meeting, staff reports and recommendations on the above requests will be available for review by interested parties between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., weekdays, at the City of Clearwater, Planning Department, 100 S. Myrtle Ave., Clearwater, FL 33756. Please contact the case presenter, at 562-4567 to discuss any questions or concerns about the project and/or to better understand the proposal and review the site plan. Michael Delk Cynthia E. Goudeau, MMC Planning Director City Clerk City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748, Clearwater, FL 33758-4748 NOTE: Applicant or representative must be present at the hearing. A COPY OF THIS AD IN LARGE PRINT IS AVAILABLE IN OFFICIAL RECORDS AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES. ANY PERSON WITH A DISABILITY REQUIRING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING SHOULD CALL (727) 562-4093 WITH THEIR REQUEST. To learn more about presenting to Clearwater boards and City Council, go to http://clearwater.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: 11/10/06 FT,T)2006-05030 T)VA2006-00001 161 302-308 N OSCEOLA PROPERTIES L AITKEN DEBORA K 714 N FT HARRISON AVE CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3822 ANDRUS, D THE HARBOR BLUFFS WATERFRONT 206TR PO BOX 775 CLEARWATER FL 33757 - 0775 AITKEN, DAVID N 2814 AUTUMN LAKE DR KATY TX 77450 - 5700 AUSTIN, LLOYD B THE AUSTIN, THELMA L THE 5840 SINGLE FOOT CT SPARKS NV 89436 - 7062 BASKIN, HAMDEN H III BAYBAK, MICHAEL BASKIN, ROBYN T 4515 OCEAN VIEW BLVD # 305 13577 FEATHER SOUND DR STE 550 LA CANADA CA 00030 - CLEARWATER FL 33762 - 5527 BELVEDERE APTS OF CLW INC 300 N OSCEOLA AVE CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3946 BELVEDERE LAND TRUST NO 2 503 CLEVELAND ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4007 BEND, JOSEPH P THE BEND, AGNES L THE 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # 305 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3936 BETES, GONZALO 300 N OSCEOLA AVE # 2-B CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3916 BROWN, ARNOLD PROPERTIES 17757 US HIGHWAY 19 N STE 275 CLEARWATER FL 33764 - 6592 BULGER, LORRAINE 500 N OSCEOLA AVE PH E CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3933 BURNISON, JACK 409 N FORT HARRISON AVE CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3904 BERLE, RONALD BERLE, PEGGY A 131 LEEWARD IS CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2304 BILGUTAY, ILHAN M 510 N GARDEN AVE CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4126 BROWN, MAXINE S 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # 708 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3941 BULLDOG DEVELOPMENT CO LLC 714 N FORT HARRISON AVE CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3822 BUSWEILER, JOHN T BUSWEILER, CATHERINE E 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # 503 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3938 * ANDRUS, BRIAN L ANDRUS,DONNA 500 N OSCEOLA AVE PH-E CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3933 BARTON, DONNA L D'AREZZO, JAMES D 465 1 ST ST W STE # 300 SONOMA CA 95476 - 6600 BEAN, MARJORIE E 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # 510 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3939 BELVEDERE LAND TRUST 519 CLEVELAND ST # 103 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4009 BERNSTEIN, BRADFORD N BEACH, HAROLD 2441 HONOLULU AVE # 120 MONTROSE CA 91020 - 2507 BOLGER, ELEANOR H 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # 811 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3915 BRUWER, GRAHAM BRUWER, LYNDA 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # 404 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3937 BURDETTE, HARRY M JR 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # 405 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3937 BYRNES, LAWRENCE F 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # 605 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3939 CARMEL, MORDEHAY CARTER, ROBERT E CATANZARO, GEORGE J 4220 MESA VISTA DR CARTER, JUDITH M CATANZARO, SHERRA M LA CANADA CA 00030 - 5521 EL ENCANTO DR 540 JONES ST SANTA ROSA CA 95409 - 4308 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4150 CHAMBERS, DIANNE B CHAMBERS, JAMES D 820 EL DORADO AVE CLEARWATER FL 33767 - CITIZENS COMMISSION ON HUMAN R 305 N FORT HARRISON AVE CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3923 COALE, JOHN P VANSUSTEREN, GRETA C 500 N OSCEOLA AVE PH C CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3932 COOMBS, PHYLLIS M 603 7TH ST LIVERPOOL NY 13088 - 4426 CULLODEN, CHARLES A THE CULLODEN, SALLY B THE 2000 BEL AIRE DR GLENDALE CA 91201 - 1127 DARE, LOUIS DARE,SUSAN 9630 LA TUNA CANYON RD SUN VALLEY CA 91352 - 2232 DORNBUSCH, HARRIETTE KENDLER 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # 302 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3935 ECHEVERRIA, MILDRED 300 N OSCEOLA AVE # 6-A CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3917 FARHAT, MARY K THE 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # 103 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3931 • CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG SVC 503 CLEVELAND ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4007 * CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY RELIGIOU 319 S GARDEN AVE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5423 CLEARWATER INV INC CLEARWATER-GARDEN TOWER 13577 FEATHER SOUND DR STE 550 OPERAT CLEARWATER FL 33762 - 5527 330 GARFIELD ST SANTA FE NM 87501 - 2640 COATES, THOMAS COATES, MARLENE 300 N OSCEOLA AVE # 4B CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3918 COBB, DONALD D COBB, SUSAN M 511 N OSCEOLA AVE CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3944 CORBETT, ERNEST CORBETT, GAYE 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # 802 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3942 CUNNINGHAM, SHERRI L RAMP, LENIN 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # 408 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3937 DAVIS, EDWARD A DAVIS, PEGGY J 1206 HONAN DR SOUTH BEND IN 46614 - 2172 DORSETT, KENDALL L DORSETT, ELLEN 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # 107 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3931 ECKSTEIN, LIDO KROSCHSTR 38 RODINGEN 52445 00004 - GERMANY FISCHLER, IDO FISCHLER, DAPHNA 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # 208 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3935 COTA,JEFFERY D COTA, PATRICIA L 3410 HARGER CT SACRAMENTO CA 95821 - 3717 D L K PROPERTY TRUST 413 CLEVELAND ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4004 DOBIN, BART DOBIN, EMMA 300 N OSCEOLA AVE # 6 C CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3919 ECCLES, CHET R III ECCLES, INGRID L PO BOX 490 APPLEGATE CA 95703 - 0490 ERIKSEN, VIVIAN S ERIKSEN, ROCHELLE K PO BOX 847 MONTE VISTA CO 81144 - 0847 FORD,SANDRA 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # 303 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3935 GAIMAN, SHEILA GANGELHOFF, DAVID J GARDNER, JOSEPH EST PO BOX 10550 405 N FORT HARRISON AVE 401 N GARDEN AVE # 4 GLENDALE CA 91209 - 3550 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3904 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4174 • GEORGIA STREET PROPERTIES LLC 714 N FORT HARRISON AVE CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3822 GRAVES, ROBERT M 244 HARTNELL PL SACRAMENTO CA 95825 - 6612 HARBOR BLUFFS WATERFRONT CONDO 500 N OSCEOLA AVE CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3947 HEINEY, MICHAEL 411 CLEVELAND ST # 133 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4004 HOLMES, WILLIE B 505 N GARDEN AVE CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4127 JAMESCHRIS CORP 431 GULFVIEW BLVD CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2508 JONES, PENNY A 500 N OSCEOLA # 606 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3939 KING, MICHAEL KING, TIMOTHY J 124 PLACER DR SANTA BARBARA CA 93117 GIBSON, ROBERT W GIBSON, GENEVIEVE 7610 SMETANA LN #309 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 - 4753 HAGAN, JILL 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # PHG CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3947 • GLEASON, FRANK R GLEASON, SUSANNE W 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # 406 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3937 HALEVY, BINIAMIN HALEVY, SARA 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # 209 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3935 HARRISON-JONES PROPERTIES LLC HARTELL, JAMES H 133 CANDY LN HARTELL, EDITH P PALM HARBOR FL 34683 - 5471 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # 310 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3936 HELLER, HUBERT A 300 N OSCEOLA AVE # 2 C CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3916 HENRY, PATRICK D 321 N FORT HARRISON AVE CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3910 IMMERSITE NETWORK INC 504 N FORT HARRISON AVE CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3905 JENSEN, CRAIG C THE JENSEN, SALLY R THE 4245 MESA VISTA DR LA CANADA CA 00030 - KENNEDY, WALTRAUT M 736 ISLAND WAY # 202 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1817 KRECKEL, PATRICK F KRECKEL, ELINOR M 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # 304 -1314 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3935 KWALL, LOUIS KWALL, JEAN H 133 N FORT HARRISON AVE CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4020 LEIBOLD, FRANK 603 N OSCEOLA AVE CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3839 JAMES, MILTON C JAMES, ROSE 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # 803 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3942 JOHNSON, THOMAS EDWARD JOHNSON, GINA 2694 HARVEST DR CONYERS GA 30013 - 2408 KEYSTONEINVESTMENTS 300 N OSCEOLA AVE # 6 B CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3917 KUNHARDT, MARIA D 11050 STRATHMORE DR #312 LOS ANGELES CA 90024 - 1609 LEONHARDT,GUNTER LEONHARDT, MELINDA C 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # 403 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3937 LEWIS, W A INC LOIZOS, ANASTASIA MADERO, ESPERANZA 2617 W GRAND BLVD MERWIN, EUGENIA 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # 102 DETROIT MI 48208 - 1234 75 MOUNT TOM RD CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3931 NEW ROCHELLE NY 10805 - 1216 • S MADERO ESPERANZA GONZAL, EZ, MARIA LIDIA R M MANECCHIA' VICTOR ONZAL 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # 511 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # 501 809 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3939 CLEARWOSCEOLA ATER ATER F F 500 N L AVE # 33755 3 - 3915 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3938 MARION, CARISA MEHLER, HORST MERWIN, GAIUS W III 32485 THE OLD RD 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # 411 MERWIN, EUGENIA CASTAIC CA 91384 - 3054 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3937 75 MOUNT TOM RD NEW ROCHELLE NY 10805 - 1216 MESCHOULAM, SAMUEL METHVEN, ALLEN MINKOFF HOLDINGS LTD MESCHOULAM, CLARISSE METHVEN, JILL 403 EDGEWOOD AVE PALMA CRIOLLA # 4 301 120 SW 7TH ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 5706 BOSQUES DE PALMAS DUNDEE OR 97115 - 9535 HUIXQILUCAN 00002 - MEXICO MORSE, DAVID G THE MORSHEAD, JOHN W MOUNT OLIVE AFRICAN METHODIST MORSE, CAROL L THE C C BOX 99-071 11450 RUGGIERO AVE JOHANNESBURG 2000 00000 - 600 JONES ST LAKE VIEW TERRACE CA 91342 - SOUTH AFRICA CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4136 6735 NIERENGARTEN, WARREN B OKUBOYE, JULIUS A O'LEARY, KIERAN NIERENGARTEN, JANICE O'LEARY, DONNA 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # 203 600 N OSCEOLA AVE PO BOX 170699 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3934 CLEARWATER ATER F FL 33755 - 3838 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94117 - 0699 OLT, PETER ORTSCHEID, ROBERT A OSCEOLA-JONES PROPERTIES LLC 300 N OSCEOLA AVE # 1 C ORTSCHEID, JUDITH A 133 CANDY LN CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3917 1092 ANDREWS ST PALM HARBOR FL 34683 - 5471 TUSTIN CA 92780 - 4659 OSTERTAG, MARTIN PACE TECH PROPERTIES INC PEENS, LOUIS 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # 705 2035 PHILIPPE PKWY 300 N OSCEOLA AVE # 6B CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3941 SAFETY HARBOR FL 34695 - 2200 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3917 PEREIRA, JOE X PERNA, LARRY F PICCONE, ISELLA 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # 307 6600 BERMUDA RD # A PICCONE, PATRIZIA CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3936 LAS VEGAS NV 89119 - 3604 601 N OSCEOLA AVE CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3839 POMAHAC, ROBERT R POWLEY, CHARLES N QUANN, MARK 5571 MARGARET AVE POWLEY, VIRGINIA J ADAMS, REBECCA E CULVER CITY CA 90230 - 6251 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # 509 131 N SAN MARINO AVE CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3939 PASADENA CA 91107 - 3537 REICHARD, SHERWOOD MARSHALL RITCHIE, THOMAS ROCKL, RAYMOND G 2306 GREENGATE DR 99-1115A AIEA HEIGHTS AVE ROCKL, HILARIE J AUGUSTA GA 30907 - 3558 AIEA HI 96701 - 2020E KENT AVE # 411 VANCOUVER BC V5P 4X1 00030 - CANADA ROESCH, HANS K ROESCH, MARIA T 48 CASTLEDENE CIR AGINCOURT ON M1T 1S1 00030 - CANADA SALAM, JAMI AL INC DBA ALBANIA 225 N FT HARRISON AVE CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4022 SAWTELLE, GREG THE SAWTELLE, KAREN THE 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # 805 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3942 SEEFELD, PAMELA J 331 BELLEVIEW BLVD CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 2018 SHALLIMAR REALTY INV INC 300 N OSCEOLA AVE # 1 B CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3916 SIDORENKO, VLADIMIR SIDORENKO, YULIA 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # 505 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3938 SOUKHAREV,ANDREI SOUKHAREV, SILVIA 300 N OSCEOLA AVE # 4 A CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3918 THRESHOLD CONSULTING SERV INC 200 N GARDEN AVE STE B CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4187 URIZARBARRENA, MIKEL FRIAS, BERTA 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # 601 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3939 ROSS, COURTNEY D RYBACK, DANIEL JOVANOVIC, DUBRAVKA RYBACK, DORIS A 604 N OSCEOLA AVE 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # 205 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3838 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3934 SALINAS, MARY THE SALVATION ARMY CHURCH SCIENTOLOGY RELIGIOUS PO BOX 8070 503 CLEVELAND ST CLEARWATER FL 33758 - 8070 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4007 SAWTELLE, GREG F THE SAWTELLE, KAREN R THE 957 VERDUGO CIRCLE DR GLENDALE CA 91206 - 1535 SCHNEIDERGRUBER, MANUELA CHESTERWELL INV LTD 300 N OSCEOLA AVE # 5 C CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3917 SERENITY NOW PROPERTIES INC 398 LAUREL LN PALM HARBOR FL 34683 - 5476 SHALLIMAR REALTY INVESTMENT IN 413 CLEVELAND ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 4004 SIMPSON, WILLIAM J III SIMPSON, KAREN 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # 805 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3942 STAHL,TATJANA AMEISENBERGSTR 41 D-70188 STUTTGART 00004 - GERMANY TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT THOMAS COATES, 305 NORTH FORT HARRISON AVE, CLEARWATER, FL 33755 WADDELL, DAVID E WADDELL, GWEN S 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # 709 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3941 SETTLE, BRUCE J SETTLE, ELIZABETH J 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # 704 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3941 SHERMAN, MARTIN J SHERMAN, RHONDA RENEE 3109 CARTER AVE MARINA DEL REY CA 90292 - 5508 SONDERMANN, WILFRIED & HELGARD 52 ACACIA ST CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1405 STRIJEWSKI, HERMANN 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # 105 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3931 TUBBESING, HORST GERLACH-TUBBESING, K 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # 204 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3934 WEIR, IONE R WEIR, J MICHAEL 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # 611 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3940 WEIR, TIMOTHY J WHEATON, MARJORIE WHITEHURST, LEON JR 7328 SPARHAWK RD 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # 308 BASKIN, HAMDEN H III AFD WAKE FOREST NC 27587 - 5493 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3936 720 SNUG ISLAND CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1831 WILLNER, NEIL A THE WONG, PATRICK Y WILLNER, EVE K THE WONG, LINDA 1928 RIMCREST DR 10 SOUTHDOWN CT GLENDALE CA 91207 - 1044 HILLSBOROUGH CA 94010 - 7242 YOCKENFLOSTER OF CLEARWATER ZAUN, HELGA 1670 SPARKLING CT BREITLING, SANDY DUNEDIN FL 34698 - 2303 500 N OSCEOLA AVE # 607 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3939 ZIMMER, MICHAEL S ZIMMER, C MARGENE 655 PARK CIR ELM GROVE WI 53122 - 2556 ZIMMER, MICHAEL S ZIMMER, CHERYL M 555 PARK CIR ELM GROVE WI 53122 - 2553 N. GREENWOOD ASSOCIATION JONATHAN WADE 1201 DOUGLAS ROAD CLEARWATER FL 33755 is ' WOODRUFF, JOHN W WOODRUFF, CLAIRE B 19291 SLEEPING OAK DR TRABUCO CANYON CA 92679 - 1031 ZIMMER, MICHAEL S C/O J W ROBINSON PO BOX 2692 CLEARWATER FL 33757 - 2692 OLD CLEARWATER BAY NEIGHBORHOOD KATHY MILAM 1828 VENETIAN POINT DRIVE, CLEARWATER, FL 33767 1 0- 0 CDB Meeting Date: November 21, 2006 Case Number: FLD2006-05030 Agenda Item: E. 1. Owners: Triangle Old Bay Holdings, LLC and Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization Applicant: Triangle Old Bay Holdings, LLC Address: 302, 303, 304, 308, 309, 400 and 404 North Osceola Avenue; 410 Jones Street; and 410 North Fort Harrison Avenue CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development approval for a mixed-use development within the Downtown (D) District consisting of 358 attached dwellings and 13,235 square feet of non-residential floor area with increases in height to 48 feet (east side) and 180 feet (west side) as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project as per Section 2-903.C of the Community Development Code. CURRENT ZONING: Downtown (D) District Preservation (P) District CURRENT FUTURE LAND Central Business District (CBD) USE CATEGORY: Preservation (P) District CLEARWATER Old Bay DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PLAN CHARACTER DISTRICT: PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Vacant Proposed Use: Mixed-use (358 attached dwellings and 13,235 square feet non-residential floor area) EXISTING SURROUNDING ZONING AND USES: North: Downtown (D) District South: Downtown (D) District East: Downtown (D) District West: Downtown (D) District Attached Dwellings and Vehicle Sales/Display Attached Dwellings and Overnight Accommodations Offices, Problematic Use, and Vehicle Sales/Display Attached Dwellings and Clearwater Harbor Community Development Board - November 21, 2006 FLD2006-05030 - Page 1 A • i ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 5.18-acre subject property is generally located on the west side of North Fort Harrison Avenue and bounded by Jones Street to the south, Georgia Street to the north and Clearwater Harbor to the west. The subject property is currently vacant and bifurcated by North Osceola Avenue, thereby splitting the property into east and west halves: Harrison Village (east) and Island View (west). Development Proposal: Density / Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.): Pursuant to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the maximum allowable density for attached dwellings for those properties greater than two acres in size and located west of North Garden Avenue within the Old Bay character district is 50 dwelling units per acre. The maximum allowable F.A.R. within the same area is 0.5. It is noted that a 0.2-acre portion of the site is located within the Preservation (P) Future Land Use category and does not yield any density; thus this portion of the site has not been included as part of any density calculations. Based upon the above, the remaining 4.98 acre subject property is permitted a maximum of 249 dwelling units. However, the development proposal consists of 358 dwelling units and 13,235 square feet of non- residential floor area, which is 109 dwelling units and 13,235 square feet more than is allowable. Therefore, the applicant has requested the use of 109 attached dwellings and 13,235 square feet of non- residential floor area from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool as made available by the Plan. The development proposal's compliance with the requirements for the use of these attached dwellings and floor area from the Pool is discussed later in the staff report. Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, those parcels of land within the Old Bay character district located east of Osceola Avenue are permitted a maximum building height of 40 feet, and those parcels of land within the Old Bay character district located west of Osceola Avenue between Drew and Georgia Streets are permitted a maximum building height of 150 feet. Pursuant to the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the Community Development Board (CDB) may consider granting an increase in the maximum building height specified in a character district if the developer of a site plan application provides a major public amenity, and the increase in height does not exceed 20% of the maximum permitted height or a minimum of ten feet. Based upon the aforementioned maximum building heights permitted within the Old Bay character district of 40 feet and 150 feet, increases in building height may be granted up to 48 feet and 180 feet. The development proposal has requested an increase in building height to 48 feet for the Harrison Village component of the development, which is located between North Osceola Avenue and North Fort Harrison Avenue. In addition, the development proposal includes a request to increase building height to 180 feet for the Island View component of the development, which is located between North Osceola Avenue and Clearwater Bay. In order to obtain this additional height permitted by the Plan, the development proposal will provide major public amenities including: residential dwellings within the Plan area; a mixed-use project furthering the Plan's major redevelopment goals and character district vision; and substantial contributions to the Master Streetscape and Wayfinding Plan. Based upon the provision of the above amenities, the requested increases in height to 48 feet (Harrison Village) and 180 feet (Island View) are supportable. As discussed below with regard to the Public Amenities Incentive Pool, the development proposal will utilize one (1) dwelling unit from the Pool during the first phase of the development and one (1) additional dwelling unit from the Pool during the second phase of the development with the balance to be drawn during the third and final phase. The utilization of these dwelling units from the Pool in the first Community Development Board - November 21, 2006 FLD2006-05030 - Page 2 and second phases is specifically to make available the additional building height discussed above for the Island View towers. In order to justify the additional height and dwelling units being drawn from the Pool during the first and second phases, the development proposal will provide certain streetscape improvements as part of these phases. The specific improvements are outlined in a subsequent discussion regarding Project Phasing and their implementation will be governed by the Development Agreement (DVA2006-00001) associated with this proposal. Minimum Off-Street Parking: Pursuant to Section 2-903 of the Community Development Code, within the Downtown (D) District off-street parking is required to be provided at a rate of 1.5 parking spaces per attached dwelling unit; and at 4 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for retail sales and services. Therefore, the proposed 358 attached dwellings (537) and the 13,235 square feet of retail sales and services floor area (52.94) require a total of 590 parking spaces Pursuant to Section 3-1405 of the Community Development Code, when any land, building or area is used for two or more uses that are listed in the shared parking table, the minimum number of required parking spaces shall be determined by multiplying the individual minimum parking requirements by the appropriate percentages listed in the table. The following table depicts the development proposals parking requirement as per the shared parking table: WEEKDAY WEEKEND Use: Midnight 9 A.M. 6 P.M 9 A.M. 6 P.M. 6 A.M. 4 P.M. Midnight 4 P.M. Midnight Residential (537) 100% = 537 60% = 322.2 90% = 483.3 80% = 429.6 90% = 483.3 Retail (52.94) 5% = 2.647 70% = 37.058 90% = 47.646 100% = 52.94 70% = 37.058 Totals: 539.647 359.258 530.946 482.54 520.358 Based upon the above, the development proposal requires a minimum of 540 parking spaces. As proposed, a total of 542 parking spaces will be provided; thus the development proposal exceeds its parking requirement. It is noted that during the first and second phases of the development proposal only a portion of the total proposed parking is to be constructed. At the completion of the first phase a total of 116 dwelling units requiring 174 parking spaces will exist, and 214 total parking spaces will have been constructed. At the completion of the second phase a total of 225 dwelling units requiring 338 parking spaces will have been built, and 439 total parking spaces will have been constructed. Therefore, adequate off-street parking will exist throughout all phases of the development proposal. The Development Agreement (DVA2006- 00001) associated with this proposal governs the construction of adequate parking as per the above throughout each phase of the development. Solid Waste Containers and Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to Section 3-201.D.1 of the Community Development Code, all solid waste containers, recycling or trash handling areas and outside mechanical equipment shall be completely screened from view from public streets and abutting properties by a fence, gate, wall, mounds of earth, or vegetation. The development proposal consists of several refuse facilities for its individual components. The primary refuse facility for the development, which is located on the south side of Georgia Street west of Osceola Avenue, will be screened from view by a decorative concrete block wall with integrated decorative gates on its north side. In addition to the above, each of the three proposed towers will have a trash room located on the first level of the underground parking level; the brownstones (the townhomes fronting on the west side of Osceola Avenue) will have a trash area on the south end of the building; and Community Development Board - November 21, 2006 FLD2006-05030 - Page 3 • 0 Harrison Village will have two trash rooms in each of the two buildings. The refuse from each of the individual areas within the buildings will be transferred to the primary facility for pick-up. It is noted that a detailed refuse enclosure detail has been provided with the architectural plans that differs from the refuse enclosure detail provided with the civil drawings. As such, it is attached as a condition of approval that prior to the issuance of a Development Order, the civil drawings are revised to remove the conflicting refuse enclosure detail. In addition to the various refuse facilities, development also locates several transformers throughout the development. The majority of these transformers are proposed to be screened from view by landscaping; however two transformers proposed adjacent to the northwest corner of the southernmost Harrison Village building are not proposed with adequate landscaping or fencing so as to screen them from view of the adjacent Osceola Avenue right-of-way. Therefore, it is attached as a condition of approval that prior to the issuance of any building permits, the plans are revised so that all mechanical equipment is screened from view from rights-of-way per the requirements of Section 3-201.D.1 of the Community Development Code and the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. 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. It is attached as a condition of approval that prior to the issuance of any building permits a notation must be added to the plans stating that all on-site utility facilities, whether they be existing or proposed, are to be placed underground as part of the redevelopment of the site. Siege: The applicant is not proposing any signage concurrent with this development proposal. Any future signage must be designed to match the exterior materials and color of the building. Project Phasing: The complete development proposal will not be built simultaneously, but instead within three (3) phases over a period of approximately five (5) years (by December 2011). The first phase to be built consists of the following: ? The southernmost of the Island View towers; ? The "brownstones" along the west side of North Osceola Avenue; ? The five (5) surface parking spaces and access drive for the aforementioned tower; ? A portion of the subterranean parking garage (209 parking spaces); ? The first swimming pool; ? Streetscape improvements along the west side of North Osceola Avenue; and ? Streetscape improvements along the east side of North Fort Harrison Avenue between Jones and Georgia Streets. The second phase would consist of the following: ? The middle Island View tower; ? The balance of the subterranean parking garage; ? The clubhouse and the second swimming pool; ? Streetscape improvements along the north side of Georgia Street; and ? Streetscape improvements within the intersection of Jones Street and North Fort Harrison Avenue. The third and final phase would include the following: ? The northernmost Island View tower; ? The entirety of Harrison Village including the parking garage located beneath; Community Development Board - November 21, 2006 FLD2006-05030 - Page 4 ? Streetscape improvements along the west side of North Fort Harrison Avenue between Georgia and Jones Streets; ? Streetscape improvements along the east side of North Osceola Avenue, the south side of Georgia Street, and the north side of Jones Street; and ? Streetscape improvements within the intersection of Georgia Street and North Fort Harrison Avenue. Construction of the first phase is anticipated to begin in early 2007 and will take approximately 16 to 18 months to complete. Construction of second phase would begin immediately after the completion of the first phase and would take approximately 20 to 24 months to complete. The applicant has further indicated that the possibility exists that the first and second phases could be built simultaneously if certain sales targets are met. The third and final phase of the development is estimated at approximately 16 to 18 months. The specific improvements to be constructed during the above phases, including the associated Streetscape improvements, will be governed by the Development Agreement (DVA2006- 00001) associated with this proposal. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan: The subject property is located within the Old Bay character district of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan. The Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan identifies the Old Bay character district as a transitional area between the Downtown Core and the low density residential areas to the north. Further, the Plan envisions the district to be a mixed-use neighborhood supporting the Downtown employment base with residential, limited neighborhood commercial and office uses. Public Amenities Incentive Pool: To assist in the transformation of downtown Clearwater into a quality place in which to live, work and play, the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan establishes a Public Amenities Incentive Pool of 2,296 dwelling units and 2,119,667 square feet of floor area for non- residential uses. The applicant is proposing the use of 109 dwelling units and 13,235 square feet of non- residential floor area from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool. The amenities provided by this development in order to justify the request from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool include the provision of 358 dwelling units (including those requested from the Pool) within the Downtown Plan area, and substantial contributions to the Master Streetscaping and Wayfinding Plan along North Fort Harrison Avenue, North Osceola Avenue, Jones Street and Georgia Street as well as the their intersections, which is valued at approximately $3.24 million. Further, the development proposal itself is a mixed-use project that will further the Plan's major redevelopment goals and character district vision, which is also an eligible amenity from which to enable the use of the Pool. Based upon the provision of these amenities, which are consistent with the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the request for 109 dwelling units and 13,325 square feet of non-residential floor area from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool can be supported. It is noted that while the overall development proposal includes 109 dwelling units and 13,235 square feet of non-residential floor area from the Pool, the specific request will utilize one (1) dwelling unit from the Pool during the first phase of the development and one (1) additional dwelling unit from the Pool during the second phase of the development with the balance to be drawn during the third and final phase. The utilization of these dwelling units from the Pool in the first and second phases is to make available the additional building height permitted by the Plan for the Island View towers. In order to justify the additional height and dwelling units being drawn from the Pool during the first and second phases, the development proposal will provide certain streetscape improvements as part of these phases. The specific streetscape improvements are outlined in the above discussion regarding Project Phasing Community Development Board - November 21, 2006 FLD2006-05030 - Page 5 and the Development Agreement (DVA2006-00001) associated with this proposal will govern their implementation. Downtown Design Guidelines: The Downtown Design Guidelines identify both appropriate and inappropriate direction with regard to various elements associated with new construction in the Downtown. A review of these guidelines within the Plan was conducted and the following applicable items were identified: Block and Lot Characteristics: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that the existing street grid pattern shall be retained where it contributes to an active pedestrian environment, and further that new vehicular and pedestrian access/circulation that effectively serves the proposed development and vicinity shall be provided if a vacation of right-of-way is requested. The development proposal includes the vacation of that portion of the North Osceola Avenue right-of-way that abuts the subject property. The existing right-of-way is of substandard width and consists of two approximately 90-degree turns between Jones and Georgia Streets. The development proposal also includes the dedication of a new 50-foot wide right-of-way for North Osceola Avenue that is approximately 90 feet east of the present location of the right-of-way. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the above Guidelines Vehicular Circulation/Access and Parking: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that residential uses along Clearwater Harbor shall be designed with parking garages or parking areas internal to the site/building and screened from Clearwater Harbor and abutting rights-of-way. Further, the Guidelines state that parking garages shall be architecturally integrated with the design, materials, finish and color of the balance of the building. The development proposal includes a two-level parking garage, the majority of which is subterranean. Those portions of the garage that are above grade (due to the natural slope of the property) are architecturally integrated into the design of the building. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the above Guidelines. Pedestrian Circulation/Access: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that it is appropriate to provide pedestrian passageways that go through buildings, such as arcades. The development proposal includes the provision of arcades along the east and west elevations of the Harrison Village development component. The provision of these arcades, which are interconnected through walkways internal to the building, will provide for improved pedestrian circulation along the retail storefronts of the building. The Design Guidelines also state that it is appropriate to provide alleys or courtyards that match or compliment either the building or the primary street to which the alley connects with regard to materials, architecture, color and street furniture (waste receptacles, benches, lighting, etc.). The two buildings that make up Harrison Village are separated by a large courtyard/open space consisting of substantial hardscaping, landscaping, covered outdoor seating areas, benches, and a large fountain feature. This open space also serves to connect the sidewalks along North Fort Harrison Avenue and North Osceola Avenue; thus increasing pedestrian circulation and access. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the above Guidelines. Site Elements: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that open spaces shall be provided that function as transitions between the public sidewalks/streets and the uses of the property, and that formal/informal seating should also be provided in a manner consistent with the function of the open space. The development proposal provides for an open space between the two Harrison Village buildings consisting of substantial hardscaping, landscaping, covered outdoor seating areas, benches, and a large fountain feature. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the above Guideline. Buffering and Screening: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that mechanical equipment, wireless communication facilities, loading and service areas shall be integrated into the design of the site, located Community Development Board - November 21, 2006 FLD2006-05030 - Page 6 0 0 in the most unobtrusive location possible and buffered and screened appropriately. As previously discussed, the development proposal includes several refuse facilities and ground level mechanical equipment throughout the site that are being screened appropriately as per the Code. It is also noted that ground level mechanical equipment is proposed that is not screened. adequately, to which a condition of approval has been attached requiring such appropriate screening. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the above Guideline. Orientation: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that buildings shall be oriented toward the street and that the orientation of the front fagade along the streetscape shall contribute to pedestrian interest in the area. The Harrison Village development component is bounded on the north, south and east by the Georgia Street, Jones Street and North Fort Harrison Avenue rights-of-way, respectively, and has been designed with storefronts opening onto these, rights-of-way with an arcade providing shelter for pedestrians along the east elevation (North Fort Harrison Avenue). Harrison Village is also bounded on the west by the realigned North Osceola Avenue right-of-way, which has been designed with access to living areas associated with residential dwelling units in the development. In addition, the Island View development component has been designed with townhomes ("brownstones") oriented toward the North Osceola Avenue right-of-way so as to contribute to pedestrian interest in the area. Based upon the above, the development proposal complies with above applicable Guideline. Scale and Height: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that the size and proportions of new development should be related to the scale of nearby buildings and that new development should respect the vertical height of existing or approved adjacent buildings and contribute to a pedestrian scale. The Guidelines further state that the apparent height of a building/development can be influenced and augmented by a combination of step backs, varying building heights and horizontal features. The more notable building heights in the surrounding area include the Church of Scientology's Sandcastle, which is approximately 70 feet in height, the 60-foot tall Osceola Inn, and the 70-foot tall Belvedere Apartments. The balance of the surrounding development ranges in height between 15 and 35 feet. The buildings that comprise Harrison Village have a proposed height of 48 feet (to top of parapet), which is consistent with the heights of the surrounding buildings. The tower feature, which doubles as a mechanical equipment enclosure, on the southern Harrison Village building has a height of approximately 60 feet (to midpoint of roof), which will provide further visual interest and reinforce the Mediterranean Revival architectural style of the development. With regard to the Island View component of the development, the brownstones, which front along the west side of South Osceola Avenue, have a height of approximately 33 feet (to top of parapet), which is consistent with the heights of surrounding buildings and establishes the pedestrian scale for this half of the overall development. The three towers, which comprise the balance of Island View, are taller than the surrounding developments, but will compliment the balance of the proposed development and surrounding properties through the use of stepbacks and various architectural features. Specifically, the towers include stepbacks in the horizontal plane so as to narrow the buildings as they move toward the water and toward Osceola Avenue. The vertical plane of the towers includes stepbacks between the 9th and 10th levels and the 17th and 18th levels, which have been emphasized through the use of broad cornices. The height is also mitigated as it is split between three towers rather than a solitary monolithic structure. This creates extensive negative and positive space on all sides of the buildings, thereby adding to the visual aesthetics. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the above applicable Guidelines. Rhythm/Spacing: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that buildings shall have a distinct "base", "middle" and "cap". With regard to Harrison Village, the arcade defines the "base" and the "cap" is defined through the varying parapet roof styles. With regard to Island View, the "brownstones" have a "base" defined by the raised/covered entries as well as a water table and a "cap" defined by decorative Community Development Board - November 21, 2006 FLD2006-05030 - Page 7 parapets and tower features. The towers each have a "base" defined by a decorative front entrance, ornate window treatments and a broad cornice, and a "cap" defined by stepbacks in the horizontal and vertical planes and decorative balconies/parapets. In addition to the above, the Guidelines state that low-rise buildings should accentuate vertical elements such as entrances and columns or break-up the facade into a greater number of smaller vertical masses. Both the Island View "brownstones" and Harrison Village development components exemplify this. The Guidelines also state that with regard to high-rise buildings, the building levels or step backs should be differentiated by architectural features such as coping, cornice lines and material changes; and that there should be a proportional relationship between the height of a building and the number and dimensions of step backs used to mitigate the height of the building. The towers consist of numerous stepbacks and vertical/horizontal plane changes differentiated by cornices of varying widths as well as decorative balconies that not only create visual interest and mitigate the height of the building, but also serve to further define the "base", "middle" and "cap" of the towers. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the above applicable Guidelines. Architecture: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that multiple buildings within a single project shall relate architecturally to each other and the surrounding neighborhood. The fagades of the various buildings will complement and visually support each other as they incorporate similar parapets, awnings, balconies, windows, and roof materials - all of which are in keeping with the Mediterranean Revival architectural style. The Mediterranean Revival style of the development is consistent with the intent of the Guidelines as it is complementary to the fabric of the surrounding neighborhood. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the above applicable Guidelines. Primary and Corner Facades: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that the primary facade is to be the most highly designed facade and utilize plane changes (i.e. projections and recesses), architectural details, variety in color, material and textures, and storefront display windows for retail uses. As previously stated, the fagades of the Island View towers consist of numerous stepbacks and vertical/horizontal plane changes that create visual interest. The elevations also consist of architectural details, such as: decorative balconies, broad cornices, barrel tile roofs and stylized windows. The "brownstones", which provide a more pedestrian scale development between the towers and the Osceola Avenue right-of-way, will consist of architectural detail including raised/covered entries with and without barrel tile roofs, varying parapet styles, awnings and decorative window patterns. The Harrison Village fagades are architecturally consistent with those of the towers and "brownstones" with the primary difference being the provision of retail storefront along the north, south and east elevations. In addition to the above, the Guidelines state that buildings on corner lots shall emphasize their prominent location through the use of additional height, massing, distinctive architectural treatments and/or other distinguishing features. At the northeast and southeast corners of the Harrison Village block the development will incorporate clock towers/balconies that will serve to set the development apart from surrounding properties. The east facade is also heavily detailed and incorporates an arcade, which provides the plane change envisioned within the Guidelines. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the above applicable Guidelines. Windows and Doors: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that windows shall be provided along all streets; that windows in commercial areas shall be appropriately sized to allow for display and views into the building; and that bulkheads shall be provided below and transoms above display windows. The buildings have been designed with appropriately sized windows along all streets, including the provision of transoms and bulkheads above and below the storefront windows for Harrison Village. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with the above referenced Guidelines. Community Development Board - November 21, 2006 FLD2006-05030 - Page 8 • 0 Roof Design: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that roofs shall be consistent with the style of the building utilizing elements such as cornice treatments, overhangs with brackets, stepped parapets, richly textured'materials and/or differently colored materials. The roof proposed for the Island View towers is consistent with the style of the building and consists of cornice treatments and overhangs with brackets consistent with the above. The "brownstones" and Harrison Village also have roofs consistent with the building style that utilize stepped parapets in addition to those same elements found on the Island View towers. Based upon the above, the development proposal is in compliance with the above referenced Guideline. Color: The Downtown Design Guidelines state that the number and type of building colors should be appropriate for and consistent with the architectural style. The proposed building colors, which are consistent across the various buildings, are appropriate for the architectural style of the buildings. The building walls are proposed with mixture of colors including light brown (Rookwood Amber-SW2817), yellow (Classical Yellow-SW2865) and gold (Classical Gold-SW2831). The building walls will be accented with orange (Tango-SW6649), the cornices painted light beige (Roycroft Vellum-SW2833), the trim painted off-white (Cotton White-SW7104) and the awnings will be red (Tanager-SW6601). Based upon the above, the development proposal is in compliance with the above referenced Guideline. Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies: A review of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan was conducted and the following applicable Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies were identified: ? Vision: Downtown will be an integrated community with a mix of retail, residential, office and recreational opportunities. The development of a variety of residential projects to attract new residents to Downtown is critical to the success of a revitalized Downtown. The development proposal will provide neighborhood-scale retail uses, urban residential uses, and streetscaping consistent with the City's Master Streetscape and Wayfinding Plan, as well as buildings located along and oriented towards all abutting streets. As such, the project is consistent with the above Vision. ? Vision: Fort Harrison and Osceola Avenues should be redeveloped as pedestrian oriented streets and in conjunction with Cleveland Street form the major retail core Downtown. The development proposal will provide neighborhood-scale retail uses, urban residential uses as well as the streetscape improvements consistent with the City's Master Streetscape and Wayfinding Plan. As such, the project will be consistent with the above Vision. ? Vision: Quality urban design is critical to new construction and renovated buildings. The development proposal exemplifies such design practice through building orientation, pedestrian circulation and coverage. Harrison Village has been designed with storefronts opening onto the North Fort Harrison Avenue, Georgia and Jones Streets rights-of-way with an arcade providing shelter for pedestrians along the east elevation (North Fort Harrison Avenue). The North Osceola Avenue frontage of Harrison Village has been designed with access to living areas associated with residential dwelling units in the development. Further, Island View has been designed with townhomes ("brownstones") oriented toward the North Osceola Avenue right-of-way so as to contribute to pedestrian interest in the area. In addition to the above, the two Harrison Village buildings are separated by a large courtyard/open space consisting of substantial hardscaping, landscaping, covered outdoor seating areas, benches, and a large fountain feature. This open space also serves to connect the sidewalks along North Fort Harrison Avenue and North Osceola Avenue; thus providing quality pedestrian circulation and access. Based upon the above, the development proposal will be consistent with the above Vision. Community Development Board - November 21, 2006 FLD2006-05030 - Page 9 • 0 ? Goal 1: Downtown shall be a place that attracts people for living, employment and recreation. The City shall encourage redevelopment that will attract residents and visitors to Downtown as a recreation, entertainment and shopping destination. This development proposal will provide a density of 84.43 dwelling units per acre and is a pioneering mixed-use project for downtown within the Old Bay character district. Based upon the above, the development proposal will be consistent with the above Goal. ? Objective IA: All development within Downtown shall further the Goals, Objectives and Policies of this Plan and shall be consistent with the character districts, the design guidelines and the Downtown zoning district. The development proposal provides 358 attached dwellings and 13,235 square feet of non-residential floor area as part of an attractive mixed-use development. Based upon the above, the development proposal will be consistent with the above Objective. ? Objective 1E: A variety of businesses are encouraged to relocate and expand in Downtown to provide a stable employment center, as well as employment opportunities for Downtown residents. The development proposal provides for 13,235 square feet of new non-residential floor area, which will further the provision of a stable employment center and additional employment opportunities. Based upon the above, the development proposal will be consistent with the above Objective. ? Objective 1H: The City shall use all existing incentives to encourage Downtown housing and shall evaluate other incentives to encourage residential uses to locate Downtown. The Plan provides a pool of development potential from which projects may acquire additional dwelling units and/or non- residential floor area. This development proposal includes a request to utilize 109 dwelling units and 13,235 square feet of non-residential floor area from the Pool to achieve the desired density/intensity for the site and thereby increasing the viability and vibrancy of the project. The proposal includes approximately $3.24 million in streetscape improvements for North Fort Harrison Avenue, North Osceola Avenue, Jones Street and Georgia Street rights-of-way, which will be consistent with the City's Master Streetscaping and Wayfinding Plan. Based upon the above, the development proposal will be consistent with the above Objective. ? Objective 1K: Downtown shall be a safe environment for both residents and visitors by addressing real and perceived public safety issues. The immediate area, with some notable exceptions, is characterized by low-quality, attached dwellings that in general are poorly maintained and contribute to a real and perceived impression of a lack of safety. The redevelopment of this site with attractive high-quality structures and the influx of additional residents, patrons and pedestrians will improve the appearance of the area and contribute to a safer environment. Based upon the above, the development proposal will be consistent with the above Objective. ? Objective 2A: The Downtown street grid should be maintained to provide multiple access points in and through Downtown, to assist in dispersing traffic on various routes and contribute to improved traffic operations. Vacation of streets shall be evaluated based on redevelopment potential provided alternative access exists or can be provided. The existing grid system will be improved through the development proposal. The existing North Osceola Avenue right-of-way that abuts the project will be vacated and a new right-of-way for North Osceola Avenue with a standard width of 50 feet and a pavement width of 24 feet will be dedicated approximately 90 feet to the east of its present location. The result will be the elimination of one of the three existing 90-degree turns and greater spacing between the remaining two 90-degree bends. Traffic for the development proposal will be dispersed across multiple rights-of-way as the primary parking garage (beneath Island View) is located off Georgia Street, and the secondary parking garage (beneath Harrison Village) is located off Osceola Avenue. Based upon the above, the development proposal will be consistent with the above Objective. Community Development Board - November 21, 2006 FLD2006-05030 -Page 10 • 0 ? Objective 21: Redevelopment and public improvements shall create and contribute to pedestrian linkages throughout the Downtown. The development proposal includes the provision of streetscape improvements within the North Osceola Avenue, North Fort Harrison Avenue, Jones Street and Georgia Street rights-of-way that are consistent with the City's Master Streetscaping and Wayfinding Plan; thus compliance with this Objective has been achieved. ? Goal 3: Create Downtown as a memorable place to be enjoyed by residents and visitors that capitalizes on Clearwater's waterfront location, natural resources, built environment and history. The development proposal will set a new design standard within the Old Bay character district while providing for an attractive streetscape through non-residential uses, striking buildings, new streetscaping and landscaping. Through these improvements to the built environment, the development proposal will be consistent with the above Goal. ? Objective 3D: Redevelopment is encouraged to create a vibrant Downtown environment containing a variety of building forms and styles that respect Downtown's character and heritage. The development proposal consists of buildings that will complement the existing pattern of development along North Fort Harrison and North Osceola Avenues incorporating arched elements, canopies, balconies and an extensive use of windows as part of a Mediterranean Revival style of architecture. The stepbacks will give the appearance to passersby of a building in harmony with other buildings in the area. Based upon the above, the development proposal will be consistent with the above Objective. ? Policy 1: The Downtown Design Guidelines establish the quality and design-features expected for renovation, redevelopment and new construction in Downtown with which all projects must be consistent. The development proposal is consistent with the Design Guidelines as it incorporates a detail rich Mediterranean Revival style architecture that utilizes high-quality materials, such as stucco and terracotta barrel tile roofs. The proposed design also incorporates an extensive use of stepbacks and vertical/horizontal plane changes as well as a variety of architectural details such as ornate balconies, decorative aluminum railings, decorative metal awnings, a covered arcade, broad cornices and stepped parapets. Based upon the above, the development proposal will be consistent with the above Policy. ? Policy 2: The character of each district shall be reinforced through the site plan and design review process. Projects shall be consistent with and contribute positively to the vision of the character district in which it is located. The Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan envisions the Old Bay character district as a mixed-use neighborhood supporting the Downtown employment base with residential, limited neighborhood commercial and office uses. Staff has worked diligently with the applicant to create a development that is consistent with this vision. It is specifically noted that the Island View development component is consistent with that portion of the character district vision, which provides for an opportunity for higher-density residential uses along Clearwater Harbor west of Osceola Avenue. Based upon the above, the development proposal will be consistent with the above Policy. ? Policy 3: The design of all projects in Downtown shall make meaningful contributions to the pedestrian environment through site and building design. The proposed design of the site and buildings contributes to the pedestrian environment by providing an active streetscape consisting of paver sidewalks, formal/informal seating, landscaping, pedestrian arcade, ground floor non- residential uses along North Fort Harrison Avenue, and a large open space between the two Harrison Village buildings consisting of substantial hardscaping, landscaping, covered outdoor seating areas, Community Development Board - November 21, 2006 FLD2006-05030 -Page 11 • 0 benches, and a large fountain feature. As such, the development proposal will be consistent with the above Policy. ? Policy 6: The City shall establish a Public Amenities Incentive Pool that provides density and intensity increases for projects located in all character districts, except as limited in Old Bay, in excess of the allowable maximum development potential based on a provision of selected amenities. To overcome the numerous constraints affecting redevelopment, the Plan establishes the Public Amenities Incentive Pool, consisting of 2,296 dwelling units and 2,119,667 square feet of floor area for non-residential uses, available to all property within the Plan area. This provides an opportunity for the private sector to gain additional development potential while assisting the public to achieve its redevelopment goals for Downtown Clearwater. This development will utilize 109 dwelling units and 13,235 square feet of non-residential floor area from the pool. The proposal includes approximately $3.24 million in streetscape and wayfinding improvements within the North Osceola Avenue, North Fort Harrison Avenue, Jones Street and Georgia Street rights-of-way. These improvements will be consistent with the City's Master Streetscaping and Wayfinding Plan. As such, the development proposal will be consistent with the above Policy. ? Polices Residential development shall provide appropriate on-site recreation facilities based upon the scale of the project. Amenities for the site include two (2) swimming pools, a hot tub, clubhouse, beach access and substantial on-site gardens and fountains. As such, the development proposal will be consistent with the above Policy. ? Policy 25: The City shall give priority to sidewalk construction within Downtown that enhances pedestrian linkages and/or completes a continuous sidewalk system on all streets. The development proposal includes sidewalks along each of the adjacent rights-of-way, which will include interlocking pavers, benches, shaded arcades (at North Fort Harrison Avenue), solid waste receptacles and streetlights matching the City's Master Streetscape and Wayfinding Plan. As such, the development proposal will be consistent with the above Policy. Old Bay Character District Policies: The following applicable policies shall govern development within the District, as well as City actions: ? The Public Incentives Amenities Pool shall not be available to any property located on the west side of Osceola Avenue between Eldridge Street and the northern boundary of the Old Bay character district. The subject property is located south of Eldridge Street; therefore it is eligible for the Public Amenities Incentive Pool from which the project proposes the use of 109 dwelling units and 13,235 square feet of non-residential floor area. ? City rights-of-way that dead-end at the harbor shall be retained and improved for public access to the water. The development proposal includes the retention of the existing Georgia Street right-of- way, which dead-ends at the harbor and provides for a scenic outlook consisting of a paver brick walkway and landing, a decorative wall and columns, benches and landscaping. ? New development on North Fort Harrison Avenue shall be oriented toward the street to encourage pedestrian activity and a dynamic street life. The development proposal includes new development oriented towards all abutting streets including North Fort Harrison Avenue. Non-residential uses are proposed to be located along North Fort Harrison Avenue with residential uses facing all streets. ? Mixed-use development that has office and retail uses on the ground floor and residential uses above are encouraged along North Fort Harrison Avenue. As stated above, the development proposal includes the provision of non-residential floor area on the ground floor along North Fort Harrison Avenue with residential uses above. Community Development Board - November 21, 2006 FLD2006-05030 - Page 12 0 ? Preferred housing styles east of Osceola Avenue are single-family detached and townhouses. Attached dwellings in this area may be considered upon assembly of at least one acre and preferably one city block. The development proposal includes a land assemblage of just over five acres and more than 90 percent of a city block. As such, the development proposal will be consistent with the intent of this Policy. Based upon the above, the development proposal is found to be in compliance with the policies governing development within the Old Bay character district. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards and criteria as per Section 2-903 of the Community Development Code and the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent F.A.R. 0.5 0.5 X' Density 50- dwelling units per acre 84.43 X1 Height East of Osceola Avenue 40 feet 48 feet X2 West of Osceola Avenue 150 feet 180 feet X2 Off-Street Attached 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit 542 parking spaces X3 Parking Dwellings (537 spaces) Retail Sales 4/1,000 SF gross floor area and Services 53 spaces) 1 See above discussion with regard to Density /Floor Area Ratio. 2 See above discussion with regard to Maximum Building Height. 3 See above discussion with regard to Minimum Off-Street Parking. Community Development Board - November 21, 2006 FLD2006-05030 - Page 13 0 COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-903.B of the Community Development Code (Attached Dwellings): Height: a. The parcel proposed for development is located to the west of Myrtle Avenue, south of Drew Street and north of Court Street. b. The increased height results in an improved site plan and/or improved design and appearance. C. The height may be increased to 150 feet if the parcel proposed for development fronts on Clearwater Bay or is only separated from Clearwater Bay by a public open space or right-of-way. Consistent N/A' N/A' N/A' Inconsistent N/A' N/A' N/A' 2. All street frontage is designed and used for commercial purposes or is designed so that the attached dwellings function in a way which will contribute to an active urban street environment; 3. Off-street parking: a. The physical characteristics of the proposed building are such that the likely uses of the property will require fewer parking spaces per floor area than otherwise required or that the use of significant portions of the building for storage or other non-parking demand generating purposes or that the nature of the individual dwelling units and their location is likely to lead to dependency on non-automobile modes of transportation. b. Adequate parking is available on a shared basis as determined by all existing land uses within 1,000 feet of the parcel proposed for development, or parking is available through any existing or planned and committed parking facilities or the shared parking formula in Article 3, Division 14. 4. The design of all buildings complies with the Downtown District design guidelines in Division 5 of Article 3. X N/A N/A N/A N/A X ' The above criteria with regard to Height do not apply to this development proposal as the provisions of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan govern over those criteria found within the Community Development Code. See above discussion with regard to Maximum Building Height. Community Development Board - November 21, 2006 FLD2006-05030 - Page 14 C r: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-903.C of the Community Development Code (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Proj ect): 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X development and improvement of surrounding properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X development 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street X parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: ? Changes in horizontal building planes; ? Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; ? Variety in materials, colors and textures; ? Distinctive fenestration patterns; ? Building stepbacks; and ? Distinctive roofs forms. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and atntnronriate distances between buildings. Inconsistent Community Development Board - November 21, 2006 FLD2006-05030 - Page 15 0 • The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-903.N of the Community Development Code (Retail Sales and Services): Consistent I Inconsistent 1. Height: a. The parcel proposed for development is located to the west of Myrtle Avenue, N/AI N/A' south of Drew Street and north of Court Street. b. The increased height results in an improved site plan and/or improved design N/A' N/A' and appearance. 2. Off-street parking: a. The physical characteristics of the proposed building are such that the likely N/A N/A uses of the property will require fewer parking spaces per floor area than otherwise required or that the use of significant portions of the building for storage or other non-parking demand generating purposes or that the nature of the individual dwelling units and their location is likely to lead to dependency on non-automobile modes of transportation. b. Adequate parking is available on a shared basis as determined by all existing N/A N/A land uses within 1,000 feet of the parcel proposed for development, or parking is available through any existing or planned and committed parking facilities or the shared parking formula in Article 3, Division 14. 