The URL can be used to link to this page

LUZ2008-05001~.-.• CITY OF CLEARW~'ER APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (INCLUDING FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT) PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENiJE, 2"d FLOOR PHONE (727) 562-4567 FAX (727) 562-4576 APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNERS, AND AGENT INFORMATION: APPLICANT NAME: 6/l~w+7 O!G /~/C, MAILING ADDRESS: IB~G NoQTn/FRAN11[/N '~ PHONE NUMBER: ~8i3) 7y0 ^ 8 yLZ FAX NUMBER: PROPERTY OWNERS: 4'lAN7 O/G //~lC, Fa. 33Go z (List all owners) AGENT NAME: AEG .fE,e//~E'S l~~. MAILING ADDRESS: fG/G /•~L4JOaI 1/av0t LANE TA~yP,d fG, 33G PHONE NUMBER: lBt3,~ 68y /13'Y FAX NUMBER: 9S/o ~ lfG /7 G8l = ZGGo CV SITE INFORMATION: LOCATION: SOVT.*S~~vr' !!~ Gvtr~ To /31l/J'st/G~.•~3GTt/~~fBA~~EwRVl,~~ ME+400s..ft.4.t~t' 04N~' STREET ADDRESS: 300 9 ~ii!!L~-' To B/~y ,~Lr/O, A.~+y 9ovo /°,~e,~'is ABy~'h~vt T 7Jvr_ SOV>.i/ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 'f~ Jd/~r//FY PARCEL NUMBER:/b-~~lG-B~•291'"00$~0/30~ !6•Z~/G-S3E7Q2^pd3"CiolO /6^Z9~/L^S389C•~iv3-aeZo SIZE OF SITE: O • q3 ~1i GeEs FUTURE LAND USE Co~M~RelAt CENXKq~C~.~~ CLASSIFICATION: PRESENT: OffrprC,-rrgc dRBA.1(R~) REQUESTED: CoMnCtcuAC. lJ0't•G~(f~or?r/ppd `CnI~ Corr.+lt'itetgc~C)LOIJMCDIr/A COMiy~,ta~q{(r)~PC~1>'IM+s 20~r~-S ZONING CLASSIFICATION: PRESENTOr~Sr7YZf.StptrTrrte.(~MO>14~ REQUESTED:An't!1=+/OMC'JTF'ac 6wtr~RPltiyC•tTi~f) PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT: ~ ~p (use additional paper if necessary) I (We), the undersigned, acknowledge that all representations made in this application are true and accurate to the best of my/(our) knowledge. 6 Signature ofpr eriy owner or re resentative Signature of property owner or representative STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY Q~ PINELLAS Sworn to a ,di s~d before me this ;`~`' day of A.D., 't~~ to me by ,who is personally known has produced ~- as identification. ~' ~ ~ /1~ Notary public, my commission Expires 11/26/2010 Florida Notary Assn., InC F~ Z w ~ w O ~a ~N~ jwQ~Q ~ > W o~ w U ZOO ~ Uli ~1 '~ ~ ~ _ ~,~~M~ .._,~. , ~ ,~ t ~: .. ` ~=~ ~~ r `_ ~ ~n ~ ,' ~ ~ ~.~ i" F~ . r,,s..+ . .,,,~.~ s ~C5'ire3LC - ~}t4S.?851; - .~. .,4 i " ,{ ~ (D l YLQiCit~'" AEC SERVICES, INC. Engineering, Construction, Construction Management Ron Fair, PE. 1616 Allison Woods Lane Tampa, FL 33619 Office:813-684-1234 Fax: 813-684-2660 Mobile: 813-918-0930 Email: rfair@aecservicesinc,com ~S~"' i CITY OF CLEAR n-- - ~~'~ ~ AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHO ' ~M y = ~ PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVI~ A r~ 9~'ATE ~`~' MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MY FL'dIIIZ' PHONE (727)-562-9567 FAX (7$'~) (.riFi'~ 4/ANr on. /,ue, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT (Name of all property owners) ~ ~ Tr~E-~ CITY OF CLEARWATER 1. That (I am/we are) the owner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property: X009 ~tlLF Tb 8AY 8~yr~. ~PAIZC~C rlo. It--zg-tG• os~ 9z- o0~•ol7o)S Two Vpcq~>• PrliRc~c s If~3iyTli~J~ r TrNE SouTt/~PArte~c c?o~~ l6•Zq-lG-SS$4t-aof•oelo ~ !G•24•~`-S'~ggt•oo3•oazo (Address or General Location) 2. That this property constitutes the property for which a request for a: F~ TdRIE two us ~ MqP rlM Ea pM,E,yr Fqo o+ clow,,o ~'xt~x c GE~,t~s slc ~cti) ~ RF.s lv~yTir~c U ~ ifJA~J ~Rv~ To GbmMi`'ica<~c K~i~~~Boxaoo+o ~~M~ (Nature of request) 3. That the undersigned (has/have) appointed and (does/do) appoint AE[ Si~Vlc~s /,~. ~~ /GiG Au_rsed klaovs 6~Q~, TA.~R fem. 33Grp as (his/their) agent(s) to execute any petitions or other documents necessary to affect such petition; 4. That this affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act on the above described property; 5. That (I/we), the undersigned authority, he STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS foregoing is true and correct. Property Owner ~~1 ~--1 efore me the undersi ned, an officer duly commissioned by the laws of the State of Florida, on this r~~ day of personally appeared who having been first duly sworn deposes a d says that he/s a ully understands the contents of the affidavit that he/she signed. My Commission Expires: ~, ~ 1 `~ { ~ (v ~~„~~~~~~~~~~~~ l EI .•~~r- ?,£ S: application forms/development review/Affidavit to Authorize Agent ~?,~ ~e ~~iaw~'o Notary Public FISHER Comm# DD0617091 °- i Expires 11/26/2010 Florida Notary Assn., Inc t, - , Pinellas County Property Appraiser PO Box 1957 Clearwater, FL 33757-1957 Phone: 727-464-3282 Fax: 727-464-3448 PARCEL COMBINATION /GROUPING REQUEST FORM Step 1 ___._ . . 16-29-16-05292-008-0130 ~~ ''' PROPERTYI 3009 GULF TO BAY BOULEVARD PARCEL 'ADDRESS - 16-29-16-53892-003-0010 ~ ~CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 34619 16-29-16-53892-003-0020 ^ Check here H more than three parcel numbers, and attach addkional list (Provide multiple site addresses if assigned, indicating main property addressesT , Step 2 _. Reason for combination! ; TO RECIEVE ONE TAX BILL grouping request: ~ Do any of the parcels have homestead exemption? . Yes:, ~ ; No ~; If yes, which parcel(s)? I~ Is any portion of property rented? Yes ~ No'r;~ If yes, explain: ~ ~~ ,.:. ~ _,. i- .._.... _... _ Step 3 Notification • Title to parcels/units must be in same ownership and tenancy status of record, and all current and delinquent taxes due must be paid prior to combination/ grouping. • If one parcel is currently receiving homestead exemption, new lands must be contiguous and will be combined with the homestead pazcel at market value. Commercial property may not be combined/grouped with homestead property. • The Property Appraiser may request a homestead affidavit be filed if pazcel(s) have two or more dweliings/living units. Condominium units must be physically joining. Each parcel shall be in same tax district. • The Property Appraiser reserves the right to investigate and inspect the premises to confirm its status as a single property living unit. Once the requested information has been provided to our office it will be subject to review. Owner acknowledges conditions of combination/grouping and includes acknowledgement with combination/grouping request. Meeting the above conditions does not imply approval of combinations/groupings. Step 4 " Curtent owner(s) of record or their ettomey (with a power of attorney) must sign request. ; :: "~''~" Signature: y ~ ~ c Date: ~~_~~ - _ <~ Print BASEM ALI / PRESIDENT, OWNER ~( Name/Title ~ ~` ~!~ ~ ~ Phone No: f (813) 740-0422 LR ll/06 Map Output ~ ~ Page 1 of 1 FLUM East Lake Palm Harbor Oldsmar Dunedin Safety Harbor Clearwater 4 Belleair 4 I Belleair Beach Largo Feather Sound CLEVELAND ST Harbor Bluffs RM ~ ® RU Legend w CHERRY LN JOHNS PKWY Streets I d „~ ~ ~ C ~ RIOL p w ~ Parcels ~ *~ z s , Future land Use <, RFH ~ ~ ~ o -DOWNING Sr R~ RLM ' ° Ytii ~ ~~~; ' ~ ~ m ~ z rl-T1T w 111118 J R3 ~ RL ~'u`° " ~ ' r- CG L I I I I I W J LI F- `u ~ _~_`" ~ ~~ ... ,. . RLM ' RM _.. n .._ 1 - r .. _ __ .. --- __ _~ GULF-TO-BAY BLVD - ---~ - ' " QQ a6 GULF-TO-BAY BLVD ^ RH ~ ~ RIOI ( ~•i r ~ ROGERS ST ---~ ~~ ~'' ~ R'~''R •y RL !G''~~ ' ~ P ^ RFH Y N CN SOUTH AYE ~ CL r ~-.. ~ j„ -' m -` I ~ CG --- ~ ~' IL ~ q ~ WATER N ^ p 8103 INS T1U w~TCR CBD CRD Pinellas County Cities Pinellas County http://msb-gis-int/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=OVMap&ClientVersio... 2/27/2009 9~ F LR 2918 292A 2928 rTD eAY--- e . D~L _--- ~D~x r ~,r~_ - -- ---. _. ' 4- _ ~ _ 1 fol ~ OS I~ - ; ~ 1 ` t '~ ~, ~ , ~ ( - ._. O Prepared by: 1 hls!n , , I ~ 1 I ~ ~ I ~ t I xl cw, ..- ~ Engineering Department I " ~ !- - -l ^ ` 1 ~ I t- - J n Geographic TechnobgY Division ' ~ gym. Q (t~ •` y ~ ~ n.c r ~ 7q0 5. Myrtle Ave, Ckerwater, FL 7J758 ' I`'~ ~ ' ~~ ~ 1 ' ~ O X Ph: 17171582-476a, Fax: 1727152&4755 ' ' vrMVr.MYClearwater.com i a I ~ / t I l d ~ ~~ I ~' ~ - = vv t I . { j ~ I ~-' I ~ ~ ~t ner O W n aeMhdmlened e me cMorcbe,were. v en nr u ` , , ~ r l L ~ ` r . ~ } ~ . omn e c r Erplnwrhp paperarpn[end muatb e«epled entlasW rwd ~ N ~ ~m a s ~. ~'' 4 \ ~ ~ I I ~ ~ I ~ ..a dba n ro.ma wmoss we np'na.aNMe n ~ z , , l7 \n ~ ` ~ ` ' ! t ~ I ~ rc.<mrcdre mwnrorv ae.«n. m. cpacbemarerme.a. na,.anb,..xoreee.d a mpretl aaaamRV do o«urecr O r 1` ~TjaD~• O. • _ .n ` \ t~ A ii ~ ^ J wmabrereM. rvx.der. w.u.aeeMormp dare ror enr ~ ~ ~ ) :.• ( ` "L I ._., --.-... NherOerevbro ~FwrMmare. as ChdCbemaler dY nMkmwraaeocbRtl Wm lb u¢e or ~ \ lY \ ~ t ~ ~ m Mauee OrauM ` \ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~~ a ~~ j ~ , 1 inch equals 200 feet ~' ~ ~, zoo foo o zoo O `ms ~~ , . Feet p rw.a= ~~ a Le~C end ~~ ~ i `~ - ~ Q 5 ,e X City Owned Property ire n.. g ' Agreement to Annex ~ ~ rv. ' ~ ~ ,zu, SUB NUMBER (' - Refer to Plal) h ~ _ ~. - ~~ ~.:- ~:~ BLOCK NUMBER O In o ~:; - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ O SUB PARCEL NUMBER M . ~~ u.oz PARCEL NUMBER (M6B) ' - "--"~...., LAND HOOK (COMMON OWNERSHIP) - TAMPA BAY ~ ~/ PLATTED SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY ~ _ - - " - ~ i Q COUNTY HIGHWAY .. '. ~. ~ - _ ~.. I '.'. ~ STATE HIGHWAY : ~~ ~ U.S. HIGHWAY ~ -~- __ Outside City of Clearwater ' ~ ~ ~-. ~ ~ RESIDENTIAL g51nICT5 ' ~ ' LDR -Law 0.napyRnbwlbl ,. IMOR -LOW M.tlium 0.naW Rnidwlbl MDR •Medbm DenaiN RaaMeMhl MHDR •MMbm HbM1 OanWy ReaNeMbl NDR -N9M1 Daway ReaMaNbl . - MIO MoEM MOmaPN CRNCOD-Coachnan RNee NVipM1bdgod COnwrvalbn o m m - I .. v orel IENCOD -IabM Eabera Naipl,b,lnad COnwmlbn .. Ova,by DNllcl . ~ 1 I SvEpll USE gaTRiC15 COMMERCML dSTRICTa . . .. ::~ ~ .. I ~ ~; , IRT .I,dnebl R.nW, mtli~rNabg~ O-OF I •InatitMUb,nl T-TOUrbm . ~ - DSIR •ORer. SpaaNRSCmMbnN C-Pommambl ..:: R -Rawrv4bnMw D-Dawnlown ~ ~ ' .:. Zoning Atlas -- - - - - - - - - -- - - _ Jun 12. 2007 301 A ~~ Map Output • ~ Page 1 of 1 ZONING East Lake Palm Harbor Oldsmar Dunedin Safety Harbor CLEVELAND 5T LMDR MDR Clearwater ~ W CHERRY LN JOHNS PKWY ~ Belleair 8elleair Beach Largo F th S d Q O ea er oun Harbor Bluffs W 2 ~ ~ F MHf' T ~ g o° DOYVNING ST Legend streets ~ ~. ~= Parcels o ~ _;.. I _ ._ __ ~ 8 ~ ~ Zanir-g I~-IT_11 i i ~ -~- --1 "~ c.~ -= ~W DR o _ _. u r _~ CMa~ V~r ~ _ _ ,;: ,.. ~ } - ~ u~DR ` C ~m NDR r,ULF n-BAY BLVD --~-- I ~ GULF•TO-BAY BLVD ~ M~IDR ~~ ~ OJR ~ NDR ` O MIIP HDR ROGERS ST 4~,r ' ^ T ,. . .. G ~ ~ 'S y ^ C ~_ SOUTH AVE N ~ D - _ P ~ ~ ^ iRT ~~ O ~ ~~ P F : D ~ wanly 0~0.06mi - Pinellas County Cities Pinellas County http://msb-gis-int/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=OVMap&ClientVersio... 2/27/2009 Map Output • • Page 1 o f 1 FLUM East Lake Palm Harbor Oldsmar Dunedin Safety Harbor Clea rwate r _ j 1 1 ~ +'i:~='" =#" I~""I I I-"'I Belleair 8 ll i B h .., ~ ~•~"' R~OL - C -~9 4 m ~:.o ~ ~ ~ e ea r eao Harbor Bluffs rgn FeatherSnund 1 D ;•` ," m ~~ ~ ~ m RLM _ RFH ~ ~Q J - Trv ~~~ Legend Streets l P - D arce s a m "` , - .. ~ ~ , :: ~ d ~ Future Land Use f CG ~ ' a ',~'~ ~ r RC - -- GULF-`O~E3.^~r' 6LYL .~ .._. r i GULF TO BAY BLVD m --- - - ~ ' ~ RS _ z ~ +~ o RH , _ ROGERS ST } RU t RlOS '~~ ..y'~ 1 RU .~ RLM "'~ ~l~ ~ n ;~ n I?~,• 3 , RL .. ~ f G4 ~ ~" ~ RM ~HORNTON RD SOUTH AVE y ^ R/I t ~ L fi R10L )S~ :e'k~ Rh4 I RIOG Yf . R.'Q'R '\~ ^ RFII K ~A , ~('~ CL V,\ T WATER ~ Cc; .-'~ iL !G P R.+OS S ~N ® T;U riATCR CDD CRD Pinellas County Cities Pinellas County http://msb-gis-int/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=O V Map&ClientV ersio... 3/ 10/2009 Map Output • ~ Page 1 of 1 ZONING East Lake Palm Harbor Qldsmar dunedin IU Safety Harbor O Y ~ ~ O ~~ -Y Clearwater ~ ~ m ~ MFIP T LMD R . g ~ Belleau B ll u B h o -I x ~ o ~ e ea eac ~rg° Feather Sound Harbor BlutTs _ A _ G qm .~ - d ~" w Legend . ; Claus rULF 'O BAY 'a Streets - - BLVD m C ,, GULF-~Q~IBA'r' BL4'C - - - - _ ~ Parcels n t O5lR Zoning J C z o w I ~ -t' z . HbR ~"~ _ ROGERS ST y ~ ~ ~ LDR j ~ A ~ -. THORNT[1N FiC sr~uTH nvE !> f GR ~~ ~ LMDR ~ MDR MHDR r ~~ ~ MHDR _ ~__ - I` 1 ~ ^ HDR MDR { D MfIP - . T ^ C D P~ilgP ~ o ^~ . ART ~`, - OS'R ' ® ^ D P I _I county 0~0.06mi Pinellas County Cities Pinellas County http://msb-gis-int/servlet/com.esri.esrimap. Esrimap?ServiceName=OV Map&ClientV ersio... 3/ 10/2009 CITY OF CLEARWATER S~~"~ ,~, APPLICATION FOR '_~~~ a COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 9 m ~ (INCLUDING FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT) q~q ~' PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, 2"d FLOOR PHONE (727) 562-4567 FAX (727) 562-4576 APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNERS, AND AGENT INFORMATION: APPLICANT NAME: Giant OII, InC. MAILING ADDRESS:. 1806 North Franklin Street, Tam PHONE NUMBER: (813) 740-0422 PROPERTY OWNERS: Glant OII. InC. (List all owners) AGENT NAME: Engelhardt, Hammer ~ Assoc., Inc. FL~33602 FAX NUMBER: (813) 740-0617 MAILING ADDRESS: 3001 I~,~,~Cttq'Pai'ta'n Drlve E., Ste. 300, Tampa, FL 33607 »- PHONE NUMBER: (~,8'), 282-.38SrJ . FAX NUMBER: (813) 286-2308 SITE INFORMATION: LOCATION: South side of Gulf to Bay Blvd., between Bayview Ave. and Meadowlark Lane sTREET ADDRESS: 3009 Gulf to Bay Blvd. and two vacant parcels abutting to the south. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See EXhlblt "A" attached. PARCEL NunnBER: 16/29/16/Og292/003/0130, 16/29/16/53892/003/0020 8 16/29/16/53892/003/0010 SIZE OF SITE: 0.93 AC FUTURE LAND USE Commercial General (CG) Sc CLASSIFICATION: PRESENT: ReSldentlal Urban (RU) REQUESTED: COmmercial NeighborhOOd (CN) Commercial (C) 8r Low Medium Commercial (C) (Pending Zoning ZONING CLASSIFICATION: PRESEN?DenSlty R@Sldentlal (LMDR) REQUESTED: Amendment for LMDR progertleS) PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT: NA (use additional paper if necessary) I (We), the undersigned, acknowledge that all representations made in this application are true and accurate to the best of my/(our) knowledge. . owner or representative Signature of property owner or representative STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF P~NELLAS Sworn to ands bscrabed before me this ~v day of ~~~L , A.D.i1'~3..70L1~ to me by _ A5e/y!__ Li ,who is personally known has produced as identification. _._._~ Notary public, my commission expire:' ` Notary Public - State of Florida y Commission Expires Oct 31,2009 Commission # 00 473720 Bonded BY National Notary Assn. CITY OF CLEARWATER ~l~ a AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHORIZE AGENT 9 -~- oQ PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATION w ~~' MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING. 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, 2'~ FLOOR PHONE (727)-562-9567 FAX (727) 562-4576 Giant Oil, Inc. (Name of all properly owners) 1. That (I am/we are) the owner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property: Vacant properties south of Gulf to Bay Blvd., between Meadowlark Lane and Bayview Ave. Parcel Nos. 16/29/16/53892/003/0010 S 16/29/16/53892/003/0020 (Address or General Location) 2. That this property constitutes the property for which a request fora: Rezoning from Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) to Commercial (C). (Nature of request) 3. That the undersigned (has/have) appointed and (does/do) appoint Engelhardt, Hammer 8 Assoc., Inc. as (his/their) agent(s) to execute any petitions or other documents necessary to affect such petition; 4. That this affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act on the above described property; 5. That (I/we), the undersigned authority, hereby certify oregoing is true and correct. Pro rq~ Owne Property Owner STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS fore me the undersigned, an officer duly commissioned byt~g laws of the ,~/r!i , ~10Q~' personally appeared ~jftS~~ /r poses and says that he/she fully understands the contents of the affidavit My Commission Expires: S: application forms/development of Florida, on this ~ day of -~'-~, who having been first duly sworn that he/she ,..~~~~~~~. Str aV~ ~ PATRICIA E. CARRANO i ,' 4 , ?~' ~ : ry Nota Public - State of Florida - • . •My Commission Expires Oct 31, 2009 'N" .; ie' „~~~~~~" ~ ~~on # DO 473720 A t3onded y National Notary Assn. Notary Public • w CITY OF CLEARWATER APPLICATION FOR ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, 2"a FLOOR PHONE (727) 562-4567 FAX (727) 562-4576 APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNERS, AND AGENT INFORMATION: APPLICANT NAME: Giant Oil, Inc. Jason Grundy MAILING ADDRESS: 1806 North Franklin Street, Tampa, FL 33602 PHONE NUMBER: (813) 740-0422 PROPERTY OWNERS: Giant OII, Inc. (List all owners) AGENT NAME: Engelhardt, Hammer 8c Assoc., Inc. FAX NUMBER: (813) 740-0617 MAILING ADDRESS: 3001 N. Rocky Point Dr. E., Ste. 300, Tampa, FL 33607 PHONE NUMBER: (813) 282-3855 FAX NUMBER: (813) 286-2308 SITE INFORMATION: West side of Meadowlark Lane, south of Gulf to Bay Blvd. 8 east side of Bay LocaTION: View Ave., south of Gulf to Bay Blvd. STREET ADDRESS: Vacant LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See EXhlbit ~~A" attached. PARCEL NUMBER: 16/29/16/53892/003/0010 ~ 16129/16/53892/003/0020 ExisTING zoNING: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) PROPOSED ZONING: COmmerClal (C) LAND USE PLAN cLASSIFICarioN: Residential Urban (RU) (Pending Future Land Use Map Amendment to CN) SIZE OF SITE: 0.62 REASON FOR REQUEST: FOr redevelopment Of Service StatlOn USe. I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all representations made in this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. f _ _ Signature of operty owner or representative STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINEL~~°--S Sw n to and subscribed before me this o,~~ day of ,~/ , A.D., ~ ~ and/or by r9sem / ,who is personally Notary public, my commisY PATRICIA E. CARRANO Notary Public - State of Fbrida Page 1 of Canmtsafon # QO 473720 Wed BY National Notan As ,~ w ~ CITY OF CLEARWATER ~'- a AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHORIZE AGENT y =. ~Q PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATION MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, 2nd FLOOR PHONE (727)-562-9567 FAX (727) 562-4576 Giant Oil, Inc. (Name of all property owners) 1. That (I am/we are) the owner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property: 3009 Gulf to Bay Blvd. (Parcel No. 16/29/161052.92/003/0130) 8~ two vacant parcels abutting to the south (Parcel Nos. 16/29/16/53892/003/0020 ~ 16/29/16/53892/003/0010). (Address or General Location) 2. That this property constitutes the property for which a request fora: Future Land Use Map Amendment from Commercial General (CG) 8 Residential Urban (RU) to Commercial Neighborhood (CN). (Nature of request) 3. That the undersigned (has/have) appointed and (does/do) appoint Engelhardt, Hammer ~ Assoc., Inc. as (his/their) agent(s) to execute any petitions or other documents necessary to affect such petition; 4. That this affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act on the above described property; 5. That (I/we), the undersigned authority, hereby certi~+~ai~ie foregoing is true and correct. ~~ ? Properly Owner STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS efore me the undersigned, an officer duly commissioned the laws of/ the State of Florida, on this ~~ day of ,~/ L , ~OG~ personally appeared ~~ean ~(,~I ~---.~ who having been fi t duly sworn eposes and says that he/she fully understands the contents of the affid+~vit that he/she`signed. ~~~ ` My Commission Expires: / /\ Notary / ( ,,,,,~~„ PATRICIA E. CARRANO ,( 0.Y PVB4 P S: application forms/devel r~t~° `''~ aNota Public -State of Florida ,'y'~or~lr~l~~8i 71~>fOct 31, 2009 ;,, Commission # DD 473720 "'~~ °~~~ ~~~' Bonded By National Notary Assn. Engineering, Construction, Construction Management George Padilla Sales 1616 Allison Woods Lane Tampa, FL 33619 Office; 813-684-1234 Fax; 813-684-2660 Mobile; 813-918-093~~ Email: gpadil la@aecservicesi nc. com AEC SERVICES, INC. w. r s``~"~ CITY OF CLEARWATER ,~ ~~ ~''I' ¢ PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~' = 9'~ ~ v~~ MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, 2nd FLOOR ~fiArE ~ PHONE (727)-562-4567 FAX (727) 562-4576 INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR APPLICATIONS FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS ((INCLUDING FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT) Please submit 15 copies of the attached Application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the following supplemental information: A legal description of the property. If the property is not a platted lot of record, a current boundary survey prepared, signed and sealed by a land surveyor currently registered in the State of Florida. '! Proof of ownership, including a copy of the deed, title insurance policy, or other instrument demonstrating ownership. V Names of all persons or corporations having a contractual interest in the property. An assessment of the impacts of the proposed change on the adequacy of public facilities, the environment, community character and the fiscal condition of the City Information that demonstrates that the proposed amendment complies with the following standards: 1. The proposed amendment furthers implementation of the Comprehensive Plan consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the Plan. 2. The amendment is not inconsistent with other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The available uses to which the property may be put are appropriate to the property in question and compatible with existing and planned uses in the area. 4. Sufficient public facilities are available to serve the property. 5. The amendment will not adversely affect the natural environment. 6. The amendment will not adversely impact the use of property in the immediate area. Attendance at Public Hearings The applicant or applicant's representative should be present at both the Community Development Board and City Commission public hearings. • w City of Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment Giant Oil, Inc. 3009 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Date Filed: May 2, 2008 Prepared by: Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. 3001 N. Rocky Point Drive East, Suite 300 Tampa, Florida 33607 813.282.3855 office 813.286.2308 facsimile TABLE OF CONTENTS • TAB • Application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment 1 • Affidavit to Authorize Agent 2 • Legal Description 3 • Proof of .Ownership -Copy of Deed 4 • Corporation Details -Florida Department of State 5 • Summary of Site Characteristics and Site Description 6 • Assessment of Impacts 7 • Compliance with Application Standards 8 • Exhibits 9 A. Location Map B. Survey of Subject Property C. Aerial Photograph D. Existing Future Land Use Map E. Existing Zoning Map F. Proposed Future Land Use Map G. State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection Notice • Appendix A -Traffic Analysis (Lincks & Associates, Inc.) 10 r • COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICATION STANDARDS The subject property consists of approximately 0.93 acres and includes an existing service station at 3009 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (northern portion of property) and two (2) adjacent vacant properties to the south. The Department of Environmental protection and the State of Florida, under Chapter 62-761 of the Florida Administrative Code, require that, "pollutant storage tanks and small diameter piping protected from corrosion shall be upgraded with secondary containment by December 31, 2009." The Applicant intends to redevelop their entire property to come into compliance with both State and local regulations. The existing comprehensive plan future land use designation for the portion of the property currently occupied by the existing gas station and convenience store is Commercial General (CG), while the two vacant properties located to the south are designated Residential Urban (RU). The Property Owner/Applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the transitional land use designation of Commercial Neighborhood (CN) in conjunction with a Zoning Atlas Amendment of the two vacant parcels to Commercial (C). The Applicant requests this Comprehensive Plan Amendment to be consistent with the service station use and to be compatible with the proposed zoning designation. The proposed future land use map amendment to Commercial is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and is compatible and complementary with the existing and redeveloping character of the Gulf to Bay Boulevard corridor and the surrounding uses. Standards for Review 1. The proposed amendment furthers implementation of the Comprehensive Plan consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the Plan. Objective 2.1 of the Comprehensive Plan places a high priority on the redevelopment of substandard areas. The existing service station on the property on Gulf to Bay Boulevard was constructed prior to the adoption of the current Comprehensive Plan and development standards. The subject property on the undeveloped portion of Meadowlark Lane has been vacant since November of 2000. The subject property on South Bayview Avenue has been vacant since July of 1995. The Commercial Neighborhood (CN) designation would allow for the redevelopment of the subject site while providing a commercial use that is important to the economic viability of the community. Policy 3.2.1 stipulates that individual zoning districts will not exceed the maximum allowable intensity of the plan category. A concurrent zoning atlas amendment has been filed and will be reviewed concurrent with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment application. The proposed comprehensive plan amendment for these properties will be consistent with the proposed zoning atlas amendment and subsequent review of the comprehensive infill redevelopment project application. • r 2. The amendment is not inconsistent with other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment is not inconsistent with other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. To receive a Development Order, the proposed development will be compliant with all applicable regulations. 3. The available uses to which the property may be put are appropriate to the property in question and compatible with existing and planned uses in the area. The existing service station has been in this location for many years and is an allowable use within the Commercial Neighborhood land use designation. The Applicant intends to continue this use as part of the redevelopment of the subject property. The uses allowed within the Commercial land use designation are those which are appropriately located along major components of the City's roadway network and are compatible with existing and proposed uses along this corridor. Proper landscape buffering and screening measures provide for adequate transition of the proposed use, when adjacent to unlike uses. 4. Sufficient public facilities are available to serve the property. The amendment of the properties will not unreasonably burden public facilities. Objective 32.3 of the Capital Improvements Element requires the Level of Service to be reviewed during the development review process to ensure essential public facilities are not adversely affected. Because the proposed amendment will allow for the redevelopment of an existing use to a same use, additional impacts to the public facilities will be minimal. The subject property is located along an already established commercial corridor where sufficient public facilities are available. 5. The amendment will not adversely affect the natural environment. The amendment will not adversely affect the natural environment. Environmental impacts will be examined as part of the development review and construction processes. Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1.9 states that, "the effects of erosion shall be carefully controlled through local permitting and construction standards, procedures and regulations, and through the development of local and regional erosion control management programs." Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1.10 states that, "the Community Development Code shall provide for on-site drainage detention and/or retention or payment in lieu thereof for compatibility with community master drainage plans." • r 6. The amendment will not adversely impact the use of property in the immediate area. The subject automobile service station use on the property has already been a part of this area for several years; thereby the comprehensive plan amendment will pave the way for the redevelopment of this property and use in a manner that will not adversely impact the use of adjacent properties, but rather provide for the enhancement of the area. NARRATIVE/REPORT Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. (EHA) represents Giant Oil, Inc., the applicant for this Zoning Atlas Amendment request. The subject properties are located south of Gulf to Bay Boulevard, between South Bayview Avenue and an unimproved portion of Meadowlark Lane, in the City of Clearwater (Parcel Numbers: 16/29/16/53892/003/0010 and 16/29/16/53892/003/0020). The properties are approximately 0.62 acres and are currently vacant. The Department of Environmental protection and the State of Florida, under Chapter 62-761 of the Florida Administrative Code, require that, "pollutant storage tanks and small diameter piping protected from corrosion shall be upgraded with secondary containment by December 31, 2009." The Applicant intends to redevelop their properties to be compliant with both State and local requirements. The existing land use designation is Residential Urban (RU). However, the Applicant is requesting a land use amendment to the transitional designation of Commercial Neighborhood (CN) in conjunction with this rezoning. The Applicant requests rezoning from Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) to Commercial (C) to be consistent with the proposed service station use and to be compatible with the proposed land use designation. The properties are located within the Residential Urban (RU) comprehensive land use plan category of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. However, the Applicant is requesting a land use amendment to the transitional designation of Commercial Neighborhood (CN) in conjunction with this rezoning. The surrounding zoning pattern includes mostly Commercial (C), Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR), and OpenSpace/Recreation (OSR). The surrounding existing land uses include a convenience store, a service station, a park, and single family residential. The subject property on the undeveloped portion of Meadowlark Lane has been vacant since November 2000. The subject property on South Bayview Avenue has been vacant since July 1995. Commercial (C) zoning would allow the use to be brought into conformity with current development standards, including setback and buffer requirements, as found in the Community Development Code. The requested Zoning Atlas Amendment is compatible with and will complement the developing and established character of this area of Clearwater. In addition, the proposed request is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and represents an appropriate and fitting development at this location. ENGELHARDT, HAMMER & ASSOCIATES • STANDARDS FOR REVIEW 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and furthers the purposes of the Community Development Code and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan. Objective 2.1 of the Comprehensive Plan places a high priority on the redevelopment of substandard areas. The existing service station on the property to the north was constructed prior to the current Comprehensive Plan and development standards. The subject property which fronts on the unimproved portion of Meadowlark Lane has been vacant since November 2000. The subject property which fronts on South Bayview Avenue has been vacant since July 1995. Commercial (C) zoning would allow the use to be brought into conformity with current development standards, including setback and buffer requirements, as found in the Community Development Code. Policy 3.2.1 stipulates that individual zoning districts will not exceed the maximum allowable intensity of the plan category. The zoning amendment of these properties will be consistent with the proposed land use amendment and subsequent development. 2. The available uses to which the property may be put are appropriate to the property that is subject to the proposed amendment and compatible with existing and planned uses in t'he area. The existing service station (adjacent to the north of the subject properties) has been in this location since before the Applicant purchased that property and the subject properties in 1999. The Applicant intends to continue this use. There is an existing convenience store located immediately west of the subject properties on the southwest corner of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and South Bayview Avenue. There are a variety of commercial uses along this portion of the Gulf to Bay corridor. 3. The amendment does not conflict with the needs and character of the neighborhood and the City. The amendment does not conflict with the needs and character of the neighborhood and the City. The service station use is established. The improvements of that property and the subject properties, possible only by a zoning amendment, will benefit the neighborhood not only aesthetically, but also by incorporating greatly needed current setback arid buffer standards. 4. The amendment will not adversely or unreasonably affect the use of other property in the area. The other properties in the area will benefit from the improvements made on the subject properties. ENGELHARDT, HAMMER & ASSOCIATES 5. The amendment will not adversely burden public facilities, including the traffic-carrying capacities of streets, in an unreasonably or disproportionate manner. The amendment of the properties will not unreasonably burden public facilities. Objective 32.3 of the Capital Improvements Element requires the Level of Service to be reviewed during the development review process to ensure essential public facilities are not adversely affected. 6. The district boundaries are appropriately drawn with due regard to locations and classifications of streets, ownership lines, existing improvements and the natural environment. The application includes depictions conveying this information. ENGELHARDT, HAMMER & ASSOCIATES • M Summary of Site Characteristics Location: South side of Gulf to Bay Boulevard, between Meadowlark Lane and South Bayview Avenue Street Address: Geographic location: Political Jurisdiction: Property Owner/Applicant: 3009 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Clearwater, Florida 33759 Section 16, Township 29 S and Range 16 E City of Clearwater, Florida Ali Basem, President Giant Oil, Inc. 1806 North Franklin Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Owner's Agent: Engelhardt, Hammer and Associates, Inc. 3001 N. Rocky Point Drive East, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33607 813.282.3855 office 813.286.2308 facsimile Tax Parcel ID Numbers Property Size: Existing Future Land Use Proposed Future Land Use Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning: 16/29/ 16/05292/008/0130 16/29/ 16/53892/003/0010 16/29/ 16/53892/003/0020 0.93 acres (40,510.8 square feet) Commercial General (CG) Residential Urban (RU) Commercial Neighborhood (CN) Commercial (C) Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) Commercial (C) • • Site Description/Narrative The northern portion of the subject property is occupied by an existing convenience store and fueling stations, consists of approximately 0.93± acres of land and is located on the south side of Gulf to Bay Boulevard (S.R. 60) between South Bayview Avenue and Meadowlark Lane (unimproved) (Exhibits A, B and C). The site has approximately 240 linear feet of frontage on the south side of Gulf to Bay Boulevard, afour-lane principal arterial, and approximately 215 linear feet of frontage along the east side of South Bayview Avenue, a local road. According to the City of Clearwater's Comprehensive Plan, the northern portion of the property (0.313 acres) is designated Commercial General (CG), while the southern portion of the property (0.617 acres) is designated Residential Urban (RU) (Exhibit C). The properties to the south and southwest of the subject property are designated RU while the properties to the north of the subject site, across Gulf to Bay Boulevard, and west, across South Bayview Avenue, are designated CG. The property across Meadowlark Lane to the east of the subject property is designated Recreation/Open Space (R/OS). The developed portion of the subject property is zoned Commercial (C) while the vacant southern portion of the property is zoned Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) (Exhibit D). A Zoning Atlas Amendment application to rezone the LMDR property to C has been filed concurrently with this Comprehensive Plan Amendment application. The surrounding zoning pattern includes a mixture of Commercial (C), Open Space/Recreation (OS/R), Residential (LMDR) and Mobile Home Park (MHP). • ~~ Assessment of Impacts of Proposed Land Use Map Amendment The property owner/applicant has been advised by the State of Florida Department of Environment Protection (FDEP) that "regulated underground storage tanks that have been in place since July 13, 1998 are required to be upgraded with secondary containment by December 31, 2009" (Exhibit G). As a result, the subject property will have to be upgraded with secondary containment tanks and piping resulting in the overall redevelopment of the automobile service station and convenience store. Public Facilities Currently, there is a 6" water main running along South Bayview Avenue that provides potable water service to the existing facility and will continue to provide service for the proposed redeveloped use. The level of service will not be adversely affected by the redevelopment of the subject properties, as the 6" main is sufficient to service the proposed development. Concurrency review, as part of the development review process, will ensure that no adverse effects result from the proposed development. There is an 8" sanitary sewer gravity line running along South Bayview Avenue that does and will service the proposed development. The level of service will not be adversely affected by the redevelopment of the subject property as the 8" gravity line is sufficient to provide service to the proposed development. Concurrency review, as part of the development review process, will ensure that no adverse effects result from the proposed development. The segment of Gulf to Bay Boulevard between U.S. Highway 19 and Bayshore Boulevard is a six-lane undivided principal arterial, is functioning at a Level of Service "F" and has an average annual daily traffic count of 64,104 trips. The existing automobile service station currently enjoys ingress/egress driveways on Gulf to Bay Boulevard and South Bayview Avenue. For a more complete and detailed transportation-related analysis, please reference the attached Traffic Analysis, prepared by Lincks & Associates, Inc. (Appendix A) Environment The subject properties are being redeveloped to better protect the environment. The State-mandated secondary containment upgrades for the underground fuel tanks and appurtenant piping will serve to better protect the environment than the existing containment configuration. As a result of the proposed redevelopment of the entire subject property, the environment will also be better served by the addition of on-site retention, additional pervious areas, increased landscaping, and the preservation of some of the existing trees. r Community Character • The subject property is located along an extremely important and heavily travelled component of the Pinellas County/City of Clearwater roadway network (S.R. 60/Gulf to Bay Boulevard). This corridor is characterized by a mix of uses, including general and intensive commercial, neighborhood-service retail uses, restaurants, hotels/motels, automobile repair, service and gas stations, professional and business offices and medium to high density residential uses. The Gulf to Bay Boulevard corridor serves as the gateway to the Gulf Beaches, the City of Clearwater and surrounding communities, thereby, further supporting the intended commercial use of the subject property. The existing service station was built almost thirty (30) years ago and was in existence at the time the Property Owner/Applicant purchased the property in 1999. The Property Owner/Applicant intends to continue this same use as part of the upgraded redevelopment of the subject property. The surrounding land uses include a City of Clearwater public park, various retail uses, a mobile home park, a church and single family residences. The community character will not be negatively affected, but rather will be improved by redevelopment of the subject property to meet current federal, state and local development standards. The aesthetics of the subject property, including the architectural style of the proposed facility will be greatly improved. Subject to current City of Clearwater land development regulations, including buffering, screening, landscaping and building setback requirements, the proposed redevelopment of the site will provide the opportunity to present an important neighborhood and community- serving retail use which will create a transition from the heavily-used and intense Gulf to Bay Boulevard to the adjacent residential neighborhood and other surrounding areas. Fiscal Condition of the City The redeveloped and improved automobile service station will provide an increase to the local tax base. It is recognized that the City of Clearwater desires improvement of the Gulf to Bay corridor. The redevelopment of this property, resulting from the approved comprehensive plan amendment, will help to bring the City's goal closer to fruition. • • Exhibit G February 9, 2006 2009 UPGRADE DEADLINE As an owner and/or operator of a regulated underground storage tank system in the State of Florida, you and/or the company that you work for should be aware of the Department of Environmental Protection's (Department's) requirements for secondary containment. The current requirements have been in place since July 13, 1998, and are presented in Ch. 62-761, Florida Administrative Code. These requirements state that pollutant storage tanks and small diameter piping protected from corrosion shall be upgraded with secondary containment by December 31, 2009. The purpose of this correspondence is to notify you and/or the company that you work for, that based on Department records for facilities located within the Northeast District of the State, you may have pollutant storage tanks and/or small diameter piping connected to the pollutant storage tanks that are required to be upgraded with secondary containment by December 31, 2009. Enclosed please find a Department Facility Inspection Cover Page for each facility that appears to be in need of tank and/or piping upgrades by this deadline. It is recommended that you review this list and determine the upgrades that are needed for your tank systems. Further, it is highly recommended that you take steps well enough in advance of the deadline to ensure the timely upgrade of the necessary equipment. Failure to meet the Department's deadlines for upgrades is considered a significant violation and may result in the assessment of penalties in the amount of $10,000.00 per day per violation. If you believe that the tanks and piping located at the facilities on the enclosed Facility Inspection Cover Pages have already been upgraded with secondary containment, then it is recommended that you contact the local county program in your area that is responsible for inspecting your facilities, to provide them with documentation to validate your claim so that the Department's information on file for these facilities may be updated as appropriate. As a reminder, Ch. 62-761, Florida Administrative Code states that the installation of secondary containment shall be completed by the deadline specified in the rule (December 31, 2009). However, if it can be documented that the installation is initiated before December 31, 2009, then work can continue after the deadline to complete the installation, provided that all work is completed within 90 days of the initiation. of the work. Again, this correspondence is only to provide you with notification that, according to Department records, you may be responsible for the upgrade of certain tanks and/or piping at the facilities indicated on the enclosures. This correspondence is not intended to define all of the storage tank system requirements found in Ch. 62-761, Florida Administrative Code. If you have any questions regarding the Department's upgrade requirements or storage tank system requirements in general, then it is requested that you contact your local county inspector, or District Tanks Section staff at the letterhead address or at (904) 807-3300. ENGELHARDT, HAMMER & ASSOCIATES Land Planning GIS Expert Testimony May 8, 2008 Ms. Steven Everitt, Planner II City of Clearwater Planning Department PO Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 33758-4748 Re: L UZ2008-05001 Dear Mr. Everitt: With regard to the above-referenced petition and in response to the Letter of Incompleteness we received from you, dated May 7, 2008, we offer the following response: 1. The Affidavit to Authorize Agent was signed by Basem Ali, who is listed as the President for Giant Oil, Inc. on the State's Corporation Registration. The Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations registration document was included in the application (Tab 5), however, an additional copy is enclosed for your reference; 2. Please find enclosed a signed and sealed copy of the boundary and occupation survey for the subject property (copies of the survey were included in the application packages, however they were not signed and sealed); and 3. I will be the contact person for Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. I also noticed that Exhibit G, behind Tab 9, was inadvertently excluded from the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment application packages. I have attached 15 copies of Exhibit G for inclusion into the applications. I trust you will find these items in order. Should you have any questions and/or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at 813.282.3855. Respectfully submitted, ~, 4 Maxey Principal Planne Enclosures 300/ N. Rocky Point Drive East, Suite 300, Tampa, FL 33607-58/0, Telephone 813 282-3855, Fax 813186-2308 www.sunbiz.org -Department ~tate _...... Home Contact Us E-Filing Services Previous on List Next on List Return To List No Events No Name History Detail by Entity Name Florida Profit Corporation GIANT OIL, INC. Filing Information Document Number P95000053385 FEI Number 650593170 Date Filed 07/11/1995 State FL Status ACTIVE Principal Address 1806 N FRANKLIN ST TAMPA FL 33602-2234 US Changed 04/22/2008 Mailing Address 1806 N FRANKLIN ST TAMPA FL 33602-2234 US Changed 04/22/2008 Registered Agent Name & Address BASEM,AL 1806 N FRANKLIN ST TAMPA FL 33602-2234 US Name Changed: 05/01/1996 Address Changed: 04/22/2008 OfficerJDirector Detail Name & Address Title PD ALI, BASEM 1806 N FRANKLIN ST TAMPA FL 33602-2234 Annual Reports Report Year Filed Date 2006 04/20/2006 2007 04/16/2007 2008 04/22/2008 Page 1 of 2 Document Searches Forms Help Entity Name Search http://www. sunbiz.org/scripts/cordet.exe?action=DETFIL&in~doc_number=P950000533 8... 