3. The design of all buildings complies with the Downtown District design guidelines X in Division 5 of Article 3. The above criteria with regard to Height do not apply to this development proposal as the provisions of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan govern over those criteria found within the Community Development Code. See above discussion with regard to Maximum Building Height. 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. X 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of 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 5.18 acre subject property is generally located on the west side of North Fort Harrison Avenue and bounded by Jones Street to the south, Georgia Street to the north and Clearwater Harbor to the west; Community Development Board - November 21, 2006 FLD2006-05030 - Page 16 0 2. That the property is located within the Downtown (D) District and the Central Business District (CBD) and Preservation (P) Future Land Use Plan categories; 3. That the portion of the subject property (0.2 acres) located within the Preservation (P) Future Land Use Plan category does not generate density; 4. That the development proposal is subject to the requirements of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the Design Guidelines contained therein as the property is located within the Old Bay character district; 5. That the development proposal is compatible with the surrounding area and will enhance other redevelopment efforts; and 6. That there are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. Conclusions of Law: 1. That the proposed use of 109 attached dwellings and 13,235 square feet of non-residential floor area from the Public Amenities Incentive Pool is consistent with the provisions of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan; 2. That the proposed increases in height via the Public Amenities Incentive Pool from 40 feet to 48 feet (Harrison Village) and from 150 feet to 180 feet (Island View) are consistent with the provisions of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan; 3. That the development proposal is consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines; 4. That the development proposal is consistent with the Visions, Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the East Gateway character district; 5. That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards and Criteria as per Section 2-903 of the Community Development Code; 6. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Sections 2-903.13, 2- 903.C and 2-903.N of the Community Development Code; and 7. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level One and Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-913 of the Community Development Code. Based upon the above, the Planning Department recommends APPROVAL of the Flexible Development application for a mixed-use development within the Downtown (D) District consisting of 358 attached dwellings and 13,235 square feet of non-residential floor area with increases in height to 48 feet (east side) and 180 feet (west side) as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project as per Section 2-903.C of the Community Development Code with the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 1. That prior to the issuance of a Development Order, the civil drawings are revised to remove the conflicting refuse enclosure detail; 2. That prior to the issuance of any building permits for vertical improvements, a Final Subdivision Plat must be recorded; 3. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, all Fire Department conditions are addressed; 4. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, all applicable open space/recreation impact fees are paid; 5. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, separate right-of-way permits must be acquired for any/all work within the rights-of-way of any of the adjacent street(s) that are assigned to the City; 6. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the plans are revised so that all mechanical equipment is screened from view from rights-of-way per the requirements of Section 3-201.D.1 of the Community Development Code and the Design Guidelines of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan; Community Development Board - November 21, 2006 FLD2006-05030 -Page 17 0 7. That prior to the issuance of any building permits a notation must be added to the plans stating that all on-site utility facilities, whether they be existing or proposed, are to be placed underground as part of the redevelopment of the site; 8. That prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, a condominium plat must be recorded; 9. That prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant must comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule; 10. That Osceola Avenue shall remain open to use by the public at all times until vacation of the street is approved by the City Council. All work related to existing Osceola Avenue and the proposed new Osceola Avenue right-of-way shall be in accordance with the terms and conditions of the vacation ordinance, once approved; 11. That the final design and color of the building must be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to (or as modified by) the CDB, and be approved by Staff; 12. That if the proposed project necessitates infrastructure modifications to satisfy site-specific water capacity and pressure requirements and/or wastewater capacity requirements, the modifications shall be completed by the applicant and at their expense and that if underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, the installation shall be completed and in service prior to construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements; 13. That any/all wireless communication facilities to be installed concurrent with or subsequent to the construction of the subject development must be screened from view and/or painted to match the building to which they are attached, as applicable; 14. That any/all future signage must meet the requirements of Code and be architecturally integrated with the design of the building with regard to proportion, color, material and finish as part of a final sign package submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any permits which includes: (a) All signs fully dimensioned and coordinated in terms of including the same color and font style and size; and (b) All signs be constructed of the highest quality materials which are coordinated with the colors, materials and architectural style of the building; 15. That the first building permit must be applied for within one year of the Community Development Board approval (by November 21, 2007); 16. That this Flexible Development approval is subject to the vacation of the existing Osceola Avenue right-of-way by the City (Ordinance No. 7769-07); 17. That this Flexible Development approval is subject to the approval of the associated Development Agreement with the City (DVA2006-00001). Prepared by Planning Department Staff. ~? l Robert G. Tefft, Planner IlI ATTACHMENTS: ? Location Map ? Aerial Map ? Future Land Use Map ? Zoning Map ? Existing Surrounding Uses Map ? Photographs of Site and Vicinity S: (Planning DepartmentiC D BIFLEX (FLD)IPending cases)Up for the next CDBIFt Harrison Ave N 0410 - Island View (D) - 11-21-06(RT)IFt Harrison Ave N410 - Staff Report 11-21-06. doe Community Development Board - November 21, 2006 FLD2006-05030 - Page 18 Robert G. Tefft 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 (727) 562-4539 robert.tefftArnyclearwater.com PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 0 Planner III City of Clearwater, Clearwater, Florida June 2005 to Present Duties include performing technical review of and preparation of staff reports for various land development applications, the organization of data and its display in order to track information and provide status reports, and making presentations to various City Boards and Committees. Planner II City of Clearwater, Clearwater, Florida May 2005 to June 2005 Duties include performing technical review of and preparation of staff reports for various land development applications, the organization of data and its display in order to track information and provide status reports. Senior Planner City of Delray Beach, Delray Beach, Florida October 2003 to May 2005 Performed technical review of and prepared staff reports for land development applications such as, but not limited to: site plans, conditional uses, rezonings, land use amendments, and text amendments. Organized data and its display in order to track information and provide status reports. Make presentations to various City Boards. Planner City of Delray Beach, Delray Beach, Florida March 2001 to October 2003 Performed technical review of and prepared staff reports for land development applications such as, but not limited to: site plans, conditional use and text amendments. Organization of data and its display in order to track information and provide status reports. Provided in-depth training to the Assistant Planner position with respect to essential job functions and continuous guidance. Assistant Planner City of Delray Beach, Delray Beach, Florida October 1999 to March 2001 Performed technical review of and prepared staff reports for site plan development applications. Performed reviews of building permit applications. Provided information on land use applications, ordinances, land development regulations, codes, and related planning programs/services to other professionals and the public. EDUCATION • Bachelor of Arts, Geography (Urban Studies), University of South Florida, 1999 LICENSES & CERTIFICATES ' • American Planning Association Community Development Board - November 21, 2006 FLD2006-05030 -Page 19 x b V MPJ!JE 5^ C BF..CKF.TT S ?? MAR.S,rglt 4 BECKS R' ST O yu ? ? MARS. AL L S7 2 y y z rw.N* a E ¢ ° C i? ? ? ? c ¢ ST CAR: TON I? RJSS£LL Si c> AP.A'` c= aQ? TANG ERNE S7 ENGMAN 3 5T Q ST O o p p LA SALLE ° A`M BLtGP ? ST PALM BLUFF S7 PAL0.1 9WfF ST Q S' 9 cRrh, JURGENS L Y 4) METTO S? ' 0.1£ 10 CEDAR ST a 0 -A P ? S NI CHOISON ST y L'fiCl50N Si J N'I oil NI?? SEMINOLE ST CV o u? FU[)RIDGE'. ST MAPLE ST O? 7 Q IARP;.E. MAPLE O LEE Si a PIA7A GE040!A PROJECT SITE Si ART LACKS N tTr 0 m JCNES ? >? i o e ST i 1 ????O g DREW ST SR. 59, ¢?°° °a ?GROVE. URA HENDRIO? ? ? ? ^O V a GROVE Q G ? a W ? ? El ? ii= N.E. CLEVELAND y? ? ? ? PARK sT < PIERCE ST 1:1,= ? ?'?' E ? S ? PIERCE S7 PIERCE g-E L?=El FRANKLN - N 1? ? 000RT ST a ? ? ?f C. ^ ' . 51 S.R. VO C?'RT = GO:1:: r? MRVjC{fy ST LNE5TNU T 91' S R. 50 COURT ST ROGER <? ? a ROGERS a ? Rn TURP.FR ST n 3 Epp a H,VtOtA ? ? PINE ? . Ry .. PINE' ....,. _ PINE Gr S Location Map Owners: Triangle Old Bay Holdings, LLC. and Church Cases: FLD2006-05030 of Scientology Flag Service Organization DVA2006-00001 Site: 302, 303, 304, 308, and 309 North Osceola Property 5.18 Avenue ; 410 Jones Street; and 410 North Size (Acres): Fort Harrison Avenue Atlas 277B Page: PIN: 09-29-15-44352-002-0010 09-29-15-53370-000-0020 09-29-15-14310-000-0080 09-29-15-44352-002-0020 09-29-15-00000-430-0600 09-29-15-14310-000-0010 09-29-15-00000-430-0500 09-29-15-00000-430-0300 09-29-15-00000-430-0400 09-29-15-53370-000-0010 09-29-15-14310-000-0100 • • Aerial Map Owners: Triangle Old Bay Holdings, LLC. and Church Cases: FLD2006-05030 of Scientology Flag Service Organization DVA2006-00001 Site: 302, 303, 304, 308, and 309 North Osceola Property 5.18 Avenue ; 410 Jones Street; and 410 North Size(Acres): Fort Harrison Avenue _ Atlas 277B PIN: 09-29-15-44352-002-0010 09-29-15-44352-002-0020 09-29-15-14310-000-0010 09-29-15-00000-430-0300 09-29-15-53370-000-0010 09-29-15-53370-000-0020 09-29-15-00000-430-0600 09-29-15-00000-430-0500 09-29-15-00000-430-0400 09-29-15-14310-000-0100 09-29-15-14310-000-0080 • • ----- -------------- _-_-------- ------- 6 7 18 bOp 60+ 19 30 soi a 1U 51 513 8 512 509 1 9 512 500 ------------------ 9 510 Ew - -°--- 11 51 507 -°---------------- 510 2 8 509 -- - --- 505 3 - CBD 5@7 7 5 508 506 503 ; 6 5?5 4 4 1 5 1 504 1 1 } iBD WATER 500 2 1 ' 501 2 3 G 1 1 500 409 1 1 407 3 II 1 q 11 40 -----__ -_--1 1 405 404 g 407 7 ---------------- ------11 / 6 i l 9 404 405 6 11------ qp3 ---- 1---11 5 -__---I 1 7- 1 9 1 I_ --------- 402 403 5 ---I II m I 1 _ 401 400 10 11 ? 1 8 1 1 1 $ ?n ----- Q ------41 --- 401 1 3 400 4 11 1 avw 312 H Q 321 2 1 0 1 0 1 w 1 314 311 31 O 1 1 3 z C aa?o6 ?'D5 `? BD y ( 8 1 7 1 a 317 1 306 9 1 1 309 Ix I I 1 __--- ------ Q 1 1 304 A -1116 1 302 304 B p 1 E3OV2 302 3 4 h I in ? I `v3 JONES ST n of °' 'O 225 1 1 1 v v a. v? v 1 1 I v a 1 1 1 COD i 10 7 1 6 f 4, 2 I C BD 1 4.0 A c 221 1 1 1 1 1 2pt 1 2 -°°----- 1 3 1 4 1 5 2 I °4 C ? 1 200 --'--- - 1 1 d' - uNi 1 I 3 1 1 1 1 Future Land Use Map Owners: Triangle Old Bay Holdings, LLC. and Church Cases: FLD2006-05030 ( of Scientology Flag Service Organization DVA2006-00001 Site: 302, 303, 304, 308, and 309 North Osceola Property 5.18 Avenue ; 410 Jones Street; and 410 North Size(Acres): Fort Harrison Avenue Atlas 277B Page: . PIN: 09-29-15-44352-002-0010 09-29-15-53370-000-0020 09-29-15-14310-000-0080 09-29-15-44352-002-0020 09-29-15-00000-430-0600 09-29-15-14310-000-0010 09-29-15-00000-430-0500 09-29-15-00000-430-0300 09-29-15-00000-430-0400 09-29-15-53370-000-0010 09-29-15-14310-000-0100 0 r ----------------- ----------- -------- 6 ?7 18 800 601 19 30 ?A 513 509 B c 10 51 6 512 4 9 512 1 500 ------------------ 9 510 -------- 511 507 71 7 -----------°°--- 510 2 8 509 7 5@7 5508 505 3 506 503 ; 6 565 4 4 1 5 504 I I I P 500 2 1 501 2 s 1? 1 500 409 II GEORGIA ST 407 3 CW:13 1 q I I 40 -----------t I 407 7 g 1 405 1 1 -_- ---- 'l 1 8 --------- W ------ 404 ? 405 8 -------1---11 5 1 9 Q ------ 403 , 9 11 q ------11 7_ 11- ------ 403 1 2 4 t l 402 , 40 --- --- J 400 10 •OJ 5 --4 ----- 401 8 ----- -___-___-_ 0 '1 ? W 4 1 4 i 3 V 1 , 1 qcc a?oa 314 312 y 31 321 2 1 1 o f o f O 11 1 ? ? 1 3 1 1 I m Z D co 3 I 1 8 1 7 1 alms s ' 1 O 317 9 a 306 1 i 309 I 1 1 1 304 A 3 I 1 302 B 304 6 ? 3 t 1 1 ??? Q O , 1 ? ?? LIL 302 309 1 2 3 4 1 O 300 1? A ; ?? N 1 N I Z; 1 1 ° h 1 JONES ST M v v 225 1 1 1 A?2 o v v v v v 1 1 1 `+ a 1 1 1 I ' I I 10 1 9 1 8 7 1 6 asmi 2 I i 1 I 1 1 1 22 4.0 Ac 1 ' 1 -°- 291 1 2 3 i q t -- -° 1 1 5 200 --°- - 1 ?a 1 I 1 1 ° 1 1 3 I I I 1 Zoning Map Owners: Triangle Old Bay Holdings, LLC. and Church Cases: FLD2006-05030 of Scientology Flag Service Organization DVA2006-00001 Site: 302, 303, 304, 308, and 309 North Osceola Property 5.18 Avenue ; 410 Jones Street; and 410 North Size(Acres): Fort Harrison Avenue Atlas 277B Page: PIN: 09-29-15-44352-002-0010 09-29-15-53370-000-0020 09-29-15-14310-000-0080 09-29-15-44352-002-0020 09-29-15-00000-430-0600 09-29-15-14310-000-0010 09-29-15-00000-430-0500 09-29-15-00000-430-0300 09-29-15-00000430-0400 09-29-15-53370-000-0010 09-29-15-14310-000-0100 0 0 ------------------- 601 ---------- ------- !^, g 7 18 6 60 19 30 601 0 51 513 W9 P 10 8 51 Re al n 9 512 o --- So - --- 511 7 Nrvlcef ----------- -- - 8 510 508 -------- - 5 505 Attached 3 s 3 1 Dwellings 54 W5 4 4 1 5 504 , I 1 I I S00 2 501 p 3 1 500 409 11 GEORGIA ST 4O7 Retail 1 les and ? 4 8 407 7 ? ? 4 40S --- OV6 1 404 8 . ----------------- i 1 404 ? 4415 Clearwater -- s I, ___-- --40 -----,---,1 5 s r i 11 ------ ------ 1 ,0 4021 403 ; Y z aof - 7- 90 l o 0 ar o 4 5 I 00 ----- ------ -----------? W 4- ', 3 8 1 '? , 1 h n in ,1 V 1 , , i i 314 312 y 31 Q Z 311 ? 1 a O 1 Z 1em1a?ic ( ? 309 seq 304 A - 1 1 ?1 I 302 s - 304 ? o ?Qo?? e O 1 - 1 - ---- 2 301 1®ffkeg 4 302 1 1 O O 1 ( N I to N I N O 300 A Q I Q 1 1 h Ih y) h JONtS ST N N M M Iq M h Q Q Q Q O Q ` a. V V Q 2251 1 1 Q Q Plaie of Worship Overnight ,0 1 9 1 8 7 1 8 (.?7 vernight Aecc in odations 1 1 1 ommodations 1 221 1 4.0 Ac ' 1 '?e adQ ± ---- 2 3 4 200 -------- 1 Q4 I ° °r 1 1 1 I I h 1 3 1 1 1 1 Existing Surrounding Uses Map Owners: Triangle Old Bay Holdings, LLC. and Church Cases: FLD2006-05030 of Scientology Flag Service Organization DVA2006-00001 Site: 302, 303, 304, 308, and 309 North Osceola Property 5.18 Avenue ; 410 Jones Street; and 410 North Size(Acres): Fort Harrison Avenue Atlas 2778 Page: PIN: 09-29-15-44352-002-0010 09-29-15-53370-000-0020 09-29-15-14310-000-0080 09-29-15-44352-002-0020 09-29-15-00000-430-0600 09-29-15-14310-000-0010 09-29-15-00000-430-0500 09-29-15-00000-430-0300 09-29-15-00000-430-0400 09-29-15-53370-000-0010 09-29-15-14310-000-0100 i i i i f i i 41 ?r a r m ? ?? f n 0C Wb u o ?oY 0 n„ ?i) n a C M1 Fu" t! ? G y 0 ,N ruu y U 0 1 MAWh - OR CA1L 1Aa17! CAR ~ SCAT! 1ne na. =LA SAAR 4? i MAaS AAL•T 14111L1Fd1 ISLAND VIEW WEST ELEVATION ISLAND VIEW EAST ELEVATION _0 4* a I t i K C o s fo w R` 0 M1 ?} u 4c• ' b4 y 0 D V+ D Cf a• 1 M1 M o } r n n f r i k k J f 1 i J` { 3"9% ¢rs.re IMA "TV scue OIL a R&me 140- WG a L GED I F ?~ V ?r d At *?l 1H 1 EH E. E _®_ - M e I -g I m ri m t 9 ?_ o ^ ` EH ?? ! ; ? i at o 0 0 Ifl fA i ? J {d 7 L C? ? E}E yy 4 ? co h IT] 1E El 7 iR 1 u? Ffl e NAAen ?I 2 aAT? ax:e oar NAJK ? 9:v<T XJ1N6 ?I s Jam- AuJJe[n I`F OIL- ® ffi [B® ® Rl : ® F 77 ® IE 1fl ® ? E ; ; ; , -- H ? E H 1 o I ® [fl ® 7 : 1 R M [E [0 M 7 ® IE 1fl ® m i D [ E ® ® [E ® m I ® 1E E U FT] ® f f ® ? E U I m FT] [B [E M ® f f ® ? E l ! ® f f ® T M N ? I ® lp 10 F T] ® El El FR . ? ? pa • • ISLAND VIEW SOUTH ELEVATION W ? C 3 ?? v ?O Z o ?v a 0 r Y = x. Y .ti r ?? r ANN i , .' -- HARRISON VILLAGE EAST ELEVATION -ism HARRISON VILLAGE NORTH ELEVATION .mac war 'I* JAL HARRISON VILLAGE SOUTH ELEVATION F ?? t HARRISON VILLAGE WEST ELEVATION I{I f ~ a + i ? n • 3 m m? v A n ? Y M1 V ? m ? g C p ° + p ? v u m F (Q ? M1 h ? ?3 I n ;o n C-4 3 -r n i ?L r 7 ? C ?o+arti t -- ? ;ICt ter[ tome rwli fnL•- ?? i , / ?? °a >rmeaa..? LEGEND R 9 r,,wa PLANNING 1 / /'? tm ?" 5 vas Irn.l ' - ( -.) - LroICAI f @? ` fRQEGT BOIMDARY gi ABO.E ' / , . eavxr (rro.l ? 1 .v. v. vv -/"m m / wa lae. (?I„ / / Pl..r Tv ar' I ) ? Sot E43PNG INEE RI BE RELOKO W n'sv s.. / /? •' "( m",,,,,,,' ?`A - °EO 1'R)w'^" 5 a'"`?4iOi 7 , GRAPHIC SCALE KEITH ZAYAC m ri " •-- ?*^^ °°"^' ASSOCIATES, / .., / - .a. INC. ?. ---?-.-a ., ?• . __ m Im.e sIn (727) 793-9888 GENERAL NQIES. 101 SAFETY HA9RBOR, n 3"95 / / / , f? ?/ /? a}s ' •. .^ $?'am as .+m ° - --- WWW.N[ITNaAYAC.C- l--r BI,IILg1NG#3•a re?a,-.. 1 1 r w? 8 r .?mr, .a ..o W- ..?.. .z.... lI / Fl F$??ORR ElEV-3.l?r 140. p 1 A fI ?T$a r"m .? -- v^ / ": UIIPN[tfll[i1RE 4EV A.W •Aa ) rrprw'Q ?N_ 1 z , /'a r"P [( ?T OMA3EFl FLO(Xi ELEM+IRW j?,_ j aa. Pa lr?w.,.J ? _ ..s a ..v W ? c. vF¢M?811.1W P? h ZCs rqs r6 C, _] !?_,l?_ - _a- _ _ - - - - / I•.a R"°' IiT-1t°d?'ia'? •-JY? 1 G k w ' y .° s w r 11l / , .wry ?/ I C G. , N ¢F? -. ®? Q $? mass irro`ri$p1` din O U- p==ses v z n R., Via ,-+-L- --- iz o LIZ l / r l ?j?'./J G. a BRO NE W.f.La. _ Fl ELEG=IIW r ,. Dltl FlZiI.RE W.W L. RI v.^m°? v?r?iA ERNS FEV-iO.W yr? { iN/ ?I .?y z / ?- --4 --- - ?/ mr / 4• fl R S _ v o K• an 7 7 . Li ?4k1R ®IRG #2 I r+r £ a4? z b me., M d FlM3 BOOR -1W /fi w _l ?ciNS?¢,oW t? g d Cs. z T----- -,6EIMILPNES L.W R 1 ) -.,?,ArarA LL wrv o,vmev"..ma od O. ^J''sl W° PLU,,BINO RlR1.RE ELEV= A W / -? w GAR/OEflNSN FLOgt EIEV=,QW? sa ) ?..y? 3 ,,,, ? .?e..,??.. ? o3 W I ? ??? ;' o o g o z K 'J? s a 9 y/ ' ABU 1 #1 r.arN! ?" (.L 7r 1 E °a• 0 88 1-'? sx?^"- c d --+?- , ` 5; gIFlAS ,.. s 061.1 PPg"7 SW I r = L {x. @7 qP !L°! oNUOEflw ?anE en, ! J} 11 8 5 -77 d o? i / I •.. ifi aSnfii.• =11 •<` to [] v.. '- O?$ 1 lwo..sa o it ... =.....? / ue G.u/ ii9' 'N ff).OY ? ??. _ ..?--?--?-- - `" ' eIF' r.?umsr v u.". v?i.?:}.:s• mm.aJ ? 1 a ia..i ?°"• • to ,ra:°f ir..,"a r ? / I ? y _ + enrrn(ml , ! ? mraa,.r...ad em°_ma.. eGNfs arnfET ? I O°•,a" - - - - - - - - - - str RM' - of ixar w. a°fr.- .. nos ?d rAr rae - I ears mea aerie.. o0 \ (D ' 9NfET N6 ems, °1 "'a ? -_ I PERMIT SET ONLY /? I l R 8 __.-_._.__. a.rs NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C5 of C11 I 1 " b I ! I < - ? ? ` L K PLANNING e "nom 0101 Bp1O IT M"m /, _ _ of •Ip? GRAPHIC SCALE R «:a 1 ka?d r' "°'+"°"r "'• I ! e o •?? °Q° KEITH ZAYAC 16 PA.R 'Y ` . gP• A ,`!. !r • EOa .- - nrcer, ASSOCIATES, •tt aF •?°, , ur• a ?? Y• `? wl -All ?pp„pARY "..',erw end, ... •Cu ... .. - ,, q LEGEND (727) 793.9888 aae II I eel ?) !\l (nn, ivPIOAI r01 ENTERPRISE ROAD E. STE / 9 e?Y eC?l 1 `'9'v' SAFETY HARBOR, PL W95 / (V - vP'y., ? . f.: ^a\ ovERNANC/ROa+ ABOVE Cu <•?A // ?/ /? •% i , • '.. • v Www.RRRNZAYAC.CON f , EIOSENO ME CANOPY 10 REMAM • •. - t ?. ?IL, NG #3 ?e t G LU ' g EIIS-0 , w BE NENo,EO I'I itrvxLV=31, .m C. M a.9. 1 , ?, (4D gR° ;? I.. vrFl P- z Z /- R K TAI ! „? E / / lvev ??v ! Cur ? OMAOEFl FLOOR EIEV-10(10 ? v ?:+- ? ^w?? , '4 ®a u? M / Y BENgI 6 111A4, GAN Cr•°oe. I pfO.Cu / =i 1uN? a * R • Z$.I + -- -----------? rr I r. / -[, • ( J1I ` O'• tL rjP ?' Ki ro l ` L ?a. Qp?ad ail 1; / / I ?Y NwN ra / e' BRQMS? ''/? ?" Y ?!y!///// Fl (FlOORtkFG?=V?uµW 1 ' 11-TLIST `" 4`!C'L? Ir /"- O EFlN3M ll• •10.00. ,I g • 1 \ ?'e • nou .o.si rxasWi» Crx.NU 1- -7 24 11- FF 14 V. PING #2 / ! ! / / ?+. Fl8NIkS1N 10.?0DE EM 3t50 , t e ?... w' ? ?a o A a r.: yr oa .a eG ? / Z / '?\ a. /? "' OMKiE Fl?N91FIXi EIEV?O,oo '':.? a xn °w" .rca (r ?o dG. _] V r ri E. .a . ' a.acr.r, P°c a / °= ' "!f#' ?' a aROWN$ ONES Ow.. •, f?./ i?rv ?- ,r °L'I' - - - - - - 4 a ..0 i ° c +? `, • ¦ NsFlROOR azao II 't ,t?aa: 1 d m Pn 9.crosuA .am.n larm?mrr E- gi I 'N.n' ?, Pllt,®INO FlXMEELEV=AW fI'•., ' 0 d / K, 1 'LbL '? W OMMEFlNER FLOIXi EIE,^-1(100/ I ;'?i. 5 1 „OSnW. ?1"vNC ?? Cs.a U 3' ,' - • „, ?r ' : ti 1 {, 1 mws 9r, a Irr ci as I.r., F d z o j / ?T/ / : T aw1aN ??? . _ G I I ;r. , ,m . „w.aas •w..avl »w.IN°.1. a ?,1. V.1) OU / r i J / 'u »x ac awP? .rw a Z gR q° y , ,» ra IA..A .. a.,: Irroan a d1 BUS 1 #a Ga'n, b? '?° c C'r 1 i! Y4`. QLu PL wtl W j ` as w tr .r, a.na sua oumw.a a ck g L-'?.0r wU a.paoEflN ROOK 6EK-, iL - grsme"pni" v 0 5? a a q.?., acrx ry / G •°G• .. ?? ?'? '??`? pl'T_ r` a ,n, »• Aco...?..•."w., a wl. V WE la VEHICULAR USE AREA: i / - `? ? TIERE SNALLPE,011 or oROSavE+acwRL?AEEnoEw,® ? ?, 3 ?7W. _ ?'?1 ro wa??aaEEN SPACE wAl. Is IPEDMEAR?VIRm • / a ? ,,. .. . __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ? - r » -" - ? 1 wALANOSCAPEO AREAPRpAO®.' az. ' LAx9u.rE ran ar acAlmrnalw Orr _yl C, ? Y }t ?1? f? s?i aAa w:ioen?"°wnr'?mml•" ,m --rl ¦ i ?e f^ I If. If N °62 rA a OED Al U' ?• u s , L _ o I eo R/rY aaraR m • m PERMITSETONLYCIO OF ^lI I STREETSCAPE DETAIL 'A' IQ ??- , NOTFOR CONSTRUCT ION l? O ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 24 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER \I PLAZA LEVEL • 3RD FLOOR PLAN E3L®, ? ? ? °? ? G ? ? ? ? ?t d a V1 P ?O V^ Oc Na m Nm c0 j _ 0 n ; L1 m h N m ; 39 .a 9 ? L eooewo-u w vRM ?1¢T wn®1 A-0.00 ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 2 4 2006 PIANNING DEPA' ER Civ OF aiw PARKING COUNT PLAZA LEVEL ................................... ......5 PARKING LEVEL 1 ............................ ...217 PARKING LEVEL 2 ........................... ....216 HARRISON VILLAGE PARKING ........... ....103 TOTAL PARKING ............................... ....540 I 1 PARKING LEVEL P-1 12ND FLOOR PLAN HARRISON VILLAGE PARKING LEVEL P-1 !0 N c ° 1D m of w n Na m" E n N m a G od o x0 N m 3 n px- N e 3 W ; n 3a a N a ? V A u a m .. me -E NAll .xEer xux.ex A-0.01 ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 2 4 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER PARKING COUNT ESPLANADE LEVEL .......................... ........5 PARKING LEVEL 1 ............................ ...217 PARKING LEVEL 2 ........................... ....216 HARRISON VILLAGE PARKING .......... .....102 TOTAL PARKING .............................. .....540 i? r PARKING LEVEL P-2 11ST FLOOR PLAN a m m d; N_ m p ma {0 ? ° o m m n ; V m N A o ; 3a .e N 9 ? A Q 9 0 aaoe-ro -1 N- A-0.02 ORIGINAL RECEIVED 14i+ r. . I .?F.? Sets' t? NORTH SITE ELEVATIONS 2 4 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER m CL m Nm NN n mm V ? o Nv Nmw m c0 v s o m ea m m m n ? m °n 3 n {7 = 3 ? 3a N v « ea u V 0 wx 1 i 6 a A-0.03 ------ - --- - --- ---- ----------------------- ED FIT = M [D EB ED M IEEE] M N®1 ® I.®® EM M ED M Em FEB ED EB ED N ORIGINAL RECENED OCT 2 4 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER I;- M N ® m =W SOUTH SITE ELEVATIONS a a w Nm m m v r. 'U c o r oe NO ? O Nm p N j O 0 0 ? N" a r pmv A n ; 3a N u a m EAST SITE ELEVATIONS OCT 2 4 2006. PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER A-0.05 .. !tL `jjLS I ??'?• ? ?n...,.___ .. I,__n? ? +><? fir; ?y',!x' L ??<S?U•'14."?T2 ? ? N .,?4'4 !3? I ?'?s3"Y. ?J ? ,?f Asa,.; e UE J 0 02 WEST SITE ELEVATIONS o OCT 2 4 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER c0 N CL m 10• Nm rd m" E n p? o N- m O N o m Na- m wl m 1m m l f0 ? ; o ;e m 9 M m u v m o¢¢wn .UTMA'6 e•,o-n c¢e ?I A-0.06 SITE DATA zaaxc 'a' OEHL?afU USE aETNI / faEiGE / ATTACH([ 1014 g1E AaFA IaFISCN H11ACE A 1aEWIaEO .-D aALL.iGS m.rz ll un.M'.a .- - " PEi4 (Lxexim srM. as +.aooTUq I? 4 A 6 n -m m mm °m mm n V ? Er ? ?= m c N a o Aa- mo m 'n 3 n V a - N n ; 3a u La 32 ml SITE PLAN. PHASE 1 • PLAZA LEVEL a mvt RECEIVED OCT 2 4 2006 oaAwa Tam- A-0.07 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER maf? m m m ®0 O I l I ? Q s *I h ?I FI II ? o PHASE d : I ; / PHASE I 111 1 I y 1 ./ m 0 ' i e S ?? I « z IhIi z? I ?? I I § li I s? b? o ?o ® bb 0 0 46 bo®m,m m ®'o46 Id '? WALL LEGEND PARKING PLAN - PHASE 1 - LEVEL P-1 RECEIVED OCT 2 4 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER m w d m wW M? E U? o mca a m, mo m 'c m m 'm Um m a ; a 3 m n 3 ? 3a ?m r °3 j ma. coe I a J A-0.08 1 t? Id d? ?? I ' WALL LEGEND ..m....,., m.. PARKING PLAN - PHASE 1 - LEVEL P-2 RECEIVED OCT 2 4 2006 N a 16 NW dv N^ E p- o Nam O Nm_ m O M m 'n 3 n V m N m ; 3a N ? V N u .xnr xu?m A-0.09 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER UNIT A nxv..'i>, f& UNIT A BfM1 . Ifll 4 Lp, L N: L L. L. L: ?1. L L L l: 02 F __1 BUILDING ONE- PARKING LEVEL 1 PLAN n-lao - ---- I ? r_- b O ? 0 D e I ; j i p p D O -- .1 0 I L, 4 1 1 : ------------------- ------- ----- --- - II I L• .4 anfi 0 IC n a o .b t0 NA b m'D n tW "? c n U" N O N o m NO b 0 jp GI 9 ; n Uq A m ; n N?3 G 3a .a b L W I, m "u 9 W L ?W 1 i i of .?Er. BUILDING ONE- PARKING LEVEL 2 PLAN A-1.10 ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 2 4 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER (!; l°V tl. 1. l,h? l- l- r! l- ?? l='. ? ?• I ? i I I I I I;1 I I ? 11 I 0. i I ?°B "ice, I, rE I NI1 T A uw ,G - --T LNec. w w NY I? [A0. -1554 , , i we ---- D v I ! eou. = Ime s iWl al4 I I I 1 .? -------- ----------- rJrcuE?S \ ] 1DxuE I l^... 5 . _ ? Lp, I @i ? I I ? ? - I aeoaDOn? ' I Z9 / ? <w erns aeo I 1 @t 1 ? D . °E G* ELE ® I I __ _ UNIT B eme - uR s ? -IN4 __...._____.. _ oww ' .rt a __._______ I 5-t rE E ? ? 1NG i3ia ? ----- -------------- _J \ _ L I et1, NIT 80.4 -I?RY _ ?' 2 j ° I IvYG e1M? I L ! I: t tr ! I ELGC MECM 5r owe I tNYV t U411 c ie . 3 s t t Eon, G (I; ? ° _ ?o?, L.. N I BGV ? F IuuC}tt ? ? ? _ eF SR • i ?'' f uwuc NIT eR?cn aevra 1, aa1.. mi v RwL - i LL_ I I II I ?. ' e ? II 1, l^, l- le. l: L lg. L L DBUILDING ONE-3RD LEVEL PLAN 02 q-I.II I '? a55 A 6. f t t d BUILDING ONE-PLAZA LEVEL PLAN OI q_I.II A-1.11 ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 2 4 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER i . 4. cz, l^-? Q, ti - ti, ". c^, ?- u 5 I - ! r4. ..aMr i II. i.. II ' l i I i li 1 . ?. ! - L ' I rem+xE t3@B?+ X94€&+ iEm+ace I i . ? -i! L. UNITA ans N? R - N0. .I?N s - Ins 4 A ISJS 1 LNN+ WI? LIVGG vwMV I I F - -J ? --- ? 1 _ I ?. .. KR J J r - -------...... 1cn N>• - , _ - 1 eeorsoa+ ? ?.Y?. T .'""" a? TS - eEDrsow 5 I ; ?. ? ( ? I I tx5 i I a er ..a 3? : t? NIT _ __ ' Bvu.IN1Y DMGGI ' rc 5tm . a14 , iEwa u u La I }u09H t-_i ?.?'' t - ?' LIVGG ? I ' ?•? NN?9 1'sso 4 e-- a ?__? ? ` fd€BiS n 1 e-:: _I Z-1:21 -=41 IffI UNIT c I ° E - L 1 ?T IR 4 R0. • It - - re i LnGC i : lcrtc CyU?C s •' "? • 53n i • ELEC r?cu BGO°tu5 -a?344 ED kt? . ?' S?oas?3, Lcee i " - m m ti ? { ri _ NLL "? v ,. _f 1. i O N v v L. _ i O a? ° IV- .. LOBE D a o W o I i area 0 ' t .a I I ww t I ? a IE• l^. l- l^. 1, L 1. 1, L• ! I L ?W I I I i t I: e?; ? I, i I I' I I l i I ? I I ? I I I I i I i ; _ ; 1 ? *eW+ec B@(3T€,?, d'LRASr?+, reRw+ce i I I I ? UNIT A ! unro ? C_.__ u•.wr, UNIT A :'vu i u - L: pwwc :'wg - - --------- ---- ---------------- i Krtp ,cue I Lp, N1. i ; eeDRDp., a ?' `- 6o r < r ?`es , c? aeD eL ' .. . I ep eLC aep 3 I I , I I I ?. I mu<. um u Na. 31 53 DMING' Kltc' Klit, ? I pwwG NU T B ]? I LINw ? ? I ? LIVaIG Y R? • la -------------- - --- - -- / ---------------- '. n '?t Mt - UNIT Q 1. -Ixes ;aa -le Dr+oG rp+ eR L. . I `a' R Dww? UNIT C _ re? i l 1 f , I • ,e "'- ;e3s uwm i Kl,c ' i' ec/ recu eL K,*c 1 L 1 _ _ _ 1 ac . ' lose I BE'I n 9 . i aepaDR, 1___., . ..... . wrER Krtc .(+ F .. oy C _ eepepG ' I --- T ..__----- f 1 ? I r Llwc r i , ?D'? I ae UNIT 0 L mt" ..?auis ? I 'l. I I I wl ? "1° II lr. le. l- Q, 1, L" o? BUILDING ONE-5TH THROUGH 7TH LEVEL PLAN ORIGINAL, RECEIVED OCT 2 4 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER L7 . I I !' I I I it I I' I 1, j,.. - i I i Lp, N1 I; I 1. -.. _.. j .. ... T@i i... ep U MT s uN?.._. ..__... .A . pwN RA0. •1]19 I I Kb k _- 11 1 _ Ilk it UNIT C Dww Iw" - va ss I@l '- remx rtaL - 3s i L ! t . eE ?;. I i I I it I? I 1 .earsnce Q VINM Ll_ \ I U ? . ; wc: i I I -? - -- , Dwwp • UNIT I ? I 1E eau.- Lan s ' i u..rs 3w" . v s 01 LDea eL ? ? ol€?, w, n ? 1 j wC - n rorea u=c . Nil Li r LIVPG I UNIT Nrtrt T C .. - tefmxe I i I I@. 1, L le, ti, L. 1. .Q, I L amown -!L -ail J as ri ui m ai . n s E qma o tOp ? O 9 c m aD c d e ; ? V m a F a 3 r We 3 a 3 9e a A .? U zoue-IA TAe i a of """""mea BUILDING ONE-4TH LEVEL PLAN A-I I7 A-112 I I ? . II it i I I ' I I... I L IT ?° - .1T s L, Lc? UNIT A L' Nl L. UNIT 8LF, pout • I"i s ExE . ? - @1 NU ITC s loa . ul. ?r 1. NU ?w L UMT A ?IIXl •115J 4 I I L. f- UNIT 8 >EVn :Iii. s L. UMT"Cls s t p UMT D LNP° lD RDD, I I ?I , ' I } m1m I i, ?I a o2 BUILDING ONE-STN LEVEL PLAN A_113 4. L ?t. 04 4. V L 4 }. I 11 ? (I ! ? 11 1?4P^«?€ki rS ?I ' I? i I i t I I i LA, I . UNIT Ate :'Img VED o<u: , wm DN UMT A - ------------- -- --- - - ------ K° \ KTDVE. L. D I L_... __ pyy. __. _._..1 .. ?p f F \ im ??% ! \/ I Ipy ? DRDrxI I ? ylBi5i --plf BED B ( / / ? ! E° pT LD 6 1 I i I UNIT a i B .___ Ewn I s remea owo?e ! ; . KITC ?? Sl1ELL UNIT ?l .. _ .. LIVIw ? I " Rs - W1L-i . , 0 UNIT C EmL s DNEa ? . I RL? re I uvw t - xl R B^ ° . v?o'f pt LDee E BEORDCIT _.? lorER I 1 IlI?,.. n .. ?T ---------- ?T UNIT Q 4 ?...i4 _.?. tE?LDE I - 1 ?. i ' j ! n.l r L tul I ? I I ip I ?I oI BUILDING ONE-87H LEVEL PLAN A_I,I! ? 17 n 9 a ° m m m ai n ? I A_ E U u I °1 °c W_ 3 r 1 ?N N V « I m u 9 0 7 wx 1 J f t a J ,A-113R ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 2 4 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER I I I ? ? I I I, i i,i I I i r 'f II II r I i i ? i i I d I I ?b "SIM- B?81€?„ ,ESE ? NIT A uvl urt _- G1 T_-- Ll.wc owE UNIT A rt Iy4 s • „ I F ____. uuc ..___. i Rol -115]4 o I ?' NS E J `eaM ew sI\ L BE OFOOM t 1 . ,A. ILL I a* L ELE ? I I j ,EO ,?,t . ... _ ------- - - I UNIT Eau. - I N 9 r(4L 4 I - ____.._.__ i r ? ' i owu? SIT B? pi - ? u,mG I I I . • ? I I L ? RWt . s - ----- mc. i MT l m . ums I o o'm'c UNIT n i€} - - - v E i i : , ? I cu I qr I 1 . I mx ?I s I rJ ___ ICI. _ _ eE i EE?,3 r KR E?o i . I u,•.c ? I Z em?a, eE g r -I I • r i 1 L a ,.d M I I •IT I oz BUILDING ONE•11fN LEVEL PLAN A_Ila I ;. I I I I f l l i I I i i ? i ? 1 i i I I I j I ' I I ' I ,ESE SESk?r, e81?, ,ESE , I it LCI r UNIT A I I NIT A 4 EM • I}i 4 uvE me IIUIG , I omll? I , r ."-----^ . - I I i arrc O ? e< ?E?, 3 ? @L u ? ?s ?? 3 eEO?+t G I m ? a ? i aEO?,t ? --- _ - __..____ I UNIT B . IA:4 RM N 4 _..D I 1 , i -- -- - i OmE ? I NIT IYS ,E E i ; ? • 4 I L _ AB? ? 9 T I 1 r4 I o om^? UMT C ,Emus i ? ? t I R 4V? remucE m- ar Y ELE 11*1 i L I• q c+ lq I 1- t-- All 3MA" H AI nu- u?nraE??? ? e? I e ?, - i I B L ---- - --------- - I j ? aE°8a?3, LIVE ?r?,t i i ?u .1111 9 ]A0. • NI 4 I I 1 L. I i . h J k r I 12 C•. L l: l:, 1. Q. Lg. L ? BUILDING ONE-10TH LEVEL PLAN E a I. RECEIVED OCT 2 4 2006 P Clly OF CIE?WA ERT C • IL tz, L"? : Li- ta 4. . i. Ll; L-?,- ?i' ? i ; I; I I I I I , ?i ?? I Il L P I I,I ?. - I TEIa]AD aEB?, ?€8i?, I .E?]AEE I ? I 1. i L. . Ls UNIT eau- mss rox m u•'°? ; ""'T ouc ! ??. uvBC ow e+D . MT A - - ------------ : Krt - ---------------- nC ' : Lp- t ? 1e4 DED D e L ? ? Ca?ryFll7'IQ, _ ( m : ? DeD I G LE. .. .. I& ?L ? BED ' w Bi O LEV BEDFO ] i i _ I I A UNIT BLI I i .. _....__.____ _.i. __ __ I ` ma •-? s oa i owoPC MT B L•IXf EI E S - .. LIVwD i 1' LIVPG ImACE i ]14 ? H eA .-mss DmBG Damn -------- LT I G/ ._ I - __ UNIT C ?_ _ .. _..... Knc a I q c B ?A RE0. lees ..-rEWtAC LI RM. ; LNNG I ' v I ; CIeC ,.? I ' ? I I ' ? - nmre ..Arr ...... naerea - o eEDrcan .. - - i tl1? B H? I? T ? _ oED lm ? - I ? ru I L+ I @j UNIT D • mes LNw I I i Iwn . s . A cE . Ql: I °ar 1, L 1, l- L L I? BUILDING ONE-14TH LEVEL PLAN 02 A I.IS I I I ? I i ' I I B i I I P - .._...... ,...._ . .. i ........ rE MeaCE BESi?D•, TEwrsACe @€BF, c I I ' UNIT Avs j uwe. uuJ _ ....., I-wc ..... _ Ul- I UNIT A DwwD Iva s I ? i -IVs I i H: - ?, ? ; nEO?+ L 1 B s'BOY.? L604? ' C len C eE D i I LE. ? ?'I ? .... EED et< D L e a ELE I BEDRD ] L .. ?.. ... '. . .... UMTB Yl xBL s -------------- ow _ .G li .__ __ La ITC ow EVD I mulT I • ? - " I' LIVwD LNa16 iEFR i IEEL . IN 4 I ttBA I _ NIT eou 1? • ? ? 3 D M wD DNING UNIT C ?,. _. _P ? -_ .-temanc I I I I I amrt IBts G CNev, __ i K rtc ELec ? nCCH I KITC I L Nm ; L - _ _ r aac EED 5€S' ° j I , L H • ? eEOrav .... -' r '_ __' mIC I n' I rm'Er: J I eEO nw ? I L_ . - .. ..I. I .. I I 1, P ? UNIT D eEO LNIG eE I emL . II] m v 1. l- l:? L L 1, L 1. l- ?? OI BUILDING ONE-12TH LEVEL PLAN q_I.IS A m 6 °w m ? mm n M E W m m m c m D - o m m -U c 3 ND H A_ # r moo; 3a V m m j ME aB?Hive 6 a •A_1.158 ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 2 4 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER ?. ?.? L.11? I i ill I i PENTHOUSE ,? :'.w s j ? l ? ? ,wee Llvwo I L 1(L @t 1. °I -EA i rr PENTHOUSE C i : 70 's j 1, + c ..j_- .I - i. L it..:?..? ..I . i 1. l4? 1. 1, 1, ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 2 4 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER P NTH SE D mu. xrn s aai : xm s _ 1. L l U BUILDING ONE•18TH LEVEL PLAN oz q_I.I6 0 ies L% NIT • ??e s n? - l" l_ L 1. BUILDING ONE-05TH THROUGH 17TH LEVEL PLAN ?4 Us 1, i I! I ?II I•r 5 I' L& PENTHOUSE I x Lx, I 0 f i...? 1, S. 4. i u E. i,. it. ?i 4> L a. L. L. 9NIL&? emn . ? urnT c s rtwL - im V l t i f I ' ? I i i I I 'I i ' ! ? ? II Ii ?i I, j I I I I I LR I G I u i i OF?p i r I I ' 1 I ROOF i? 0 0 0 0 ? ? -l, I `y? I ---- ------ - - ------- - ----- I Q. i us ... _ i . . 4y Ei i _ i I I I 1. ;I I L L 1. l l+U l: L. 1. BUILDING ONE-HOOF PLAN A IJ"I m ?I 9 BUILDING ONE-19TH PENTHOUSE LEVEL PLAN PLAN A-I n ORIGINAL RECENED OCT 2 4 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER b 1. .. L L•- ?t LT ka I 1j, = r= -. 41 _ II I it t - ill ._?! I. I i N Q., W. P NTH S D ?•RI?S ?i • IR/ S L- J l°.. 1. 1. L L• L• pia tr. I I I PENTHOUSE B I° i ? • _ •IINIY E, LF• mD Cv! elllTT11u?610 A-1.17 F --I 02 BUILDING ONE - NORTH ELEVATION q-iJe a a a 4 V a+wu ?aa a ma Lw ? M-tl R n¢o t wsr? BUILDING ONE • EAST ELEVATION mq.115 IE,c G/I k D OCT 24 2##8 CWO G DEP,gRTMC CISVW o T I. 6 vi N m NT ? yw n n OF E w- " o w? all ; `° n 3a •N 9 y 0 a 9 0 u A-1.18 - --------- ----- - Y MEkl F4G ------- ----------- ----------- ___ ____ _ ____________ °?°.nr.r.irn - Darn -amav _____ ______ M -- - EPN ROOF SiPIR iONER ZOp'_Ip-? ------ _---- e IA NEPN ROOT STAN IOxER ----- ------ ----------- ---------- _ ________._____________________ ____________ ---------- -- - n'?oan wrtN J ? o Nuue atcn IBP 6 m .rvanrcx ? ? ? ' IBO-0 19 V ------------ __________ ____________ _________ 0 Ix wa.urt ° --- - nom tEeFt IN ISp-V om I N?I Mom mncaPSa _ I#d hZR %. _ _ __ IIRQ .A _____________ ea room nmi uuae rxwaaw,•___ ? ? j N .i ------------ - __ c.-_ M rtom ten , 4 N hod tT8 ? ? ? ? _ r t e m ?O ------ t m 0 N =%r?wm aum au.mRa ertr ? ? m-O P f Ua ; ? o n _-__ ma 49 r? ? N A31A-- Al /I W IE?a a i i r ?0f ? ' 7 L o __ _______ ___ I Ox N0. 119 4JY N BUILDIN G ONE - WEST ELEVATIO N Qj a-i.ls NMEET NOxNN A-1.19 BUILDING ONE -SO UTH E Vn re LEVATIO a-ig a?. a T ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 2 4 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER ? N m V! m ? dY ? mN E V? o ?m c - m ou y'q; n Vqv A n i n 3a .a N 9 r m u v m BUILDING TWO • PARKING LEVEL 1 PLAN RECENED OCT 24 2006 PLA CjTf NNING OF CDEp WATERY IMLE. I f oe Ho. f i exur nNnc* BUILDING TWO • PARKING LEVEL 2 PLAN 01 A.,,m A-1.20 ? la I/Y Y-Y Y-Y Yd le-I I/T -iIry' Y-0 Y-0 Y-C i I rMmU•I'D s UNIT P DicM?Im rtxa . s NI0. .ILSx UNIT E K - la mx?nxs UNIT L NIT u? . ?$ BUILDING TWO. 2ND PARKING LEVEL PLAN 02 xma-In N[NeION? INTAx BUILDING TWO-ESPLANADE LEVEL PLAN RECEIVED OCT 2 4 2006 41 A 6 ? m Nm ? Nb n W ? E U? o No« C N o 0 m m S. f1 m l0 m ; G •1j 9 .a N m 34 u 9 0 roe o exaar xux?a A-1.21 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER nr-r i .o yr r-a la-?yr ?•_r m-?+ar ra r-r r-r r-ir ? UNIT 0 e-T v n SHELL UN. UMT A mm. xsov 'piv g UNIT NITI ID& ??S UNITC IVs UNIT C rtN0. =?In S m ; 3 W 3 o ; 0 ?0 UNIT a rtAt ??IT4 BUILDING TWO • 5TH THROUGH 7TH LEVEL PL 01 AN n-1z? Till- UNIT NC BUILDING TWO•ITH LEVEL PLAN RECEIVED OCT 2 4 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER xrneloxx er u lu R9l • I]] 4 NU I1A lew? I1MT A UMT B U nxs wrt UMT C BUILDING TWO. 9TH LEVEL PLAN 02 m rv A-173 ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 24 2006 NITI? 4x¢ = I]s s NIT mw iii s SHELL UNI u]:g A 1I, d ?, I ID m °? IDe ?2 E 0 Nv m ~ Nmu p tOm ? ? dl o N m 3 n U m N A m ; 3a _e m 9 0 V 0 211-24 .01 H-m xu ?3 BUILDING TWO-8TH LEVEL PLAN ?I A-I73 3 717 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER u m 5 n UNIT D I-T."Y 02 9 BUILDING TWO. 11TH LEVEL PLAN n_ue UNITA -ivoxY UNIT B T.v Y mi ?.ms UMT C IpW 1. 98Y UNIT D IxWL ?.? I g Y UNIT A U nL UMi 8 WTC .TIs ium m s FII mI BUILDING TWO.IDTH LEVEL PLAN A_I?a A-1.Z4 ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 2 4 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER s umi 1 ?T A ,R- 02 BUILDING TWO- 15TH THROUGH 17TH LEVEL PLAN a-us UNIT 0 g JNITA UNIT UNIT C im .,igv NOTE: ?. ,wD,?NuO T.. His EE[H OM,IIED mpA BU,DwOS IX+E, 1 t- I ,.., NIT O R « ERE, N,N-NE T I 1 roiNE TO uME NrtEYni M15 -JUN. - TOTAL UNIT COUNT PEN iOxFn F j oI BUILDING TWO-127H THROUGH 11TH LEVEL PLAN E ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 2 4 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER NOTE: ,. T1Q 1Jix ROON HA5 BEEN ONmEp iBW BUEWHOB ONE n1R ETA TWEE z •i IEKE 3 UNO o wLL BE BETUrtO E w ENT } ,? 11E0 10 Y IE O?.vE UNrl?i?w15 LMExumO T0.1E M_ VN pLWNT,PEN TPMn TO 109. ?I BUILDING TWO-15TH LEVEL PLAN n_izb 02 G9 BUILDING TWO. 18TH LEVEL PLAN A_izb ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 2 42006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER I _ .I F I ROOF ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 24 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER a II E6 16 II Is Ir NOTE: E ,M ROM HAS MEN aHITTEO F- SuumHCS ME. AT .n a H?iT w SE NEIAMD F. NAN H HT ? -0.1 -15 AM THERE F ro M.. E ME U- THUS a NG ? TOTAL HMT -H. - TMEN a INUT SHEET ?H?a 0i @NUILDINO TWO-ROOF LEVEL PLAN a-u? A-1.27 OFde?ACK Me¢i, rEw.RP IKCUi ?d'?]• I' m N Nm b mN N V ? U NS m - N? o W? o 'd 6 n d m ; Ua-o m n ; n mg3 ;° .a N 9 W a ?m ml mz BUILDING TWO • NORTH ELEVATION q_!16 ml BUILDING TWO • EAST ELEVATION a-iae A-1.28 VKH-ANAL RECEIVED OCT 2 4 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER BUILDING TWO - SOUTH ELEVATION A_?y 9 0 4 1 I I I I I I I ' I I _. 9 e 1 m I I I I I _. _ p C _ - g e Nm n dY 0 g i I 06 m m5 m ? 11 m e o to , g ? ?1 m e 3 ri ? ! (e m V N .: 6 S e a 'at 3 n a g , a m a I U ® g oba Ali i 6 - S n u• `? ? TovMF]1 IIoom oiv be cob .. 9 n -0 2tmi . .. • .v BUILDING TWO - WEST ELEVATION mI A-119 bx¢r wbbu A-1.29 ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 2 4 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER n:cuuca ee?cv .reav??nbw'. '+??• icv m eenm eon b 8 b ? b 9 9 n 9 w 9 I j_ i .01 107 ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 2 4 2006 BUILDING THREE- PARKING LEVEL 1 PLAN 1 D NOTE: ,. THE IJM BOOR NAS DEFN .-D iHgl BIIEDWGS DNE. m0. AND TNEE i! Gc 2. AT LE?£L J Dxn D ML 0E RETAV,[D EDR NANADEMENT d •/O E AR[ DgRIF UNT?S i d i0 1 IERE L,vJ 4xR£ UwiS ARE E D??ND. .iw apiTT MM,E D DN,r aNERaD T.- -T _.T RER TDNER GS BUILDING THREE41ARKING LEVEL 2 PLAN am?m I A-1.30 ANNING DEPARTMENT "'-v OF CLEARWATER li? 41 R W UNIT U iEWi.':'Tm Y UNITA IOW, t?o]] Y UMT B IFIW, ullt Y AC - IY! Y UNIT A iron 1%l,. NOTE: I. ME UOI RBBR HAS BEEN E.-D ERBW SEIIB.. E. M0. MD _EE y AT LEKl J UME B WLL BE RET-. EBR WANABFNENi ? MERE -= DN16LE UM1'vU$ EAEEH TBV•E -En tt10 YCWRrv? Rn iITEER B U., -111C T01I. TO 109. BUILDING THREE- 3RD LEVEL PLAN BUILDING THREE-ESPLANADE LEVEL PLAN RECEIVED OCT 24 2096 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARINATER ?o IR' e'4 a-a laa l? .tar m-TIK a_a _ _ _ I ? I Iee IE I UNIT uwr u. ma n UMl ? UNITA uDn mm • i s UNT B ma mu s UMT C BUILDING THREE- 5TH THROUGH 7TH LEVEL PLAN 9 UNIT UN D s UMT' Q w? -vis UMT c rtm ms NOTE: ?. i u?,s D¢.N DuITrtD IN. emu.. axE. AN. L-L J UNIT D KL BE FETNNED ion uANA-EN1 1 N- RE= dpi[ Vn UITSSU S LW2- miiD?iNE? Oi.T?L 1TV &N UNITS ANE 10109 I , v L- OCT 2 4 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER BUILDING THREE-4TH LEVEL PLAN ? a 6 y ym dm mn ri E r ' x ?a n N5 m ` yo mm_ mD ? m M 0 m 3 ? Vm- n m m ; m ? 3 3a O a a Y m u 9 « CRAWN 1 -wa ioe o SM9 eA-1.32 UMT D mm 144 s NIA imn. . '. s UNIT C BUILDING THREE- 8TH LEVEL PLAN UMT D UNITA imn "I' L SHELL UNIT c-z®s NOTE: I. TM?E 1Jµ0 RL?OENF NAS BFEX OMITifO REDY BUYDWGS ONE. 3. AT lFfl J - D P M RETUNED FM MAN-ENT } iHENE 11= DWIW -TTU115 11 l rt i 1- - 1"11 v[NS ARE L-C 10 o0. T-R ORIGIWL REcmis OCT 2 4 2106 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLFARWATER THREE-8TH LEVEL PLAN A m m Nm n a V? o N e m o Nm W, o Dti v m ; ? f1 m W o ; l0 ? 3 u .a ?m « m U 'O « PMPP ?IEBT MYYemI A-1.33 UNITI A p, B»I.4 UNIT R Rim, I?il} S UNIT IKg0. I? 1119 mu I?wE 4 •T UNIT UNIT A' °.. . IWOss RPx 4 IE?. -flll} 4 w hl uwn RiA I•Wis4 RRILOMO THREE- 11TH LEVEL PLAN U11, 4 RCN 11,0 t1RL •x94 NIT RM IY }Il4 UNIT D . iu}4 NOTE: ,. nh AN aaa x1s EEEH wmEO EPwI auEmlps oxc n EE ,FxEI ] Uxn D NLL BE PEihHED E x u T } iHEPE roE,1M OpUBIE IrS LOWE-PN tx[ 1pE MO 9LWxt v[x3Rt?xEE 10 Im. ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 2 4 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER THREE-00TH LEVEL PLAN N.c.zw f? B a ? N E ? d F m Fuy m Cr i v B`0 m o ? m D -?y O ey O py r n v 3 m Iv N y ro m- ? a °w c1 2131VM?fR10 3o uIO 1N3ViWd34 9NINWd goon v z 100 (3M3332! TVWI$Iao Hvid uhn H14{ H'JNOHHd Hia-33m DNimme 181100 ON.1 3VI 03N3HL Y 3n SIwH 3-0. M 3TNTi-. N01 Ir., M SIwH 311 LAN30YNYH 10f O3Nrv1lL 3B llM 0 lwH C 13V11Y 2 33NH1 OxY U'u '3N0 51NOYf10 HONE 0311iN0 N330 StlH HIOL HLfI 310 'I :31ON a1 11N r a ra • 1mz mn?F?1414 s zu - mz wp11N sm- M s V-IIN iINTi NVId 13AM Hlu H9NOtlH1 H1% •aauet onw unu s zn • mx az INv s ¢1- m a ozcl • ?r v DO a aim 11 I4 V?s-')U RUILOING THREE- 19TH THROUGH PENTHOUSE LEVEL PLAN NOTE: A NO -EE HPS BEEN ONRRO {e0N BULDNR DIIE, x Ai icon s DNn D - BE -AwED EaN HANARHENT ]. .qm TOEM E ONE Vx MVS LA `iDpE . oFAE U. 9-R 7 ?3Tav.CEP O ID9. BUILDING THREE42TH THROUGH NTH LEVEL PLAN ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 2 4 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER d .w N Nm m', 0p n E o^ 4 Nv w ND O A _ N m 3 n N e ; 4 b 3M ? m ? a m 1 L ? u m j eDD;:?°e. Dee 1 ?DeA1ro f 1 eA-1.36 ? I as wa ird ?-r ? a-e id i_ +-E Vt_! oY-e rf/ I f4 f-e' f-tl !!-Itl I i I I ROOF ORIGINAL RFCFIVFD OCT Y 4 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER X-a' i ?f-e T! Ir, ! a ?a _--___ ._ ? I ID ^ E ?.. j U? c : O e 1 . Wtl C N, us u1:h i Nl r; ' N m 3 n I I 7 ? I U m ? ? ? m ; _ I ? 3a .a 1 ? i I I 4 v" y LD ? v W r NOTE: 1. THE 1µM0 ELMOOOB H0.5 BEEN OMITTED EBW BIIR 1- ONE. T- ?i tSt 3 11NI1 0 `- BE HETUHEO Yq! NT.HARNENT ATB . 3. MERE TK) NISLE -5 IN i0? O?xBE OETW tt cnxl FNRS W2EH UNIT I. IJB SOB fINN ?:. BUILDING THREE- ROOF LEVEL PLAN A 0I -13? 'A-1.37 A N a m %0 r m? W_ E n W C m C. e l7 ? ? O O C m O m U m N 10±; W e 3 ° 39 N .a 9 ? N ?0 U 'O 0 mz BUILDING THREE • NORTH ELEVATION q_?B ? 9 i o?rz .. ... .. . ??: a. me ?_E ? ro-4 Co. 9 a ? _ a mi .?., muxs.m BUILDING THREE • EAST ELEVATION q.13B -..- A-1.38 ORIGINAL RECEP6 OCT 2 4 2006 PANNING DEPARTMONT WV IMF M RAPHAAIA.-- ® FR . w? ® EH ® FT1 .. ® ® ® N ffl ® ® ® m I I' ® ® ® p: 1.. [I] ED m [E Ell 1E ., ® ® ® ® ® _ F-02-1 BUILDING THREE • SOUTH ELEVATION q.?y O1C?V?11FfA? 'rtCE"D OCT 2 4 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER : - - vRl?7 WyL - RECEIVED 0C4T 2 4 2006 6 e ..m m Nm w ym ? m N E U- e n N_ ° O N m Nom- o _ b 0 mm3 ma- N m j m ; W o ; 30 .e Cm 0 A U V 0 A oo`is D A-1.61 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER U'-P - a q ---------------- -------------- II ------------- -------------- ------------? I a------------ N,?EN ----- --- 0 0 _?o' o 0 0 o o EftONT10RlNE V6 I I. UmNO LEVEL FLOOR" BROWNS .VR1A9/MO--LEVELFLOOR" ORIGINAL RECEIVED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER ym my n E V ? o N ? w yo A w2{ m 01 m ; U w a l0 w j A ' 3 39 v m a A-1.62 Fes- ?I a ° Nm dm m _ .E n o- ?mu o N N?- m N m ; ? V m ?' ?0 n 3 n m ; 30 .Q N a N u a « ,oeAxo. A-1.63 RECENED OCT 24 2006 PLANNING DEP CITY OF CLEgR WEER rrn . u'nN ucua.int Pupnn smN.mi ?? 1in? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - mw a?'na?inn¢ m , a ar mmi-- ---------------------- unsew was w:ms? EAU---------- ---------------------- _ _---_-_-_-_-___-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-._. _-_-_-_-_-_-_-.-_-_-_-_-_-_,L.f,'L _-.__- - -_ ----------- --------- ----------------- ----------------------- -------------------------- r ?? ® G 0 --- ------ ------- -- ------------- -- 00 _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- -erAa° fM!¢ - -vuuW crnuc 77 .. ______________________________________.__ ._- .-0 @ BROWNSTONE VILLg91E0.9T? ATION9 ?o m a .m m Nm ym AN E N ? O No IW ? m O m ?ma 3a a m u a w u W ?L f e I A-1.64 OCT 24 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER _-_-_-.-_-_-_-_ _-_ _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-.-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- -002 ?.rna _-_-_ _-_-_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -_-_-_- -_-_-_-_-_-.-_-_---_- cmeiM - -------------- ?-- »RN» rciwauiRn a N.sRn - -------- w -11 -u - - ------- ix1.NP V«-_ -- - - - -------- ?im aim 71 hl vwilm V9»6.cw? ? / / 4[w \ Lv?.FNNC WFMf _ vMtnM'? -7 IXW Ss A,I ? lUN/ -_-.-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- -.-_- _----_-_-_-_-_-_---_-_-_-_-_._-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-.-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- _-_-.-_-_-_- iINLI ?qIR OCT 2 4 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Oa ----------------- ------- sNOwNSrone m.us i v?sr nEVnnoN .? i 4; A ? n I ma ? N- » O No_ ? i as m 0 d a 3 n J U » y h I 10 » ; I? A ° 3 i 3a I ? V « ? m U ? V A-1.65 '??N15? ?WIxNx W nW?XS,Pm, \?? ------------------------ x?51w ??- 9aAr PIa9199181 fO.Pi Wxxl ?xlE n Pia ?-? tri.IX'nN. _- _____ ovwam< mun x?s1w - _ _ _ . _ vwlm vela c''naa Wrm1 mrt se nw Pm ,m s oa o 00 00 mu momm? ---_-_- _ _ _ - e gD _ 10 _ _ - --_-a ________ ____-_- _-_ _ J v?aP1N ua tt -- 4 7 --------------- --- ----------------------------------- ----------- --------------- ----- rva?x as 1 roN?N. sm m'aNeN?v anmMZ,ir% na ? ?[?d16LRNF1A?fR9- ORIGINAL RECEIVED uCT 2 41006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER P . ousxx Pull ? x9N? 1.-.a.L - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - 4 a ---------------------------------------------------- i f0 W a n W W NW n dW W E ^ V" m ^ W _ a Nm W, O - W 0 GI 'm 3 U m n Wn ; P. W ? 3 >?v .a vW W U 9 A-1.66 L W HHOUSE -EAST ELEVATION CLUBHOUSE-WEST ELEVATION ORIGINAL arE w 4 a n I 5T i ' li CLUBHOUSE- ROOF FLAN OCT 2 4 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER -ASFNALT -? CONCRETE PAD ALUM. FENCE DOORS-TYR (6) 4-YARD TRA5N 15IN5 I ISLAND VIEW GARBAGE RECEPTACLE - FLOOR PLAN SCALE 118' =1'-0' ISLAND VIEW GARBAGE RECEPTACLE - SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE 1/S'= 1'-P ISLAND VIEW GARBAGE RECEPTACLE - WEST ELEVATION SCALE 1/S'=1'-0' ISLAND VIEW GARBAGE RECEPTACLE - NORTH ELEVATION SCALE 1/S'=1'-0' C 3 ISLAND VIEW GARBAGE RECEPTACLE - EAST ELEVATION SCALE 1/T-Nr ORIGINAL RECE?? n+rT 24 206 CRYOF wm mm E V- ° 0.. °• Wo ° W c A? ? m m m ; Omo m ° g R°3 3e .r m a v A-172 HARRISON VILLAGE I BUILDING ONE • SECOND FLOOR LIVING LEVEL HARRISON VILLAGE/ BUILDING ONE • FIRST FLOOR RETAIL LEVEL (t.u Nm N Nm N E n V? o Oc No ? Nc o 0 ? o b °a m roj m e '+ ? Vma N a ; 3e 9 r u .L32 r u A nie x?xe ewe. xu.eee R-1.0 ORIGINAL RECI;A16 PLANNING DEPARTM6ty CITY OF CLEARWATER 1 I II ~ It '? :'ll I I I ?5 Q -- 9 II ? ?? owe - i HARRISON VILLAGE 1 BUILDING ONE - ROOF PLANP HARRISON VILLAGE I BUILDING ONE - THIRD FLOOR LIVING LEVEL ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 24 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWAT,Fp OM1IM NT! Wt R-1.1 F E-01- 0A HARRISON VILLAGE I BUILDING ONE • EAST ELEVATION HARRISON VILLAGE 1 BUILDING ONE • WEST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION ORIGINAL. RECENED NOT 24 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER i A2, A ? a °m m mm m Um ? a mm E n O e N m °o m? m ` m dI u m n ma; Ua t0 a 3 3 G A o 3 ?jo .a bxeHr xunml R-1.2 HARRISON VILLAGE I BUILDING TWO • SECOND FLOOR LIVING LEVEL HARRISON VILLAGE I BUILDING TWO • FIRST FLOOR RETAIL LEVEL ORIGINAL RECEIVED i; A o ; >?o Nm Oa O e N- w ? c ?o ? o Owo ?3 3 a 0 m u a m 2-0- 1 I OCT 2 4 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER fI HARRISON VILLAGE I BUILDING TWO • ROOF PLAN "r ea ------ .e ---------- ------- . --- ---------- ------ ------------ z r a -- ? // \ m ? °" O O rmnam r / F1 h ? r? A m r _A ii ii ?s? II m, 11 _.J l HARRISON VILLAGE I BUILDING TWO • THIRD FLOOR LIVING LEVEL /4 rt.? rk! G C ORIGIM RECENED OCT 24 2006 PLA C,Ty NNOF CLEARWAIER ?o n Nm a ym ? a 0` u m m o W e l0 ? _ o od o 2 1. 0m ri W n 3 n 10? 3 3v° .e m L30 L A GCVOi 6. 4 GIEGTGLII?GGR J R_21 yl j"® L m tr 4 HARRISON VILLAGE I BUILDING TWO - EAST ELEVATION HARRISON VILLAGE 1 BUILDING TWO • WEST ELEVATION Him HARRISON VILLAGE I BUILDING TWO • NORTH ELEVATION HARRISON VILLAGE I BUILDING TWO • SOUTH ELEVATION ON OWL RECEIVEg OCT 2 4 2006 PLANNING DEP CITY OF CLE4RW TER N W ? 6 m of Wo n l ? ?' E r V ? o i y o W o o0 m 2 e N m 3 n U a ? ri i A m ; P N' 3 I -? I I ? u I u ? W ¢ooe-io°:i ? xooe•w•n'c`m aoe xo. NAM. a R- w 0 Island View and Harrison Village Exterior Color Schedule All colors based on Sherwin Williams Metal Roofing SW 6941 Nifty Turquoise Cornices SW 2833 Roycroft Vellum Trim SW 7104 Cotton White Roof Tile SW 6622 Hearty Orange Building Base SW 2817 Rookwood Amber Building Field SW 2865 Classical Yellow Awnings SW 6601 Tanager Building Field SW 2831 Classical Gold Building Accent SW 6649 Tango ORIGINAL REOENE^ ! ?T 12 20.96 ANNING DEPARYMENI ~ ~~~~,6-o~o3D SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 29 S., RANGE 15 E., ~ PTION DESCRI PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA PARCEL ONE; NOTE S A PORTION OF LOTS 1, 2 AND 3, OF A.B. &JENNIE CATES SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1 PAGE 64 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA AND A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 4 IN SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST AND A PORTION 1. BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF OSCEOLA AVENUE, BEING ASSUMED AS S00'16'19"E. OF LOTS A AND B OF BERGENS REPEAT, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 26, PAGE 41 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA AND A PORTION OF A VACATED ALLEY PER O.R. BOOK 7546, PAGE 607 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, ALL BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 2: SURVEY MAP AND REPORT OR THE COPIES THEREOF ARE NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER, ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO SURVEY MAPS OR REPORTS BY OTHER THAN THE SIGNING PARTY OR PARTIES IS PROHIBITED. BEGIN AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1 OF JENNIE CATES SUBDIVISION, ALSO BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF GEORGIA STREET AND THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE; THENCE ALONG SAID 3. NO EXCAVATION WAS PERFORMED TO VERIFY THE LOCATION OR EXISTENCE OF ANY UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF NORTH FORT HARRISON AUENUE S.00'16'19"E., 530.62 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY ENCROACHMENTS, IMPROVEMENTS, STRUCTURES OR FOUNDATIONS, UNDERGROUND UTILITY LINE LOCATIONS (IF RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF JONES STREET, 5.89'59'22°W, 100.00 FEET; THENCE ALONG A LINE 10D.D0 FEET WEST OF AND PARALLEL WITH SAID SHOWN HEREON) ARE BASED UPON UTILITY PROVIDER ATLASES AND VISIBLE SURFACE EVIDENCE. WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE N•00'16'19"W., 528.34 FEET; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY 4, RE-USE OF THIS SURVEY FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN WHICH IT WAS INTENDED, WITHOUT WRITTEN VERIFICATION, RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF GEORGIA STREET N.88'40'45"E., 100.02 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. WILL BE AT THE RE-USERS SOLE RISK AND WITHOUT LIABILITY TD THE SURVEYOR: NOTHING HEREIN SHALL BE CONTAINING 1.215 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. CONSTRUED TO GIVE ANY RIGHTS OR BENEFITS TO ANYONE OTHER THAN THOSE TO WHOM CERTIFIED. PARCEL TWO 5: ALL FOUND POINTS ARE UNMARKED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. ALL PERIMETER BEARINGS AND DISTANCES ARE AL50 FIELD MEASURED UNLESS NOTED, PROPOSED OSCEOLA AVENUE 6. THIS SURVEY IS NOT INTENDED TD SHOW THE LOCATION OR EXISTENCE OF ANY JURISDICTIONAL, HAZARDOUS OR ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS, A PORTION OF LOTS 1, 2 , 3, 4, 5, 6 AND 7 OF A.B. &JENNIE CATES SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1 PAGE 64 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA AND THE VACATED ALLEYS PER O.R. BOOK 7270, PAGE 1731, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, 7. THE SITE APPEARS TO BE IN FLOOD ZONES X, AE (EL 12), VE (EL 14) & VE (EL 15), ACCORDING TO THE FLORIDA AND A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 4 IN SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST AND A PORTION OF LOTS A AND B OF FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP, COMMUNITY PANEL NUMBER BERGENS REPEAT, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 26, PAGE 41 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA AND A PORTION OF A VACATED ALLEY PER O.R. BOOK 7546, PAGE 607 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND A PORTION OF LOT 3 BLOCK 12103C0106G, EFFECTIVE DATE SEPTEMBER 3, 2003 (MAP INDEX NUMBER 12103CIND1A, MAP NUMBERS 125096, 2 OF JONES SUBDIVISION OF NICHOLSON'S ADDITION TO CLEARWATER HARBOR AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1 PG. 13, PUBLIC RECORDS OF L E G E N D 125103, 125139 EFFECTIVE DATE SEPTEMBER 3, 2003). POLARIS AS50CIATES, INC, AND THE SIGNING SURVEYOR HEREON ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR THE ACCURACY OF THIS DETERMINATION. THE AUTHOR OF THE MAP, THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY OF WHICH PINELLAS COUNTY WAS FORMERLY A PART, ALL BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A/C FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, OR THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION OVER A/C = AIR CONDITIONER UNIT SUCH MATTERS SHOULD BE CONTACTED PRIOR TO ANY JUDGMENTS BEING MADE FROM THIS INFORMATION. THE BLDG = BUILDING © = BACKFLOW PREVENTER ABOVE REFERENCED MAP STATES IN THE NOTES TO THE USER THAT "THIS MAP IS FOR INSURANCE PURPOSES TION OF THE SOUTHERLY BLDG COMMENCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1 OF JENNIE CATES SUBDIVISION, ALSO BEING THE INTERSEC (C) (C) = CALCULATED DATA • =BOLLARD or POST CCR = CERTIFIED CORNER RECORD ca =BOX, CABLE TELEVISION ONLY°: RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF GEORGIA STREET AND THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE; THENCE ALONG THE CCR SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF GEORGIA STREET S.88'40~45"W., 100.02 FEET TD THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S.00'16'19"E., 528.34 LIST OF ENCUMBRANCES FROM: CLF CLF =CHAIN LINK FENCE EB =BOX, ELECTRIC UTILITY 8. ANY ZONING INFORMATION SHOWN OR NOTED HEREON IS BASED ON INFORMATION AVAILABLE DURING THE FEET, ALONG A LINE 100.00 FEET WEST OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF NORTH FORT HARRI50N AVENUE; CMP CMP = CORRUGATED METAL PIPE Q =BOX, ELECTRIC UTILITY (TRANSFORMER) PREPARATION OF THE SURVEY. THIS INFORMATION SHOULD BE VERIFIED WITH THE GOVERNING AUTHORITY PRIOR TO CONC = CONCRETE ®=BOX, TELEPHONE ANY DETERMINATIONS OR DESIGN. THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF JONES. STREET, 8.89'59'22°W., 50.OD FEET; THENCE N.00'16'19"W„ 527.20 FEET; FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY COMMITMENT N0. CONC THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF GEORGIA STREET, N•86'40'45~~E., 50,01 FEET TD THE POINT OF BEGINNING, TA05-117566 DATED APRIL 27, 2005 COR COR =CORNER 3~ =DECORATIVE LIGHT POLE CPB CPB = CONDOMINIUM PLAT BOOK ~ =FIRE HYDRANT 9: SHOWN ANYWHERE ON THIS SURVEY, THE WORD "CERTIFY" IS UNDERSTOOD TO BE AN EXPRE5510N OF A CONTAINING 0,606 ACRES, MORE OR LESS• A THROUGH H C T D) C T = CURB TIE FLAGPOLE PROFESSIONAL OPINION BASED UPON THE SURVEYOR'S BEST KNOWLEDGE, INFORMATION AND BELIEF, AND THAT IT = DEED DATA PARCEL FOUR FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY COMMITMENT N0. pg DB = DEED BOOK ~ =FLARED END SECTION THUS CONSTITUTES NEITHER A GUARANTEE NOR A WARRANTY, 04-054-14D3678 DATED OCTOBER 14, 2D04• DIP DIP = DUCTILE IRON PIPE ®=GRATE INLET 10: UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, THE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND EASEMENTS SHOWN WERE FURNISHED TO POLARIS ECMP = ELLIPTICAL CORRUGATED METAL PIPE ~ =GROUND LIGHT ASSOCIATES, INC. AND ARE PRESUMED TO BE CORRECT. NO SEARCH OF ANY PUBLIC RECORDS, FOR EASEMENTS, A PORTION OF LOTS 4, 5, 6 AND 7 AND ALL OF LOTS B, 9, 10 AND 11 OF A.B. &JENNIE CATES SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1 ECMP PAGE 64 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA AND A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 4 IN SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 29 I THROUGH L AND Q EL EL = ELEVATION F =GUY ANCHOR DEEDS, ETC:, WA5 PERFORMED BY THIS FIRM FOR THE COMPLETION OF THIS SURVEY. SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST AND A PORTION OF A VACATED ALLEY PER O.R. BOOK 7546, PAGE 607 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS EP EP = EDGE OF PAVEMENT ~ =LIGHT POLE, CONCRETE ERCP = ELLIPTICAL REINFORCE CONCRETE PIPE ~ =LIGHT POLE, METAL 11. THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF AN ABSTRACT OF TITLE AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND A PORTION OF LOTS 2 AND 3 BLOCK 2 OF JONES SUBDIVISION OF NICHOL50N'S ADDITION TO CLEARWATER HARBOR AS ASTRO TITLE SERVICES, INC. ALTA OWNER'S POLICY ORDER NUMBER ERCP RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1 PG,13, PUBLIC RECORDS OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY OF WHICH PINELLAS COUNTY WAS FORMERLY A PART AND A 7681-PI-04 DATED JUNE 8th, 2004• (F) (F) = FIELD DATA ~ =LIGHT POLE, WOOD EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND OTHER MATTERS OF RECORD, PORTION OF THE EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY OF OSCEOLA AVENUE NORTH AND A PART OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST FCM FCM = FOUND CONCRETE MONUMENT ~ =MAILBOX AND LOT A AND B OF CLOVIS C. LUTZ SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 35, PAGE 76 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS M THROUGH P FOOT COUNTY, FLORIDA AND A VACATED ALLEY LYING NORTH OF LOT A OF SAID CLOVIS C. LUTZ SUBDIVISION, ALL BEING MORE PARTICULARLY FIR FOOT = FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ~ =MANHOLE, ELECTRIC 12, ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY BENCHMARK "429 FLHD" HAVING AN ELEVATION OF 22:51 FIR = FOUND IRON ROD DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: FI LITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY COMMITMENT FND FND = FOUND NAIL & DISC ©=MANHOLE, GREASE TRAP AND NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY BENCHMARK °HARRIS J'~ HAVING AN ELEVATION OF 30:52 FEET, NORTH DE FOP FOP = FOUND OPEN PIPE Q =MANHOLE, SANITARY SEWER AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM 1988 (NAND 88), FPP = FOUND PINCHED PIPE ~ =MANHOLE, STORM SEWER COMMENCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1 OF JENNIE CATES SUBDIVISION, ALSO BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY N0.04-054-1403609-A DATED FEBRUARY 16, 2005 Fpp RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF GEORGIA STREET AND THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE THENCE ALONG THE FRRS FRRS = FOUND RAILROAD SPIKE ~ =MANHOLE, TELEPHONE 13. TREES 4" IN DIAMETER AND LARGER HAVE BEEN LOCATED WITH COMMON NAME AND APPROXIMATE DIAMETER SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF GEORGIA STREET S.88'40'45"W., 150.03 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S.00'16'19"E., 397.79 NO VISIBLE ENCUMBRANCES F/T F/T = FENCE TIE ~ =METER, ELECTRIC BREAST HIGH: SMALLER TREES, NON-PROTECTED SPECIES (INCLUDING ORNAMENTALS) AND TREES WITHIN FXC = FOUND X-CUT ®=METER, GAS JURISDICTIONAL AREAS (IF ANY) HAVE NOT BEEN LOCATED: FEET; THENCE N.89'44'18°W., 225.07 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID OSCEOLA AVENUE NORTH, FXC GE = GRATE ELEVATION ~ =METER, RECLAIMED WATER S.00'50'40"W., 27.97 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF LOT B OF SAID CLOVIS C, LUTZ SUBDIVISION BY THE FOLLOWING CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY OWNER'S POLICY NUMBER GE THREE COURSES; 1 - S.89'59'22"W, 167.07 FEET; 2 -THENCE N.00'08'39'~W, 13.65 FEET; 3 -THENCE 8.89'59'22"W., 77.69 FEET; THENCE 10279610600000017. IE IE =INVERT ELEVATION ®=METER, WATER 14. MEAN HIGH WATER LINE ELEVATION OF 0.42 FEET (NAND 88) BASED ON MHW POINT ID 872-6725, EPOCH 1 - N 13'38'13"E• 76,07 FEET 2 -THENCE (L) ALONG THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE OF CLEARWATER HARBOR BY THE FOLLOWING NINE COURSES. NO VISIBLE ENCUMBRANCES LB (L) = LEGAL DESCRIPTION DATA ~ =MITERED END SECTION 1960-1979. LB = LICENSED BUSINESS ~w MONITORING WELL N,00'1B'33"W. 28.67 FEET; 3 -THENCE N.12'16'56"E„ 48.67 FEET; 4 -THENCE N~19'07'43"E., 51,75 FEET; 5 -THENCE N;24'23'07"E„ 34.06 LS LS = LICENSED SURUEYOR O =PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SIGNAL FEET; 6 -THENCE N,29'15'19"E., 47.35 FEET; 7 -THENCE N,25'24'43"E„ 43,69 FEET; 8 -THENCE N.14'26'13"E., 53,80 FEET; 9 -THENCE MAS N•01'S4'53"W, 40.02 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID GEORGIA STREET, N.88'40'45"E., 355.38 FEET TO MHW MAS = MASONRY ® 15, EASEMENTS SHOWN HEREON WERE TAKEN FROM COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE ORDER N0. 4030898LA, MHW = MEAN HIGH WATER ® =SANITARY CLEANOUT EFFECTIVE DATE; JANUARY 26TH, 2006, PREPARED BY MACFARLANE FERGUSON & MCMULLEN, THE POINT OF BEGINNING. NP NP = NORMAL POOL ~ =SCHEDULE B-2 ITEM 0/A OR 0/A = OVERALL ® =TELEPHONE RISER THE SURVEY ADDRESSES THE FOLLOWING ITEMS IN SCHEDULE B - 2 THEREOF AS FOLLOWS; OR = OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK =TRAFFIC 51GN TOGETHER WITH: (PI (P) = PLAT DATA Tse =TRAFFIC SIGNAL BOX ITEMS 1 THROUGH 5 -NOT MATTERS OF SURVEY PB PB = PLAT BOOK g TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE PG = PAGE ®=UNDERGROUND CABLE TELEVISION MARKER ITEM 6 -DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT RECORDED IN D.R, BOOK 7270, PAGE 1731 IS SHOWN HEREON. , TOGETHER WITH ALL LANDS AND SUBMERGED LANDS LYING BETWEEN AND BOUNDED BY WESTERLY EXTENSIONS DF THE NORTH AND SOUTH PG BOUNDARY LINES AS DESCRIBED ABOVE, EXTENDED TO THE NEAREST CHANNEL IN CLEARWATER BAY AND ALL LITTORAL RIGHTS AND RIGHTS OF PLS PLS = PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR cws =UNDERGROUND CABLE TELEVISION ~"IARNING SIGN ACCRETION APPURTENANT TO THE ABOVE DESCRIBED LAND. POB POC POB = POINT OF BEGINNING E =UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC MARKER ITEM 7 -DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT RECORDED IN D.R. BOOK 7519, PAGE 329 IS SHOWN HEREON. POC = POINT OF COMMENCEMENT ~ =UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC WARNING cIGN PRM PRM =PERMANENT REFERENCE MONUMENT ~ ITEM 8 -INGRESS-EGRESS EASEMENT RECORDED IN O,R. BOOK 7540, PAGE 275 IS SHOWN HEREON. LESS THE FOLLOWING: PSM P/1 PSM =PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR & MAPPER ~ =UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC MARKS;?;- P/T = PAVEMENT TIE ows =UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC 4~ARNIt~G SIGN ITEM 9 -DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT RECORDED IN D.R, BOOK 7546, PAGE 607 PARCEL THREE PVC PVC = POLY VINYL CHLORIDE ~ =UNDERGROUND FORCEMAIN M~RKER IS SHOWN HEREON. RCF RCP = REINFORCE CONCRETE PIPE Fws =UNDERGROUND FORCEMAIN WARNING SIGN RLS = REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR =UNDERGROUND GAS MARKER ITEMS 10 TRHOUGH 18 -NOT MATTERS OF SURVEY. EXISTING OSCEOLA AVENUE RLS R/W R/W = RIGHT-OF-WAY cw =UNDERGROUND GA5 WARNING SIGtt' A PORTION OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING THE EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY DF SEC SEC = SECTION ~ =UNDERGROUND RECLAIMED WAITER MARKER ITEM 19 -EASEMENTS RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 591, PAGE 262 IS SHOWN HEREON. OSCEOLA AVENUE AND A PORTION OF AN ALLEY LYING NORTH OF LOTS 2 AND 3 OF JONES SUBDIVISION OF NICHOLSDN'S ADDITION TO SHN CLEARWATER HARBOR AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 13 OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA, OF WHICH PINELLAS COUNTY WAS SIR SHW = SEASONAL HIGH WATER ® =UNDERGROUND RECLAIMED WATER WARNING SIGN SIR = 5ET IRON ROD 1/2 LB 6113 ITEM 20 -EASEMENT RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 1083, PAGE 97 IS SHOWN HEREON, FORMERLY A PART, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: SNC SND = SET NAIL & DISC LB 6113 ~ =UNDERGROUND SANITARY SEWER MARKER SR SR = STATE ROAD Q =UNDERGROUND SANITARY SEWER NlARNING SIGN ITEM 21 -RIGHT-OF-WAY RECORDED IN O.R, BOOK 1235, PAGE 664 IS SHOWN HEREON, S/T = SIDEWALK TIE ~T( =UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE MARKER COMMENCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1 OF JENNIE CATES SUBDIVISION, ALSO BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY S/1 RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF GEORGIA STREET AND THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE THENCE ALONG THE STY STY = STORY ® =UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE WARNING SIGN ITEM 22 - NOT A MATTER OF SURVEY, SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF GEORGIA STREET 5,88'40'45"W., 212.46 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY SN SW = SIDEWALK ~ =UNDERGROUND WATER MARKER TBM = TEMPORARY BENCH MARK ®=UNDERGROUND WATER WARNING SIGN ITEM 23 -AREA DESCRIBED IN O.R. BOOK 11011, PAGE 1867 IS SHOWN HEREON: RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF OSCEDLA AVENUE, S,00'19~25"E., 333.32 FEET; THENCE N,89'49'02"E., 49.23 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY TBM Y F A VACATED ALLEY PER O.R. BOOK 7546 PAGE 607 S.01'01~42"E., 12,50 FEET; THENCE S•89'53'1D"W., 66.67 FEET TO A (TYP; (TYP) = TYPICAL c~ =UTILITY POLE, CONCRETE BOUNDAR 0 , NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 45.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID VCF VCP = VITRIFIED CLAY PIPE c~ =UTILITY POLE, METAL ITEM 24 THROUGH 30 -NOT MATTERS OF SURVEY W/ = WITH ~ =UTILITY POLE, WOOD Y RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF OSCEOLA AVENUE 15,14 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 20'02'38° (CHORD BEARING S.49'19'36"W, W~ EASTERL , WF = WOOD FENCE cve~ =VALVE, GAS ITEM 31 -DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 1042, PAGE 672 IS SHOWN HEREON, ' "W 0,02 FEET• THENCE 5,00'47'26"E. 36,31 FEET; THENCE N•89'44'18"W., ~ 15,66 FEET); THENCE 5.00 04 22 E., 12,90 FEET; THENCE 5.79 39 30 8 W/T 55.71 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID OSCEOLA AVENUE BY THE FOLLOWING THREE COURSES 1 - W/T = WALL TIE Rv ~ =VALVE, RECLAIMED WATER N,00'50'40"E„ 83,79 FEET; 2 -THENCE N,89'58~45~~E., 121.94 FEET; 3 -THENCE N,00'21'07°W„ 334,58 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE + 25,e + 25,25 =POINT OF ELEVATION sv~o4 =VALVE, SANITARY ITEM 32 -EASEMENT RECORDED IN O.R, BOOK 1083, PAGE 97 15 SHOWN HEREON: SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SAID GEORGIA STREET, N,88'4045'E„ 40.02 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 25. 