5/8/2008 L~ s~"~ CITY OF CLEARWATER ~,1, '~~ .PLANNING DEPARTMENT a o MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, 2"d FLOOR '9q~A~ ~~o~ PHONE (727)-562-4567 FAX (727) 562-4576 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR APPLICATIONS FOR ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS Please submit 15 copies of the attached Application for Zoning Atlas Amendment and the following supplemental information: _// A legal description of the property. If the property is not a platted lot of record, a current boundary survey prepared, signed and sealed by a land surveyor currently registered in the State of Florida. V/ Proof of ownership, including a copy of the deed, title insurance policy, or other instrument ` demonstrating ownership (Only 1 copy is required). _// Names of all persons or corporations having a contractual interest in the property. `~ A copy of any existing deed restrictions to which the City is a part relating to the property. ~/ Any request for a rezoning which is inconsistent with the Future Land Use designation in the Comprehensive Plan must be accompanied by an application for a Future Land Use Plan Amendment. Attendance at Public Hearings The applicant or applicant's representative should be present at both the Community Development Board and City Commission public hearings. Standard for Review All approvals of zoning atlas amendments must comply with the following standards: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and furthers the purposes of the Community Development Code and other City ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan. 2. The available uses to which the property may be put are appropriate to the property that is subject to the proposed amendment and compatible with existing and planned uses in the area. 3. The amendment does not conflict with the needs and character of the neighborhood and the City. 4. The amendment will not adversely or unreasonable affect the use of other property in the area. 5. The amendment will not adversely burden public facilities, including the traffic-carrying capacities of streets, in an unreasonably or disproportionate manner. 6. The district boundaries are appropriately drawn with due regard to locations and classifications of streets, ownership lines, existing improvements and the natural environment. Page 2 of 2 ~V/_~\ (~ 1 t , J~ l:v Skptw 5/2/2008 ~`I`• ~ Receipt #: 1200800000000003688 4:03:36PM ~p - `' Date: 05/02/2008 r Line Items: Case No Tran Code Description Revenue Account No Amount Paid LUZ2008-05001 Land Use & Atlas Amendment 001000000341263000 885.00 Line Item Total: $885.00 Payments: Method Payer Initials Check No Confirm No How Received Amount Paid Check GIANT OIL, INC R_D 013287 In Person Payment Total: THIS IS NOT A PERMIT. This is a receipt for an application for a permit. This application will be reviewed and you will be notified as to the outcome of the application. 885.00 $885.00 cReceipt.rpt Page 1 of 1 ~~~ ~~ ti ~, \~ ~O + ~ • 6 O 3 i Sy ~o o~ ox iS • I B R ~g 3 ~~ 30 ~~$ °$ I L.J s Y u~ ~o L~ E-_ E f: S ~~ 0 ~ ORDINANCE NO. 7971-08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY, TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF GULF-TO-BAY BOULEVARD BETWEEN THE INTERSECTIONS OF GULF-TO-BAY BOULEVARD AND BAYVIEW AVENUE AND GULF-TO-BAY BOULEVARD AND MEADOW LARK LANE, CONSISTING OF TRACT A, BAYVIEW CITY SUBDIVISION, WHOSE POST OFFICE ADDRESS IS 3009 GULF-TO-BAY BOULEVARD, FROM COMMERCIAL GENERAL (CG) TO COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD (CN); AND CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF GULF-TO-BAY BOULEVARD BETWEEN THE INTERSECTIONS OF GULF-TO-BAY BOULEVARD AND BAYVIEW AVENUE AND GULF-TO-BAY BOULEVARD AND MEADOW LARK LANE CONSISTING OF LOT ONE, BLOCK THREE, MCMULLEN'S BAY VIEW SUBDIVISION AND LOT TWO, BLOCK THREE, TOWN OF BAY VIEW. A/K/A MCMULLEN'S BAYVIEW SUBDIVISION, WHOSE POST OFFICE ADDRESS IS 509 BAYVIEW AVENUE, 506 AND 508 MEADOW LARK LANE AND 3015 GULF-TO-BAY BOULEVARD, FROM RESIDENTIAL URBAN (RU) TO COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD (CN); PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Q D ~~l a, WHEREAS, the amendment to the future land use plan element of the comprehensive plan of the City as set forth in this ordinance is found to be reasonable, proper and appropriate, and is consistent with the City's comprehensive. plan; now, therefore, BE IT ORDAINED,. BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA: Section 1. The future land use plan element of the comprehensive plan of the City of Clearwater is amended by designating the land use category for the hereina~r described property as follows: ,., ' Property Land Use Category ~ U See attached legal description From: Commercial General (CG) Address: 3009 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd. To: Commercial Neighborhood (CN) (LUZ2008-05001) Section 2. The future land use plan element of the comprehensive plan of the City of Clearwater is amended by designating the land use category for the hereinafter described property as follows: Ordinance No. 7971-08 sl t Property See attached legal description Addresses: 509 Bayview Ave., 506 and 508 Meadow Lark Lane, 3015 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd. LUZ2008-05001) Land Use Category From: Residential Urban (RU) To: Commercial Neighborhood (CN) Section 3. The City Council does hereby certify that this ordinance is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan. Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption, subject to the approval of the land use designation by the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners, and subject to a determination by the State of Florida, as appropriate, of compliance with the applicable requirements of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, pursuant to § 163.3189, Florida Statutes. The Community Development Coordinator is authorized to transmit to the Pinellas County Planning Council an application to amend the Countywide Plan in order to achieve consistency with the Future Land Use Plan Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan as amended by this ordinance. PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING AND ADOPTED Approved as to form: . ~!~~ Leslie K. Dougall- i s Assistant City Atto y Frank V. Hibbard Mayor Attest: Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk Ordinance No. 7971-08 LUZ2008-05001 DESCR/PT/ON.• (Per First American Tit/e Insurance Company Ti't/e Commitment No. FA-CC-42222/93537SJL) PARCEL A: Tract A, BAY VIEW C/TY SUBDIVISION, as recorded in P/ot Book 9, Page 43 of the Public Records of Pine/las County, F/orida, together with one-half of o vacated right-of-way being further described as fo/%ws: From the Northwest corner of the Southwest 1/4 of SECT/ON 16, TOWNSH/P 29 SOUTH,. RANGE 16 EAST, Pine//as County F/orida, .run N 89'45'07" E a/onq the centerline of Gu/f-To-Bay Boulevard (S.R. 60) 75.97 feet,• thence S 21'0529" E along the centerline of Boyview Avenue, 53.50 feet; thence N 89°45 07" E, 26.75 feet to the Point-of-Intersection with the South right-of-way line of Gu/f-To-Bay Bou/evard and the Eost right-of-way /ine of Boyview Avenue, said point being the PO/NT-OF-BEG/NN/NG,• thence continue N 89"45 07" E along said South right-of-way line of Gulf-To-Bay Bou/evard (S. R. 60) 250.62 feet,- thence S 21 '05 29 " E, .14.48 feet,- thence S 69'01 '11 '" W, 234.22 feet to o point on the Eost right-of-way line of Boyview Avenue, thence N 21°0529" W a/ong said .East right-of-way line, 103..20 feet to the PD/NT-OF-BEG/NN/NG.. LESS any port thereof /ying within /ands described in Officio/ Records Book 6893, Page 338 and Official Records Book 6997., Poge 1573, Public Records of Pinel/as County, Florida. PARCEL B.• Lot One (1) of Block Three (3) of McMu//en's Bay View Subidivision according to the map or plot thereof os recorded in Pub/ic Records of Pine/%s County, Florida, together with the Southerly 1/2 of the right-of- way vacated by the City of C/earwater, F/orida in Resolution 75-4 filed 1/16/75 in O!R Book 4251, Page 153, /ying to the North of and adjacent to said Lot .1, according to the P/at thereof recorded in P/at Book 6, Page 23 of the Pub/ic Records of Hi//sborough County, Florida, of which Pinel/as County was former/y a port. AND Lot 2, B/ock 3, TOWN OF BAY t/IEW, o/so known as McMul/en's Boyview Subdivision, together with the Southerly 1/2 of the right-of--way vacated by the City of C/earwater, F/orida in Reso/ution 75-4 fi/ed 1/16/75 in OR Book 4251, Poge 153, /ying to the North of and adjacent to sold Lot 2, according to the plat thereof as recorded in P/at Book 6, Page 23, of the Pub/ic Records of Hi//sborough County, F/orida of which Pinellas County was former/y a part. f~ ,, \ i .~ 2.21 c~c> 5 I H 8~ ~ ~, ~ R ~ I ~ ° ° ~ ~ ~ 1 1 - ' n 30 ~' ~' ` '' n, ` ' 323 ~°'~ I' ~ I I ' i ,r.+rwo®.waara ~~°®:°-~"°'ir°,~ ~ s CAROLINA AVE s =; s ao I I Taos I 81 1 1 I I O 1 1 I ~ I I ao~ I I 1 z, 4 ~, I ~ z~oz 1 1 2 3 1 4 5 1 Accc, 3 1 1 6 , 2 I 5 ~ 4 I Q c cc~ ~ ~ ao - -~ -. - ~ - T - - - - 4.34 .Z_--- m 3353 -1 12 111 10 1 9 l e 7 11 110 1 9 1 8 1 7~ g ~ o ~ ~ ° I I° I ° so I I i l I w ~ ~ V ~- GULF-TO-BAYBLVD $ >a ~ s ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ GULF-TO-BAYBLVD ~, ~ ~ ~ ~y„sze.,s T I~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ad ~' ~ I I ~G ~a ~ I I O 5, p ~ 5~6 -- 9 I I 50 ] I RLM I m ~ a31os ~ /'[` (J I 5,e ~ S , 5 2 1 ~l~ \ 4 ~ TRACTA I 5,1 3 O ~ O I 3 ~ ~ ~ \ I I _ ~ ~' . \ - 52 :.. * ~E€I.ALFOR~ME ION . ~:;: ~~\~r2r ._}`.. :" : ' : •::•:~:~ ~.,~Z ' . ~ " ~ \ a ROGERS ST II ~ 89824 : : . . •:. . : :, _ ::..:.::.:.::.:•:~. :,;: ' 'S~'i # ~ ` ~- ~ I 1 RU :.... ~ 3 :~;: ::~: 7 : * _~a'f~ ..:: 321 .~~ ~~¢~ . ~~~ :..::' ::.:•:•~~~~~. . I 520 ~ ~ Oj 1 m 2 \ is )`$ ~ > I RLM 10 327 n p2 ~ ~ °O O ~ 17 19 m 1 ~ \ I ~~ 3 N 109 \ ~ I I 4.81 Aclc~ \ / 1~ s ~ iR B Future Land Use Map Owners: Giant Oil, Inc. Case: , LUZ2008-0500.1.-~.,:.~~ 3009 Gulf to Bay Boulevard; Site: 3015 Gulf to Bay Boulevard & 506 and 508 Property Meadow Lark Lane; and Size(Acres): 0.90 acres 509 Bayview Avenue Land Use Zoning 16-29-16-05292-003-0130; 16 29 16 53 PIN: - - - 892-003-0010; and From : CG & RU C 8~ LMDR 16-29-16-53892-003-0020 To: CN C Atlas Page: 301 A C:\Documents and Settings\gwen.hollander\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK75\Future Land Use Map.doc Ordinance No. 7971-08 i~. ~ • ORDINANCE NO.7972-08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF THE CITY BY REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF GULF-TO-BAY BOULEVARD BETWEEN THE INTERSECTIONS OF GULF-TO-BAY BOULEVARD AND BAYVIEW AVENUE AND GULF-TO-BAY BOULEVARD AND MEADOW LARK LANE, CONSISTING LOT ONE, BLOCK THREE, MCMULLEN'S BAY VIEW SUBDIVISION AND LOT 2, BLOCK 3, TOWN OF BAY VIEW, A/K/A MCMULLEN'S BAYVIEW SUBDIVISION WHOSE POST OFFICE ADDRESS IS 3015 GULF-TO-BAY BOULEVARD, 506 AND 508 MEADOW LARK LANE AND 509 BAYVIEW AVENUE, FROM LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LMDR) TO COMMERCIAL (C); PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the amendment to the zoning atlas of the City as set forth in this ordinance is found to be reasonable, proper and appropriate, and is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; now, therefore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA: Section 1. The following described property in Clearwater, Florida, is hereby rezoned, and the zoning atlas of the City is amended as follows: Property Zoning District See attached legal description From: Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) (LUZ2008-05001) To: Commercial (C) Section 2. The City Engineer is directed to revise the zoning atlas of the City in accordance with the foregoing amendment. Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption, subject to the approval of the land use designation set forth in Ordinance 7971-08 by the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners, and subject to a determination by the State of Florida, as appropriate, of compliance with the applicable requirements of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, pursuant to §163.3189, Florida Statutes PASSED ON FIRST READING Ordinance No. 7972-08 ~. t PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING AND ADOPTED Frank V. Hibbard Mayor Approved as to form: Leslie K. Dougall- i es Assistant City Atto y Attest: Cynthia E. Goudeau City Clerk Ordinance No. 7972-08 LUZ2008-05001 DESCR/PT/ON.• (Per Firsf American Title /assurance Company Tit/e Commitmer;t No. FA-CC-42222/93537SJL) PARCEL A: Tract A, BAY ~/EW C/TY SUBDII//S/ON, os recorded in P/at Book 9, Page 43 of the Pub/ic Records of Pinellas County, F/orido, together with one-half of a vacated right-of-way being further described as fol%ws: From the Northwest corner of the Southwest 1/4 of SECT/ON 16, TOWNSH/P 29 SOUTH,. RANGE 16 EAST, Pine//as County F/orida, run N 89'45'07" E along the centerline of Gu/f-To-Boy Bou/evard (S R. 60) 75.97 feet,• thence S 21'0529" E along the centerline of Bayview Avenue, 53.50 feet; thence N 89°45 07" E, 26.75 feet to the Point-of-Intersection with the South right-of--way line of Gulf-To-Bay Bou/evard and the Eost right-of--way line of Bayview Avenue, said point being the PO/NT-OF-BEG/NN/NG,• thence continue N 89"45 07"' E along soil South right-of--way line of Gu/f-To-Boy Bou/evard (S. R. 60) 250.62 feet; thence S 21'0529" E, .14.48 feet; thence S 69'01 '11 " W, 234.22 feet to o point on the East right-of-way line of Bayview Avenue; thence N 21'0529" W o%ng said .East right-of-way line, 10.E 20 feet to the PO/NT-OF-BEG/NNING.. LESS any port thereof Eying within /ands described in Official Records Book 6893, Page 338 and Official Records Book 6997, Page 1573, Pub/ic Records of Pinel%s County, F/orida. PARCEL B.• Lot One (1) of Block Three (3) of McMu//en's Bay View Subidivision according to the map ar p/at thereof as recorded in Pub/ic Records of Pinel%s County, F/orida, together with the Souther/y 1/2 of the right-of way vacated by the City of Clearwater, F/orido in Reso/ution 75-4 filed 1/16/75 in OR Book 4251, Page 153, lying to the North of and adjacent to said Lot 1, according , to the P/at thereof recorded in P/at Book 6, Page 23 of the Public Records of Hi//sborough County, Florida, of which Pinel/as County was former/y a part. AND Lot 2, Block 3, TOWN OF BAY VIEW, also known os McMullen's Bayview Subdivision, together with the Souther/y 1/2 of the right-of-way vacated by the City of Clearwater, F/orida in Reso/ution 75-4 filed 1/16/75 in OR Book 4251, Page 153, lying to the North of and adjacent to said Lot 2, according to the p/at thereof as recorded in P/at Book 6, Page 23, of the Pub/ic Records of Hi//sborough County, F/orido of which Pinellas County was former/y a port. 7 `~ ~, 2.21 c ~c> 05 2 8 ~ Q ~1 ~ I ~~ ~ I I _ <a ° ° ° 3z3 I M I ~' I I 3 h aos t as ~ I I ~ I I 8~ I I I 407 I I - ? ~ I ti a3 1 Ac~q t I 2 1 3 14 6 ~ ~ 6 t 2 ~ 3 I 4 I 6 ~ zyoz c Ic) I- -~ 3353 1 no _ _ T -. _ ~ - 12 tt t0 1 1 I - - - /~,- I = m 4.34 I I 1 1 ~ ~ ° - 9 8 ° t 7 11 to 9 1 8 I I 7 ^ I 6 ~' ~ o I I of I n s0 / 60 GULF-TO-BAY BL VD $ ~$ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -BAY BL VD I~ rn a I ~ ~ ^ rn sesl~~zv~+e rn ~ ~ ~' a WF ~ I I n 5os ~ ~ O I ~ 1 u p 510 9 ~ 2 1 506 1,J _ ~ 83106 ~ l l 516 I I I 5 2 I t O t 4 iRACTA I I I ~ ~ \ I I I 5B ... 20 ':: ~~.;:-.:.:.~.. .~... ,:;:.: .. -'$g'~.'''',`'`:~~.'o- ~' ~.~p~ ` 0 '~~ : ~ 1 a _ ROGERS ST ~ 5 * 7-~cF E.2J.~.TF ME SIGN .. 6 : .~.~ ~ ' , ~Z ~ S ~ 49824 J ~ _ ' ~ 3 . 31 ~ 4 w o . ::$''::. :'~.;'" I 321 I t~ .. 601 3 0 3 GR :`~?. ~: ~.' fat:: ~~.': -.::;.:; :_.:, .; :~:.:. ~ . 520 ~ 1O 2 O \ ~' > 101 ~ 327 I ~ 2 n ~' ~ a O O I 17 is 102 ~ \ I svoz 3 N 109 ~' \ I ~ 4.81 A c ~c> \ \ 11 s \ TR B Zoning Map Owners: Giant Oil, Inc. Case: LUZ2008-05001 3009 Gulf to Bay Boulevard; Site: 3015 Gulf to Bay Boulevard & 506 and 508 Property Meadow Lark La ne; and Size(Acres): 0.90 acres 509 Bayview.Avenue Land Use Zoning 16-29-16-05292-003-0130; PIN: ~ b-29-16-53892-003-0010; From : CG & RU C & LMDR and 16-29-16-53892-003-0020 To: CN C Atlas Page: 301 A C:\Documents and Settings\gwen.hollander\Local SettingslTemporary Internet Files\OLK75\Zoning Map.doc Ordinance No. 7972-08 Ta • i LEGAL DESCRIPTION SIGN-OFF REQUEST CASE # : LUZ2008-05001 PLANNER: Steven Everitt ENGINEERING COMMENTS REGARDING ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 1.~~ ~ 9 ~tc~ 1~~ ~~~ ~ 6/0~- f ~~ INITIALS BY REVIEWER: TO LEGAL: DATE: ~/ (l~ City of Clearwater Public Works - Engineerin oduction S:\Planning Department\C D BUand Use Amendments\LUZ 2008\LUZ2008-05001 - 3009 Gulf to Bay Blvd -Giant Oil, IncUvlaps\L.egal Description Sign Off Sheet.doc • • LEGAL DESCRIPTION Parcel No.: 16-29-16-05292-008-0130 Tract A, BAY VIEW CITY SUBDIVISION, as recorded in Piat Book 9, Page 43, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, together with one-half of a vacated right-of--way being further described as follows: From the NW corner of the SW1/4 of, Section 16, Township' 29 South, Range lE~East, run N89 degrees, 45 minutes, 07 tseconds E, along the centerline of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (SR 60) 75.97 feet; thence S21 degrees, OS minutes, 29 seconds E, along the centerline of Bayview Avenue 53.50 feet; thence N89 degrees, 45 minutes, 07 seconds E, 26.75 feet to the point of intersection with'the South right-of--way line of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and the East right-of wad line of Bayview Avenue, said point being the point of beginning thence continue N89 degrees, 45, minutes, 0 conds along said South right-of--way line of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (SR 60) 250.62 eet; thence S21 degrees, OS minutes, 29 seconds E., 14.48 feet; thence X121 degrees, OS minutes, 29 seconds W, along said~Fasfright-of--way line, 103.20, feet to the point ofbeginning.-Containing 0.316 acres, more or less. ' Parcel No.: 16-29-16-53892-003-0020 Lot 2, Block 2, TOWN OF BAY VIEW and known as McMULLEN'S BAY VIEW SUBDIVISION, together with the southerly %2, of the right-of--way vacated by the City of Clearwater, Florida, in Resolution 75-4 filed January 16, 1975 in O.R. Book 4251, Page 153, lying to the North of and adjacent to Lot 2, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 6, Page 23, of the Public Records of Hillsborough County, Florida, of which Pinellas County, was formerly a part. Parcel No.: 16-29-16-53892-003-0010 Lot One (1) of Block Three (3) of McMULLEN'S BAY VIEW SUBDIVISION, according to the map or plat thereof as recorded in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. ~~ ~ \S ~~~ ~ ~J _ V ~ ~ . o w~ N r- ~_ ~. € . R s ~~ ~~ ~5 ~ J. ~~ \~\ J / , \. W _D ~, b ~ ..0. ./ N ~b-~9-Ilo LL z Clear~c~ater Prepared nY'. Engiroering Department Geographic Tech~logy Division 100 S. Myrtle Ave, CI ater, FL 37756 Ph: (737)587-4750, Faw: (727)526-d755 W wN.MyClaerwater.com Cwlrmrr PWYr i/mnarnn Erfa r NriNrCev M fJr dCMrver. I ~ I ,.o,,,..row.~o..o ~ ~, w. or awrm msm ew. N 1 inch equals 200 feet 200 100 0 200 w~ ~ ~~~ s Feet Legend ~ Agreement to Annex Building Footprints ~ City Owned Property 1230 Address L 1234 j S ' U8 NUMBER ( - Refer to Plat) BLOCK NUMBER (~ SUB PARCEL NUMBER TAMPA BAV PARCEL NUMBER (M&B) LAND HOOK (COMMON OWNERSHIP PLATTED SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY LOT OWNERSHIP LINE . _ - ORIGINAL PLATTED LOT LINE Outside Clearwater City Limits i i • I I ' ----- - --- - -- -- -- HOUSE ATLAS., Feb 25, 2008 ' ~ - - - ~ SW 1/4 of 16-29-i6 s _~ 2L. TN~•n. C/•.~E On•sD+.fh.we.th DC l 21' HaK. /y. .~ ,..~ , v 2a t 2 z7 26 2$ t4 23 22 ~ N 3 ~g , .L i ~, ~= ra ~~~~ ~ S ,7• B 9 /o // /2 /3 K. /6 ~ /S~ f4 nEUGUDGROVE' esmq •Sil~linaiax .ytha ryE%.~a~ y.tµ. xF/.g5..p,T.315.P14E. plnC ~~~S NT',Fb Wph. }&~,,'"~`fiy~~ti~S~S:.`w'Fi`ir'°"4rxi$'kxl.~e' ~;DSF,~L*o4d~OV~ '~Y ~~L•:~ .iS~:9y"I i~,1 ril't7F'i~~7ti'~~r~OU ~,°~e~`"dx,3'. ~~~ a uw..~n ~~~~n~~ fo .'O4 ,.y wdw.y ,~ r. si. P __- :T` a«:. Ape.../J4eL~;t.f IIs1~ /~tl. F/ed fi' Te m./ Ske ~ r911, ir: to AI/ J /~'. Bro..irt. CA r4 Gr+.. Ds/fnWC.td D.C ~ Z 2 ~~ z7 76 2f 7p 27 12 az/j /9 3 /B S ~7 0 9 /o q r; /3 ~ /6 : t b /7 z~ C' • • ,- ~_ ' ~tj °f'(IC11 ~ ~; FILtO ,/ANUARY 16, 19?5-3:25.-PM. (~ ' ~ ° HB G~UINN,CJc1.. (~ Cl I .~~ a -~~ . ~ Cnn.. N./, on,al. .1.Oo ~,_ ~~ m~ J~ {~I~ i~ ~~ x~ -~P-fRei-t4Efr- -~-- ~ (va ~~ r, r~i ~~ gS 3o^n Se Sv bo So fO 3e So So o e V •m~ ,l ~. • SI3 ~ 2 3 4 5 G^ + I 2 3. ' 9 S r ~ _.11~•.~.•l3 y 1 $.$ ~' ~` V: 4 . ~~. . ~~ 1 z o l `'\(. :: jI X12 II lO 9 0 7n nlo' 9 8 76^ jy`I .; _... o Inbl a 1 - ~ ~'a ~ KENTUCKY AVE e ~ " ~ ~, .~ I b y ~ se se w s ~ I So.f 5a w ( ~~!~ ~ I ~~ ~~ I 2 3 4 5 6 x ~ n l 2 3 9 b. ~ ~ ~~r~ I `~ ~ d ~ s n\ , ! + rv12 II lO 9 b ~T'n 9 b ] 6HyI ° ~ 1. ~~ e e ~,e e ie s I ~, i ,.. ~. v" ~ ~ eTENNESSEE e SAVE. ~ n { ~ ~ re.3 .e s. Ee a ,e :. ,< 1 i . n~ ~`~ NI 2 3 4 5' 60 ~ :;5! 2 3 ~4 Sh I ,yp ' I ` ~ q 1 ~T2 ' II l0 9 -8 7 r ~ 0 9 1 9 T. ' aP G`+ ` I ~ . ~c ~ ~ G ",ROLINA ,:~V'E. ~' ~ V ~ ! ~ e :C _n I ~ 'f a 3 ` Sn Se Se I So I ' 1~2 ~ 9 i S I b', 1~ 2 i 3 ~ 4 15I ,.. 1 r/ d ' -,I ~ ~~aqo .32111 J?g,0II,.7~ ~I roi O`~C~ I I i h ~ .. N, . 19'!9_...._ . i ., I . A e5 ~~. .. r BAY VIEW IaI~Y SUBS ~' BfOINN1N0 AT THE' NW CORN[R of 9wq of NW='SEC. Ii l"W P.f~ R.IS {. r RUN S.fl N. 27040"5. E.a VJ. uD ro•e. ~L3o BL N. 2.oi ry<ryULIENb j BAYVIEw 6 PART OF Si of W4.OF bWq OP NWT AND EL, OF W~ Oi bWl - '. OP NWaa AEG, 16 TWR.29 R.IbE NOT INGL UDEO IN N'nuLlCN3 BAyVIEW. '~ PINf:LAb COUNTY 'FLOgIyA. BW M ~luN~[v < {G:{L6~OY I F 0 3{SLE'1 ICO q SEAU'CE. TY~ ~r~ Q~ q ~ q,3 .fi..: !3 U' AVENUE- S: 30 3 ~ I h ~ r1~nl z9 ? I -J~I__-_ za ;w~ L~ W ~~ + :, d~ ~ 4 W. a F E ~. l zT ~ .~ 0 4 S I 6 7 nl 1 je "1 Ott 5t S -...., zo PINEHURST AVE ~. ;,. , ~T--,---~~- -L; I . z r I I I t o y 8 ! L\' 7S Io O I, I I L1 t-- I- ^) e. I i 24 _ .~ I y s I __~... it ~ i~ ,ts ,. " • ~, 23 :!W. to Id i 3 14 I S ~. ~ zz ;L I o ~ ~ 4FRUITHURST AVE. "' zl _ , h _ 20~ I Ig li 16 F ;,. b "qi W - ° ~ . 19 y y 5~ so' ~ • s ~_ SCOTT Pflft K. I u R~~sd;~;~;~,ar ~or~w~ ar~xE; erswf-s~~.zs-TN.~.3,-S-R,~-E. Fi`LEAN REGTGR'&SSCOT Ownrrs o~~ere%~a. HOl~TBR~Nf-/PS,f_A'ylPS 73 Cen /O/ ~/f- $ff.E7crabdgr. EO E"~, > =: K B O Q[/lNN y/ _ ~T..SemPs n~-C.E. ,~. S, • Clearwater DRAFT ACTION AGENDA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE Thursday, June 5, 2008 8:30 a.m. STAFF REVIEW 9:00 am Case Number: LUZ2008-0500] -- 3009 GULF TO BAY BLVD Owner(s): Giant Oil Inc 3904 Corporex Dr Ste 150 Tampa, F133619 TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Printed: 6/4/2008 Times are subject to change Representative: Ty Maxey 3001 N Rocky Point Drive East Tampa, F133607 TELEPHONE: 813-282-3855, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Location: 0.901ocated on the south side of Gulf to Bay Boulevazd between the intersections of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Bayview Avenue and Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Meadow Lark Lane Atlas Page: 301A Zoning District: C,Co mmercial Request: Applications for: (1) Future Land Use Plan amendment approval for one pazcel located at 3009 Gulf to Bay Boulevazd (Paroel Number 16-29-16-05292-008-0130)to change from Commercial General (CG) category to Commercial Neighborhood (CN) category; and (2) Future Land Use Plan amendment approval for two pazcels located at 509 Bayview Avenue (Parcel Number I6-29-16-53892-0030020) and 506 and 508 Meadow Lark Lane and 3015 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Pancel Number 16-29-16-53892-0030010) to change from Residential Urban (RU) category to Commercial Neighborhood (CN) category and Zoning Atlas amendment approval to change from Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District to Commercial (C) District under the provisions of Section 4-602 and Section 4-603 Proposed Use: Auto service stations Neighborhood Del Oro Groves Estates Assoc Association(s): Clearwater, F133762 P O Box 17605 TELEPHONE: 726-5279, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Neighborhood Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Association(s): Clearwater, F133763 1821 Springwood Cir S TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Presenter: Steven Everitt, Planner II Attendees Included: The DRC reviewed this application with the following comments: General Engineering: 1 . No issues. Environmental: t No issues. Code section 4-202 A 11. z. requires a tree inventory to be prepared by a certified azborist reflecting the size, canopy, and condition of such trees. Once this data is collected it should assist the engineer with site design. All highly rated trees shall be incorporated into the site. Fire: No Comments Development Review Agenda -Thursday, June 5, 2008 -Page 1 DRC Ac4on AgrnG I.1 • Harbor Master: No Comments Legal: No Comments Land Resources: No Comments Landscaping: No Comments Parks and Recreation: No Comments Stormwater: l . The City of Clearwater and SWFWMD stormwater criteria shall be met at the time of development and/or redevelopment. Solid Waste: No Comments Traffic Engineering: l , Show the location of closet fire hydrant, as this is commercial property fire hydrant SHALL be located on the same side of the street within 300 feet. 2 , This land use and zoning change will require a Traffic Impact Study with this application submittal. The applicant has attended a scoping meeting with the City's Traffic Operations Division and the TIS is currently being conducted. Planning: 1 . Zoning Atlas amendment -Section 4-602.F.3 - Provide a more detailed response. An Automobile Service Station will generate more lighting, noise and traffic. How will the Automobile Service Station use not conflict with the single-family homes in the area? How is an Automible Service Station more aesthetically pleasing than asingle-family home? The landscaping will primarily benefit drivers along Gulf to Bay Boulevard, not the neighbors. 