25:2' =DIMENSION FROM BUILDING TO =VALVE, WATER ITEM 33 -RIGHT-OF-WAY RECORDED IN O.R, BOOK 1104, PAGE 532 IS SHOWN HEREON, ©=WELL BOUNDARY /RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE ITEM 34 -RIGHT-OF-WAY RECORDED IN O.R, BOOK 1129, PAGE 302 IS SHOWN HEREON. TOGETHER WITH: STORM CURB INLETS 4 .g =CONCRETE PORTION OF PARCEL IV ~ - ~ ~ ~ f = ASPHALT ITEM 35 - NOT A MATTER OF SURVEY: = CONCRETE PAVERS ITEM 36 -RIGHT-OF-WAY RECORDED IN O.R, BOOK 1546, PAGE 370 IS SHOWN HEREON, APORTION OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND A PORTION OF LOTS 2 AND 3 BRICK OF JONES SUBDIVISION OF NICHOLSON'S ADDITION TO CLEARWATER HARBOR AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 13 OF ~ HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA, OF WHICH PINELLAS COUNTY WAS FORMERLY A PART, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS = TOP OF BANK ITEMS 37 AND 36 -NOT MATTERS OF RECORD: = TOE OF SLOPE or CENTER LINE OF DITCH 16. THE LAND DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT °A" OF THE COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE ORDER N0, 4030898LA, FOLLOWS: ~ = 6' CHAIN LINK FENCE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED EFFECTIVE DATE JANUARY 26, 2006 AT 8:00 A.M., PREPARED BY MACFARLANE FERGUSON & MCMULLEN, DESCRIBES -fff COMMENCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1 OF JENNIE CATES SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 64 _ = OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES THE SAME LAND AS DESCRIBED ON THIS MAP OF SURVEY. OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, ALSO BEING THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE ~ - ~ - - -G- - =APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND GAS LINE n r - -W - - -W- - =APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND WATER LINE C E R 'I I I•' I C A T I 0 N OF GEORGIA STREET AND THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF NORTH FORT HARRISON AVENUE; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY - W - -F• - - -F- - =APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND FORCEMAIN ®RIGINAL RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF GEORGIA STREET 8.88'40'45"W, 150.03 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE, S,00'16'19"E•, 397.79 FEET TO _ -F• THE POINT DF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUE S,00'16'19"E., 24,00 FEET; THENCE N,89'44'18"W., 185,55 FEET; THENCE _ ~R~_ - -R• - - -R- - =APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND RECLAIMED WATER LINE N.00'15'42"E., 24.00 FEET; THENCE 5.89'4418°E., 185.31 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING• - - -12° PVC- - - =APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND SANITARY SEWER LINE - 24° RCP- - =APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND STORM SEWER LINE OOT 12 ~~~6 CERTIFIED TO: TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC pLgNNING DEFARIMEf~ CIlY OF CLE~1~V~~TER I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE SURVEY REPRESENTED HEREON MEETS THE MINIMUM TECHNICAL STANDARDS SET FORTH BY THE FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS IN CHAPTER y.gm~:i~ 61G17-6, FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 472.027 FLORIDA ~4 ' ~ lsif G ' ' ~ w 1 6/26/06 ~ ; > A ; ~ O~l'~ ~a DATE OF SURVEY ~ 'r ~ ; ~ F;~ ~ ; ~a , , ~ ROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR~~'`~ ~ LICENSE NUMBER LS 4053 ,~@ ' STATE OF FLORIDA ~ l f g 1 y`~~. ''T~ . PROJECT: OSCEOLA AVENUE A 0 TYPE OF SURVEY: BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC a i~ tJ O PREPARED FOR; iV TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC g N' O ti ~L/4~f ASSOCIATES INC. 'O U ?oncrc~innini c~iovcv~n~r~ ~o ~11~ v 00 JvnvG invv A-u vi i%~f 18850 U.S. HIGHWAY 19 NORTH, SUITE 500 N O a CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33764 0 N 08/23/1 08/23/06 2 REVISED PARCEL 3 DESCRIPTION JOD (727) 524-6500 M M ADDED SOUTH 24' PARCEL JOp H:\JN\3324\dwg\3324topo2rev8ccm.dwg 08/21/( 3 b 08/21/06 1 CHECKED BY: SCALE: DRAWN BY: JOB NO. DRAWING PATH: SHEET N DATE M DATE NUMBER REVISIONS BY JOD 1" =40' GRM/KAG 02-3324 1 OF 3 M > LOT 2 ~ ` IaDT 1 . ° a : ~ ~ E SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 29 S., RANGE 15 E., Q X24 ' ° 34~ I ° ' ' MASONRY BUILDING 49 5 n Iw: FF. ELEV=27.9 z POOL ° `I'.~ .a TOP OF BLDG. ELEV=117.6 11, CCQ W. ~ a 7,52 12.32 . ~ o. NARRINGTON' sueol~ISroN.~ ° ° ' PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA ~"a .X•p ~ ~ + ~;~I~ I `APPROXIMATE 1,4' X I,4' CONCRETE COLUMNS CD:fV a. - - WITH WOOD FENCE (iYP) Q "Eeages PLAT B00K 5, PAGE 77 N ; e , , ° .tr • . 4 FLOOD ZONE LINE POOLd CK' ~ GRASS / t as Q CONC DE~K • ' AREA CONCRETE RETAINING WALL 18,83 FXC 0 -.a.~ ° 7.80 14,3 15.7 17.38 ° FXC 0 P° ° ° SND ~P n; .I 'd.. P ° ~ 12,52 o _ p Ca4 ~4 ° ° ° a .CONCRETE RETAINING WALL WV FXC / r I I r-- P,OB ~ 08 RGIA ~STRE~,souTHERLY R/wa LiN~/ I PO.~-- PARCEL.-FOUR PARCEL TWO ~ P B a PARCEL TNREE I GEORGIA STREET I ~ s - = P RCEL NE I F ~ off H iir - siR 150.03' si o. ' PA ,GELS -~1 ~ ~ 212.46 sIR I I ~ ' 355.38 gp NE CDRNE L07 Da N88°40'45"E 50,01' ~ FN LB D 1 ~ N88 045 E °40'4 ~"E' 4 . 2° FIR 5/s" FCM 3"$3' FOP 1 - SIR S 0.1 ~ 0.2' N - - 675' (L) ~ 24.9' FIR 5/8° LB ~ I ~ N88'40'45"E 100.02' ( J1 M 3776 I ~ 50.3' I I $ 30 15 0 30 I a , °e n ~ a o I 1 PARCEL E J I LOT 7 Q (l 1 , / ( ACE °°d ; e. a 8 OR 3515, PG 22 ~ ~ . W SCALE:1 "=30' ^T O N / R E O M h ~ I I ~ - - - - ~ LOT 1 ~ o ~ I m as (A~ a I x- ~o. - - I - - - o I LINE TABLE W oa m I ~ ~ ~ 00 , ~ mm o ~ I y ~ LINE BEARING DISTANCE ~ a ~ I / I 0 0• J I ~ ~ Li S00°50'40"W 27.97 6 z I cor 6 L2 N00°08'39"W 13.65 ~ W ~a ~ PARCEL E / Z ~ OR 3515, PG 221 ~ ~ ~ - - - - - - - - L3 N00°18'33"W 28.67 h a I I ; L4 N12°16'56"E 48.67 4i , I I FCM 3"X3° ~ ~ - - - _ ~ L5 N19°07'43"E 51,75 Z I E0.1' Q - - - - a l '"~Pl DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT i c° - - - - - - - - - - - ~ , o ~ A.B. 2c JENN! CATES --E. - ~ o ~ SUBDIVI ON Nr GATES A D.R.BDOK 7270 PGs. 1731-1732 ' ' L6 N24°23 07 E 34.06 I U N29°15'19"E 47.35 ~I~ION LOT 2 ~ ~ ~ cq ; o ~ P,B, 1 PG 64 ~ BROKEN ASPHALT w O 'c s4 I t,l I~ L8 N25°24'43"E 43.69 I-. ~ ~ ~ w w N v ly ~ V O I I I I ° " L9 N14°26'13°E 53.80 W ~ I ~ o N ~ _ ° I W N ~ L10 N01°54'53"W 40.02 n a ~ -'!Y~ o I I it-ninur rnTr-c nn^inni r~r M LOT 5 ~ PARCEL E " ~ AL ui_i.vivlC_ niC_.: ~~Li Ivi.;iviv Qw o ~ f L11 S01 °01'42"E 12.50 -.i ~ OR 3557 PG 559 r''r~; o I ~ ~j ~ ~~a~i ~ r ~o ~ - - - - - - - I L12 S00°04'22"E 12,90 a Z m ci `C z I I w ~ O I I _ - - - ~ I L13 S00°47'26"E 12.31 W Q ~ L~ W Z 1 I w o ~ - ~ ~ a e~ I I - - - - - - - - - - - ~ m 0 . ~ ~e (PAR EL FOR a 1 I ~ PARCEL OUR o rW r ^ o'` D I ~ Qo ~R Lor 3 ~ .a CURVE TABLE z 25 W Q r ~ W a ~ ~ i>7 © U 0 o e I ~ za CURVE RADIUS LENGTH CHORD BEARING CHORD DELTA ~Q W (F a I ~ 1 wm o LOT 4 t ~ ° C1 45,00 15,74 S49°19'36"W 15,66 20°02'38" I / PARCEL E / ~ ~N ~ OR 3557 G 559 N / .P ~ I / ~ Fxc W a ~ m v / E 3 6' PLAT LINE _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Z JURISDICTIONAL LINE TABLE 0 I I I - - - o' , / - - W FIR 1/2" Y ~ - - ~ FNS Ee oz1 -oa ~ LINE BEARING DISTANCE _ I ~ - P LB 021 z ~ _ ~ Q Q JD L1 N88'39'45"E 31,58' 1 ~ rn o ~ I ~ ZO JD L2 N32'49'39°E 53.01' 0 1 q , a (H~ ~ I ~I W N JD L3 N63'41'46"W 32,99' ' JD L4 N06'54'19"W 21,10' I q ~ w oN Qe APART OF SECTION 9, (TOWNSHIP 129 ~ a ~ ° ~ JD L5 N08'01'05"E 4.20' 1 UTIi RANGE 5 EAST r FIR 5/8" °x Q ' ` X SO ~ ~ PARCEL E (G N I . ~ o I I PLS 2865 M° ~ W' ~ ~ ~ • . ~ = JD L6 N14'3T47"E 20.04' Q ~ OR 1324, PG 520 ~ ~ ~ N D,s' a (G ~ o 0 0 a" ~ , o a I / o PARCEL ONE ' JD L7 N48'14'05"E 35,95' O ~ N I Q JD L8 N56'52'07"E 30,96' m ~ I ~ N~ ~ ~ ~ / FCM 4"X4" I, c N 'c°v M ® ~ JD L9 N08'ST14°W 44,96' ~ M ~ ~ JD L10 N1T49'40°E 44,83' ~ 750' (L) p~- - 0 o SIR / FCM 4"X4" ~ c 0 m m FIR 1/2" I ~ Z ~ ~ °N ~ ~ JD L11 N20'11'09"E 30.87 ~ ~ 2937 o' o' ~ N N W O JD L12 N21'2T38°E 48,24' O N 0.3' ~ I I / a O y w ~ Z JD L13 N03'49'03"W 23.41' r 2 ~ I Q I ~ ¢mW r I ~ I m (J~ 1 I ° z ~ ~ c o W~a (Q ~o I o ` ° ~ io O z A PORTION OF O ' d 0 00 GOVERNMENT LOT 4 ° ~ I I I ~ W I A PAR OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 29 ~ FOP I /2" a° Z APART OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP ~ FLOOD ZONE NOTES 29 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST x c~ o E 0,5' 0 QQ ~ r I SOUTF~, RANGE 15 EAST I a 1, FLOOD ZONE LINES SHOWN ARE DIGITIZED FROM THE FLOOD MAP (SEE PAGE 1, NOTE 7) OBTAINED ~ ' ~ Q i a ~ ° FROM FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY WEBSITE. MAP SCALE IS LISTED AS o ~ ~ r,, ~ p ~ ~ / I APPROXIMATELY 1" = 500', LINES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE PER MAP. PARCEL TYVO 2. FLOOD ZONE AEND BASE FLOOD ELOEVAOTONS D E M ED m m ~ I PROPOSED OSCEOLA ET R IN , ~ / I AVENUE ~ Le 2s1 ' • ZONE VE -COASTAL FL40D WITH VELOCITY HAZARD (WAVE ACTION); BASE FLOOD v o e' ELEVATIONS DETERMINED , o• ~ (1 M I ~ f~ o ~ ~ I ~ ZONE Xshaded -AREAS OF 500-YEAR FLOOD; AREAS OF 100-YEAR FLOOD WITH 1 A 70 K 123 P GE O.R, B00 ® , I Q2' I I / p. /I ~p AVERAGE DEPTHS OF LESS THAN 1 FOOT OR WITH DRAINAGE AREAS LESS THAN 1 - - - - - - - - - - ° a SQUARE MILE; AND AREAS PROTECTED BY LEVEES FRON 100-YEAR FLOOD. - - - - - JD L1 ~ FCM a"Xa' ~ p oX _ ~ FIR 1/2"N 49,23' 49,23' ~ DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT s ' • ZONE X -AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE 500-YEAR FLOODPLAIN, s3o,oo' FXC I VACATED 10' ALLEY N89°58'45" 21.94 F G ~ s m O.R, BOOK 591 PAGE 262/ K 119 ~ ^ rv J J \ O, R, BOOK 7546, PGS 607-608 i ~ ~ O ~ oS89t53'10"W 66,67' 0 282.1 (L) / FCM 4"X4" ~ ~ FI 1/2' PLS 313 Q o • / / ~ o r 1=1 ~ PI '3 38 a I ~ 5 1 p? I o / PA C L R E.e.~teooK 1011, N W 1_ R E TH N ~I Q tp / I I PAGE 1867 _ f ~ ~ ~ \ 0 1 4 ^ I W FOP f/ J o M r \ I ~N~ ° INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT PER ° o (1 v' o - 1 1/2' ,.i N W I I ~F ~ fOP'S 8.. ~ v R I O r / ~ ~.GZ ~ \ ~ ~ - - - O-R,BOOK 7540 PGS. 275-278 M LOT A I ccouis c. Lurz I 3,~ W o ~ SU~DIVI ON ~ ~ e Ali' ' 5793 ° °7 o I P.B. 35 PG. ~6 ~ ~ PARCEL FOUR _ l m I o ~p_p p-p p ~ ~ / Z ~ P. B. 21 -------I->L- m ~ ~ O A 4 , OP r N F/T -o- O o SOU H 24' \a Z ~ ~ SIR S 9 ~},1a'r J 0.9' S N / ~ , -.15.03 N89'44'18"W a.4' w 225.09 N PA CEL I 1 / I ~ r w SIR SND Lora , / .3 Rz' / a ' O ~ b FOP 1 I/2° S89'44'18"E 185.31 SND i / E 0.6' 0 630.00' S89'S9'22 W 7 .69 / / ° ~ a .o' °o - - - - - - - J ~ N ~ 1. 1 19 A PORTION LOTS 2 & 3 I S UTH ~ ~ n 24 SND e. . SND / 8+7'4'4 e' O BLOCK 2 N O UTH 24' ~ LoT e ~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ 40:00. Z ~ ARCEL N ~ARCEL I ZONE VE S89 59 22 W 167.07 0 p SIR N (EI 15) MASONRY ~UILDING srlo FGM a"xa" I SIR I JONES SUBDIVISION OF FF. ELEV=11.1 - s TOP OF BLDG. ELEV=76.5 Ac / ~ 9 NIGHOLSON S ADDITION TO p ~ p / N o CLEARWATER HARBOR P.B, 1 I ~ I ` BERGENS REPEAT ~ P,B, 26 PG. 41 ORIGINAL / ~ C PG,13 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY / 8 0 o /~~y~~ y Ac I - overhang - _ 19 81 CLAY LI~AI ~A - r - REGEIVL[ / FlR 1/2° < ~ _ ~ DRAO.R.BOOKN75 9TILl PGS, S329ENT a~T ~ 2 ® / I PLS 3138 s I ZONE X ~ o • f ~ shaded r~ °0. ;BOOK 11 1 , ~ I o (M~ . ~ a PAGE 186 I I o PIANNINC DEPA,12'(I`~ENl I I ~ CITY OF Ci~~Al4'~1JAT~R • ~ i.r wl? LOT A Iw r- ~ w? I aw r LOT 2 . 0 Q ~ ! x z zaNE X cor r K ~ w oIN BLOCK 2 BLOC 2 XIZ ZONE VE ~ ~ 0 4 a e DIVISION OF PROJECT; ~.N (EI 14) I a a JONES SUB I ~ocK z ~ - - _ _ . Y _ _ _ _ ~ OSCEOLA AVENUE a_ o Qla NICHOLSON S ADDITION TO c alo / CLEARWATER HARBOR P.B. 1 I TYPE OF SURVEY: " PG,13 HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY w ZONE AE ~ , i ~ BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC a I I ~ I I (EI 12) 0 ~ D T s N ~ y( o _ FCM 3° HL V .o OH ~ SIR HL S89'S '?,¢"W 100.00' D PREPARED FOR; - SIR NORTHERLY R W LINE SCR sas•5s'z2" 50.00' SCR TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC N. ~ ~ E 0 1 ~ l E (D} I I JONES TREET 0 S89'S9'22"W 50,40' ~ ~ I ~ (UNDER CO1 STRUCTION} ~ ~ o~ F ®L~~'~ ASSOCIATES INC. ro I I ~ ~ ' U ° nc~nrcc~c~~n~ini ~iiovcvu.ii+ io c~~~ surf- JJIVIVAL O Vf` VG 111VV LD V 1 I %J 0 18850 U.S. HIGHWAY 19 NORTH, SUITE 500 O I CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33764 0 a+ N (727) 524-6500 08/23/06 2 REVISED PARCEL 3 DESCRIPTION JOD( M OA H: \JN\3324\dwg\3324topo2rev8ccm.dwg 3 08/21/06 1 ADDED SOUTH 24' PARCEL JOD CHECKED BY: SCALE: DRAWN BY: JOB NO. DRAWING PATH: SHEET o IEDAIE NUMBER REVISIONS - T7, M JOD 1" =40' GRM/KAG 02-3324 2 OF 3 x ! 7,32 16.59 16.58 m 6.19 ° 12.95 114.57 N 2,1 e m ,9 ~ " ° ~ ° SECTION N ~ ° L°T' `~T' ° ° ~ ~ 9, TOWNSHIP 29 S., RANGE 15 E., - a°. M 8 OOGI wa° ; , MASONRY BUILDING NN I ~ ~ D row' ~ NN j / 2 p ; . ~z ~ 7.4s FF. ELEV=27.9 ~°J ~ POOL TOP OF BLDG. ELEV=117.6 34~ ° 2.29 Q ° 16,58 ~ W,' a. ~ = 7.52 12.32 114.06 +26,86 49.5 ' - 3ag~ R~N~ ~'Y ANHOCE PINELLAS COUNTY FLORIDA ' / SANITARY MANHOLE a4 XlQ y ~ t6.59 RIM EL = 28.86 c9: ~ ~ APPROXIMATE _ ~NH°LE , . , M EL - 1.31 .66 a ~ m S IE= 2 .25 ' ~ ~ ~ N N n.. .n : ~n 6" VII? R~ NNO ° 4Y ~'a a . GRA INLE FLOOD ZONE LINE NE EE =225.04 ~n ' IE = 1.50 ~ ~ ° °a. GRASS GE = 12.09 ~;,p 14 S ~ ~ m N w < ° o T RU MAN OLE TOP ~4 2892 i `v _ 3008 g ~ ° 90 EL = 28.7 " . n - r+ x.28. ~ O °CONC OEC`K ~ ' ° AREA W IE 2.31 / ETE RETAINING WALL ?8.8 20,07+ COLUMN CORNER SE IE = 22.94 N~ <E Q,p CONCR W IE - 21.57 a 01.6 J.. a"' ° 7.80 16.39 17,36 0.3' N X 0.2' E a1899~ 5 B 30.43 S IVOTE~ 0 I.i °-d 7'.3 2 16,6 14.3 15,7 ry 6, X( 12 12.52 22.3 + 25,1 25,56 - o - o ~ tad p : ° o` ''q Q " TREE INVENTORY WITH NUMBERS AND RATINGS PREPARED BY 1. ~ 16.8 ~ 5 9 24.7 7.75 28.10 28 55 5.24 2.77 A~ 12'61 ~ `7 21.12 27,51 27.60 WV 2871 2871 ~ 2879 2894 .2855 ~S 6 3aD, ~ 3D66 " 30~"a ~ BOEN'S TREE SURVICE + ~ 1 t .0 52,..27,72 - 41 - 41 2~P 28.78 28.72 30.52 ~ , 14" ~ +0' + +~'y. 26.47 20SANITARY MANHOLE 8~~ VCP 30 15 ~ 30 8110 I ~`ti ,625 RIM EL =-27:52 1 _ /+31.Ifi + R=3,5 12" +'ti E IE - 21,90: i . +0.3 • +2.6 0 +5.6 1111'I 40' I 26 07 a 5 IE l,2199~ ~ 30 59 30 37 r 30.32 R=4.y 8109. 12' ~ a VCP 26.36"' 26 75 " ' '26.8" S E = 23.11; o ~ + 12` 14" ~ ®R=25 12,~ 1105 ~ MM0 pp~~ 26.23 25,91. E 27.22 ~ 27.61 9.26 29,90 JD.79 29.53 29.94 31,00 " ~ ~ O N M 14' 3.2#114 1113 10" R=4.5 11" 23" i~ ~F'tiZ4.66 6.44 26.63 g, .23 ~ 27.8 -a- 0 -a- SCALE;1 =30 +t ~ ~ ~0 2.65 R=J,S R=4.50111 ~ 14" 2 26.69 6,92. 2 6 - 27.54 f + + ,p-13 ENO ~ 1115 RR 5,8 8106 fi 4 29,11 29.1 2911 29.17 2 ,51 29.64 0,• 29.96 D5 p' 30.5 TREE L E G E N D _ 0 R=~1.5 t 1108 ~ R=4.5 ®~3,5 26.1 26.17 26,65 26.82 27.14 4"7 4 2 R-4.5 0 I 0 R=3.5 27 h m~ O P B 30.66 ~ P B 30.66 ~6° do •L N 15" ! + 26.43 + 27,15 1' o d' 7 675' (L) 116 ~ I ~ ~h 26,65 ;'~N BAY TREE ®=MAPLE TREE ~ R=5.00 16" ~ ~ d o N BOTTLE BRUSH TREE ®=MULBERRY TREE 12" 5,4 101101 ~ ~1° o° I N ; ; N ~e =CAMPHOR TREE ©=OAK TREE M ~ M M ,4 ~ ~ 1117 11" I R=4.0 N m N ':e ~ d . , . R= 1119 I I 4r I 2.85 0~ g0 R=4.5 N N , N • ~ 7 ~-12 12« 15" ~ , + I CEDAR ~ =OTHER SPECIES R ~ 0 1121 NI2D I ~ s A CE "e d I Qo =CHINABERRY TREE ~ =PALM TREE ^ ~ 1118 R=2.5 1 D. R=4.5, r I ~ r°. = CITRUS TREE ~ _ PECAN TREE 4 = CYPRESS TREE PERSIMMON TREE o `b d ~ R=4.5 12'~ 1122 / I 0R .5 7.4 R E r m ° ~ ~ ~ ~ +00 ~ I 1123 R=2.0 ~ ~ 11,6 ~ h~ o a a ae ~ I6 + ' ~ I 12' ti 'L +`L `L m 8124 0 3.6 93 1 12 - Q =ELM TREE ©=PINE TREE ®=SYCAMORE TREE - ~ p ~ h ~ ~ -'r 6 A=3.51881I 12 16.8 12, A=3 ' a Qi =EUCALYPTUS TREE 5,3 186 R=tl.5 0 Y ~ r p + 5.3 5"R=2.5 `a~ #90 8~1 6" ° C ®=MAGNOLIA TREE Q =WAX MYRTLE TREE Q =WILLOW TREE 0 0 m 102.7 l 1B5p 0 R=5.0 R=4.5~ N~ Fg. ¢t m o " 103 ~ 8'6" R=D,5 ' 13.. 0 5 '7~ a ~ ~ ¢I 0 ' ~ ~ 8 +2,8 ~ R=5. 84~ 08891 8~2 M o N ~ N 27,9 0' o' 00 JD 411 182 I6 ~3.2 / R=1.5 I R=5,5 R= 5 o w ~ + ~ G M ~ I R=4 891 ~ ~r 28,2 N a ; .m ® I Q ^ ~J9 0 1Y 12" 5"5'S"4 4` 813 us n v u + -45 177 876 3J R76 ~ I3" 10°B° ~ 10 R=D.S R=S. R=5.0 868 167 ~ °oo O CEUSTER 8~ ® 0 0 I 13, R=3.0 6=2,p 0 y iBM:NAILIN PO E' - ~6 a + ~M A/C = AIR CONDITIONER UNIT BACKFLOW PREVENTER W i 18]8 0 R=~6 I ® 115' 9 0 ~ +~43 l a EL _ 26,66 ~4J + } o A=4.5 32" 1872 8fi \ r- ~ti ~ ~ 6' BLDG = BUILDING • =BOLLARD or POST p• _ lI 874 R=5,013" R=4,0 ~ 25.34 R~' R .5° - ~ ~A 310 R=3.5 0 ~ I ~ , . h C A _ C LCULATED AT ~ ~ ~ CCR =CERTIFIED CORNER RECORD cA -BOX, CABLE TELEVISION I Y ul N - 3.6 ~ ~ . ~ 28,0 ®=BOX, ELECTRIC UTILITY ' CLF = CHAIN LINK FENCE Q =BOX, ELECTRIC UTILITY (TRANSFORMER) N c. ~ 0 ~D ~ o = N' ~ R-2.5 BROKEN ASPHALT ~ M ~ ~ ° I CMP =CORRUGATED METAL PIPE r®=BOX, TELEPHONE M ~ ~ I CONC = CONCRETE ~ ~ F, G, ~ p 2,0 Ij5-`~D ~ 19.6 ~ °~pJ' W 28.1 ~ ~ - ~ ^ I N N COR =CORNER ~ =DECORATIVE LIGHT POLE m ~ i CPB =CONDOMINIUM PLAT BOOK ~ =FIRE HYDRANT V J I ~ mrn a ~ Q a I n C/T = CURB TIE FLAGPOLE ~N" _ ~ 15.7 ~ N n ~ = .Y. o I ~ ~I ~ ~ (D) = DEED DATA ® =FLARED END SECTION ~ Q Q ~ O I d c~ J o I~'' 'i o . o l l _ ~ 28.0 V*~ ~ " DB = DEED BOOK ®=GRATE INLET DIP = DUCTILE IRON PIPE ~ =GROUND LIGHT c ~ M; ECMP = ELLIPTICAL CORRUGATED METAL PIPE M' Z ( O 1.92 I I 7"7 5 4 4 'y ~ 28.4 o Q o ""~:i' W JD-9 +3.1 5.9 832 I Q +'L~' ~k1 ~0\ X0^0 Z O / R=0.5 + ~7. ~ m EL = ELEVATION F =GUY ANCHOR R~'~ oti +^~p~ ^~ti M ~ ~ =LIGHT POLE, CONCRETE ^ ~ 31 I I - - - - - ~ 0 - - - ° . _ - _ ~ ti ry a EP =EDGE OF PAVEMENT ~ =LIGHT POLE, METAL ERCP =ELLIPTICAL REINFORCE CONCRETE PIPE =LIGHT POLE, WOOD o - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11" w ,9 R1 O +2.3 13' 5,1 17,1 N > ; (F) =FIELD DATA ~ =MAILBOX ~ 8125 ~ R=N A ~ .9 ~ I SPAR EL FOR , , . O n 1,8 ~ +3,5 R=2.5 I 16, ARCEL CUR ~„,I FCM =FOUND CONCRETE MONUMENT ~ ~ FOOT = FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 0 =MANHOLE, ELECTRIC s / ~ 0 ~ N to z5p' ~ 5 ~ 831 d U R= Q +0.0 ~ 18126 ~ 2.5 26.96. ~ ~ 0.2+ 5.6 R=J,O) +t7.8 12 N ° M FND =FOUND NAIL & DISC sQ =MANHOLE, SAN TARYRSEWER ~ M ~ ~ FOP = FOUND OPEN PIPE ~ =MANHOLE, STORM SEWER 0.4 830 ?m ~ ~ ~ / n m m_ ^it 0,5 / R=3,0 12" N N (V ~ N N. N^ FPP =FOUND PINCHED PIPE ®=MANHOLE, TELEPHONE N l 829 N ~ ~ R=3.0 0 N n 0 2.71 ~ ' N a FRRS = FOUND RAILROAD SPIKE E61 =METER, ELECTRIC z i M F/T = FENCE TIE ®=METER, GAS o + JO-8 ~ m M N~ m L9 ~ 12" 0 ~ 00 ~^J 'h ~ p FXC = FOUND X-CUT e• ti ° RM -METER RECLAIMED WATER Q I CLUSTERS I I ~7 y. ~ `L 0 298 J + 825 ],1 ~6 +21,2 =3,0 R ~ ~ ~ N-- - - - `ti tip' +ti GE = GRATE ELEVATION ®=METER, WATER JD-1 3,0 R-N/A0 ~ --R= - m Y IE=INVERT ELEVATION 1 (L) =LEGAL DESCRIPTION DATA ~ =MITERED END SECTION - O.J D.4 017" ~ m 0 0.5 14° V~ 0 820 / ~0 d ~ " LB =LICENSED BUSINESS Mw =MONITORING WELL 1a M LS = LICENSED SURVEYOR ® =PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SIGNAL h 824 ~ R=4.5 + ~ / a 0 +0.8 R=25 ~ I 6,0 I 29 21.DP 0m~ o N MAS = MASONRY ® =SANITARY CLEANOUT hpp M+ MHW = MEAN HIGH WATER ~ =SCHEDULE B-2 ITEM 0 ~ 819 I M r M o Q 1" R= .0 N N d r `Q ro ~ 23 ~ B 1.91 0 ~ X N JD-6 =5.0 ~ 7,8 N M o c NP =NORMAL POOL ® =TELEPHONE RISER M ° ~ + M 0/A = OVERALL =TRAFFIC SICN t I o ae ae tp 5" S,4"4,7, ~a H a M " : J~" , OR = OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK ~ =TRAFFIC SIGNAL BOX ~ ~ " l ~ a o o° R 50 ~ 6,8,9, /15 21.1+ 0. T6 fJAIL N a ^ N m 12"22"28" ' (P) = PLAT DATA PARCEL ONE ~ ° " M PB =PLAT BOOK s®=TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE 259 O 0 g"7"T4" ®821 1127 I ~~g r55 814 ~~O IN POLE 0 ~0. I ~ ,0-5 15 4 5 6 8 _ R=1.0 R=3.5 ! i t" 8 R=1. +`L EL - ~c 750' (L) ~ 7,6 8.~ R 1.~ R=3.5 5 21,9 28.15' , ti 0 M " " PG = PAGE =UNDERGROUND CABLE TELEVISION MARKER ~ + +tip• ,y0~ PLS = PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR cws =UNDERGROUND CABLE TELEVISION WARNING SIGN ' ~ m ~ 10-6 " 2 _ d 3 14" 2 , 816 • +2L9 POB =POINT OF BEGINNING )_E( =UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC MARKER o ~ JD ~4 24 14 R=4.6 "y6 ui o' 0 0 + c- 16" 817 i3 `ti N M ~ POC = POINT OF COMMENCEMENT Ews =UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC WARNING 51GN o p ~ +3.4 I -+3.B ~ 1128 R°3' ° n ~ I R-3.5 13' 25" r r t ' PRM = PERMANENT REFERENCE MONUMENT ~q( =UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC MARKER 'a PSM =PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR & MAPPER ows =UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC WARNING SIGN 2.88 24" 21,7 m ~ ° ~;M P/T = PAVEMENT TIE ~ =UNDERGROUND FORCEMAIN MARKER JD-3 ~ ~ ~6.3 ~ ® 23,5+ 4 N I } ° ° /PVC = POLY VINYL CHLORIDE ©=UNDERGROUND FORCEMAIN WARNING SIGN FRCP = REINFORCE CONCRETE PIPE ~ =UNDERGROUND GAS MARKER N ~0 ~ 19.2 N 26.1 ~ RLS = REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR cws =UNDERGROUND GAS WARNING 51GN '6Fo <3 I ~o 0 ~ 26.1 rn^ n 2.9 I l ~ ti NN NvN~ 10 4, + 3.01. I Q ~ M m N R/W = RIGHT-OF-WAY =UNDERGROUND RECLAIMED WATER MARKER ~ ~ 3.0 JD_2 +4.0 6.6 ~ k ry0 F N 4 Qe ~-6,6 o h h 0 4 + ~ M SEC = SECTION ®=UNDERGROUND RECLAIMED WATER WARNING SIGN g ~ SHW = SEASONAL HIGH WATER I ~ ~ a +ti6` +'Vy ~ 0 21.92 0• h ro l a ti~ o v I + Q o tih SIR =SET IRON ROD 1/2' LB 6113 ~(s =UNDERGROUND SANITARY SEWER MARKER ~~h ~0~ t`Vh ~ ~ c ~ / 16,8 r 11' . . SND =SET NAIL & DISC LB 6113 ©=UNDERGROUND SANITARY SEWER WARNING SIGN 0 0 ~ N PAR m m / PARCEL TWO ~ SR = STATE ROAD ~1 =UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE MARKER _ ~ S T = SIDEWALK TIE T +30.36 ° / ®=UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE WARNING SIGN o Q 13" ' I + P a N I ~0~ N to STY = STORY =UNDERGROUND WATER MARKER ~N N N~ p M ~ ~ SW = SIDEWALK ®=UNDERGROUND WATER WARNING SIGN p0 hp' TBM = TEMPORARY BENCH MARK c-~ =UTILITY POLE, CONCRETE 2 2,s1 0 JD-1 12" ,I, ~ 26.561 1 13" 22" 23.4 N ° 0' 106 12"24'14' }fill ~ ~ 22" i o 2593 ~ +ti°'~ +`L + + n I (TYP) = TYPICAL c~ =UTILITY POLE, METAL +ti~ p ~ 5 NITARY ANHOL a~, ~ ~ VCP = VITRIFIED CLAY PIPE c~ =UTILITY POLE, WOOD 0,92 ,38 1,39~D L1 6" 6 / - ~ 23.D5 c 7~ o ~ o - - ~ - _ > R M EL = 176 ' M W/ = WITH - ~ - - - - - ^ ~ N IE = 2s ae ~ ¢ yyF = WOOD FENCE cv as =VALVE, GA5 v, 630.00' 4.40 0 5.5.4"4" 5' 23.04 N 26.27 ~ ~71 0 7 4"T 8 26.00 " S + 5.98 0 v, 0.89 7-5" 15 26 ~fi. K l 19 I/ 23" 26,2 ~ a e a. 8 VCP g. ,gyp, ss IE = 2647 W/T = WALL TIE 1 n. M evooa =VALVE, RECLAIMED WATER 0 282,41, ~ - - - ~ 111,2- - 2 24"20_ 25,94 25:8 , ~ p~ 0 1 +ti 0~ ti~ - - - - - - ~ - - - ~ ~ E ~ = TREE NUMBER sv D~4 =VALVE, SANITARY Q ~ 24.31 ~ y° ~ - R o ! / 25 96 ti / y P, h ~ I / 2298 558 579~W , C J /rP `V ~ \I ~ ~o,. - - - - h - - - ~ ~ M` R = TREE RATING wvooa =VALVE, WATER ll~ 3139 0 + ' ®=WELL W 22.29 27" 0°'• p Si 25:9 SANITAR MANHOLE ^ Q + ~ ~ 9 _PARCEL ~f1 a RIM EL 26.33 31.35 ~ ° ' ~ ll.~ + 25.25 =POINT OF ELEVATION o a 5,1 I I ®1B» ti y'. 1 :5,80 2 I jJ~ N IE = 2.87 3127 M M 07 =ITEM NUMBER IN SCHEDULE B-2 OF TITLE COMMITMENT p I SANITARY MANHOLE y, / ' , + S IE _ $2,89 ~5.6 RIM EL = 25.82 h'' ~ 2 ,4 ro SW IE = 23.05 \ ° 25,2 =DIMENSION FROM BUILDING TO m. a ° - BOUNDARY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE I 2 .23 NE IE = 23,03 ,12 '-t ~ 94 ~ + 6"6 0' " W IE = 3.03 O ~ + I ~ ~ S IE = 22.85 15- ~ ~ + ~ 8 \ I I ~M ~ / 00 5,6 I SW IE = 23,54 ~ tihy~ 0~' tih~`' _ .8T 21 m f } I NW IE = 23,39 ? ` h • ~ 2y,15 PARCEL FOUR o ti 31.38 • + ~ ~ +ti~' =POST DEMOLITION ELEVATION " a -CONCRETE `-I--I-- .a ~y ° 31.33 ~ ; mN ^ p 4.7 14 =ASPHALT 5.0 + ~ 1 .52 42° ~ N ~ N 0 S 12' 11" ' STORM CURB INLETS =CONCRETE PAVERS ~ e G m 16 ~ d .N p ® © ~ ~ ® ®=BRICK 10' ~ ].0 12.1 n. ~ 10' 28' n 10"13' 17.06 ® v`:. ~ m ~ ~ + o / ~ m 27.21 - 630.00' 4,1 7.21 ~ 8.37 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 27.1 30.5 + ' e 5. 