2 . Site Description/Nan•ative -Gulf to Bay is not a four lane road. Other: No Comments Notes: Development Review Agenda -Thursday, June 5, 2008 -Page 2 DRC Action AgmN 1.1 ~ ~ tY is,x ~ , ,~;~~~~ ~~".~;;, Conditions Associated Wit :, r ~UZ2008-05001 . ~' '~~~~ 3009 GULF TO BAY BLVD Engineering Condition Steve Doherty 562-4773 06/02/2008 No issues. Not Met Environmental Condition Sarah Josuns 562-4897 05/26/2008 No issues. Not Met Fire Condition James Keller 562-4327 x3062 05/16/2008 Show the location of closet fire hydrant, as this is commercial property fire hydrant SHALL be Not Met located on the same side of the street within 300 feet. Land Resources Condition Rick Albee 727-562-4741 05/19/2008 Code section 4-202 A 11. z. requires a tree inventory to be prepared by a certified arborist Not Met reflecting the size, canopy, and condition of such trees. Once this data is collected it should assist the engineer with site design. All highly rated trees shall be incorporated into the site. Planning Condition Steven Everitt 562-4547 05/07/2008 Who should be contacted at Englehardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc? Met 05/07/2008 Section 4-202.A.7 -Please provide one signed and sealed survey of the property prepared by a Met registered land surveyor showing all current structures/improvements. 05/07/2008 Affidavit to Authorize Agent -Who signed for the property owner? Is it Jason Grundy? The Met person who signed for Giant Oil, Inc. shall be registered on the Florida Department of of State, Division of Corporations website, www.sunbiz.org, as an agent or officer. 05/02/2008 Zoning Atlas amendment -Section 4-602.F.3 - Provide a more detailed response. An Automobile Not Met Service Station will generate more lighting, noise and traffic. How will the Automobile Service Station use not conflict with the single-family homes in the area? How is an Automible Service Station more aesthetically pleasing than asingle-family home? The landscaping will primarily benefit drivers along Gulf to Bay Boulevard, not the neighbors. 06/02/2008 Site Description/Narrative -Gulf to Bay is not a four lane road. Not Met Storm Water Condition Phuong Vo 562-4752 05/16/2008 The City of Clearwater and SWFWMD stormwater criteria shall be met at the time of development Not Met and/or redevelopment. Traffic Eng Condition Bennett Elbo 562-4775 05/19/2008 This land use and zoning change will require a Traffic Impact Study with this application submittal. Not Met The applicant has attended a scoping meeting with the City's Traffic Operations Division and the TIS is currently being conducted. Print Date: 03/10/2009 CaseConditons Page 1 of 1 Clearwater • • DRAFT ACTION AGENDA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE Thursday, June 5, 2008 8:30 a.m. STAFF REVIEW 9'00 am Case Number: LUZ2008-05001 -- 3009 GULF TO BAY BLVD Owner(s): Giant Oil Inc 3904 Corporex Dr Ste 150 Tampa, F133619 TE,'_:rspHd>'vE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Printed: 6/5/2008 Times are subject to change Representative: Ty Maxey 3001 N Rocky Point Drive East Tampa, F133607 TELEPHONE: 813-282-3855, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Location: 0.901ocated on the south side of Gulf to Bay Boulevard between the intersections of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Bayview Avenue and Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Meadow Lark Lane Atlas Page: 301A Zoning District: C, Commercial Request: Applications for: (1) Future Land Use Plan amendment approval for one parcel located at 3009 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Parcel Number 16-29-16-05292-008-0130) to change from Commercial General (CG) category to Commercial Neighborhood (CN) category; and (2) Future Land Use Plan amendment approval for two parcels located at 509 Bayview Avenue (Parcel Number 16-29-16-53892-003-0020) and 506 and 508 Meadow Lark Lane and 3015 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Parcel Number 16-29-16-53892-003-0010) to change from Residential Urban (RU) category to Commercial Neighborhood (CN) category and Zoning Atlas amendment approval to change from Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District to Commercial (Cl District under the provisions of Section 4-602 and Section 4-603 Proposed Use: Auto service stations Neighborhood Del Oro Groves Estates Assoc Association(s): Clearwater, F133762 P O Box 17605 TELEPHONE: 726-5279, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Neighborhood Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Association(s): Clearwater, F133763 1821 Springwood Cir S TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Presenter: Steven Everitt, Planner II Attendees Included: The DRC reviewed this application with the following comments: General Engineering: 1 No issues. Environmental: No issues. Code section 4-202 A 11. z. requires a tree inventory to be prepared by a certified arborist reflecting the size, canopy, and condition of such trees. Once this data is collected it should assist the engineer with site design. All highly rated trees shall be incorporated into the site. Fire: No Comments Development Review Agenda -Thursday, June 5, 2008 -Page 1 DRC Action Agenda L 1 ~, ri Harbor Master: No Comments Legal: No Comments Land Resources: No Comments Landscaping: No Comments Parks and Recreation: No Comments Stormwater: 1 . The City of Clearwater and SWFWMD stormwater criteria shall be met at the time of development and/or redevelopment. Solid Waste: No Comments Traffic Engineering: 1 . Show the location of closet fire hydrant, as this is commercial property fire hydrant SHALL be located on the same side of the street within 300 feet. 2 . This land use and zoning change will require a Traffic Impact Study with this application submittal. The applicant has attended a scoping meeting with the City's Traffic Operations Division and the TIS is currently being conducted. Planning: 1 . Zoning Atlas amendment -Section 4-602.F.3 - Provide a more detailed response. An Automobile Service Station will generate more lighting, noise and traffic. How will the Automobile Service Station use not conflict with the single-family homes in the area? How is an Automible Service Station more aesthetically pleasing than asingle-family home? The landscaping will primarily benefit drivers along Gulf to Bay Boulevard, not the neighbors. 2 . Site Description/Narrative -Gulf to Bay is not a four lane road. Other: No Comments Notes: Development Review Agenda -Thursday, June 5, 2008 -Page 2 DRC Action Agrnda 1.1 Yrrr.~•, `~'R s ~~ ~• _,- ~; °=~~ t~ ~ "~y Engineering Condition 06/02/2008 No issues. Conditions Associated Wi~ . LUZ2008-05001 3009 GULF TO BAY BLVD Steve Doherty 562-4773 Not Met Environmental Condition Sarah Josuns 562-4897 05/26/2008 No issues. Fire Condition James Keller 562-4327 x3062 05/16/2008 Show the location of closet fire hydrant, as this is commercial property fire hydrant SHALL be located on the same side of the street within 300 feet. Land Resources Condition Rick Albee 727-562-4741 05/19/2008 Code section 4-202 A 11. z. requires a tree inventory to be prepared by a certified arborist reflecting the size, canopy, and condition of such trees. Once this data is collected it should assist the engineer with site design. All highly rated trees shall be incorporated into the site. Planning Condition Steven Everitt 562-4547 Not Met Not Met Not Met 05/02/2008 Zoning Atlas amendment -Section 4-602.F.3 - Provide a more detailed response. An Not Met Automobile Service Station will generate more lighting, noise and traffic. How will the Automobile Service Station use not conflict with the single-family homes in the area? How is an Automible Service Station more aesthetically pleasing than asingle-family home? The landscaping will primarily benefit drivers along Gulf to Bay Boulevan-f, not the neighbors. 06/02/2008 Site Description/Narrative -Gulf to Bay is not a four lane road. Not Met Storm Water Condition Phuong Vo 562-4752 05/16/2008 The City of Clearwater and SWFWMD stormwater criteria shall be met at the time of Not Met development and/or redevelopment. Traffic Eng Condition Bennett Elbo 562-4775 05/19/2008 This land use and zoning change will require a Traffic Impact Study with this application Not Met submittal. The applicant has attended a scoping meeting with the City's Traffic Operations Division and the TIS is currently being conducted. Print Date: 06/02/2008 CaseCondftons Page 1 of 1 ~~ • .~ GIANT OIL TIMELINE LUZ2008-05001 - 3009 Gulf to Bay 4/20/08 Application Received. 5/7/08 Incomplete Letter. 5/12/08 Complete Letter. 6/20/08 Request to Continue the Application Indefinitely from owner. 10/14/08 Agent, counsel, Long Range, Development Review met. Plan to reactivate LUZ and apply for FLS in by December deadline. 12/2/08 Counsel called Porter to let us know that the owner will not be pursing the FLD or LUZ. She said that their engineer will be sending us a formal withdrawal letter (never received). 1/7/09 George Padilla and Ron Fair of AEC Services came to Building Plan Review Committee on this case, saying they now represent the owner. Porter gave them the Large Scale Calendar and told them that the next step is to send a letter taking it out of continuance and to send the exhibits requested 5/7/08 along with a new application form if there are any changes to the request. 2/6/09 Ed Nartowicz of AEC is now handling. Will send new survey and affidavit for agent within 2-3 weeks. Porter told him City will go forward only if information is received by the end of the month, and that at that time the assigned planner will be able to determine what else, if anything, is needed. 2/25/09 Nartowicz shopping Long Range. Porter called him and reiterated the conversation of 2/6, and added that typically, cases are closed after 6 months of inactivity, and that if exhibits are not received by the end of this month as discussed on 2/6, the case will be closed and they will have to reapply, including a new fee. He asked whether he could have until Monday, March 2. Porter agreed since it is Application Due Date for Cycle 3. 3/10/09 Meeting. Attending were Tefft, Porter, Herman, Albee, George Padilla, Ron Fair, Ed Nartowicz and later, Don Melone. AEC confirmed that the request is the same as last time as shown in turquoise binder and the owner is Basem Ali. City said we need the site plan to be submitted in conjunction with the request (application, fee, site plans -all need to be complete for what they are proposing) along with DVA application. City will not be able to support their request unless there is a DVA. Also gave them FLS application, unity of title application and tree application. The information needs to be here April 1 in order to be approved in September. ti- ~~ ~~ 04/23/09 Letter to the owner with copy to AEC Services that advised the file had been closed due to a lack of activity. 04/29/09 Ed Nartowicz, AEC, called Case Planner Herman to say that he was concerned about the closing of the file and that he would get the City what they needed to keep the file open. Herman advised him that the City needs a site plan and the other materials that had been requested at the meeting held with AEC on 03/10 and that something in writing must be submitted to open the file again. 4/29/09 George Padilla called Porter said they have everything they need and want to bring it in tomorrow. The April 1 date fell through the cracks, he said, and requested that the LUZ be reopened. Porter told him he would need to request the reopening in writing. 4/30/09 Written request to reopen received. 5/5/09 Deficient letter sent. Case remains closed due to substantive deficiency . 5/27/09 Email from Padilla with revised site plan. 6/1/09 Padilla contacted Case Planner Herman and indicated that Giant Oil has decided to simply upgrade their existing pumps, paint the building and landscape a little without request for Comp. Infill or Rezoning/FLUP change. 12/10/09 This timeline created. Case remains closed. New application and fee required for any action by City. • • Herman, Sandra From: Herman, Sandra Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 1:45 PM To: Delk, Michael; Clayton, Gina; Porter, Catherine Subject: Giant Oil Michael, Gina, Cathy, I just spoke with George Padilla, the Engineer for this site. He said that Giant Oil has decided for now to simply upgrade their existing pumps, paint the building and landscape a little without request for comp. Infill or rezoning/FLUP change. He said they may come in later in the future and propose redevelopment of the entire site but right now they are "under the gun" to get those existing 4 pumps upgraded. Sandy Sandra E. Herman Planner III Planning Department City of Clearwater, Florida 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756-5520 PO Box 4748, 33758-4748 Telephone: (727) 562-4586 Fax: (727) 562-4865 snndra.hermanC~myclearwater.com s Herman, Sandra - From: George Padilla [gpadilla@aecservicesinc.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 7:38 AM To: Herman, Sandra Subject: UPDATED GULF TO BAY CLEARWATER SITE PLAN Attachments: G_AEC-JOB FILES-2008_G0081232_SHEETS_CIVIL_UPDATED SITE PLAN ONLYTO BE SENT TO CITY OF CLEARWATER 5-26-09.pdf Good Morning Sandra, Thank you for meeting with me on Friday, I hope you had a nice weekend. As per our conversation please find attached a revised site plan showing the parking and drainage in the resident lots. Please review and let me if this layout would be something that staff would support. I know that we would have to get a few variances for setback and buffer but it save us a lot time. Thanks for your help, ~PiOf`~liPi /Qa/GGQ AEC Services Inc. 1616 Allison Woods Lane Tampa, Florida Phone:813-684-1234 Fax:813-684-2660 Email: GoadillaCa)aecservicesinc.com On the Web: www.aecservicesinc.com 1 - • • • • .... P01M a CONYEINfYdi 99NRII K °ccxF roa9rBm'LevuA PABCFI. "A' ~~ ~ MYM uBlt .. . 0.1! M' ~ .. WArt Atrd p Mr .. nur .. _. tE M AlulRpt l/~ Y sgWnlt4AVY[19 LtT '~' ... u .. .... .. imM M1P Y .. ~ ~ ai .W Wd ~ _ (q rA+00+R .:'. ~ ., .,, . .... . .. " :. ~ .. .. ..... •~ ~~ ~ ~' ~ PaIKT a eEaK,dNC .. PABal A ~, .. .. ~ .. .:.. ~ ~ .. mwwl, aw .:' .... ~: nPlr tnrt :. ~. u ~ r «~w' .. 'wteY,m1'. ~~ o ......... ... ', .... , ......... ~ .. .... .... ~~ .. .. armour . .... ..... .. .. , .Mmwawl _.. .... n ~ .. ' Ya xn _ RAIAT9MM .. ma r.:.y4' ~.:. A '.. ... 4... ao:.. ap. ",,.~ a6.:.. y.. Os ..: .,..,~aAl . roo .. . 0 .. . u1 XqA ! S'. 64'f tdpkrt 9unan a}wx (B SaBE GS) C~:,.!16290 4' areo ~ ~~'P 9`A' .p . A' _ ...w@ uI pe01 ~~ 1 Yaps.. o ,1u ~ + 6 , vnurr Y'1O ~ `) L6 P1o([tt /+1xs13 (' 1 n an A •w ~ PAkCEl ":I" a ~ \-0 \ ~. uaae 9' carte aeP . ~,~~A~ ~ '~ _ {- _ '~ _ S _ _ _ 1S' LANOSGAPE9Ufff IDACI L :m: ~ ~ 1-J.5 ii ~ .. . ... y~ } a . A . ~ I .~ ,d rr ~ ~, ; i ~ s~mr "~~~ "~~ 9W ,m N ~ ~ ~ ~, ~' ~ {` 1~~,. ' UIl'D1MG °5E K ~ ~G', ~ ,,~,, , .~ 1 °d 2 ~4.5 PROPO 0 Imo xar ` 'r + .". Q ~ ~ ~ 9aM rom r,A ~ 9q c~ a~w y . 0. . 4y i . a '~ ~ •, mo . \ _ a ~ 'w"un w 1+es4el I E ~ ; ° N%Y '. g ° PROPOSED ' ~ ~ " ~ ~A' ~ 1 B o n 2.400 SF ~ '~ BUILDING a I ,Wa L1 = '." Td' 1 l _:. O ~ n • .. E } } d~~~ .; ) ~ ~~i ~ . ~S 4 I ~ 4 ~~ + ~ 14-4. y, ± ~ r b ~ +' ~ ~ a s~ +' ~ N ' - ~ ~~ ~ ~ ° 0 ° - .pr PROPOSID ~~ ' ~ ~ ~ z R {~ ' .. ~ ~ ~ P 1 CONC WMEEL VARI fl. °B" ~STOPS(TYP) , 1 . Y 1 pA ® _ 1~ '~ tl s ~ '" ~~, , , 1 1 J F. ~, n r~~~ C\ ~~~- . \U ® _ `HNC 5 ~ ~~D6C.IpG ~-I-~. ~~ HLIJ ~" t~ ,P :'~ + ~T + 26-].5 + ~ 4 ~~ / 2U-J.0 r 21 6 r""" J ~~~~ a 0 GL;_~ i~^~ F3AY BOULEVARD ~ ~ PROJECT LOCATION l L L t~ Z G ~ 'y1 ~ ~ G~ Z m PROJECT LOCATION MAP WEE ~ SIZE TREE INVENTORY SPECIES RAi1NG WEE N SIZE SPECIES RATING 1. 25" UVE OAK 2.0 18. 14' WOMAN'S TONGUE 2D Z. 34' UVE OAK 3.0 17. 12' SABLE PAIJY 3.0 3. Zfi' IVE OAK 2.5 1B. 41' LIVE OAK 4.5 4. 19" UVE OAK 2.5 19 OFF-SITE 23' UVE OAK 3.0 6, 1T llVE DAK 1,5 20 1J" LAUREL OAN J.0 6. 23' UVE OAK 3.0 21, OFF-SITE 13' LAUREL OAK 2.0 7. 23', 24' UVE OAK 2.5 22. OFF-SITE 17" CARYA SPP. 20 8. 29' UVE OAK 2.5 2}. 30" UVE DAK J.5 9. (REMOVED) 24. 10' CT SABLL PALM Z.5 10. 27" UVE OAK 2.0 25. 11' CT SABLE PALM 3.5 17. OFF-SITE 23' QUEEN PAUI J.5 26. 29' UVE OAK J.5 12. QFF-SITE 3T IIVE OAK 4.5 27. 30' UVE OAK 4.0 13. JA' UVE OAK 4.0 26. T CARADTWDOD 1.0 14. IB' SARIE PALM 0..0 29. OFF-SITE 47' LIVE OAN 4,0 f5. 37" UVE OAK 3.0 30. 14"CT SABLE PALM 4.0 31. 5' JAPANESE LOOVAi 2.5 J2. 3J' UVE OAK 3.5 +~ 9~ ~ PARKING CALCULATION 1 +~ I C(l lA1Ki': ;L 1 ( )I l.~E- ~_~_ F4 ]VIC-D RP.RKI~h( nl,~.,, li S•'P ~5 PROVIDED HANDICAP PARNINGSPACES. = 1 6PAGE PROVIDED TOTAL PARKING SPACES. = 75 SPADES Q / +~ ::~ ~' BLOCA'i ;, A®`"1 PROPOSED 6' HIGH :>:: ~ ~~q"-=- SO 1 CONCRETE BLOCK WAL1 Air +Ad a /_ SITE DATA TOTAL SQFT. x Cf sITE OYERAU. 91F 90.5N=0.B3 AC. 100,00 1uISnNGI 9UIION9G J81 1.0 CGNLRETEBASPHAIi TOTAL PERVIOUS R6t0 J0,660 I29 15,9 iOTAI IMPERV10U3 9.891 _ 1a.6 PROPOSED eo6nwc 19w 69 CONLRETEdF6PHA L1 19,372 11.5 -- _ i0TA1 PERVIOUS ~ 18922 96.6 TOTALIMPEAVM)US 21.121 S3A YERICUTAR AREA 19. 3 5..1 W D N ~~ ~ LL m~ J Zm ZJQ ~ ~ -Y~ JZ~ Q ~ LL IIIIII WW ~ O L J F- LL Z ~ r Q Qx- C7 c~~a rn ~ O ~ F' ~ ~ LLI 0 U N am Kn a~ z~ rc ~~~ 8mY s ~~~ ~~~$$ ~ ~~~mE u~m " a~aU ar 1 tl W ~ 0 1 ~Q~a ~ 1 ~~ I$ p4 g w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~K ~~~ a ~Z f~l 26 i~ +~ ~ ~,n«a~ LEGEND ~~ Z yr .... 4'. ~.. LOT' moo Bu,tAJ wApa9~ NUMBEA OF WEE ~~ Q CFF-SITE 2 J J " ;; ;, ~ :; ` ~ RATING NUMBER D_ 4 X WEE TO BE REMOVER Q ~ 0 5 10 20 40 ~ &' BARBAR SCAL xYrtAa au W9rcC vmw ~€ „~ PROPOSED SITE PLAN ~ R,aP wM9~ ~;~ J~ ®1 1~1~. ®V: .;:.:.. + 6~ 1 30-4.0 ~+' SP SHEET 5 a(14 ~* • • NOTES FOR LUZ2008-05001 3009 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, 509 Bayview Avenue, and 506 and 508 Meadow Lark Avenue and 3015 Gulf to Bay Boulevard. 1/7/09 George Padilla and Ron Fair of AEC Services came to BPRC on this case, saying they now represent the owner. I gave them the Large Scale Calendar and told them that the next step is to send me a letter taking it out of continuance and to send the exhibits requested 5/7/08 along with a new application form if there are any changes to the request. 1/8/09 There is a question about some right of way that may or may not have been vacated adjacent to this parcel. Surveys and legal descriptions from various sources are in conflict. This will need to be resolved. It looks as if Parcel B includes '/2 of the ROW in question, but Parcel A does not, leaving a strip of land whose ownership is unknown. If this goes forward, check with Tom Mahony, but applicant's legal counsel will probably have to do the research required. CP 2/6/09 Ed Nartowicz 813-684-1234 of AEC is now handling. Will send new survey and affidavit for agent within 2-3 weeks. Told him we will go forward only if we receive the info by the end of the month, and that at that time the assigned planner will be able to determine what else, if anything, is needed. CP 2/25. Nartowicz called Cate aout 10 days ago and Lauren this morning. I called him and reiterated our conversation of 2/6, and added that we typically close the cases after 6 months of no activity, and that if I did not receive something by the end of this month as we discussed on 2/6, we would close the case and they would have to reapply, including a new fee. He asked whether he could have until Monday, March 2. I agreed. Nartowicz says that the R-O-W has not been vacated and wanted to know who in Engineering to contact. CP 2/26 Ed wants another meeting. Spoke to Rob Tefft. He said to have Ed call Garriott and get on BPRC agenda because everyone he wants to talk to will be there. Told Ed. Received application and agent form and survey today. CP 3/9 Sandy and I had brief discussion with Gina. We want to protect the neighborhood, and the way to do that is to have them formally apply by submitting the site plan to run concurrent with the LUZ request as required by the CDC, Section 4-602B (...may be initiated by ...any person in conjunction with an application for development approval.) We may require a Development Agreement to protect the neighborhood. Other issues would be tree preservation. If they do not do so, we could not support their request. ~` ~. ~ ~ Requested ROW vacation resolution 75-4 from S Doherty. CP 3/10 Meeting notes by Porter: Attending were Tefft, Porter, Herman, Albee, George Padilla, Ron Fair, Ed Nartowicz and later, Don Melone. AEC confirmed that the request is the same as last time as shown in turquoise binder and the owner is Basem Ali. City said we need the site plan to be submitted in conjunction with the request (application, fee, site plans -all need to be complete for what they are proposing) along with DVA application. City will not be able to support their request unless there is a DVA. Also gave them FLS application, unity of title application and tree application. The info needs to be here April 1 in order to be approved in September. Their tanks must be replaced by 12/31/09 and would like to start construction earlier. City said to check with Garriott. Discussion on trees. They will need to provide 2 originals and 14 copies of their most recent survey as well as 16 copies of everything else. They must also provide 2 signed and sealed traffic analyses. Melone said it is doubtful that Meadowlark can be vacated, but AEC is free to apply. Gave them application form. Later, Melone, Herman and Porter compared Resolution 75-4 with various historical surveys and opined that the portion of Meadowlark shown on AEC's survey as having been vacated was specifically excepted from the legal description on the resolution. Herman will notify them and send resolution. CP On 03/10/09, Herman faxed resolution no. 75-4 to George Padilla. She included a message that said it was the City's opinion that the legal description does not include the portion of 50 ft. right-of--way for Meadow Lark to the east of their site as noted on their survey. On 3/12/09, Herman also faxed the resolution to Ed Nartowicz at his request. SH On 04/23/09, after consulting with Porter and Director Delk, Herman sent a letter to the owner and copied AEC Services that advised the file had been closed due to a lack of activity. SH On 04/29/09, Ed Nartowicz, AEC, called to say that he was concerned about the closing of the file and that he would get the City what they needed to keep the file open. Herman advised that the City needs a site plan and the other materials that had been requested at the meeting held with AEC on 03/10 and that something in writing should be submitted to open the file again. SH 4/29/09 George Padilla said they have everything they need and want to bring it in tomorrow. The April I date fell through the cracks, he said, and requested that the LUZ be reopened. I told him he would need to request the reopening in writing, and there was no guarantee, but we would consider it. He asked for a list of what they needed (see email this date). CP • • 0r¢~rwsr¢r ~i~~EA~oF rye ~.~, c"~~ _.._ `.~~ ,~~ Y~~~ ,~ A °'®T''~,A7~i~~,~p'a ~.