8.25 + 28.1 ~ ~ ~ ~ =TOP OF BANK ~e + n , ~ =TOE OF SLOPE or CENTER LINE OF DITCH 0.11 10.516,54 ^ 2 y ~g 19" ~ = 6' CHAIN LINK FENCE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ZONE VE ~ 10' 27` 1a" 1 STORY V 21.91 (EI 15) 0 25.93 " o SIR ° ~ ,45' ,`s' =OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES v I ~ MASONRY BUILDING g + FE ELEV=11.1 14.86 484 3.53_ 25,41 25.5 25,49 4 ~ 26.52 ' ' ' ' 73 INISHED FLOOR 26'2 29.E 30.5 e - -fr - - -G- - =APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND GAS LINE N I ~ N - ~'d - - ~N- - =APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND WATER LINE 9~4 8.86 18.8 20.47 5.02 ~--17C S w o, ~ = 2 ,1 N OP OF BLDG, ELEV=76,5 A 18,54 / ~ N N N ~ ' o ' ~ 9.86 14.88 ° i ~ - f - - -F- - =APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND FDRCEMAIN 11.95 ~ ^m' ° IE - 0.95 % G N N WO +26.2 I ~ - ~ - - - =APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND RECLAIMED WATER LINE AC 19.34 / 20,55 26.24 26, 9 SH D o - - -1-2~~ -Pir£- - - =APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND SANITARY SEWER LINE ° _ p~' ~y0~' ~ ~a - ~RC-P- - =APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND STORM SEWER LINE 4,09 1 0 8I 13.17 19 155 19:0 18,31 20.4 20,6 overhang- 25.21 x,10 CLAY ~ A ..1833 20.49 '6~- 25,24 25.1 $ ~ 20,60 24,9 _ 1.- M ® 18,14/ 2 25,07 r ~ ~]«p7«4" 20.9 30,6 YARD INLE I - I YE _ ,44 18,35 ZONE SANI ARY MANHOLE o p 4.08 4.09 +19,02 + + #18,32. 1801 21.24 +23.12 124.65 IM EL = 25.78 3.6 4,6 +9,9 8,6 .10,3 ° f shade '74 N IE = 22.x6 +iao 3D. n . ° ~~G~lvfr~ I 18,8 ~ N S IE = 22,97 +27,9 29.2 ° 0 ~ ~ + I 25.28 ~5, 12" W IE = 24.02 3"3°5"6' o f W 25.3 25.1 ~'S I O~,T 12 2 ° a ~~6 ' W'Z 0 29.4 Itu ti ~ 25 39 25 7 W Z I Q.W + o Q J ~ k Z ZONE X 14 tg, +26,7 t4' 28,1 29. ~•6 GRATE INLET I o ~ ~ PL4NNING bEPI~RTI~ENT ° JLET GIN QF ~I Fd Ilcl Y BIZ ZONE VE OIN ~ ST RM MANHOLE ~ CE = 30.29 kO / ~ v a' 0 RIM EL = 26.16 14" I N IE = 27.79 a2s I I PROJECT: C ~ N (EI 14) l a O CATCH BASIN ~ ° ~ ` ~ N IE = 19.34 B SE IE = 27,79 0 2779 X14 _ OSCEOLA AVENUE 27,79 ° 29, 292 -29.0 Y 29,3{- ~2°~` 31,6 ~ ~ QIo RIM EL = 25 40 ~°B ~ ~ ~ E I = 11.46 (66" RCP) ~ l a Io ~ _ N N = I 29. ~'7 21.8 - 27.1 - - - +8'3 - - ~ 0 264 I Q O ! L. S iE - .19:49 } N ° 0 E I 9.88 (42" RCP) 24 14" P. ~I N W I - 8.52 ® ® * o h ~ ZONE AEI + 29, 3D,7 5 TYPE OF SURVEY: Nd 25.80 27.0 N I I EI " 0 ` o ( 12) ,y 25,23 '.2543 25.02 6 14 l ~ 69 2L+214 +27,5 = +21.9 + •31.6 ~ BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC I 212 4 28.1 6° , 4' o ~ STORM MANHOLE 0 25,31"+25.56 28 16 ~ 30.57 29A 272 - -h18.F- - - +82 - d I 313 ~ ~ o 30.57 ° ~ ~ ~ 2:3 346 ~ PREPARED FOR; gg ® 26.5 31•, ~ ~ ~ TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC 1 RIM EL = 25,03 24,34 0 S ~ 25.54 cQ , Z9•3 +30,79 1, 3D.00 c' 26.66 - - - - - 29,2 29.81 HL il, 3D.00 0 3'(Q38 1 HL -d- ~ ~ 0 31 I ^ , EIE=880 I OH WV 21.86 2.65 0 1 SIE=19,21 i ~ 5',31,04 VIM ry 30.52 D+9S0,9B I I W IE = 8,79 ?~2~!~5 25.1. I ~ E R P ~ 27.17 . 24.75.: 9,646. ~~R3 CONFLICT BOX W/ 66 RCP 7P 3018 STORM MANHOLE 66" F'~ ~ ~ ~ BOKCU STORM MANHOLE `ELECTRICAL-EOVIPMENi SANITARY MANHOLE RII3 EL = 302,3 I o~ RIM EL.=:'26,34 RIM EL = 29,06 I l i F ~ 5 IE = 24 13 ';129.64 ®LARIS I-29.H4 RIM EL = 30,65 30_L2 E IE _ 11,94 : V~% ~ ~ 31 C6+ :FILLED W/ DIRT + ~ a W IE = 11!8d ~ +~n a~ + I ~ ~ >Rr "+^sa^ _~,"IEc _2330 +27~G 12844 +_862 1- W)E = 24,0 L 29'_3 :oda SANITARYY MANH07 4 - ~~,4r CP - METER INSIDE " rc PROFESSIONAL SURVEYING LB 6113 c 2356 tRIM Eh' = 25,46 a $p4 23.2 _2618 6 27,25 c /23/06 3 REVISED PARCEL 3 DESCRIPTION 23 08 29.1. 29,$b. 8° kp 2,86 T 3 , X86 ` 395 18850 U.S. HIGHWAY 19 NORTH, SUITE 500 JOD 8 - ~a.oa N N IE = 22,41 2832' 207s 29.16 2834 ` / .24 4g~ E IE = 22.38 J , qg ,d j j 27,30. :raj. a 24.52 2561 .38 4,SIC 2236'- - 6.39 1 Z9.J 29.79 ' 9Q RA I m 08/21/06 2 ADDED SOUTH 24' PARCEL JOD 449'' d 7,43 '29.44 3Q.66 3999 + z~.» • • SANITARY MANHOLE CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33764 o; c) FILLED UTH.WATER' 12" PVC kboI o BLE TO MEASUR 06/26/06 29'97 1 POST-DEMOLITION TOPO CATCH BASI N PPE!sIZES 27,64 30.62 N I b JOD zo,3 (727) 524-6500 9'1 H:\JN\3324\dwg\3324topo2rev8ccm.dwg RIM EL = 25.79 ° N m ~ry CATCH BASIN 30,79 N IE = 20.55 N RIM EL = 25.68 NUMBER BY E IE = 21,59 12"' RCp NE IE = 23.31 91 XA CHECKED BY: SCALE: DRAWN BY: JOB NO. DRAWING PATH: SHEET M JOD 1" =30' GRM/KAG 02-3324 3 OF 3 x ~i 'ry•'~• ~ f.,5 . • `a9.5 SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 29 S., RANGE 15 E., ',a i N k. ' y ~.f;•'`'.°, r, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA COLUMN CORNER 0.3'NXO.2'E .'r ~ SV - '.i., ~ ~ LEG E N D ~ \ ~ ; A/C = AIR CONDITIONER UNIT 5 0 30 14' 14 30 1 0 ® BLDG = BUILDING BACKFLOW PREVENTER 12 12' S r,, 0 e~° (C) = CALCULATED DATA • =BOLLARD or POST CCR CERTIFlED CORNER R 0 a ~ 2' 14'~ a .a . • : 1 F , , , . ~ = ECORD 80X, CABLE TELEVISION . , - ' • ' ' , CLF = CHAIN LINK FENCE BOX, ELECTRIC U11UTY SCALE:1 =30 14 ~ 0 ~ 011• ® ' p~. i ~ • ' 014' ' CMP =CORRUGATED METAL PIPE ® ~ ?Q =BOX, ELECTRIC UTILITY (TRANSFORMER} 4 ~ CONC = CONCRETE 0 'a: COR = CORNER ®=BOX, TELEPHONE - - , - 0 4'5'5' a s e, . , 675 (L) 0 12 8' SHED ~a . e . • 'r M , X11' 1 r ~ ~ ~ _ DECORAl1VE LIGHT POLE g-zo t' i + CPB =CONDOMINIUM PLAT BOOK 15"0 . o J 018" ~ 1 ~ s" ~ .~•q , . 3 STORY STR TURE , , : C T = CURB TlE ~ = FlRE HYDRANT ~•a =DEED .DATA FLAGPOLE '9 ® •a ' FINISHED FLOOR 30.68 , 4, X 02' 01 I Q` ' DB = DEED BOOK ~ =FLARED END 5ECT10N A .r 12 15' Y ~ / ©c ® 12' ~ * 1 STORY STRUCTURE ' . ' ' I e' DIP-= DUCTILE IRON PIPE ®=GRATE INLET TezS ECMP = EWPTICAL CORRUGATED METAL PIPE ~ =GROUND LIGHT O V .aa o w ® FINISHED FLOOR - -28.73 ~ ' EL = ELEVATION F GUY ANCHOR M h 4° O 012 SHED ° ' EP = EDGE OF PAVEMENT ~ =LIGHT POLE, CONCRETE i P ~ ~ • ~ ERCP = EWPIICAL REINFORCE CONCRETE PIPE (F) =FIELD DATA ~ =LIGHT POLE, METAL 4 4 Q v 18' ~ O ~ - a ~ 0 A ~ - - . ~~ry' 5~ O ® -A A ` ~ ~ =LIGHT POLE, WOOD - e' ° ' FCM =FOUND CONCRETE MONUMENT : C'~ FOOT = FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ®=MAILBOX FIR = FOUND IRON ROD ®=MANHOLE, ELECTRIC ~ O 5" + _ ~ o ~ 0 12 ~ R=3,D _ PLAYGROUND . FND = FOUND NAIL do DISC ©=MANHOLE, GREASE TRAP ~ I I AIR m m 10' ~ 8'6' 13' 0 ~ AREA 0 ~ 0 p12• ~ ca~cmaNiNC , ~ y.• FOP =FOUND OPEN PIPE Qs =MANHOLE, SANITARY SEWER uNir (1rP) - 12, '1 A FPP =FOUND PINCHED PIPE ®=MANHOLE, STORM SEWER o O ~ O 8' ®12 6, ~ ERRS = FOUND RAIU~OAD SPIKE ®=MANHOLE, TELEPHONE W ®Q18' ai. , r ^ 11 1D' 11.8' , 4 r 0 d03 25 X03 ~ ' F/T = FENCE 11E ®=METER, ELECTRIC RAMd, ®R=z3 ® _~ao , , FXC = FOUND X-CUT ®=METER, GAS ~ 0 1r s ~ .i 1 SHED TED I ~ GE = GRATE ELEVATION =METER RECLAIMED WATER ~ O BUSTER ® 02. ®5 3Y 4 13' 10'8' ° o T o 47 ~ . t TBM-NAIL IN PO 1 ON W ~ ® 0 ° ~ ~ ~5 + EL m 28.86: CDNC 'N ~ + IE = INVERT ELEVAl10N ® ' ANC I ~'~'S B' (L) = LEGAL DESCRIPTION DATA ®=METER, WATER ~ 0 ( 11 5 a- 13' I 15' 13' 15' 14' 4' 9' 13' 1 " - 82 - ~0` t10+ .p~. ~ LB = LICENSED BUSINESS ~ =MITERED END SEC110N - 1 STORY STRUCTURE 2 LS = LICENSED SURVEYOR MONITORING WELL ®,p FINISHED FLOOR = 31.95 . ~ MAS = MASONRY ® =PEDESTRIAN CROSSING 51GNAL c° - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ 5'a~-~ ' ~ 233 v ® ~gi 18, o O - ~ R-20 4! 0 ~tY B 13'® ~0 ~ s ® ~1 gg•3.0 _ (9 J ~ ~C p 18" ZO •a I MHW = MEAN HIGH -WATER ® =SANITARY CLEANOUT NP = NORMAL POOL ~ _ SCHEDULE B-2 ITEM Q CC ~ i ~ B I -3,0 ~ tsB ~ 0/A = OVERALL ®=TELEPHONE RISER ~~,p ' OR = OFFlCIAL RECORDS BOOK =TRAFFIC SIGN c ~ ~ J Q ~ Q O M ~ ~ 0 ~ ' (P} = PLAT DATA ® = TRAFFC SIGNAL BOX ~ ~ ~ ~ I fl3 n , • , - - ~ ' PB = PLAT BOOK ',y TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE a PLS = PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR ~C( =UNDERGROUND CABLE TELEVISION MARKER C aC g 24' R=4.0 ° POB = POINT OF BEGINNING ®=UNDERGROUND CABLE TELEVISION WARNING SIGN 2 m m I ?T5"4'4' 0 a`r 2 A 6' ~ . 2 0 W J 025' , ~ , . ~ - POC = POINT OF COMMENCEMENT =UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC MARKER - ~ e® ' , a' PRM =PERMANENT REFERENCE MONUMENT ®=UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC WARNING SIGN G, '8" ; PSM = PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR & MAPPER =UNDERGROUND FIBER OP11C MARKER L Y ` fi ~ P/T = PAVEMENT TIE ®=UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC WARNING 51GN ~ I 2 STORY STRUCTURE PVC = POLY VINYL CHLORIDE ~(=UNDERGROUND FORCEMAIN MARKER W p 13' ,14'• t,. a' 15• 193 2 n~ ® ~ 1 STORY STRUCTURE 1s5. R• D 2 ~ R=2o v SOr t0 ~ 16" FINISHED FLOOR = 28.03 r ® , ~ 1r1. ,u ® ~ o ' FNISHED FLOOR = 31.21 ~ RCP = REINFORCE- CONCRETE PIPE ®=UNDERGROUND FORCEMAIN WARNING SIGN ts, RLS = REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR ~ =UNDERGROUND GAS MARKER 13' t7 r R/W = RIGHT-OF-WAY F Q 5• ~ 1 i3 J ~ p 0a 12 ; . ~4 op ~ 5 #~ps ~ ®=UNDERGROUND GAS WARNING SIGN G~ 5EC = SECTION I 5 J . ~ : ~5 ~ ~ SHW = SEASONAL HIGH WATER ®=UNDERGROUND RECLAMED WATER WARNING SIGN p, 15'15' W 11' , ' n, ' ,a I 188 SIR - SET IRON ROD 1/2 LB 6113 UNDERGROUND SANITARY SEWER MARKER ~ 6 ~ 0 .e =4,5 ~ 13' i~4,5 ,i, ~ dtot ~to2 ~ SND = SET NAIL & DISC LB 8113 ~t R-aa R•aa~ 0 ~ 5R =STATE ROAD ®=UNDERGROUND SANITARY SEWER WARNING SIGN - STAIRS ~ . , •,T,_, . , , ~ S/T = SIDEWALK T1E =UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE MARKER Q I ~ ~ r h. I ~ CLUSTERS ~ 12' 1D' ® 0 8 r 4 . O V - - ~ - - - 1s' 1oi3' r I • STl' = STORY -®=UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE WARNING SIGN ,r--- - SW = SIDEWALK =UNDERGROUND WATER MARKER a , , 4'S'a'6' 4'~'s's' ~ .'a 's TBM =TEMPORARY BENCH. MARK ®=UNDERGROUND WATER WARNING 51GN i ' ° ' (TYP} = TYPICAL U11UTY POLE, CONCRETE o ~ 197 Q ~ / 40' ra. < o - R 3.0~ , t+ 0 - VCP =VITRIFIED CLAY PIPE ' 28' ~1 ~ o ~ I 1 STORY STRUCTURE u 13' " 1r ~ #iDa " • ' W/ = WITH ~i =UTILITY POLE, METAL R'3° ~ ` ~ =UTILITY POLE, WOOD • ':.y ~ ° • ` WF = WOOD FENCE cv ~a =VALVE, GAS h ~ 4 FINISHED FLOOR = 2fi.40 00 0 I W O a 4' 'r' O c~ ti ~ I Q e ~ 5' i DU~PStE~t W/T = WALL TIE ~t~ ~ ; Pno a' ~ Rv~a =VALVE, RECLAIMED WATER R + 25.25 =POINT OF ELEVATION svDaa =VALVE, SANITARY ~ 4 ~ ~7 I a. v` °i 5'}'4~,' ~ I O N ~ O R-3,5 12'22'28' f, ~ •p N POLE ~ 0 ~ 5' ® 10-s ®68'8 I 11' 141 : ~ L 27 ~ 6 , 152 1' ~ 750' (L) fly'- R~--O.o s$'f 1' r R•3k R=N/A ~ 4 ~ 1' 9 ~ , ~ fl ' x'• ° 25.2' =DIMENSION FROM BUILDING TO ~ WELLED WATER - BOUNDARY /RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE g R- 5 ~ I R~3.5' m Ri . Rtik6 13• ~ ' R~ J ~ 24 14 1 R=4S ~0 . . O R=O, ~ ~4 ~3 I~3.013' X3.0 i161 R~.O I , 8 ~ ; --a~ t 095 , ~tp ~ STORM CURB I, N~F,T~ ~ =CONCRETE a tt. . A 1 "I ~ Q ~ ® I~ =ASPHALT O I R•1D R•3.0 14D ~ R•OA ~ ' r ~9 r• RaS.S ~ ti / R=25 ~25 ' t t2 < dm ~ ~ =CONCRETE PAVERS J R-J,o 1 STORY r ®24• R 2a R-z . " ~ BRICK >Ns a STRUCTURE . I R•l5 FlNISHED ''j 55 'R~O ` 9 4 =TOP OF BANK 4, m =TOE OF SLOPE or CENTER LINE OF DITCH <3 ~ o. 25 ~~o j~ 3' n = 6' CHAIN UNK FENCE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED A / 10' 1 A11 ~r =OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES - -G - - -G- - =APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND GAS LINE 145 ' StAIRS' 'a. / 0 . ' b'' ~ fk20 '•'l.a 11 - 14 - - -W-- - =APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND WATER LINE - f -F- - =APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND FORCEMAIN tdi~ ' S', STRUCTURE - -R - - -R- - =APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND RECLAIMED WATER LINE 1r~ ' 0 14 ~ 6' ; r. . ~ FlNISHED 0 ~ 13' l~ ~ " ~ 12 ---1-2°-P1~--- =APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND SANITARY SEWER LINE Yu 4 ~ ~ 144 ! 8 35 30" I ' ~ 112D 5' N/~ I - 44"-REP- - =APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND STORM SEWER LINE ditr dtts 0R•3,0 I R-25 R R•3.0 12 10'8' 14'10' 13' 22 I? ~ 8" 6' • . I 20' R~ 5 ~1,5 ~ 1~ 12'2414 ~ ~20 137 X778 ®r IS4 JD L1 R•LD R-1 1 ~ -3.5 ~ 22 R-3.~ •20 - g' 725.00'(L) I 5,5,4,4, 1T 8' ~ R•24 ®8' 23" ® 11 ® d„>i ~~5~=''~ S TREE LEGEND R=}.0 -124- - R=2.0 - R•3.5 - ~,@= 28 ' ' L R-25 -®28' (DEAD) ~ t90 ~ 12' 2410 15• N/A 11' / 142 . ina - - - - 0 BAY TREE 124 14 G 4 ~ ~ ) 1~8 R-2o ~ u ~C) ~ _ - R•i,a - - - - -i {t" ~ BOTTLE BRUSH TREE N A R'30 R•UD ~=2~ dtt4 V Qo =CAMPHOR 1REE rr R=60 -3.0 ®13 ~ / 20 ~ X144 R 4a CEDAR ~ I R•25 ` 1141 R=3.0 pY l~'~p 13 ~ 8'1'iD' R=25 ~ R•2 'd ' 148 - ~ Oo =CHINABERRY TREE - - _ ~ ~ = CITRUS TREE I R'2 / 1,5 18' ~ R= c , . --=------I--- 116 . ~ R=~ 6" " 4 = CYPRESS TREE R=Z0 S r , • 1137 a (942 , R•1.6 ~ Q = ELM TREE N/A N/A ~ 117 t2 + Y21 15 10'13' r / R=4.0 a ~ ' ' ` 10' 1140 1139 ' ®RliS ~ r Q = EUCALYPTUS TREE R=0.0 I~3,5 H9 16'®. , ®R•L5 ~~~R-1.00 - 725,00' L ~ ~ R=1A 118 ~ / Qo R•20 R-25 ~ MAGNOLIA TREE ` MAPLE TREE 1 9' #13 10' ,a. ~ MULBERRY TREE X15 ft=2S 2r 14' 1 STORY , > ®=OAK TREE Rro 11211 10 8'6' R•1~2 ~L5 STRUCTURE ~ I 'y, ~ OTHER SPECIES ~ R.1,~ . ' NISHED FLOOR 114 - = 2.1 I ~ ®=PALM TREE R=20 I 0 =PECAN. TREE WO D I PERSIMMON TREE ORIGINAL " SH > I 1 STORY STRUCTURE ' ~a' ®=PINE TREE RECEIVEf~ r , - - ~ rri'4' - -FINISHED-FLOOR-~ 3#:8O - - - • SYCAMORE TREE v; 1147 R-0.5 > I ' Q = WAX MYRTLE TREE ~ ~ Z~~~ ' ®=WILLOW TREE 12 1160 3'3'5'8' PiANNING DEPARTMENT (G} =GONE CITY OFCLEF~,RWATER R•30 1136 d 0 R•2522. t,,. l 1135 I I ~ t 14' R• a 4 18' (G) X148 ~ i 1159 15' , ' BASED ON BOEN'S TREE SERVICE INVENTORY REPORT FOR 5~ R-3,0 1155 14 ®R=1.0 r a: 0 8' R=20 1156 ( 1154 ®R-1,5 HARRISON VILLAGE AND ISLAND VIEW CONDOMINIUM 2a' r 1157 14" I r PROJECT: ~R=20 1,53® A•25 12 4. s' R~ rc ~ ' ' OSCEOLA AVEN U E ,'a" 11490 y1 r 15' R=3.0 14 I 1 2 4' _ - - - - dR•SO 3130, ®R-3.0~1U ` } , u • 4" JR,~a T1PE of SURVEY: .TREE EXHIBIT - HARRISON VILLAGE AND ®6' 1151 1152 1150 1132 R=20 R•25 R-3.0 4' R• 5 (G) ® 11~ ® R=1.5 - -1- ~p ° ' ISLAND VIEW CONDOMINIUM PREPARED FOR: TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC i i ~ i o - / ~ - - - - - - - 1 ASSOCIATES INC. //INN PROFESSIONAL SURVEYING LB 6113 i ® 2915 S.R. 590 SUITE 17 CLEARWA TER, FLORIDA 33759 D (727) 669-0522 CHECKED BY: SCALE: DRAWN BY: JOB N0, DRAWING PATH: SHEET DATE NUME )ATE NUMBER REVISIONS . BY JOD 1" =40' GRM/MEP 02-3324 H: \JN\3324\dwg\treeexhibitharrisonandisland. d g 1 OF 2 F4 ~ ~ fi '.a . , N , SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 29 S., RANGE 15 E,, + ~ , COLUMN CORNER 0.3'NX0.2'E • ` PARCEL ~~~11~~~ PINELLAS COUNTY FLORIDA SV - i . , 4' 10'4'12'1s' 14' ;101 • ` / • ~ NOTE: 0 103 •2.0 i ~0 . 14' ~.e6 ~';,d'. TREE INVENTORY WITH NUMBERS AND RATINGS PREPARED BY • X110 } ~ . R•15 12' 14' _ i. i~ 0 }111 pp' ®~IQ4 x:51 - BOEN'S TREE SERVICE -4A 100 12' R•5~0 5 12 113 10' A=4,50 2Y a ,s „ , 9'" ~ 14' X114 ~ 11' , •ap R=4,50112 14' 106 ~I02 '4 F, + .r~• a' y115 ~ ~=4.5 ~10R 0R=4S ®R=3,5 , • y'' S t • . ~ ~ ' • a ~ ~ • ~ r ' ' ~ ; • ' • "Q'' ~ , A/C =AIR COND1110NER UNIT BACKFLOW PREVENTER ' ~ BLDG = BUILDING o =BOLLARD or POST x•4.5 0 I • • 0 R•J.5 i2.. 'ei ~ • • 5''~ ` B1® ~ (C) =CALCULATED DATA ®=BOX, CABLE TELEVISION - 675' L 15' 0096 , ~ CCR =CERTIFIED CORNER RECORD ®=BOX, ELECTRIC UTILITY 1:, , CLF = CHAIN LINK FENCE ?0 =BOX, ELECTRIC UTILITY (TRANSFORMER) 16 I 1B' R-20 ~7 R•2S 6' SHED ~ • ' ~ 00 16' ~5 ~R•4.5 CMP = CQRRUGATED METAL PIPE ®=BOX, TELEPHONE ~ 12' 0 qto7 0 ' 3 STORY STR TUBE ~TURE ~ a ' ' CONC =CONCRETE kE = DECORAl1VE LIGHT POLE Q^, ° X50 X119 1• • • ~ FINISHED FLOOR 30.68 0 ~ 0R•4,5 = 30,68 ( ; COR = CQRNER j ' CPB = CONDOMINIUM PLAT BODK ~ =FIRE HYDRANT 0 n 120 I i TRY TR CTURE A CE , C/T = CURB T1E ~ti= FLAGPOLE 1r R-z5 ,R=45 t2~ FINISHED FLOOR = 28.73 ` ~ , N p118 ~ 1D I i9q R E'. ~ ~ ~ D) = DEED DATA ® =FLARED END SECTION • ' DB =DEED BOOK ®=GRATE INLET ~ N 12 122 R=35 ~ R-4,5 p 0 SHED to ~u 123 R=2.0 ~ ' s~EO'. , ' DIP =DUCTILE IRON PIPE ~ =GROUND LIGHT ~ o c~ i~ ry ~1~ ' ECMP = ELLIPTICAL CORRUGATED METAL PIPE F =GUY ANCHOR - - ° , EL = ELEVATION ;~c =LIGHT POLE, CONCRETE }124 0 ' ';',1' EP = EDGE OF PAVEMENT ~$c = LIGHT POLE, METAL FRCP = ELLIPTICAL REINFORCE CONCRETE PIPE 5• R~25 a.DS ~1 R~~D j~z ~4 ~ .q$ ~ PLAYGROUND ¢1 10' R 5A ~ ~ R•S.D fi PLAYGROUND I ' ` (F} = FlELD DATA ~ = LIGHT POLE, WOOD AIR ~ ' FCM =FOUND CONCRETE MONUMENT ®=MAILBOX "::CONDITIONING • ' n ~ • • Q1 Ql p ~ 8'6' R•OS 013" 2 12' ~ +q8 C' R' to 16 / l~ ~ d5 ®R-4.0 uNIT (Trn) ~ FDOT = FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MANHOLE, ELECTRIC 0 o O ~~22 R•1.5 R=5.5 =30 W 11, 0 g=80 11.5• .i. r FIR = FOUND IRON ROD ©=MANHOLE, GREASE TRAP e ~ FND = FOUND NAIL & DISC sQ =MANHOLE, SANITARY SEWER 2 p 0 1T' 12' S"5'5'4'4 3 ~ 9' ~ " ~ ~ ' , : RAMda ®1s ®12• ~ ~ ; • FOP =FOUND OPEN PIPE po =MANHOLE, STORM SEWER ~ 0 6 5 ~ 13' 10'B' ~ 7' 4`7 v ~-4g ~ ~J] ~ ~ `a R•1.5 _ 8' ' •1 , SHED 10 k=OS R R--5~0 X68 7 -2D 2,0~57 ~Sp ' FPP = FOUND PINCHED PIPE ©=MANHOLE, TELEPHONE ~ 11" ° R•20 1~5 iBM NNL IN PO ® ON d BUSTER ® 0 R-3.0 R=2, 'R=1.5 1 2 ~ ~p 15" 13 ° ~ 0° R-25 8" 1 ~a' EL ~ 29.86'. , CONC 4+ fJ8 ® R~0 I s ® 15 I ® 17'0' ~p a- co~ / ~ FRRS = FOUND RAILROAD SPIKE ®=METER, ELECTRIC F/T = FENCE T1E ®=METER, GAS 32' X72 ~ R•t4 ~I,D Q ~ R=45 R-4,D 4 13'l'8'8'S R=20. 13' S, I R•3,5 0 13" 0 ~0 ~ - _ FXC = FOUND X-CUT METER, RECLAIMED WATER - - + R~ ~ cQi i~- - - R•5.0 . ~5'q'4 ~ t7 ; , ® 13 - ~ 1 STORY STRUCTURE GE = GRATE ELEVATION ® =METER, WATER ®~I FINISHED FLOOR = 31,95 ; I IE = INVERT ELEVATION - 0 1s 14 R=1 M . N 1~p ~6 ~12' L (L} = LEGAL DESCRIPTION DATA ~ =MITERED END SECTION ~ ~ J ~ R•25 R•1.5 ~5 ® 16' Z 4' ~ J F, ~ ~ o R.t.D ®u . I LB = UCENSED BUSINESS MDNITORING WELL I ~ LS = UCENSED SURVEYOR g =PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SIGNAL ® / MAS = MASONRY ~ =SANITARY CLEANOUT ~ ~ I + , ~ ~ ° MHW = MEAN HIGH WATER ~ =SCHEDULE B-2 ITEM - - NP = NORMAL POOL ® =TELEPHONE RISER ~ ~n ~ I .4 w ~ ~ I ~ , 0/A = OVERALL =TRAFFIC SIGN tl• Q ~ o ~ $ 24' , _ OR = OFFlCIAL RECORDS BOOK ®=TRAFFIC SIGNAL BOX - - - - _ ~ ~ (P} =PLAT DATA TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE ~ Z ~ I . 0 • e. m ` ~ m a ~ a 7r544 e.® ~ ' ~ PB = PLAT BOOK ~ =UNDERGROUND CABLE TELEVISION MARKER Q Qe LJ e~ 1 l~ Q . X120 :1a " • _ - - - --I d PG = PAGE ®=UNDERGROUND CABLE TELEVISION WARNING SIGN .r ~ 2 ' ~ ~L------ '+a PLS = PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC MARKER 2 STORY STRUCTURE ~ , I POB = POINT OF BEGINNING ~I o - - 13" X~3333 ~ . /A Rd,5 Rdq/A s ~ ~ x,25 PARC L FOUR ' • FINISHED FLOOR = 31.21 ~ , ~ ,a POC = POINT OF COMMENCEMENT ®=UNDERGROUND. ELECTRIC WARNING SIGN o R=25 e,. PARCEL FOUR O ~ ;n 2 ~ 0 p 14~', •~j' 1 STORY STRUCTURE PRM = PERMANENT REFERENCE MONUMENT ~¢(=UNDERGROUND FlBER OPTIC. MARKER 15` e• PSM =PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR ~ MAPPER ®=UNDERGROUND FlBER OPT1C WARNING SIGN ~ 25 ~ 5' R=1 ~ ` 6 ~ 0' ~ I}t26 25 ~4 , FINISHED FLOOR = 28,03 ~ ~ r ® , P/T = PAVEMENT TIE JE(=UNDERGROUND FORCEMAIN MARKER a M' : PVC =POLY VINYL CHLORIDE ®=UNDERGROUND FORCEMAIN WARNING SIGN h 1Y M t20 N I R•3A s • I " ~ RCP = REINFORCE CONCRETE PIPE UNDERGROUND GAS MARKER ~c' RLS =REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR ~ UNDERGROUND GAS WARNING SIGN o O I 6, 110 • i, ,i a• i I 1515• ' , J,'I ,r R/W = RIGHT-OF-WAY ® UNDERGROUND RECLAIMED WATER MARKER m V~ a1151ERS 12' 1~ 4 ~ X27 17' ~4A - - I 0 5EC = SECTION ~ _ ® ®=UNDERGROUND RECLAIMED WATER WARNING SIGN STAIRS • • , • - • ~ ' ' SHW = SEASONAL HIGH WATER - - - SIR =SET IRON ROD 1/2" LB fi113 ~(-UNDERGROUND SANITARY SEWER MARKER -R ~ 0 1 ' • SND = SET NAIL & DISC LB 6113 ®=UNDERGROUND SANITARY SEWER WARNING SIGN SR = STATE ROAD ~ =UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE MARKER p 14 ~ ~2 . ,{4~ ~ . R•tD = ~J • k-4S I qp R S9' Rr1;8'.~ ;O,f~3, I 1a ~ S/T = SIDEWALK TlE ®=UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE WARNING SIGN N ~q ~1 ' R•05 y ' • R•2~ I 1s ',~+'e' ,e~ I 4+ f / R 4'S•~' ~ STY = STORY ~(=UNDERGROUND WATER MARKER ry N Q 0 R=3.0 1 STORY STRUCTURE ® ~ SW = SIDEWALK ' TBM =TEMPORARY BENgi MARK ®=UNDERGROUND WATER WARNING SIGN ~ = UTILITY POLE, CONCRETE h FINISHED FLOOR = 26.40. ® I 0 r' ' 4~ : (TYP) =TYPICAL ~ = UTILITY POLE, METAL Q Q 5' I a a ~ 2 I ouMPSrLR VGP = VITRIFIED CLAY PIPE Pao WF = WOOD FENCE cv~ ° VALVE, GAS ~"~1tl9' 1s' ~ I. ~5•D r 12'22'26' , . , , , N POLE o R+' Q1 Q 0 ®>R1 1{127 I 15" 14 r.' ~ •A ~ L _ q,5,5„~ PARCEL ONE ~ = uTIUTY POLE, woaD ~ 6'7'7~4. R=1.0 R=3.6 y185 f15 R=1.5 g' ¦3.5 =1,5 ~c 750' (L) ~ 15" 11 R•3.5 13 p11 1' `a ~ I 4'SSS~ ' ~ ,d W/T = WALL TIE ev ooa =VALVE, RECLAIMED- WATER ~ = TREE NUMBER. SyCoa =VALVE, SANITARY m - X16 13~ _ 14 •''d R =TREE RATING WVOoa=VALVE, WATER ~ 14 10-6' 4~{p4' R•4.0 I C J 24 16~ 17 , O O ~ 128 ~=15 13' I o I~ / ~ ~ R=35 t3 ' + 25,25 =POINT OF ELEVATION ~ J 25' ~ ~ ~ 1 STORY ~ ' ~ 25,2' =DIMENSION FROM BUILDING TD ®24' a STRUCTURE ' ,5.5r 1D' ' ~ I FNISHED `•~~4 111' '3, • - BOUNDARY./ RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE 4 - • 4R-~a 0 ' STORM CURB INLETS ~ = CONCRETE • / kt Y 12' R=3.o M' ~ Q ~ ~ ~ 0 =ASPHALT ~ tD =CONCRETE PAVERS M ~ ~ , ®=BRICK = TOP OF BANK ` =TOE OF SLOPE or CENTER LINE OF DITCH ~ ST uc u P CEI 0 o vry 8~® 12' R T RE V ~1 P CEL TWO r• = 6' CHAIN LINK FENCE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED -,SS`~54'- =OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES m ~ rr-- , R•20 ~ t; ~ FNISHED o ~ I ~I' ® p B ~ i 13' R•20 ~ - -fr - - -G- - =APPROXIMATE LOCATION. OF UNDERGROUND GAS LINE o W 0 14' a ®I p r ~ ° I - -Y4 - - HIV- - =APPROXIMATE LOCA110N OF UNDERGROUND WATER UNE 0 ~ 141n R•25 1 - f - - -f- - =APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND FORCEMAIN , _ _ JD Lt 1a^a' ~ 0 ® - - - 630,00' 5"5'4'4" / p•® - s „ - -R. - - -R- - =APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND RECLAIMED WATER UNE - - - - - - - - - -}Q"-PV£- - - =APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND SANITARY SEWER UNE G , ®8, 015 ' • s - ~4~RC~ - =APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND STORM SEWER UNE 7-5' 17 O ~ K 1'4 v ~.e :f' r' 13" ~ - - - - - M' TREE LEGEND t4 _ / Q' ~ h ' ' ~ ®=BAY TREE , PARCEL THR ~ ' : , Q I 16' 4 ~ ® nom, • I ' BOTTLE BRUSH TREE • d te' N I ~ °''r ~e =CAMPHOR TREE M ` T A I / .a . ~ B'8 10'8' - - ~ I ®=CEDAR ~ e' m " 6® ~o =CHINABERRY TREE ---------i--- PARCEL _ U CITRUS TREE ° 1 ,4' ~e' 'q Q = CYPRESS TREE 0 ®47 s 1r a ®7r ~ Q=ELM TREE ~1B~ ' j ®28~ , 010 10'13' e 630.00 ' - ~ ~ " ~ 1 0 =EUCALYPTUS TREE ' ®=MAGNOLIA TREE i ~a~ O ®=MAPLE TREE t2' 1 STORY I 9" ta" 1d' STRUCTURE / I •°,''I ®=MULBERRY TREE INISHED FLOOR to 9'B'd ; • ~ _ f~ oAK TREE DRIGINA[. ' y - 2 e. , OTHER SPECIES RECEIVFh' { • ~ ® =PALM TREE 1IDIN i3 SN~D t 1 STORY STRUCTURE ~ 'e' ®=PECAN TREE ~ ~ 2~~~1 . ^ ® I - -FINISHED-FLOOR-= 380 - - - PERSIMMON TREE `a V ` . m ~ ®=PINE TREE PL,~NNING DEPAft'iMENT I • ' ~ SYCAMORE TREE CITY OF GLE~,RVJATER ' ff••O V Q =WAX MYRTLE TREE ' . 12' ~ 3'3$'B' r ® 4 ' a ®=WILLOW TREE 0 t 'a ' . I - • Y ' I.~. • •4 a ' , ` (G) GONE Y • 1 '4'.~ 'K 4'f 18' ® ~ 30 15 0 30 e' 14 ~ , ' ' ' BASED ON BOEN'S TREE SERVICE INVENTORY REPORT FOR • ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~•0,~ ~ 312-404 NORTH OSCEOLA AVENUE r- --------------~8• • PROJECT: '•a~ ®24 ®14 n . - • d•• 14. SCALE:1 =30 0 , I 20' ; d OSCEOLA AVENUE ,4• 4 _-------a-__Q~•J~ ®6• 14 4® ~a,~ TYPE OF SURVEY: v ~ - - ~ ~ • TREE EXHIBIT - 312-404 NORTH OSCEOLA AVENUE 0 , PREPARED FOR: i ~ Q TRIANGLE DEVELOPMENT, COMPANY, LLC i ~ i j S - - i i L ASSOCIATES INC. . • ~ PROFESSIONAL SURVEYING LB 6113 ® 2915 S.R. 590 SUITE 17 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33759 (727) 669-0522 08/04/05 )8/04/05 1 REVISE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS, ADD PARCEL 5, REVIEW TITLE POLICIES CHECKED BY. SCALE: DRAWN BY, JOB NO. DRAWING PATH: SHEET DAIL__j NU DATE NUMBER REVISIONS BY JOD 1" =30' GRM/MEP 02-3324 IH.\JN\3324\dwg\treeexhibit3l2-404.lwg OF 2