~„ PLANNING DEI'ARTI•IENT May 5, 2009 Mr. George Padilla Engineering Manager AEC Services, Inc. 1616 Allison Woods Lane Tampa, FL 33619 FAE COPY RE: Applications for: (1) Future Land Use Plan amendment approval for one parcel located at 3009 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Parcel Number 16-29-16-05292-008-0130) to change from Commercial General (CG) category to Commercial Neighborhood (CN) category; and (2) Future Land Use Plan amendment approval for two parcels located at 509 Bayview Avenue (Parcel Number 16-29-16-53892-003-0020) and 506 and 508 Meadow Lark Avenue and 3015 Gulf to Say Boulevard (Parcel Number 16-29-16-53892-003-0010) to change from Residential Urban (RU) category to Commercial Neighborhood (CN) category and Zoning Atlas amendment approval to change from Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District to Commercial (C) District (File: LUZ2008-05001) Dear Mr. Padilla: In response to your April 29, 2009 request, please be advised that this file is not being re-opened due to the fact that the application materials are substantively deficient for this application. From our telephone conversation on this subject today, you understand that it is necessary to simultaneously submit new applications for land use plan amendments, zoning amendments and flexible standard development for your current proposal for this site. Sincerely, ~~_z ~- Sandra E. Herman Planner III Cc: Catherine W. Porter, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager Mr. Basem Ali, President, Giant Oil Inc., 1806 North Franklin Street, Tampa, FL 33602 S:\Planning Department\C D B\Land Use Amendments\LUZ 2008\LUZ2008-05001 - 3009 Gulf to Bay Blvd -Giant Oil, Inc\LUZ2008-05001 Letter reiterating CLOSE of file.doc CITY OF CLEARWATER POST OFFICE BOX 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 1 OO SOU/TH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562-`3567 FAX <72~ 562-4865 ~~f'FnllA i, F,M PI nVMF.NT ANn AFPIR NATIVE. Af.TI(1N F.MPI.(1VFR~~ • AEC Services, Inc. 7Z ~ • ~~ AEC Services, Inc. 1616 Allison Woods Lane Tampa, FL 33619 (P) 813-684-1234 (F) 813-684-2660 APRIL 29, 2009 To: Mrs. Catherine W. Porter; Planning Department 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 We are formally requesting the LUZ applications for the (1) Future Land Use Plan amendment approval For one parcel located at 3009 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (parcel Number 16-29-16-05292-008- 0130) to Change from Commercial General (CG) category to Commercial Neighborhood (CN) category; and(2) Future Land Use Plan amendment approval for two parcels located at 509 Bayway Avenue (Parcel Number 16-29-16-53892-003-0020) and 506 and 508 Meadow Lark Avenue and 3015 Gulf To Bay Boulevard (Parcel Number 16-29-16-53892-003-0010) to change from Residential Urban (RU) Category to Commercial Neighborhood (CN) category and Zoning Atlas amendment approval to Change from Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District to Commercial (C) District . Be reinstated to an active project within your files. Please find all of the information you require attached with this request. Very Truly Yours Georg Padilla Engineering Manager n[~(~[~~C~~n Ull ~ ~ i Ji ~__ PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CITY OF CLEAAWAT[R i • • ,~~ ~-~ d r'-' • ~~ t t! ~ ~_.` p.~ 11 0 ~~ • CITY OF CLEARWATER POST OFFICE BOX 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, lOO SOU/TH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAx (727) 562-4865 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Apri123, 2009 Mr. Basem Ali, President, Owner Giant Oil Inc. 1806 North Franklin Street Tampa, FL 33602 RE: Applications for: (1) Future Land Use Plan amendment approval for one parcel located at 3009 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Parcel Number 16-29-16-05292-008-0130) to change from Commercial General (CG) category to Commercial Neighborhood (CN) category; and (2) Future Land Use Plan amendment approval for two parcels located at 509 Bayview Avenue (Parcel Number 16-29-16-53892-003-0020) and 506 and 508 Meadow Lark Avenue and 3015 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Parcel Number 16-29-16-53892-003-0010) to change from Residential Urban (RU) category to Commercial Neighborhood (CN) category and Zoning Atlas amendment approval to change from Low. Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District to Commercial (C) District Dear Mr. Ali: Please be advised that due to a lack of activity this file has been closed. Sincer~ly, C ~- ~~ ~.G.. ~_._.-__._.~__.__ l ~~ <_ Sandra E. Herman Planner III Cc: Catherine W. Porter, AICP, Long Range Planning Manager AEC Services Inc., 1616 Allison Woods Lane, Tampa, FL 33619 S:\Planning Department\C D B\Land Use Amendments\I,UZ 2008\LUZ2008-05001 - 3009 Gulf to Bay Blvd -Giant Oil, Inc\LUZ2008-0500] Letter to CLOSE File.doc ~~EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATNE ACTION EMPLOYER 291 B 29. • • .Clearwater Fax Cover Memo CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, 2ND FLOOR CLEARWATER, FL 33756 (727) 562-4567 TO: Ed Nartowicz DATE: March 12, 2009 FAX: 813-684-2660 FROM: Sandra Herman, Planner III FAX: (727) 562-4865 SUBJECT: Recorded Resolution 75-4 TELEPHONE: 813-684-1234 TELEPHONE: 727-562-4586 MESSAGE: Here is a copy of recorded resolution. NUMBER OF SHEETS (INCLUDING THIS PAGE):2 y{1t ~...tr. ~~'~~ R E S O L U T I O N No. 75-4 ~D. R. ~~J~ '' PAGc .~.~~ WHEREAS, it has been requested by R. R. ;Meador, the owner of certain real property in McMullen's Bayview Subdivision, in the City of Clearwater, Florida, that the City of Clearwater, Florida, vacate a certain platted right-of-way; and WHEREAS, after proper public notice and public hearing thereon, the City Commission finds that said right-of-way is not necessary nor required, and it is deemed to be to the best interest and advantage of the City and the • general public that. the same be ,vacated; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY ~ COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CLEARWA'TER, FLORIDA, • ~_ r= ~-~ IN SESSION DULY AND REGULARLY ASSEMBLED, AS °7 y ~~ FOLLOWS : ~. J• ~ =.~s 1. That the following: '`~ -'~_«~: ~ -~ • ~ __ ~~ ~. That 50 foot portion of platted right-of-way; lying North of Block 3, ~ =+ ;~ w. of 1vicMullents Bayview Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book•6, Page 23, of the Public Records of Hillsboro County, Florida, of which Pinellas County was once a part; less that portion lying. within the North 50 feet of the SVT 1/4 of Section 16, Township 29 South, Range 16 East; Pinellas County, be •and the same. is hereby vacated, closed and released, and the City of Clearwater hereby quitclaims and releases all of its right, title and interest thereto to the persons , firms or corporations entitled thereto by law, excepting that•the City of•Clearwater hereby retains 10 foot sanitary sewer easement lying 5 foot each side 'of a line parallel to and 182 feet Easterly of the I~Tortherly extension of the West Line of Block 3 of said Mclvlullen's Bayview Subdivi- sion; said centerline extending from the~South lot _ine of Lot A, Block 8, of Bayview City Subdivision as recorded in Plat ~'alook.9, Page 43, of the . Public Records of Hillsboro. County, Florida, of ~•!hich Pinellas County was • once a part; to the North lot line of Lot .1, Block 3' of said McMullenzs Bayview Subdivision; said easement being 5 feet e•~.ch side of an existing sanitary sewer line lying in the above said vacated right-of-way. 2, That the City Clerk is' hereby directed to record this Resolution in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of January, A. D. 1975. ' .~r .4• • •J 'i. ' ~~' Attes ~: ~ ` :. : ~.. ~~f ,' '~, City.•G~er,k • • Clearwater Fax Cover Memo CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, 2ND FLOOR CLEARWATER, FL 33756 (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4865 TO: George Padilla FAX: 813-684-2660 FROM: Sandra Herman DATE: 03/ 10/09 TELEPHONE: 813-918-0934 TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4586 SUBJECT: Giant Oil - 3009 Gulf to Bay Blvd. MESSAGE: George, Don Melone, City Engineering, has provided us with this copy of Resolution No. 75-4 for the vacation of 50 ft. right-of--way, north of Block 3, McMullen's Bayview Subdivision. It is our opinion that the legal description does not include the portion of 50 ft. right-of--way for Meadow Lark to the east of your site as noted on your survey. Sandy NUMBER OF SHEETS (INCLUDING THIS PAGE): 2 • • Page 1 of 3 y Herman, Sandra From: Porter, Catherine Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 11:57 AM To: Herman, Sandra Subject: RE: Giant oil -Gulf to Bay Other issues I see: We may require a Development Agreement to protect the neighborhood. I requested ROW vacatio reso ution 75-4 from S Doherty on internal vacation question. They also want City to vacate OW to East. -----Original Message----- From: Herman, Sandra Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 10:53 AM To: Porter, Catherine Subject: RE: Giant oil -Gulf to Bay Cathy, you asked me to list some of our issues: -It is not clear on the application what part of the property they want to assign C a~{~~art they want to assign CN (we will need legal descriptions for each of these areas) C ~ -The name of the applicant's representative is not clear on the application and wha is is person's connection to the organization (is he/she an officer in the organization or their attorney or who?) ~c~.sema-i l ~~.~.... -Vacation of parts or all of the affected rights-of-way, running through and adjacent to the property? Need documentation proving vacations and legal descriptions -Need the site plan to be submitted in conjunction with the request (application, fee, site plans -all need to be complete for what they are proposing) -Trees are an issue (Rick will discuss) Sandy -----Original Message----- From: Porter, Catherine Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 10:44 AM To: Tefft, Robert; Herman, Sandra Subject: RE: Giant oil -Gulf to Bay More issues are surfacing, so that we should probably meet together with Giant, rather than individually as originally planned. (My thought was that individual meetings would be a time saver). We've talked a little with Gina and would like to brief you prior to the meeting, so pls. let me know when you are free. 1 have an offsite meeting most of the aft. Sandy is assigned planner from Long Range and will be meeting with us as well. Do you want Rick there the entire time or separately? -----Original Message----- From: Tefft, Robert Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 10:36 AM To: Porter, Catherine Subject: RE: Giant oil -Gulf to Bay Not a problem. I'll be there. -----Original Message----- 3/10/2009 ~ • Page 2 of 3 From: Porter; Catherine Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 10:32 AM To: Tefft, Robert Subject: RE: Giant oil -Gulf to Bay Rob, from talking to Ed I think under #2 they will also want info about site plan approval timing in order to coordinate that process with the Long Range process. -----Original Message----- From: Tefft, Robert Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 2:34 PM To: Porter, Catherine Subject: RE: Giant oil -Gulf to Bay Based upon these discussion items, I cannot see why my presence is necessary. Item #1 is an Engineering issue; items #2 and #3 are both Long Range issues; and item #4 is for Rick. If you do feel that you need me to attend, I can certainly make myself available. Robert G. Tefft Development Review Manager City of Clearwater Planning Department Phone: (727) 562-4539 ~ Fax: (727) 562-4865 -----Original Message----- From: Porter, Catherine Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 9:55 AM To: Tefft, Robert; Albee, Rick Subject: FW: Giant oil -Gulf to Bay -----Original Message----- From: ED Nartowicz [mailto:en@aecservicesinc.com] Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 9:18 AM To: Porter, Catherine Cc: 'George Padilla'; rfair@aecservicesinc.com Subject: Giant oil -Gulf to Bay Ms. Porter: I wanted to Itemize the material that we are looking to go thru at the meeting on March 10, 2009. 1. The vacation of the unimproved Right of Way to the east called Meadow Lark Lane. Will the City of Clearwater grant a vacation of the full 50 feet with the East half dedicated to the Ciry and the West Half to Giant Oil Inc. If so I will need to know all the forms that will be required to make this happen and whom they are to be submitted to, along with address. Or at the very least the West half of the 50 foot Right of Way to be dedicated to Giant Oil Inc. 2. Will need to find out on the timeframe for the rezoning portion and if we can submit site plan Approval as the rezoning is taking place. This would cut down on the time for the final date for Being able to begin construction. 3/10/2009 ~ Page 3 of 3 r ~. The Future Land Use Map Amendme hat was submitted by ,~ Engelhardt,Hammer & Associates. Will this be able to be incorporated within the submittal we are about to do. Or will this be required At all for what we are proposing. 4. We will need to get together with Mr. Rick Albee for which trees we will be able to eliminate from This site and which trees we are being required to transplant or will be required to leave where Where they are. Thank You for your time on this Edward T. Nartowicz AEC Services Inc. (813) 684-1234 3/10/2009 72 • ~.is ~ DATE JOB NO. REF. 2-13-09 AEC Services, Inc. LETTER OF TRANSMITT G0081232 INFORMATION REQUESTED CATHERINE W. PORTER ATTN: PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE CLEARWATER, FL. 33756-5520 ~~~~~ ~~~ FE826~q i PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT - SERVICES CITY OF CLEARWATER WILL FOLLOW BY MAIL WILL FOLLOW BY FAX WILL FOLLOW BY EMAIL WE ARE SENDING YOU: Attached Under se arate cover via the followin items: SHOP DRAWINGS PRINTS Bid PLANS SAMPLES SPECIFICATIONS COPY OF LETTER CHANGE ORDER INVOICES # SETS # COPIES DESCRIPTION DATE 1 1 CITY OF CLEARWATER APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2-13-09 AMENDMENT 1 1 CITY OF CLEARWATER AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHORIZE AGENT 2-13-09 1 1 UPDATED TOPO, ELEVATION AND TREE SURVEY 1-28-09 THE ABOVE HAS BEEN TRANSMITTED AS CHECKED BELOW: OX FOR YOUR APPROVAL Q APPROVED AS SUBMITTED ~ RESUBMIT copies for approval Q FOR YOUR USE 0 AT OWNERS REQUEST ~ SUBMIT copies for distribution 0 AS REQUESTED Q APPROVED AS NOTED ~ RETURN corrected prints Q FOR YOUR REVIEW AND COMMENTS ~ RETURNED FOR CORRECTIONS ~ PERMITTING SUBMITTAL ^ FOR BIDS ~ PRINTS RETURNED TO US AFTER LOAN DUE REMARKS: AS PER OUR CONVERSATION HERE ARE THE THREE ITEMS YOU HAVE REQUESTED. EDWARD T. NARTOWICZ 1616 Allison Woods Lane • Tampa, Florida 33619 •(Ph) 813-684-1234 • (Fax) 813-684-2660 Website: aecservicesinc.com NOTES FOR LUZ2008-05001 3009 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, 509 Bayview Avenue, and 506 and 508 Meadow Lark Avenue and 3015 Gulf to Bay Boulevard. 1 /8/09 There is a question about some right of way that may or may not have been vacated adjacent to this parcel. Surveys and legal descriptions from various sources are in conflict. This will need to be resolved. It looks as if Parcel B includes '/2 of the ROW in question, but Parcel A does not, leaving a strip of land whose ownership is unknown. If this goes forward, check with Tom Mahony, but applicant's legal counsel will probably have to do the research required. CP '~a ~~(-~ ,f ~C "~ ~_3 . Engineering, Construction, Construction Management Ron Fair, PE. 1616 Allison Woods Lane Tampa, FL 33619 Office: 813-684-1234 Fax: 813-684-2660 Mobile: 813-918-0930 Email: rfair@aecservicesinacom Engineering, Construction, Construction Management ,,,,,,, Georg- . ; :;, .,,; S _ :~s 1616 Allison Woods Lane Tampa, FL 33619 Office: 813-684-1234 Fax: 813-684-2660 M oblle: 813-918-093~~ Email:gpadilla@aecservicesinc. com AEC SERVICES, INC. AEC SERVICES, INC. ~ ~ °` f L~GE SCALE AMENDMENT SCHEDULE ~' (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS AND FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENTS OF MORE THAN 10 ACRES OR HAVING RESIDENTIAL DENSITY OF MORE THAN TEN UNITS PER ACRE)* PREAPPLICATION CDB CITY CITY ROUND CONFERENCE APPLICATION. PUBLIC COUNCIL COUNCIL DEADLINE WINDOW HEARING PUBLIC PUBLIC Optional: At Request HEARING HEARING of A licant ONE TWO MARCH ~ November 24, 2008 November 15 to February 17 March 19 May 21 2009 December 1 2009 2009 2009 2008 SEPTEMBER May 25, 2009 May 15 to August 18 September 17 November 17 2009 Junel 2009 2009 2009 2009 MARCH November 24, 2009 November 13 to February 11 March TBD May TBD 2010 December 1, 2010 2010 2010 2009 Note: TBD = To Be Determined 'e ~~ofl~ ~' '~ ~~ ~I~;~I pursuant to 163.3187(1)(c)1 and 163.3187 (1)(c) l .f. FL. Stats. S:\Planning Department\CDB\Calendars\2009 CDB- DRC\LargeScaleSubmissionCalendar2009-10. doc i • _ ~:__.. ENGELHARDT, HAMMER & ASSOCIATES Land Planning GIS Expert Testimony Via Email and U.S. Mail Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Planner III City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 South Myrtle Avenue, 2"d Floor Clearwater, FL 33756 Re: Case LU,Z2008-05001 Requests for Rezoning anal Land Use Plan Amendment for 3009 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and adjoining parcels Dear Mike: On behalf of the applicant, Giant Oil, Inc., we hereby request that the referenced application be continued indefinitely. The reason for the continuance is that the applicant intends to submit an application for flexible development approval of a comprehensive infill redevelopment project for the proposed redevelopment of the site. The submittal of a flexible development application will give the staff and the Community Development Board an opportunity to review the proposed site plan simultaneously with the rezoning and land use plan amendment. Accordingly, the applicant does not intend to resubmit the rezoning and land use plan amendment application and respond to DRC comments by July 14, but will resubmit when the flexible development application is submitted, in order for DRC and CDB to concurrently review both applications. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Should you have any questions and/or need any additional :^form~tion, nleace do not hesitate: tc contact me at 813:282.3855. Respectfully submitted, ~~ axey Principal Planner cc: Jason Grundy, Giant Oil, Inc. Katherine E. Cole, Esquire Steve Henry, P.E. #442026 v 1 ~a ~ 3001 N. Rocky Point Drive East, Suite 300, Tampa, FL 33607-5810, Telephone 813 282-3855, Fax 813186-2308 May 7, 2008 Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. 3001 North Rocky Point Drive East, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33607 RE: Applications for: (1) Future Land Use Plan amendment approval for one parcel located at 3009 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Parcel Number 16-29-16-05292-008-0130) to change from Commercial General (CG) category to Commercial Neighborhood (CN) category; and (2) Future Land Use Plan amendment approval for two parcels located at 509 Bayview Avenue (Parcel Number 16-29-16-53892-003-0020) and 506 and 508 Meadow Lark Avenue and 3015 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Parcel Number 16-29-16-53892-003-0010) to change from Residential Urban (RU) category to Commercial Neighborhood (CN) category and Zoning Atlas amendment approval to change from Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District to Commercial (C) District To Whom It May Concern: The Planning Department has reviewed your application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (LUZ2008-05001) for three properties located at 3009 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, 509 Bayview Avenue, and 506 and 508 Meadow Lark Avenue and 3015 Gulf to Bay Boulevard. After a preliminary review, it is determined that your petition is incomplete. The following items need to be provided in order for your petition for a comprehensive plan amendment to be processed and considered: 1. Affidavit to Authorize Agent -Who signed for the property owner? Is it Jason Grundy? The person who signed for Giant Oil, Inc. shall be registered on the Florida Department of of State, Division of Corporations website, www.sunbiz.org, as an agent or officer; 2. Section 4-202.A.7 -Please provide one signed and sealed survey of the property prepared by a registered land surveyor showing all current structures/improvements; and 3. Who should be contacted at Englehardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc? S:~Planning DepartmenAC D B~L,and Use AmendmentsU.UZ 2008~L,UZ2008-05001 - 3009 Gulf to Bay Blvd- Giant Oil, Inc~I.UZ2008-05001 Letter of Incompleteness.doc • • Without receipt of the material requested, your application will not be processed further. Please provide all requested materials no later than 10 am on Tuesday, May 13, 2008. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (727) 562-4547. Sincerely, Steven Everitt Planner II S:~Planning Department\C D B~I,and Use AmendmentsU.UZ 2008U.UZ2008-05001 - 3009 Gulf to Bay Blvd -Giant Oil, IncU,UZ2008-05001 Letter of Incompleteness.doc Page 1 of 1 Porter, Catherine From: Maxey, Ty [tym@ehaplanners.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 9:54 AM To: Porter, Catherine Cc: Jason T Grundy Subject: LUZ2008-05001 -Giant Oil - 3009 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Ms. Porter - Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. is no longer representing Giant Oil, Inc. with regard to the above- referenced petition. Please forward any future correspondence to the applicant directly. Below is their contact information: Jason T. Grundy, Director of Marketing Giant Oil, Inc. 1806 North Franklin Street Tampa, FL 33602 (office) 813.740.0422, ext. 30 (fax) 813.740.0617 ~. rI g undy_@giantoil.com I have copied Mr. Grundy on this a-mail for his reference. Should you have any questions and/or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. - Ty Maxey Ty Maxey, Principal Planner Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. 3001 North Rocky Point Drive East Suite 300 Tampa, Florida 33607 phone: 813.282.3855 fax: 813.286.2308 _rymnaV,ehaplanners. com 1~ 12/17/2008 !~ ~~ d ~/ C~,t~~.~e.~Q - - - ,C~~~~`-1-z-~=~ ~" ago-~~-~_ ~ _ L S_1 ~ /~ wu,Pti-Q ~ ~ ~ "''/,.,~ ~~/~H LC U_d~~~,~,.~_~ ~2 ~~ ~-~ ~/ 0 08126/2008 14:44 7275624 CLEARWATER CIT~TY PAGE 01105 w •~~~~ ~~ U City R~ttorney's Office P.O, Bpx 4748 Clearwater, FL 33788-4748 Telephone; (727)562.4010 pax; (727)b62-4021 ~facsimele transmittal To: Robert ©. Tefft, Development Review AAgr. Fax: 7ZT-562.4866 Frpm: LasliA Dougali-Sides, Esq. Date: 08!28108 . Re: Letter from Joan Spence, dtearwater Pages; 5 (tnciudieg cover) Batt and Tackls ^ Urgent IO For review ^ Please comment D Please reply D Please recycle Please review the aEtached and contact me to discuss my written response to Mr. Spence. ! Confidentiality Notice -.-._ _._._,~_.- .~.---- ••-_-.- _-... ... _+I The information corr~ined in this feicsimile rtte4Sage is privileged and canfideritial, irmendad fer the use of the addressee above. if you are nalther the intended recipient nor the employee or ggetrt responsible for deUvering ttris message to the intended n:cipient, you are hereby notfied that any disclosure, copying, distrlbutlon or the ~king of aetlon in rotlane® on the canbents of this tafecopled infom+ation is strictly prohibited. ff you have rec®Ived dtis tielecopy in error. Please notify counsel above immediately by telephone to arrange for return of ~o original documents to the counsel named above. Reynolds, Mike From: Tefft, Robert Sent: Tuesday,. August 26, 2008 3:02 PM To: Reynolds,. Mike Cc: Porter,. Catherine; Dougall-Sides,. Leslie;. Delk, Michael; Clayton,. Gina Subject: FW: Draft response for Mayor Hibbard Importance: High FYI Robert. G. Tefft Development Review Manager City of Clearwater Planning. Department Phone: (727) 562-4539 ~ Fax:. (727) 562-4865 -----Original Message----- From: Dougall-Sides,. Leslie. Sent:. Tuesday, August 26, 2008. 2:33 PM To: Tefft, Robert Cc: Delk, Michael; Clayton,. Gina. Subject:. FW: Draft response for Mayor Hibbard Importance: High I will fax you the 4-page letter. from John Spence. The letter relates to LUZ2008-05001, 3009 Gulf-to-Bay, Giant Oil. Please let me know which planner is currently assigned to this case [Steven Everitt was the previous planner] and what. its status. is [Tidemark indicates a completeness letter was sent out 5/12]. Thanks! Leslie -----Original Message----- From: Dougall-Sides,. Leslie. Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 2:27 PM To: Manni, Diane Subject:. RE: Draft response for. Mayor Hibbard Received; thanks! -----Original Message----- From: Manni, Diane Sent: Tuesday, August. 26, 2008 1:22 PM To: Dougall-Sides,. Leslie Subject: RE: Draft response for Mayor Hibbard There are 4. I'll make. a copy and bring it down. -----Original Message----- From: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 12:47 PM To: Akin, Pam; Manni,. Diane Cc: Dewitt,. Gina Subject: RE: Draft response for Mayor. Hibbard The document cuts off after page 2, are there more pages? 1 '~! ----~rOr'iginal Message----- From:. Akin, Pam Sent:. Tuesday, August 26,.2008. 12:04 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Cc: Dewitt, Gina Subject: FW: Draft response for Mayor Hibbard Leslie -----Original Message----- From: Manni, Diane Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 10:54 AM To: Akin, Pam Subject: FW: Draft response for Mayor Hibbard Pam, please ask someone. to prepare a draft response. for Mayor Hibbard by September 3rd. Thanks! Diane -----Original Message----- From: 727 562. 4052. [mailto:"727 562 4052"@faxmaker.com] Sent:. Tuesday, August 26, 2008 10:50 AM To: Manni, Diane Subject: Draft response. for Mayor. Hibbard ********************************************************* INCOMING FAX REPORT ********************************************************* Status: Received Date/Time: 8/26/2008 10:49:34 AM Speed: 14400 bps Connection time:. 01:04 Pages: 2 Resolution: Normal Remote ID: 727 562 4052 Line number: 1 DTMF/DID: Description: Fax received from 727 562 4052 ********************************************************* 2 ENGELHARDT, HAMMER & ASSOCIATES Land Planning G/S Expert Testimony Via Email and U.S. Mail Michael H. Reynolds, AICP, Planner III City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 South Myrtle Avenue, 2"d Floor Clearwater, FL 33756 4 ~ ~_.: P f ~~ ;, , O ~ _ '..r`.~'Y I' '~. I ~~' PLAN;;. ". ,`cLOPF/jENT C'I"f"Y G~ CLEt'~,f?WATER Re: Case.LUZ200$-05001 Requests for Rezoning and Land Use Plan Amendment for 3009 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and adjoining parcels Dear Mike: On behalf of the applicant, Giant Oil, Inc., we hereby request that the referenced application be continued indefinitely. The reason for the continuance is that the applicant intends to submit an application for flexible development approval of a comprehensive infill redevelopment project for the proposed redevelopment of the site. The submittal of a flexible development application will give the staff and the Community Development Board an opportunity to review the proposed site plan simultaneously with the rezoning and land use plan amendment. Accordingly, the applicant does not intend to resubmit the rezoning and land use plan amendment application and respond to DRC comments by July 14, but will resubmit when the flexible development application is submitted, in order for DRC and CDB to concurrently review both applications. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Should you have any questions and/or need any additions! i^formation, please c±o net hesitate to contact me at 813.2E~2.3i3,55. Respectfully submitted, U~ axey Principal Planner cc: Jason. Grundy, Giant Oil, Inc. Katherine E. Cole,. Esquire Steve Henry, P.E. #442026 v1 T ~a?F 3001 N. Rocky Point Drive East, Suite 300, Tampa, FL 33607-5810, Telephone 813 282-3855, Fax 813 286-2308 ~~ t ~! ~`~`~ ~ ~ i ~ te als/o8 ?~° 3 ~,~ COY ~~~ /~~ i t - ___.._ __.._~_ ~ ~ - _. __- _ 33a.~..s - .a e s ~ ~1_uZ__.___ _. l i - ~ D ' ~` 5 ``;~` i i ~ i~-~~ --- _ _ ._ _- - ~~°-~ ~ _=~ '~, ~. ~ ~.L 1. -r ~ ~ r _ ~, . _ -- -- - -- --~.~' ~~ b .-- __.~-- ~~ ~~~~- D ~, ---~--'~ _~ ~ . - - I~ - , /~ V e ~ ~ .. l •LY j~ Message ~ ~ Page 1 of 1 Porter, Catherine " From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008.5:46 PM To: Porter, Catherine Subject: FW: Giant Oil Land Use/Zoning Application FYI -----Original Message----- From: Katie Cole [mailto:Katiec@jpfirm.com] Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 4:05 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Cc: Clayton, Gina; Ed Armstrong; ETHEL HAMMER (edh@ehaplanners.com); 'Maxey, Ty'; Jayne E.. Sears Subject: Giant Oil Land Use/Zoning Application Leslie- Per our conversation today, here is the information regarding the Giant Oil Land Use change application. I spoke to Gina about this application on Tuesday to confirm that it was a small-scale amendment to the land use plan. wanted to have you take a look at the statutory requirement for small-scale amendments to confirm this interpretation as you indicated that the PPC and DCA addressed a similar question last year. The proposed land use change is for three parcels totaling .93 acres. The proposal is to change the parcels to Commercial Neighborhood (10 du/a) limiting the potential development on the total site. The existing land use categories is as follows: Parcel 1:.313 acres, CG (24 du/acre) = 7.512 units Parcel 2/3:.617 acres, RU (7 du/acre) = 4.6275 units Existing Total:.93 acres with total residential development potential of 12 units (existing) Proposed Total:.93 acres with CN land use allowing a maximum residential potential of 10 units/acre = 9 units allowed Florida Statutes 163.3187(1)(c)(1)(f) defines small scale amendments as: involving a use of 10 acres or fewer and: "If the proposed amendment involves a residential land use, the residential land use has a density of 10 units or less per acre or the proposed future land use category allows a maximum residential density of the same or less than the maximum residential density allowable under the existing future land use category..." The proposed land use category, CN, has a maximum residential density of 10 units per acre. The allowable maximum residential density on the entire site will be reduced from 12 units total to 9 units per the above calculation. Thanks for confirming. I will double-back with PPC to ensure we are all on the same page moving forward. Katie Katherine E. Cole, Esquire Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Bums, LLP 911 Chestnut St. Clearwater, FL 33756 Tel: 727-461-1818 Fax: 727-462-0365 5/30/2008 -~i- `y E1 L Z s c; ~_~ ~~ ~ * f A~r~ Lo 3 0 0~' 3id2 ~ .-{~~ ~ --- - i i ~~ ~~ -Clearwater Fax Cover Memo CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 ~O~.T'l~"I~~: MYRTLE AVENUE, 2ND FLO{?~_ CLEARWATER, FL 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4865 TO: Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. DATE: 06/02/2008 FAX: 813-286-2308 TELEPHONE: 813-282-3855 FROM: Steven Everitt TELEPHONE: 727-562-4547 EMAIL: steven.everitt@myclearwater.com SUBJECT: LUZ2008-05001 - 3009 Gulf To Bay Boulevard -Case Conditions MESSAGE: NUMBER OF SHEETS (INCLUDING THIS PAGE): 2 Clearwater Fax Cover Memo CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, 2ND FLOOR CLEARWATER, FL 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4865 TO: ~n _ .~ r ~ ©~ c~( DATE: () ~;) Q Z j ~,~~ m~~ I ~ FAX: ~ (~ Z -~ ~'j~,~ TELEPHONE: FROM: ~ @ .~~~ ~ ` ~ TELEPHONE: 727-562- G~~~~ j EMAIL: @myclearwater.com G~ ~-~~ ~ ~ ~ , ~~ ~,~- ~ ~ ~ ~ y Gl ~ ~~ ~ ~~ SUBJECT: L ~ ~ ~ 6 Q j ~ (j ~ Q D' E' ~ , C',~~ M ~30~~ C~vl~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ MESSAGE: 1 NUMBER OF SHEETS (INCLUDING THIS PAGE): ~~~, Message ~ ~ Page 1 of 1 From: Clayton, Gina Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 5:46 PM To: Porter, Catherine Subject: FW: Giant Oil Land Use/Zoning Application FYI -----Original Message----- From: Katie Cole [mailto:Katiec@jpfirm.com] Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 4:05 PM To: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Cc: Clayton, Gina; Ed Armstrong; ETHEL HAMMER (edh@ehaplanners.com); 'Maxey, Ty'; Jayne E. Sears Subject: Giant Oil Land Use/Zoning Application Leslie- Perour conversation today, here is the information regarding the Giant Oil Land Use change application. I spoke to Gina about this application on Tuesday to confirm that it was a small-scale amendment to the land use plan. I wanted to have you take a look at the statutory requirement for small-scale amendments to confirm this interpretation as you indicated that the PPC and DCA addressed a similar question last year. The proposed land use change is for three parcels totaling .93 acres. The proposal is to change the parcels to Commercial Neighborhood (10 du/a) limiting the potential development on the total site. The existing land use categories is as follows: Parcel 1:.313 acres, CG (24 du/acre) = 7.512 units Parcel 2/3:.617 acres, RU (7 du/acre) = 4.6275 units Existing Total:.93 acres with total residential development potential of 12 units (existing) Proposed Total:.93 acres with CN land use allowing a maximum residential potential of 10 units/acre = 9 units allowed Florida Statutes 163.3187(1)(c)(1)(f) defines small scale amendments as: involving a use of 10 acres or fewer and: "If the proposed amendment involves a residential land use, the residential land use has a density of 10 units or less per acre or the proposed future land use category allows a maximum residential density of the same or less than the maximum residential density allowable under the existing future land use category..." The proposed land use category, CN, has a maximum residential density of 10 units per acre. The allowable maximum residential density on the entire site will be reduced from 12 units total to 9 units per the above calculation. Thanks for confirming. I will double-back with PPC to ensure we are all on the same page moving forward. Katie Katherine E. Cole, Esquire Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP 911 Chestnut St. Clearwater, FL 33756 Tel: 727-461-1818 Fax: 727-462-0365 file://S:\Planning Department\C D B\Land Use Amendments\LUZ 2008\LUZ2008-05001 - 3009 Gulf to ... 2/26/2009 • • /~,, - . 3, -.. ~m~c,,a~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT May 12, 2008 CITY OF CLEARWATER POST OFFICE BOX 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL, SERVICES BUILDING, ZOO SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAx (727j 562-4865 Ty Maxey Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. 3001 North Rocky Point Drive East, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33607 RE:~ Applications for: (1) Future Land Use Plan amendment approval for one parcel located at 3009 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Parcel Number 16-29-16-05292-008-0130) to change from Commercial General (CG) category to Commercial Neighborhood (CN) category; and (2) Future Land Use Plan amendment approval for two parcels located at 509 Bayview Avenue (Parcel Number 16-29-16-53892-003-0020) and 506 and 508 Meadow Lark Avenue and 3015 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Parcel Number 16- 29-16-53892-003-0010) to change from Residential Urban (RU) category to Commercial Neighborhood (CN) category and Zoning Atlas amendment approval to change from Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District to Commercial (C) District Dear Mr. Maxey: The Planning Department has reviewed your application for a Future Land Use Map amendment (LUZ2008-05001) for three properties located at 3009 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, 509 Bayview Avenue, and 506 and 508 Meadow Lark Avenue and 3015 Gulf to Bay Boulevard. After review, staff determined that the application is complete. The following schedule has been tentatively established for the review of your application by various City boards. These meetings are necessary in order to process your request appropriately. The attendance by you or your client is required at the Development Review Committee and Community Development Board meetings. Should any of the following meeting times and/or locations change you will be contacted immediately. 06-OS-2008 Delopment Review Committee, meeting time to be determined (Please call Sherry Watkins at 727.562.4582 no earlier than one week prior to the meeting date for the approximate time that your case will be reviewed); in the Planning Department conference room =Room 216 - on the second floor of the Municipal Services Building, 100 South Myrtle Avenue in Clearwater. S:\Planning Department\C D B\L,and Use Amendments\LUZ 2008\LUZ2008-05001 - 3009 Gulf to Bay Blvd -Giant Oil, Inc\I,UZ2008-05001 Letter of Completeness.doc ~~EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER~~ 07-15-2008 Communit~evelo ment Board, meetin starts at~0 .m. in the Ci Council p g P ty Chambers on the 3rd Floor of City Hall at 112 S. Osceola Avenue. ~: 08-21-2008 City Council (first reading), meeting starts at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers on the 3rd Floor of City Hall at 112 S. Osceola Avenue TBD City Council (second reading), meeting starts at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers on the 3rd Floor of City Hall at 112 S. Osceola Avenue If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 727-562-4547. Sincerely yours, s Steven Everitt Planner II E S:\Planning Department\C D BUand Use AmendmentsV.UZ 2008\LUZ2008-05001 - 3009 Gulf to Bay Blvd -Giant Oil, Inc\I,UZ2008-05001 Letter of Completeness.doc • ENGELHARDT, HAMMER & ASSOCIATES Land Planning G!S Expert Testimony May 8, 2008 Ms. Steven Everitt, Planner II City of Clearwater Planning Department PO Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 33758-4748 Re: L UZ2008-05001 Dear Mr. Everitt: With regard to the above-referenced petition and in response to the Letter of Incompleteness we received from you, dated May 7, 2008, we offer the following response: 1. The Affidavit to Authorize Agent was signed by Basem Ali, who is listed as the President for Giant Oil, Inc. on the State's Corporation Registration. The Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations registration document was included in the application (Tab 5), however, an additional copy is enclosed for your reference; 2. Please find enclosed a signed and sealed copy of the boundary and occupation survey for the subject property (copies of the survey were included in the application packages, however they were not signed and sealed); and 3. I will be the contact person for Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. I. also noticed that Exhibit G, behind Tab 9, was inadvertently excluded from the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment application packages. I have attached 15 copies of Exhibit G for inclusion into the applications. I trust you will find these items in order. Should you have any questions and/or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at 813.282.3855. Respectfully submitted, ~4 Maxey Principal Planne Enclosures 3001 N. Rocky Point Drive East, Suite 300, Tampa, FL ,13607-5810, Telephone 813 282-3855, Fax 813 286-2308 www.sunbiz.org -Department of State Home Contact Us E-Filing Services Previous on List Next on List Return To List No Events No Name History Detail by Entity Name Florida Profit Corporation GIANT OIL, INC. Filing Information Document Number P95000053385 FEI Number 650593170 Date Filed 07!11/1995 State FL Status ACTIVE Principal Address 1806 N FRANKLIN ST TAMPA FL 33602-2234 US Changed 04/22/2008 Mailing Address 1806 N FRANKLIN ST TAMPA FL 33602-2234 US Changed 04/22/2008 Rice istered Agent Name 8~ Address BASEM,AL 1806 N FRANKLIN ST TAMPA FL 33602-2234 US Name Changed: 05/01/1996 Address Changed: 04/22/2008 Officer/Director Detail Name 8 Address Title PD ALI, BASEM 1806 N FRANKLIN ST TAMPA FL 33602-2234 Annual Reports Report Year Filed Date 2006 04/20/2006 2007 04/16/2007 2008 04/22/2008 Document Searches Page 1 of 2 Forms Help Entity Name Search http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/cordet.exe?action=DETFIL&incLdoc_numbe>r=P9500005338... ~ 5/8/2008 <~ ` ~ ~ LL ~~ . ear~a ~r _~__. U Fax Cover Memo CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, 2ND FLOOR CLEARWATER, FL 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4865 TO: Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. DATE: 05/07/2008 FAX: 813-286-2308 TELEPHONE: 813-282-3855 FROM: Steven Everitt TELEPHONE: 727-562-4547 EMAIL: steven.everitt@myclearwater.com SUBJECT: LUZ2008-05001 - 3009 Gulf To Bay Boulevard -Letter of Incompleteness MESSAGE: Please resubmit by 10 am on Tuesday, May 13, 2008. NUMBER OF SHEETS (INCLUDING THIS PAGE): 3 • • . ,sfn~ A1r. ,~ ~-~ ~~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT May 7, 2008 CITY OF' CLEAR WATER POST OFFICE BOX 4748, CLFARWATER~ FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL. SERVICES BUILDING, LOO SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLOIZiDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAx (727) 562-4865 Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. 3001 North Rocky Point Drive East, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33607 RE: Applications for: (1) Future Land Use Plan amendment approval for one parcel located at 3009 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Parcel Number 16-29-16-05292-008-0130) to change from Commercial General (CG) category to Commercial Neighborhood (CN) category; and (2) Future Land Use Plan amendment approval for two parcels located at 509 Bayview Avenue (Parcel Number 16-29-16-53892-003-0020) and 506 and 508 Meadow Lark Avenue and 3015 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (Parcel Number 16-29-16-53892-003-0010) to change from Residential Urban (RU) category to Commercial Neighborhood (CN) category and Zoning Atlas amendment approval to change from Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District to Commercial (C) District To Whom It May Concern: The Planning Department has reviewed your application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (LUZ2008-05001) for three properties located at 3009 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, 509 Bayview Avenue, and 506. and 508 Meadow Lark Avenue and 3015 Gulf to Bay Boulevard. After a preliminary review, it is determined that your petition is incomplete. The following items. need to be provided in order for your petition for a comprehensive plan amendment to be processed and considered: 1. Affidavit to Authorize Agent -Who signed for the property owner? Is it Jason Grundy? The person who. signed for Giant Oil, Inc. shall be registered on the Florida Department of of State, Division of Corporations website, www.sunbiz.org, as an agent or officer; 2. Section 4-202.A.7 -Please provide one signed and sealed survey of the property prepared by a registered land surveyor showing all current structures/improvements; and 3. Who. should be contacted at Englehardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc? S:\Planning Department\C D B\Land Use Amendments\LUZ 2008V,UZ2008-05001 - 3009 Gulf to Bay Blvd -Giant Oil, Inc\I.UZ2008-05001 Letter of Incompleteness.doc ~~EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER~~ .~ • • Without receipt of the material requested, your application will not be processed further. Please provide all requested materials no later than 10 am on Tuesday, May 13, 2008. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (727) 562-4547. Sincerely, Enre~.~~ Steven Everitt Planner II S:\Planning Department\C D BUand Use Amendments\LUZ 2008U,UZ2008-05001 - 3009 Gulf to Bay Blvd -Giant Oil, Inc\I,UZ2008-05001 Letter of Incompleteness.doc M • Exhibit G February 9, 2006 2009 UPGRADE DEADLINE As an owner and/or operator of a regulated underground storage tank system in the State of Florida, you and/or the company that you work for should be aware of the Department of Environmental Protection's (Department's) requirements for secondary containment. The current requirements have been in place since July 13, 1998, and are presented in Ch. 62-761, Florida Administrative Code. These requirements state that pollutant storage tanks and small diameter piping protected from corrosion shall be upgraded with secondary containment by December 31, 2009. The purpose of this correspondence is to notify you and/or the company that you work for, that based on Department records for facilities located within the Northeast District of the State, you may have pollutant storage tanks and/or small diameter piping connected to the pollutant storage tanks that are required to be upgraded with secondary containment by December 31, 2009. Enclosed please find a Deparhnent Facility Inspection Cover Page for each facility that appears to be in need of tank and/or piping upgrades by this deadline. It is recommended that you review this list and determine the upgrades that are needed for your tank systems. Further, it is highly recommended that you take steps well enough in advance of the deadline to ensure the timely upgrade of the necessary.equipment. Failure to meet the Department's deadlines for upgrades is considered a significant violation and may result in the assessment of penalties in the amount of $10,000.00 per day per violation. If you believe that the tanks and piping located at the facilities on the enclosed Facility Inspection Cover Pages have already been upgraded with secondary containment, then it is recommended that you contact the local county program in your area that is responsible for inspecting your facilities, to provide them with documentation to validate your claim so that the Department's information on file for these facilities may be updated as appropriate. As a reminder, Ch. 62-761, Florida Administrative Code states that the installation of secondary containment shall be completed by the deadline specified in the rule (December 31, 2009). However, if it can be documented that the installation is initiated before December 31, 2009, then work can continue after the deadline to complete the installation, provided that all work is completed within 90 days of the initiation of the work. Again, this correspondence is only to provide you with notification that, according to Department records, you may be responsible for the upgrade of certain tanks and/or piping at the facilities indicated on the enclosures. This correspondence is not intended to define all of the storage tank system requirements found in Ch. 62-761, Florida Administrative Code. If you have any questions regarding the Department's upgrade requirements or storage tank system requirements in general, then it is requested that you contact your local county inspector, or District Tanks Section staff at the letterhead address or at (904) 807-3300. w w LEGAL DESCRIPTION Parcel No.: 16-29-16-05292-008-0130 Tract A, BAY VIEW CITY SUBDIVISION, as recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 43, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, together with one-half of a vacated right-of--way being further described as follows: From the NW corner of the SW1/4 of Section 16, Township 29 South, Range 16 East, run N89 degrees, 45 minutes, 07 seconds E, along the centerline of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (SR 60) 75.97 feet; thence S21 degrees, OS minutes, 29 seconds E, along the centerline of Bayview Avenue 53.50 feet; thence N89 degrees, 45 minutes, 07 seconds E, 26.75 feet to the point of intersection with the South right-of--way line of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and the East right-of-way line of Bayview Avenue, said point being the point of beginning; thence continue N89 degrees, 45 minutes, 07 seconds along said South right-of--way line of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (SR 60) 250.62 feet; thence S21 degrees, OS minutes, 29 seconds E, 14.48 feet; thence N21 degrees, OS minutes, 29 seconds W, along said East right-of--way line, 103.20 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 0.316 acres, more or less. Parcel No.: 16-29-16-53892-003-0020 Lot 2, Block 2, TOWN OF BAY VIEW and known as McMULLEN'S BAY VIEW SUBDIVISION, together with the southerly %, of the right-of--way vacated by the City of Clearwater, Florida, in Resolution 75-4 filed January 16, 1975 in O.R. Book 425 i, Page 153, lying to the North of and adjacent to Lot 2, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 6, Page 23, of the Public Records of Hillsborough County, Florida, of which Pinellas County, was formerly a part. Parcel No.: 16-29-16-53892-003-0010 Lot One (1) of Block Three (3) of McMULLEN'S BAY VIEW SUBDIVISION, according to the map or plat thereof as recorded in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. 4. TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS GIANT OIL - 1 GULF TOBAYBOULEVARD 1 1 Prepared For GIANT OIL, INC. Prepared By LINCKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. ' Engineers -Planners Tampa, Florida 1 1 C~ L 1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to provide a Transportation Analysis for the rezoning of the property located south of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and east of Bayview Avenue in the City of Clearwater, as shown in Figure 1. The subject property is currently zoned Commercial General (CG) and Low Median Density Residential (LMDR). The CG portion of the property contains an existing 336 square foot convenience market with gas pumps. The LMDR property is currently vacant. The developer proposed to rezone for the entire property to permit an approximate 3,200 square foot convenience market with gas pumps. This report shall evaluate the net impact of the proposed rezoning of the subject property on the adjacent roadway system. ESTIMATED DAILY PROJECT TRAFFIC The trip rates utilized in this report were obtained from the latest computerized version of "Trip Generation by Microtrans" which utilizes the Institute of Transportation Engineers' {ITE) Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003, as its database. Based on these trip rates, it is estimated that the existing land use would attract approximately 284 daily trip ends while the proposed land use would attract approximately 2,706 daily trip ends for a net increase of 2,422, as shown in Table 1. LINCKS $ ASSOCIATES, INC. i 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f castr$Vt~ d r5r'A ~' ~ 1`"~ " i 1 ' 3 ` ` '~r5h~~:~~ ^53'rd St 6Q1" ~~ki~r ni :Tw __ !$~~ Pi3~`~. rE b,~r~l. t n.ili6 /` A~HSAd d-7,~._:»~~o ,~;~j. 'fti ~t`'~dj: st Dr E ~ ~ 6,~~+ o~ :,t: ~.: ~f?~di ~~ v ~g ,'trl+, 4 h'.~;,. 1 .n«ut ~s ,srhy"" "'tery. H~a~ r e w Q a~ _ -r Rarhat ~ aoa ~ a "' ~ ~ ~r5umrter ~' r r fa ~~C ~ ~ ,z '" !Museum Marina C oar ~ Dr.-...e r `Q ~ I~ a 4 ~- ~~' 3 9h'd J ~P ~ o~,l 6lft " R ~ ~,JQ: { a $.. e.~ ~ ~~ ~ ~`~`-~,ix ;I~ sG ~t 's ~' X30 Sarah Dr ~ '. Sera1 pr ~ Irf -~~th 4sa ,~~ INaitar 3u 4~~` SOUTH ~ I ~o , ~,n ~/ ~_ _.~Q 'lCe~errrte ~ p, ~(, SIS'Q::.~ , If'~~'.wy ~'~C7TYPARK 'o ~Q~/ t'GresltvoadcCiS SL'J Iohn'~' .,~;~1~, ,1(i ~fi.l "' ,CemaccUy.''~ i ~ v ~ ~' ~ Cr! !_ ~~t s~ par rmo ~^ ~r -' ~~~ -~--__~____._ v~ .. - 9~ J, ~~'_ 3 3 ~.~Hm Dr.M &aESltlo« I 1~T AY _-$> / ~ ~ f iltinr Dr 5 ~ '. Cif~'^~~13 ~ t~ rt 1 ~, t ~_..~ o, 7 ~ c ~ ~,}s10 m~ ~ 1 falamondfn In W 'i -•.. ~M r ;f ~u~ 8~,'V. E ~~,.~"' 2 E 6rtpefru3! Cr ~' I '"~ z ~ ~_ 'z ~ ai ~~~,~~ ~ jm ~ '~ ,a .4 Eck~rd )iafi ~ _ 58t• 4i.,0 0 ~ t ~m Z t~~' ~~ ~~ :z ~a p,4~y, c ~. v ~ti Eckerd HaI! ~ ~~ z P ~ `~ R_,' ~4uumfl^Y'ood~~' 1ti ,l +rLa oPl#4.n ,~; °,Q ~„~' ~ o SI ma rip '~' '-~1-~!!~i~ ~3,~~v~od cb~'`h4S~'~ r/'12y~~'K~ U~'; `t "~ .~~[1as' San f~trrrl~c fi0~ rj K` -~$ 5[ Glen VaK AY Na ~ a'i nd lrr, 5r Cu~~'. S.aka---~~1fk St ~ _._.5~ kse t Rriturc~c?~5$LPNE~ NS ~S / 4 t Saybold~~ra a ~ "~ .--- ____ , Svrvsarvo- r '-, 5~ s~~'ad' ~~t~~~`~ 00'r~'~h -~ Art 3sn~c(im ~ ~^~_ Pedro ~ 5t ~ ~ ,~ ~~sbo `~r~~~ F5~553t1i'~4o c rcw nz;`~ _~_..~,.San _. Bermdina ,~ St aw I \4y_ ~'' ic' 1 ~ s_h L si ? grew v ~ - /' ~Tr ig „ r -" San Ma a-5f :~~~~ ~~~ ~. _~}.'.~,.._ Sap ' Nnteu 7 St '~~ r"' a>.(h~lem,,I~E~Av__~z~~Tlromnsnif ~ Gi-~,- ~"z ~ ` Hoyt qv ~'i WaIM Rd r,vra, .•~' 4,P °~ ~ r r ,{~ i~ ~ ~ ~ a .n.. y ,._,; . j~L~ t~ r r -~`a' DREW 5 ~ ~ Y~`t,Ctram6lee In ~, inni63d 7rc., ~~Ssodimxuad ~ ~, ~ ~~ to _._. 9 r +I+"~ ~ .. .is ok ~ ~ i' rl ~ {he ~ fvaMerw~~ ~ M 1 t.- ~ 8 ~~ ~ a ~~nr ~ ~1^ lAmirt o~~~e. ~ ~~ ~S deYtWnd Sr FF ter,~~.,,., pi ~ ~~~ ~~ ;~. ~'"DrnnS ~Pwnad ~1"filc~u Che 4 ~ Ba oo ~~ ~" { 7 D Gr ~n ~ lee f v Isles ~~ ~ ~ y .i ~ f ~ Lai' ~4r gnda F4 L ~- c b6ns Pkwy ~+~ ~~ . $~ ~ K*u;1ttM nv ~ ]~ o, ~~ °~. aj - mi 3 ~U`~Oowmrig 5r x?p ~ 5r'° , 2~ ~ ~~ r; ~ Trnrbssee,~ t~ ~r a~ Clearwater`: ~ r" ~ ~' 17 'w ~ ~ : ~ 16 m !5 Christian ~~ ' C,rxhnuod- ~ ~ i caroir~.:J+~~ ~ ~.m y' c~i3~x~a ~'e~? _' ~ ---' Irnlv.lter ~.GllLF TO yAY'~ i '^ ;; BL`,fD / 4~ .;,; ,~,J:-----~-',.,.-----",'~snt10.7R1 G-. ----~, ..~ .1-1__ ~ I'0 ~.~mtsr~ £4' ~ / ~~ ~. i" ~;~~. ~~`,~- ~:, PROJECT g :.. f f t`P ~ i _- _ ---~._._~.._... _....... ~ .. ................... ~._ ,.ry ,........_........--_............._....._......._........_..._._ _._.............__...._______..~ ~~m °_. ;~S'' ~~'; OLD ~ '`4~ TAMPA j ~; B~4Y za LINCKS & ASSOCIATES,- [l+IG. •~ -=~- =` I 1 10 i~ >~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ Ir ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~t illy ~ r ~ ~ iir TABLE 1 ESTIMATED DAILY TRIP ENDS ITE Land Use Daily Passerby New Daily Scenario Land Use Code Size Trip Ends (1) Capture (2) Trip Ends Existing Convenience 853 336 SF 284 131 153 Market w/Gas Proposed Convenience 853 3,200 SF 2,706 1,245 1,461 Market w/Gas Difference 2,422 1,114 1,308 w (1) Source: ITE Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003 (2) Source: ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2"d Edition. • Passerby Capture = 56% - 10% = 46% • Existing: 284 x 0.46 = 131 • Proposed: 2,706 x 0.46 = 1,245 The passerby trip ends should not exceed 10% of the daily traffic in the adjacent roadway. 64,104 (a) x 0.10 = 6,410 > 1,245 (a) Based on existing traffic count on Guff to Bay Boulevard taken from 2007 Pinellas County Level of Service Report. LINCKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. r~ I u J Studies contained in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook indicate that a percentage of the project's trips already exist on the adjacent roadways -passerby capture. To account for this passerby capture, it was estimated that 46% of the daily trip ends for the existing and proposed land use are already present on the adjacent roadway system. However, the passerby trip ends are not expected to exceed 10 percent of the daily traffic on the adjacent roadways. Therefore, the new daily trip ends attracted to the existing land use would be 453 trip ends while the proposed land use would attract 1,461 daily trip ends for a net increase of 1,308 trip ends, as shown in Table 1. ESTIMATED PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRAFFIC Again, based on data contained in the ITE Trip Generation, the existing land use would attract approximately 16 trip ends during the AM peak hour with 8 inbound and 8 outbound. During the PM peak hour, the existing land use would attract approximately 20 trip ends with 10 inbound and 10 outbound. The proposed land use would attract '146 trip ends during the AM peak hour with 73 inbound and 73 outbound. During the PM peak hour, the proposed land use would attract 194 trip ends with 97 inbound and 97 outbound. Therefore, the proposed land use would result in a net increase of 130 trip ends during the AM peak hour and 174 trip ends during the PM peak hour, as shown in Table 2. Since the proposed land use attracts significantly more traffic during the PM peak hour than the AM peak hour, this analysis will be limited to the PM peak hour. LINCKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4 ~ ~ I~ in ~ I~ rli~ ! r ~ I~ I~ iiit li IIIIII~ i~ ~ tl»»>~ ~ TABLE 2 ESTIMATED PEAK HOUR TRIP ENDS ITE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Tri p Ends (1) Trip Ends (1) Scenario Land Use Code Size In Out Total In Out Total Existing Convenience 853 336 SF 8 8 16 10 10 20 Market w/Gas Proposed Convenience 853 3,200 SF 73 73 146 97 97 194 Market w/Gas Difference 65 65 130 87 87 174 (1) Source: ITE Trip Generation, 7"' Edition, 2003. LINCKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 1 t As stated previously, studies contained in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook indicate that a percentage of the project's trips already exist on the adjacent roadways - passerby capture. T'o account for this passerby capture, it was estimated that 56% of the PM peak hour existing and proposed land use trip ends are already present on the adjacent roadway system. However, the passerby trip ends are not expected to exceed 10 percent of the PM peak hour traffic on the adjacent roadways. Therefore, the new PM peak hour trip ends attracted to the existing land use would be 10 trip ends with 5 inbound and 5 outbound while the proposed land use would attract 86 new PM peak hour trip ends with 43 inbound and 43 outbound for a net increase of 76 new PM peak hour trip ends,. as shown in Table 3. 1 1 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION The following trip distribution for the proposed land use was estimated based on the recorded traffic patterns in the area: • 45% to and from the east (via Gulf to Bay Boulevard) • 55% to and from the west (via Gulf to Bay Boulevard) Table 4 shows the distribution of the net new PM peak hour project trips. LINCKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. as r ~ ~: ~^~ ~ ~ I, ~ rlr I~ I. i^t ~ ~ ~t ~ tl~ ~ TABLE 3 ESTIMATED NEW PM PEAK HOUR TRIP ENDS ITE New PM Land PM Peak Hour Passerby Peak Hour Use Trip Ends (1) _ Capture (2) Trip Ends Scenario Land Use Code Size In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Existing Convenience 853 336 SF 10 10 20 5 5 10 5 5 10 Market wlGas Proposed Convenience 853 3,200 SF 97 97 194 54 54 108 43 43 86 Market w/Gas Difference 87 87 174 49 49 98 38 38 76 (1) Source: ITE Trip Generation, 7'h Edition, 2003 (2) Source: ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2"d Edition. • Passerby Capture = 56% • Existing: 20 x 0.56 = 11 Use 10 • Proposed: 194 x 0.56 = 108 The passerby trip ends should not exceed 10% of the PM Peak hour trip ends on the adjacent roadway. 3,349 (a) x 0.10 = 335 > 10 or 108 (a) Based on existing traffic on Guff to Bay Boulevard taken from 2007 Pinellas County Level of Service Report. LINCKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. t 1 t t t TABLE 4 PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION East (45%) West (55%) Total In Out In Out In Out 1? 17 21 21 38 38 LINCKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. is ADJACENT ROADWAYS According to the FDOT, Pinellas County and City of Clearwater Capital Improvement Programs (CIP), there are no capacity adding improvements budgeted in the vicinity of the project. 1 LINCKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 9 l~ __-_ ____ ___ uxim urz rr ~gp~~~ygRp ____ GULF TGULFBAYY BUOULEVARD (STATE ROAD 60) ~w x. mx u .rx. ~, .... m.., wm ~ inQ' to - w."u) m~t# [ lul ur 1^.1 mn ryl x v,tu' [ i,w' M a' ~, a, x x erutr' iu ~: e' ~urrR.ue acres • [ M u u~ :oi ~ a ". an o r ~# ~t3~ .. r>m ` { ~,r of v~~'~ ~\ 4 \ r.~rR s.w I ',~ ~ of ~ o ~ o"~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ''s'ue 1 v Yl \I of ~/ [ ~ \ \ \ _. ~~~ ~~ y9J \~ :, \ ~ L ~~\9y yS, \ ~~~~, ~ \ to ~F` ~ ~ ) ~~/ ~ 4 ~~ ~\~~~~ ~~ ~ z~ `~~ ~,~~,.- n ~ , ,\ ~ , a ~\ COPVRIGNT (C)2007 BV ENGELHARDT. HAMMER 8 ASSOGATES. INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED SRE DATA TOTAL SRE AREA 0.9} AC REFENIION PROVIDED: ISX/0.13 AC PD2IYETER SEI84CK5: 41NIMUM REQUIRED FROM: 25' SIDE: 10' REAR: 20' PROVDED FROM (GUIF TO DAY BLVD): 23' FROM (BAYVIEW AVENUE): 29' SIDE: 51' RFAR: 225' usa: CONVENIENCE STORE 3.200 SF PARNWG REWIRED: RETAIL 5 SPACES/1,000 SF GFA 16 SPACES TOTAL PARKNG REQUIRED: 16 SPACES TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED: 16 SPACES 0 r'`.~ 0' 20' 40' SCALE: 1" = 40' CONCEPT SITE PLAN GIANT OIL, INC. 3009 GULF TO BAY BLVD CITY OF CLEARWATER ENGELFiARDT, FIAMMER3 ASSOCIATES "a rr.""r"r ~ ms. e.p~.r r o"r xnr.v. Rocdr Fninr tnxt snn. vra rnmp., Flnrxle JJbO) TckpMmc 81J 181.14iJ, Feu 8U 28621U8 _\ 1 1 r r t 1 r i w r 1 1 1 1 1 i Summary of Trip Generation Calculation For .336 Th.Gr.Sq.Ft. of Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps April 30, 2008 Average Rate Standard Deviation Adjustment Factor Driveway Volume Avg. Weekday 2-Way Volume 845.60 163.67 1.00 284 7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter 22.79 0.00 1.00 8 7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit 22.79 0.00 1.00 8 7-9 AM Peak Hour Total 45.58 18.50 1.00 15 4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter 30.31 0.00 1.00 10 4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit 30.31 0.00 1.00 10 4-6 PM Peak Hour Total 60.61 35.37 1.00 20 Saturday 2-Way Volume 1448.33 735.17 1.00 487 Saturday Peak Hour Enter 28.90 0.00 1.00 10 Saturday Peak Hour Exit 26.68 0.00 1.00 9 Saturday Peak Hour Total 55.58 0.00 1.00 19 Note: A zero indicates no data available. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS ~~: ~I. ~~ ~I li ~'. ~` ~4 ~~i Summary of Trip Generation Calculation For 3.2 Th.Gr.Sq.Ft. of Convenience Market with Gasoline Pumps April 30, 2008 Average Rate Standard Deviation Adjustment Factor Driveway Volume Avg. Weekday 2-Way Volume 845.60 163.67 1.00 2706 7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter 22.79 0.00 1.00 73 7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit 22.79 0.00 1.00 73 7-9 AM Peak Hour Total 45.58 18.50 1.00 146 4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter 30.31 0.00 1.00 97 4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit 30.31 0.00 1.00 97 4-6 PM Peak Hour Total 60.61 35.37 1.00 194 Saturday 2-Way Volume 1448.33 735.17 1.00 4635 Saturday Peak Hour Enter 28.90 0.00 1.00 92 Saturday Peak Hour Exit 26.68 0.00 1.00 85 Saturday Peak Hour Total 55.58 0.00 1.00 178 Note: A zero indicates no data available. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 7th Edition , 2003. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS 1 ~ ~ `~~ ~ ~J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Facility Juris Plan Area Fac T e Road T e LOS Std Length mi Signals Per Mile LOS Meth AADT Volume Physical Ca aci V:Cap Ratio Def Fla Fac LOS 699 -EAST LAKE RD: (WOODLANDS BLVD -1o- TARPON WOODS BLVD) CR 02 SA 4D D .897 1.10 A 64,264 3,358 2,563 1.31 2 F 700 -EAST LAKE RD: (TARPON WOODS BLVD -to- LANSBROOK PKWY) CR 02 SA 4D D 1.830 1.60 _ A 59,241 3,095 2,073 1.49 2 F 701 • EAST LAKE RD: (LANSBROOK PKWY -to- KEYSTONE RD) CR 02 SA 4D D 2.357 1.30 A 49,362 2,579 2,080 1.24 2 F 702 -EAST LAKE RD: (KEYSTONE RD -to- PASCO CO LINE) CR 02 SA 4D D 1.715 .60 A 31,157 1,628 1,751 .93 1 A 703 -EAST LAKE RD EAST SERVICE RD: (TAMPA RD -to-NORTH SPLIT) _ CR 02 SA 4D D .637 1.60 A _ 27,945 1,460 1,604 .91 1 C 713 - ENTERPRISE RD: (US 19 -to- MCMULLEN BOOTH RD) CL O6 SA 4D D 1.435 - 2.10 A 14,094 736 1,415 .52 0 C 714 -ENTERPRISE RD: (MCMULLEN BOOTH RD -to- PHILIPPE PKWY) CR _ 05 SMC 2U D 1.516 .70 H 8,192 428 688 .70 0 B 717 - FAIRMONT ST: (FT HARRISON AVE -to- MLK JR AVE) CL O6 _ SC 2U D .288 3.50 H 6,246 326 688 .54 0 D 718 - FAIRMONT ST: (MLK JRAVE -to- HARBOR DR) CL O6 NA 4U D .230 .00 H 6,246 326 4,200 .09 0 A 724 -FLORIDA AVE: (RIVERSIDE DR -to-CURLEW PL) CR 01 SMC 2U D 1.868 .50 H _ 6,116 320 954 .36 0 A 727 -FOREST LAKES BLVD: (SR 580 -to- TAMPA RD) CR 05 SA 2D D .467 2.10 A 18,874 986 802 1.23 2 F 728 -FOREST LAKES BLVD: (TAMPA RD -to-HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY LINE) CR 02 SA 2D D 2.270 .90 A 18,860 985 807 1.22 2 F 729 -GANDY BLVD: (HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY LINE -to-SAN MARTIN BLVD) SR 11 F 4F D 2.506 .00 T 33,462 1,748 3,910 .45 0 B 730 -GANDY BLVD: (4TH STN -to-SAN MARTIN BLVD) SR 11 SA 4D D 1.075 .90 _ A 38,000 1,986 1,683 1.18 2 F 731 -GANDY BLVD: (9TH STN -to- 4TH STN) _ _SR 11 _ SA 4D D .547 _ 3.70 A 29,375 1,535 1,685 .91 2 E 732 -GANDY BLVD: (9TH STN -to- I-275) SR 11 SA 4D D 1.238 2.40 A 34,167 1,785 2,842 .63 0 B 733 -GANDY BLVD: (I-275 -to-GRAND AVE ~ GANDY ACCESS) SR 10 SA _ 6D D .539 1.90 A 62,112 3,245 3,311 .98 1 _ C 734 -GANDY BLVD: (GRAND AVE (GANDY ACCESS -to- US 19) SR 10 SA 4D D .986 1.00 A 62,112 3,245 3,957 .82 0 _ A T 747 - GREENBRIAR BLVD: (VIRGINIA AVE -to-BELCHER RD) CR 06 SA _ 2U D .688 1.50 A 9,341 488 813 .60 0 _ B 750 -GULF BLVD: (MADIERA BEACH CSWY -to- PARK BLVD) SR 13 SA 4D D 3.771 .50 A 16,768 876 1,505 .58 _ 0 A _751 -GULF BLVD: (W GULF BL -io-TREASURE ISLAND CSWY) SR 12 SA 4U D .968 1.00 A 22,562 1,179 1,474 .80 0 B 752 -GULF BLVD: (PARK BLVD -to- WALSINGHAM RD) SR 13 SA 2U D 2.992 .70 A 13,540 707 752 .94 1 B 753 -GULF BLVD: (TREASURE ISLAND CSWY -to-JOHNS PASS BRIDGE) SR 12 SA 4D D 1.293 1.50 A 19,274 1,007 1,798 .56 0 B 754 - GULF BLVD: (WALSINGHAM RD -to- BELLEAIR CSWY) CR 13 SA 2D D 2.364 _ .40 A 12,464 651 1,017 .64 0 A 755 -GULF BLVD: (JOHNS PASS BRIDGE -to- MADEIRA BEACH CSWY) _ SR 13 SA 4D D 1.698 1.20 A 28,778 1,5 04 1,834 .82 0 B 756 -GULF BLVD: (BELLEAIR CSWY -to- GULFVIEW BLVD) CR O6 SA 2D D 3.660 .50 A 12,214 _ 638 2,127 .30 0 A 758 -GULF BLVD S: (BAYWAY -to- 75TH AVE) SR _ 12 SA 4D D 2.405 2.90 A 26,471 1,383 1,924 .72 0 B 761- GULFPORT BLVD: (PASADENA AVE -to- 58TH STS) CR 11 SA 4D D 1.852 1.60 A 18,357 959 1,603 .60 0 C 762 -GULF-TO-BAY BLVD: (CLEVELAND ST -to-HIGHLAND AVE) ___ SR O6 SA 4U D .446 4.50 A 9,900 517 1,668 .31 0 C 763 -GULF-TO-BAY BLVD: (HIGHLAND AVE -to-KEENE RD) SR O6 SA 6D _ D .756 4.00 A 48,519 2,535 3,292 .77 0 D 764 -GULF-TO-BAY BLVD: (KEENE RD -to- BELCHER RD) SR O6 SA 6D D 1.026 2.90 A 53,500 2,795 2,588 1.08 2 F 765 -GULF-TO-BAY BLVD: (BELCHER RD -to- US 19) SR O6 SA 6D D .986 2.00 A 53,500 2,795 2,881 .97 1 C 766 -GULF-TO-BAY BLVD: (US 19 -to- BAYSHORE BLVD) SR O6 SA 6D D 1.512 3.30 A 64,104 3,349 2,161 1.55 2 F 767 - GULFVIEW BLVD: (CLEARWATER PASS -to- ROUNDABOUT) CL O6 SA 2D D 1.132 2.70 A 13,391 700 714 .98 1 D 769 -HAINES BAYSHORE RD: (US 19 -to- WOLFORD RD) CR OS NA 2U D .755 .00 H 4,660 243 1,700 .16 0 A 770 -HAINES RD: (9TH STN -to- 38TH AVE N) SP 11 SC 2U 0 .313 3.20 H 9,361 489 688 .80 0 D 771-HAINES RD: (38TH AVE N -to-54TH AVE N) _ SP 11 SMC 2U D 1.570 .60 H 9,361 489 688 .80 0 B 772 -HAINES RD: (54TH AVE N -to- US 19) CR _ 10 SMC 2U D 1.208 2.50 H 9,361 489 688 .80 0 D 775 - HAMLIN BLVD: (102ND AVE N -to- SR 6B8 ~ WALSINGHAM RD) CR 09 SMC 2U D 1.014 1.00 H _ 5,941 310 624 .54 0 _ C 776 - HARN BLVD: (BELCHER RD -to• US 19) _ __ _ CL O6 _ NC 2U D 1.064 .00 H 3,239 169 84 .10 0 A 778 -HERCULES AVE: (DRUID RD -to-GULF-TO-BAY BLVD) ___ CL O6 SA 4D D .253 3.90 A _ 8,096 423 1,627 .26 0 D _779 -HERCULES AVE: (GULF-TO-BAY BLVD -to-DREW ST) __ CL O6 SA 4U D .509 3.90 A _ 12,168 636 1,767 .36 _ 0 C 780 -HERCULES AVE: (DREW ST -to-SUNSET POINT RD) _ CR O6 SA 4U D 1.514 1.30 A _ 20,689 1,081 1,523 .71 0 B 781 -HERCULES AVE: (SUNSET POINT RD -to-UNION ST) CR O6 SA 2D D .502 2.00 A 14,624 764 1,076 .71 0 C Fac Type: °F"=Freeway, "SA"=Signalized Arterial, "SC"=Signalized Collector, "SMC°=Signalized Collecotor (Major), "NA°=Nan-Signalized Arterial, "NC"=Non-Signalized Collector, °NMC°=Non-Signalized Collector (Major) LOS Meth: 'A'=ApCalc, "H"=Conceptual, "T°=Generalized Tables Abbreviations: "Fac"=Facility, "V:Cap°°=Volume to Physical Capacity Def Flag: "1"=VIC Ratio > .9 and LOS=A, LOS=B, LOS=C or LOS=D °2"=VIC Ratio > .9 and LOS=E or LOS=F ~/~ Tindale-Oliver and Associates Produced using: vTIMAS v1.163 Page • 9 ?!- , Tampa, Florida O O 0 0 O O 0 0 0 ~1 ~ o °a °w ° ° 001 O pN O O. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~^ O • p`L O• V M 0 0 0 0 U Q ~- N O O O O O O O O .A W O C ~ O .~ ~ O ~ O O W O ry • O O O' 0.29 0.23 0.19 0.04 0.04 0.26 0.21 0.1 0.07 0.05 0 0 0 0 ° ° 0 0 ' u, o a v ~ s r- N O 0`O ~ ~ N ~ ~~ roject~Traffic Distribution ~~I ~]L~J~ Lice C; ;vii tt; L?:~a=~5 ~t. A_Sr~~ia~e~S, Irt~. i M O 0 0 ° 0 0.01 0.01 0 ° 0 0.01 0.01 0 O ~ r- pl Ip 0 0 a N p o }~-+'p O O O O O ~ O O ~~ p ~ CM d p O I / O '~ O O M ° G o 0 d.G1 0 0 rn •° I o A5 ~p~ O 0 I~ ~ 1 ° G N rr .~ O O.C o ~ 0.06 0.08 0 0 0°° 0.04 0.04 0 O ~ w I~ o° o° o ° 0 .°A a°o G ° o d 0 ~' 0' 01 O IIO o b 0 0 O ° ~ O O O O O O o 0.09 0.09 0.09 0 0 0.2 0.2 0.2 X0.08 0.08 0.08 ° °~ 0.2 0.2 0.2 'p~ - o 0o c o ~ 0 cn 0 Q ° ~ d O O O 0 0 ° O O Q~ ~ O O p ' O ~ O O O O ~ O 0 0°' 0 d d.p1 ~ N O O O O d 0.01 p 0.01 O 0 0 ~ 001 O o °~ w ° ° 0 0 1 O cV ~ 0 0 O O O' 0 ,~ ° 0 0 0 o g y O o M o 0. O o 0 0 d 0 0 0 o A 0 0 ~ O O W O ~i ,~ o ~ 1 o O W O N 0.27 0.29 0.23 0.04 ~~ °• 0.04 _ 0.23 0.26 0.21 c0.1 0.07 0 05 ~; N 0 0 0 o . i O O A ~ OI I c~ - N ~ O \O -~ ~ N 'P a O O O O O G O O O O O O ~ OZ 0.01 d 02 o 'o, 0.01 N 0 O~ ~ O 0 0 O O ~ O O 0 roject Traffic Distribution ~~ W~ l.~?_`a=a Y'•~p C4=~~4 c~, i? LEI~C°l'~.~ u. 1~~tS rS ('.~CiL1' Lf::J+ 1r~~, • PLAN AMENDMENT TRANSPOR TATION ANAL YSIS GIANT OIL - GULF TO BAYBOULEVARD Prepared For GIANT OIL, INC. Prepared By LINCKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. Engineers -Planners Tampa, Florida FDOT GENERALIZED CAPACITIES LINCKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. M PLAN AMENDMENT TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS GIANT OIL -GULF TO BAY BOULEVARD Prepared For GIANT OIL, INC. Prepared By LINCKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 5023 West Laurel Street Tampa, Florida 33607 813-289-0039 State of Florida Authorization No. EB0004638 May, 2008 Project No. L08051 '~. _ ;. :°~ 55 ~~ L. ~ F ~ ,:. ~ s _ ~ _~ ~~ LINCKS & ASSOCIATES. INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 Estimated Daily Project Traffic ...................:..................................................................... 1 Percent Consumed Determination ...................................................:.............................. 4 Appendix LIST OF TABLES 1 Estimated Trip Generation Comparison ....................................................................... 3 2 Percent Consumed Determination ..................:............................................................ 5 LIST OF FIGURES 1 Project Location ............................................................................................................2 LINCKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. • INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to provide a Transportation Analysis for the Plan Amendment Application for the property located south of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and east of Bayview Avenue in the City of Clearwater, as shown in Figure 1. The existing property consists of the following land uses: • 0.617 acres of Residential Urban • 0.313 acres of Commercial General The proposed Plan Amendment would modify the entire 0.93 acres of the subject property to Commercial Neighborhood. This report shall evaluate the impact of the change in the land use on the adjacent roadway system. ESTIMATED DAILY PROJECT TRAFFIC The trip rates utilized in this report were obtained from the Trip Generation Characteristics contained in the Pinellas Planning Council Countywide Plan Rules dated March 19, 2007. Based on these trip rates, it is estimated that development of the property under the existing land use categories would result in 189 trip ends, as shown in Table 1. The development of the project based on the proposed land use category would result in 326 daily trip ends or a net increase of 137 daily trip ends. LINCKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. • ~ FlGURE 1 PRO.~CT LOCATION LINCKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. • • TABLE 1 ESTIMATED TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON Daily Scenario Land Use Acres Trig Rate (1) Trig Ends Existing Residential Urban 0.617 70/acre 43 Commercial General 0.313 465/acre 146 Existing To#al 0.930 1 gg Proposed Commercial Neighborhood 0.930 350/acre 326 Difference 137 (1) Source: Pinellas Planning Council -Trip Generation Characteristics. LINCKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. • • PERC-ENT CONSUMED DETERMINATION As indicated in the previous section of this report, the proposed land use plan amendment would result in a net increase of 137 daily trip ends, which equates to 0.26% of the capacity of Gulf to Bay Boulevard, as shown in Table 2. LINCKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. • TABLE 2 PERCENT CONSUMED DETERMINATION Daily Additions! Percent Roadway From To Lanes Ca aci Pro'ect Consumed Traffic 2 Guif to Bay Bivd. Bayshore Blvd. US 19 6 LD 53,500 137 0.26% (1) Source: Florida Department of Transportation 2007 Generali2ed Q/LOS Tables. (2) See Table 1 of this report. LINCKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. FUTURE LAND USE MAP LINCKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. !.. ~'~.. R ~ __ __ w r_ _ - ~ TENNESSEE AVE ~ i.. _. _ ~~ _ r__ CAROLINA AVE Q ROGERS Si 9 Y G T ~~9L K O m 2 f U D K D i m ,1 ' ~ arf ® Sublet PropMy __. ` ~ ~ MuNCgel Boundary Gkarwebr Future Land Use ResldmtlN Low IRl) RaeMimfbl Low MetlMm (BEAT) ResMentlN Medium IRAQ ReeMmtlN Urban (RlQ RaelOeniW Nigh (RR) Resort FecRitba NI9h IRFiQ - Commercbl iseneral lcc) - lmmutbnal l0 ® RecreatbNOpen Spaee RUOEI - Preserwtlon IPI RORO - TraruPartNbNlNRklea IT/UI W11TER PlneAee Courgy Future Lsnd Uae yA~; No OeurlPlion (NOIOES) ,'t..~+^• RealdenfW40/fke LlmSed lR/Ol) Reeideedbl Low IRy ReNdentW Low Median IRLM R<NdentiN Akaliun IRAQ A<shlentlal Urbm IRUI - TrwpoNtiwVVliBlba (fNQ YNTER Soulw- LItyOlCkerwter, rJerember Z00> Pnelas County. October NO> e 0 100 200 ~p Feet Exhibit A Future Land Use Map Giant: Gulf-To-Bay EM1CCri}i,ARi)T, 1TAM \frR h..\SSC)C'InTIfJ I.ea r .~ . e.P.n r.,~~m~~n. ,VIII N Rn..h IR•nr I)rn~.•`.luitn val. Tx.~~tm. F6.e~ ilM? 7. A~v~lvr.: RI? _~••.:a'[S. Fax +':1!w.zva. GULF TO BAY BLVD PPC TRIP GENERATION RATES LINCKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. Table 1 SUMMARY CATEGORY MATRIX CLASSIFICATION CATEGORY/SYMBOL D.U./ACRE MAX. F.A.R. I.S.R. TRAFFIC GENERATION RATE MAX./STD. MAX./STD. (ADT/AC.) RESIDENTIAL: Residential Rural (RR) .5 .30/.1.8 .60/.45 10 Residential Estate (RE) 1.0 .30/.18 .60/.45 14 Residential Suburban (RS) 2.5 .30/.18 .60/.45 2g Residential Low (RL) 5.0 .40/.24 .65/.50 51 Residential Urban (RU) 7.5 .40/.24 .65/.50 70 Residential Low Medium (RLM) L0.0 .50/.30 .75/.56 63 Residential Medium (RM) 15.0 .50/.30 .75/.56 96 Residential High (RH) 30.0 .60/.36 .85/.65 1 g3 Residential Very High (RVI-i) .60/.36 .85/.65 301 MIXED USE: ResidentiaUOffice Limited (R/OL) 7.5 .40/.24 .75/.56 119 Residential/Office General (R/OG) 15.0 .50/.30 .75/.56 170 Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) 18.0 .40/.24 .85/.65 336 Resort Facilities Overlay (RFO) Per Underlying Category Resort Facilities Medium (RFM) 18.0 .65/.39 .85/.65 167 Resort Facilities High (RFH) 30.0 1.2/.72 .95/.72 3l0 COMMERCIAL: Commercial Neighborhood (CN) 10.0 .40/.24 .80/.60 350 Commercial Limited (CL) 18.0 .45/.27 .85/.65 364 Commercial Recreation (CR) 24.0 .55/.33 .90/.68 546 Commercial General (CG) 24.0 .55/.33 .90/.68 465 INDUSTRIAL: Industrial Limited (IL) _.65/.39 .85/.65 170 Industrial General (IG) .75/.45 .95/.72 199 PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC: Preservation (P) .10/.OS .20/.10 0.3 Recreation/Open Space (R/OS) .25/.1.5 .60/.45 4 Institutional (I) 12.5 .65/.39* .85/.65 167 Transportation/Utility (T/U) .701.42 .90/.68 lg PLANNED REDEVELOPMENT Residential (R) Per Approved Special Area Plan Mixed Use (MU) Per Approved Special Area Plan Commercial (C) Per Approved Special Area Plan Industrial (IND) Per Approved Special Area Plan SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS: Water/Drainage Feature Not Applicable Scenic/Non-Commercial Corridor S ee Otherwise Applicable Category Activity Center (AC) See Otherwi se Applicable Category and Multiplier Factor Community Redevelopment District (CRD) Per Approved Plan Central. Business District (CBD) Per Approved Plan *Notes: See Bonus Provision, Section 2.3.3.7.3 Traffic Generation Characteristics are Average Daily Trips Per Acre Countywide Plan Rules 2-57 March 19, 2007 f f M - TABLE 4 - 1 GENERALIZED ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY VOLUMES FOR FLORIDA'S URBANIZED AREAS* UNINTERRUPTED FLOW HIGHWAYS Level of Service Lanes Divided A B C D 2 Undivided 2,200 7,600 15,000 21,300 4 Divided 20,400 33,000 47,800 61,800 6 Divided 30,500 49,500 71,600 92,700 STATE TWO-WAY ARTERIALS Class 1 (>0.00 to 1. 99 signalized intersections per mile) Level of Service Lanes Divided A B C D 2 Undivided ** 4,200 13,800 16,400 4 Divided 4,800 29,300 34,700 35,700 6 Divided 7,300 44,700 52,100 53,500 8 Divided 9,400 58,000 66,100 67,800 Class II (2.00 to 4.50 signalized intersections per mile) FREEWAYS Interchange spacing> 2 mi, apart E Le vel of Servi ce 27,100 Lanes A B C D E 70,200 4 23,800 39,600 55,200 67,100 74,600 105,400 6 36,900 61,100 85,300 103,600 115,300 8 49,900 82,700 115,300 140,200 156,000 10 63,000 104,200 145,500 176;900 196,400 12 75,900 125,800 175,500 213;500 237,100 E 16,900 *** *** *** Level of Service Lanes Divided A B C D E 2 Undivided ** 1,900 11,200 15,400 16,300 4 Divided ** 4,100 26,000 32,700 34,500 6 Divided ** 6,500 40,300 49,200 51,800 8 Divided ** 8,500 53,300 63,800 67,000 Class III (more than 4.5 signalized intersections per mile and not within primary city central business district of an urbanized azea over 750,000) Interchange spacing < 2 mi. apart Level of Service Lanes A B C D L 4 22,000 36,000 52,000 67,200 76,500 6 34,800 56,500 81,700 105,800 120,200 8 47,500 77,000 11 ],400 144,300 163,900 10 60,200 97,500 141,200 182,600 207,6Q0 ]2 72,900 118,100 170,900 221,100 251,200 BICYCLE MODE (Note: Level of service for the bicycle mode in this table is based on roadway geometries at 40 mph posted speed and traffic conditions, not number of bicyclists using the facility.) (Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown below by number of directional roadway lanes to determine two-way maximum service volumes.) Paved Shoulder/ Level of Serv ice Bicycle Lane Level of Service Lanes Divided A B C D E Coverage A B C D E 2 Undivided ** ** 5,300 12,600 15,500 0-49% ** ** 3,200 13,800 >13,800 4 Divided ** ** 12,400 28,900 32,800 50-84% ** 2,500 4,100 >4,100 *** 6 llivided ** ** 19,500 44,700 49;300 85-100% 3,100 7,200 >7,200 *** *** 8 Divided ** ** 25,800 58,700 63,800 PEDESTRIAN MODE Class IV (more than 4.5 signalized intersections per mile and within (Note: Level of service for the pedestrian mode in this table is based on roadway primary city central business district of an urbanized azea geometries at 40 mph posted speed and traffic conditions, not nlBnber of pedestrians over 750,000) using the facility.) (Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown below by number of Level of Servi ce directional roadway lanes to determine two-way maximum service volumes.) Lanes Divided A B C D E Level of Service 2 Undivided ** ** 5,200 13,700 15,000 Sidewalk Coverage A B C D E 4 Divided ** ** 12,300 30,300 31,700 0-49% ** ** ** 6,400 15,500 6 Divided ** ** 19,100 45,800 47,600 50-84% ** ** ** 9,900 19,000 8 Divided ** ** 25,900 59,900 62,200 85-100% ** 2,200 11,300 >11,300 *** NON-STATE ROADWAYS BUS MODE (Scheduled Fixed Route) Major City/County Roadways Level of Service (Buses per hour) Level of Service (Note: Buses per hour shown are only for the peak hour in the single direction of the higher traffic flow.) Lanes Divided A B C D E Level of Service 2 Undivided ** ** 9,100 14,600 15,600 Sidewalk Coverage A B C D E 4 Divided ** ** 21,400 31,100 32,900 0-84% ** >5 >4 >3 >2 6 Divided ** ** 33,400 46,800 49,300 85-100°/a >6 >4 >3 >2 >1 ARTERIAL/NON-STATE ROADWAY ADJi1STMENTS Other Signalized Roadways (alter corresponding volume by the indicated percent) (signalized intersection analysis) Level of Service Lanes Median Left Tum Lanes Adjustment Factors Lanes Divided A B C D E 2 Divided Yes +5% 2 Undivided ** ** 4,800 10,000 12,600 2 Undivided No _2p% 4 Divided ** ** 1].,100 21,700 25,200 Multi Undivided Yes -5% Source: Florida Department of Transportation 05/17/07 Multl Undivided No -25% Systems Planning Office 605 Suwannee Street, MS 19 ONE-WAY FACILITIES Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Multiply the corresponding two-directional volumes in this table by 0.6. http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/default.htm Values shown are presented as two-way annual avenge daily volumes for levels of service and are for the automobile/imck modes unless specifically stated. Although presented as daily volumes, they actually represent beak hour direction wnditions with applicable K and D factors applied This table does not constitute a standard and should be used only for general planting applications. The computer models from which this table is cleaved shotdd be used for more specific planning applications. 7Le table and deriving compmer models should not be used for corridor or intersection design, where more refined techniques exist Level of service letter grade thresholds are probably not comparable across modes and, therefore, cross modal comparisons should be made with caution. Furthermore, combining levels of service of different modes into one overall roadway level of service is not recommended Calculations are based on planing applications of the Highway Capacity Mmual, Bicycle LOS Model, Pedestrian LOS Model and Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, respectively for the automobileftntck, bicycle, pedestrian and bus modes. "Carrot be achieved using table input value defauhs. *"Not applicable for that level of service letter grade. For automobilehruck modes, voltunes greeter than level of service D become F because intersection capacities have been reached For bicycle and pedestrian modes, the level of service letter grade (including F) is not achievable, because there is no tttaximtun vehicle volume threshold using table input value defaults. • • LEGAL DESCRIPTION Parcel No.: 16-29-16-05292-008-0130 Tract A, BAY VIEW CITY SUBDIVISION, as recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 43, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, together with one-half of a vacated right-of--way being further described as follows: From the NW corner of the SW1/4 of Section 16, Township 29 South, Range 16 East, run N89 degrees, 45 minutes, 07 seconds E, along the centerline of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (SR 60) 75.97 feet; thence S21 degrees, OS minutes, 29 seconds E, along the centerline of Bayview Avenue 53.50 feet; thence N89 degrees, 45 minutes, 07 seconds E, 26.75 feet to the point of intersection with the South right-of--way line of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and the East right-of-way line of Bayview Avenue, said point being the point of beginning; thence continue N89 degrees, 45 minutes, 07 seconds along said South right-of--way line of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (SR 60) 250.62 feet; thence S21 degrees, OS minutes, 29 seconds E, 14.48 feet; thence N21 degrees, OS minutes, 29 seconds W, along said East right-of--way line, 103.20 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 0.316 acres, more or less. Parcel No.: 16-29-16-53892-003-0020 Lot 2, Block 2, TOWN OF BAY VIEW and known as McMULLEN'S BAY VIEW SUBDIVISION, together with the southerly %2, of the right-of--way vacated by the City of Clearwater, Florida, in Resolution 75-4 filed January 16, 1975 in O.R. Book 4251, Page 153, lying to the North of and adjacent to Lot 2, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 6, Page 23, of the Public Records of Hillsborough County, Florida, of which Pinellas County, was formerly a part. Parcel No.: 16-29-16-53892-003-0010 Lot One (1) of Block Three (3) of McMULLEN'S BAY VIEW SUBDIVISION, according to the map or plat thereof as recorded in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. www.sunbiz.org - Department o fate Home Contact Us E-Filing Services Previous on List Next on List Return To List No Events No Name History Detail by Entity Name Florida Profit Corporation GIANT OIL, INC. Filing Information Document Number P95000053385 FEI Number 650593170 Date Filed 07/11/1995 State FL Status ACTIVE Principal Address 1806 N FRANKLIN ST TAMPA FL 33602-2234 US Changed 04/22/2008 Mailing Address 1806 N FRANKLIN ST TAMPA FL 33602-2234 US Changed 04/22/2008 Registered Agent Name & Address BASEM, AL 1806 N FRANKLIN ST TAMPA FL 33602-2234 US Name Changed: 05/01/1996 Address Changed: 04/22/2008 Officer/Director Detail Vame & Address title PD ELI, BASEM 1806 N FRANKLIN ST -AMPA FL 33602-2234 'annual Reports 2eport Year Filed Date 1006 04/20/2006 !007 04/16/2007 !008 04/22/2008 Page 1 of 2 Document Searches Forms Help Entity Name Search http://www, sunbiz. org/scripts/cordet. exe?action=DETFIL&incLdoc_numbei =P95 00005 3 3 ... 4/29/2008 ~ ~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION Parcel No.: 16-29-16-05292-008-0130 Tract A, BAY VIEW CITY SUBDIVISION, as recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 43, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, together with one-half of a vacated right-of--way being further described as follows: From the NW corner of the SW1/4 of Section 16, Township 29 South, Range 16 East, run N89 degrees, 45 minutes, 07 seconds E, along the centerline of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (SR 60) 75.97 feet; thence S21 degrees, OS minutes, 29 seconds E, along the centerline of Bayview Avenue 53.50 feet; thence N89 degrees, 45 minutes, 07 seconds E, 26.75 feet to the point of intersection with the South right-of--way line of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and the East right-of-way line of Bayview Avenue, said point being the point of beginning; thence continue N89 degrees, 45 minutes, 07 seconds along said South right-of--way line of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (SR 60) 250.62 feet; thence S21 degrees, OS minutes, 29 seconds E, 14.48 feet; thence N21 degrees, OS minutes, 29 seconds W, along said East right-of--way line, 103.20 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 0.316 acres, more or less. Parcel No.: 16-29-16-53892-003-0020 Lot 2, Block 2, TOWN OF BAY VIEW and known as McMULLEN'S BAY VIEW SUBDIVISION, together with the southerly %2, of the right-of--way vacated by the City of Clearwater, Florida, in Resolution 75-4 filed January 16, 1975 in O.R. Book 4251, Page 153, lying to the North of and adjacent to Lot 2, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 6, Page 23, of the Public Records of Hillsborough County, Florida, of which Pinellas County, was formerly a part. Parcel No.: 16-29-16-53892-003-0010 Lot One (1) of Block Three (3) of McMULLEN'S BAY VIEW SUBDIVISION, according to the map or plat thereof as recorded in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. ..irk h:~Ear<. '...• ~,qfr ,. J 'I'IIIS INS'fRUMGN'I' PREI'ARGD nY: ;` -,'` ' `'_ laurel L'. Lockett ,. CARLI'ON, PIGLDS, 1VARD, I:Mh1ANUEl:; ~` SMITIi & CUTLGR, P.A. ~. ,t One Harbour Place 777 S. Flurbour Island I3uulevard 'rnmpa, PL 33GO2-1799 ! ~~ ^~ V G. Tax Parcel ]dentificatiaai?`No: .~ ~ ~ l G/29/ 1 G/0~29T/OQ~/0130 I'v ~.•.,~; - , ; 1G/29/1GI33S92f~03/0010 .3 , , ` \ °I~;:,I 1G/29/.1(153S93J003/0020 =, .,, i ~' '~ ~^ I~ ~ Grantee's F.e~ietal'"f~lx I.D. # ~(o~ • oZ a -~ 7 `~ 4 .: PINELLRS COUNTY FLR. OFF.REC.BK 10364 PG 1632 GCElBBee MBP 01-27-1999 1:15:29 O1 DED-GIANT OIL INC RECORDING 1 (19.50 DOC STAMP - DR219 3 f3, 150.00 TOTAL: f3, 169.50 CIECK AMT.TEHDERED: f3, 169.50 CHARGE: ;, 00 :n ii I~~~„ WARRANTY DF.I:D ,~~ • , ;: ~ TfiIS INDENTURE, made the ~S day of January, 1999, by R. Roy Meador, as ~Trttstee bf the R. Roy Meador Revocable Living Trust dated 2/17/89, whose post office ;~.'tlddrss is 03543 Picciola Road, Fnlitland Park, Florida 34731 (hereinafter called "Grantor"), to `,•. Glrri# Oil, Inc., a Tlorida corporation, whose post office address is 3904 Corporex Drive, Suite .,~;i 54' Tampa, Florida 33619 (hereinafter called "Grantee"); -. ;•:~bfj5'~'`• (Whenever used herein the terns "Grantor" and "Grantee" include all of the parties :,,..,~ /S 9~~fl to this instrument and the heirs, legal representatives and assigns of individuals and ' ~ the successors and assigns of corporations and partnerships.) ' ~ - ~- WITNESSETH: That the Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ' .. - ~ - - {$10.00) and other valuable considerations, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, hereby • ~ -~~- ° grants, bargains, sells, aliens, remises, releases and transfers unto the Grantee all that certain land ,..;,;.;I.~~g~ituate in Pinellas County, .Florida more legally described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Said property is not the homestead of the Grantor. TOGETHER WITH all the tenements, ltereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same in fee simple forever. AND the Grantor hereby covenants with said Grantee that it is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple; that it has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land; that it Hereby fully warrants tl~e title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever; and that said land is free of all encumbrances except for the year 1999 and 'I'1'Ad 1533718.02 tI - ~ PINELLRS COUNTY FLR. OFF .REC .BK 10384 PG 1633 subsequent years, and the e attached hereto and made a ctions and reservations described on Exhibit "B" 1N ~YITNESS W..kllEltEbF, said Grantor has hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first above writfen.,•#"~;-~ Signed, sealed and delive-red -' in the pre ence of. (Signs r s:_ Printcd) - ••(}1ljtniss Name Legibly Printcd) -~~:- •STATE OF FLORIDA • :COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH (SEAL) R. Roy M ador, Individually and as Trustee of the R. Roy Meador Trust dated 2/17/89 ~~GRANTOR" The foregoing instnlment was acknowledged before me tlli~.~day of January, 1999, by -• R. Roy Meador, Individually and as Trustee of the R. Roy Meador Trust dated 2/17/89. He [ptcasc - chcct: us appticabte] /~/ is personally known to me, or has produced / //his F~/91"[ C1 ,_ . (state) driver's license, or / !his (type of idciification) as identification. ' (Sibm~at~urc) ~lYll'e-~U /yju )Yl (Printcd Namc) (AFF17~ NOTARIAL SEAL) _ ~k~.ry~' = MM rAMMISSIONA GC5167B7 EXPIRES ~.~~= AP~1111.21X10 ~~~.?Rf ~•.•' BONaED1NR1i 7R(N FAIN INSURANCE.INC. 'rl'Aa 153371 B.Ql NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF FLORIDA (Commission Expiration Datc) (Serial Number, tf Any) dpi ~j ~ I) { fd~'t ~ ~ ~ 1 T y~j4 t ~' Y a • 1 ..:,~dCNipl9ilWS~Rrt~,l~l~ ... _ r :t .rpzay- y i 'li ,f. '}, f ~ ~ y. 1 t~ l1 y yf'~' h~~ '4~ rwr~', ~~ f 1 r ~ra ck •~~ij~~x, ~ ~ ~.tf^ ~ ~~tilf'r~i . Ir - ~JL- Y'~-s~~r- \„~. ~..~. ~~~v~'~,i'Si rkt'~~'ky~r +5,~. ,N' +^t~~ r ~ f. , .. •... .. ..,... .I,. ~-......VV-'91;,.T...\w"tlY.~i:..~L"'.3U~:2. ,....~....~.._ c .L.._.. ... .. .... .. . ~. .,.. "`•> P INELLRS COUNTY FLR . OFF .REC .BK 10364 PG 1634 Exhibit ~~A" -.,G~GAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL A ._ Tract A, BAY VIEW CI'l'YSIJBDIVISION, asrecorded in Plat Book 9, Page 43, Public Records of Pinellas Cou'nty,;.Florida, together with one-half of a vacated right-of--way being further described as follows; From the NW corner of the SW1/4 of Section 16, Township 29 South, Range 16 Easy; ruzr"N89°45'07"E, along the centerline ofGulf-to•Bay Boulevard (S.R. 60) 75.97 feet; thence. 52,1°05'29"E, along the centerline of Bayview Avenue 53.50 feet; thence N89°45'07"E, 26.7'S..~fbet:TO the point of intersection with the South right-of--way line ofGulf-to- ~ Bay Boulevard..aittl~llt~ East right-of--way line of Bayview Avenue, said point being the point of beginning; thence ;-cpntinue N89°45'07" along said South right-of--way line of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. (S,12;60~ 250.62 feet; thence S21°05'29"E, 14.48 feet; thence S69°01'11 "W, 234.22 feet to a paint on ;the east right-of--way line of Bayview Avenue; thence N21°05'29"W, along said East rig~it~f.-,w~3~ line, 103.20 feet to the point of beginning. Less aiiy,pait•••thereofiying within lands described in Official Records Book 6893, page 338 and Official-'Records Book 6997, page 1573, Public Records of Pinellas County, Floirda. Coi~ini~ilg .316 acres, more or less. " -BARGEE B `'~Lof One (1) of Block Three (3} of McMULLEN'S BAY VIEW SUBDIVISION, according to the ~' map or plat thereof as recorded in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, together with -:. the Southerly %Z of the right of way vacated by the City of Clearwater, Florida in Resolution 75-4 `~: ~` filed 1/16/75 in OR Book 4251, page 153, lying to the North of and adjacent to said Lot 1, .. according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 6, page 23, of the Public Records of Hillsborough County, Florida, of which Pinellas County was formerly a part. Lot 2, Block 3, TOWN OF BAY VIEW and known as McMULLEN'S BAYVIEW SUBDIVISION, together with the Southerly %, of the right-of--way vacated by the City of Clearwater, Florida, in Resolution 75-4 filed 1/16/75 in O.R. Book 4251, Page 153, lying to the North of and adjacent to said Lot 2, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 6, Page 23, of the Public Records of Hillsborough County, Florida, of which Pinellas County, was formerly a part. rNnaissaz22.oi I I {~~ .~y Y1' t41 `\~ti f . 4j r~ u ~ ~r ?,x ~ 1 ~~ ~ ,Ni ` ~ ~~r ~'~~~~C M r tip, ~ . ,_: ....:L.. _.~AU;il'.n:. ~ ;~ fir, i * .~.}'S_cu~tii .. pINEt.BKS 103B4TPG 1635 .. ,~~ibit "B" OFF .REC . 1. Subject to Easement to the Giti~ of Clearwater as recorded in O.R. Book 1633, Page 476, Public Records of Piii~I1~;;;C~otnty, Florida (As to Parcel A). ~; 2. Subject to easement `teGOCded in O.R. Book 4251, Page 153, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. 3. Assignment of Teases, Rents and Profits by Giant Oil, Inc., a Florida corporation, to Fonim Holdings, Inc.,dated October 10, 1997, filed October 16, 1997, recorded in Official Record Book 98:75, Page 258, of the public records of Pinellas County, Florida. `,i~~, I ~' Trna i s3aiio.oi 1 t~', i I: ' . ' .. !~ •1-VQ` ~,•~ Y ~. l1•µ ~'~~~~ '. _; [_ _~ ,,~.'. ~' r , Map Document. (E.1Gpnt Oil, Gutlto Bay, 080311G~SWJ(DlGiamOil venal 1 050108.mxi1) 5112008 -1 00 0/ PM Map DocumenC. (E~.'GieM Oil, GuM la Bay, 08033tGISIAO(D1Giantpl aenal_i_OSOtOB.m~) Bl12WB -1 00.04 PM .. ~~ V ,g~ ~ ~' ROGERS ST . + ~ ~~~ .~ ~ HOC i i ,.~ ~~ -- .• CAROLINA AVE GULF TO BAY BLVD d ~~ G P ~~ 9L F , ~u-~u-x ' ' ~ 31 jG ~ /- TENNESSEE AVE 9~ 0~ r y } Q m rn 0 m Z J J U w l7 0 m D Q m ~~ 31L'L71~ Local Roads ®Subject Property ~ ~' ~~-{- ! ~ !Municipal Boundary `- - ~ Parcels Pinellas County Future Land Use ResidentiaVOfficeLimited(RIOL) i 'ResidentiallOfice Llmlted (RyOL) 'ResidentiiM Law (RL) Residential Low Medium (RLM) 'ResidenlialNrban(RU) 'TransponatioNUtillties(TIU) I • , Il ~t ,,• I ~ City of Clearwater Future Land Use Residential Low (RL) Residential Low Medium (RLM) Residential Medium (RM) Residential Urban(RU) - Residential High(RH) - Resod Fadlities High (RFH) - Commerdal General (CG) Institutional (I) - RecreationlOpenSpace(RIOS) PreservaGon(P) ROAD TranspoRatioNUtllties (TIU) WATER iurce: :y 01 Clearwater, December 2007 lellas County, Odober2007 0 100 200 ~ Feet Exhibit D Existing Future Land Use Map Giant Oil, Inc. 3009 Gulf to Bay Blvd. Clearwater, FL ENGE.LHARDT, L{AMMER & ASSOCIATES Land Planning ~ GLS• Expert Tc.rtimnny 3001 N, kooky Point Drive, Suite 300, Tampa, Florida 37607 Telephone 817 28?-3&ss, Fax 813 ZR6 ?3pN Map Document. (E!Gunl Oil, Guato Bey, 08033`GISlMXOIGiantOil FLU 1 05010a.mxd) 51112008 -~ 239-.21 PM ~ ~ TENNESSEE'AVE- ~ CAROLINA AVE ~~ YiBL"'g'"V ~I ROGERS ST ~ z y'~ Y L ~~ ~f y Z L R rArr~ GR 3~ ~ A • i 4 ~ ~ ~ m ® t~ ~ ~ nq 0 -- - ,~ LAC i ~ ,.~ ~~ tw ~~a ~~ ~`~.. •~ t I I • Local Roads Parcels ~4n T 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ N p ~ ~ ~ ~ Municipal Boundary oc 2 F- ~ Subject Property m z W J -+ City of Cleanvaler Zoning U Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) ~,~ Medium Density Residential (MDR) High Density Residential (HDR) Mobile Home Park (MHP) L..:.g Commercial (C) ., ~{ Tourist (T) ~~ a) w{ ~ InsYituttonal(I) O', N'. ~ Open Space/Recreation (OSRJ _. Q /~~-~~m~1~ 1.S~A71+A~11~J Preservation (P) Pineallas County Zoning Limped Office (P-1AJ Single Family Residential (R-3) One, Two, or Three Family (R 4) ~ Rural Residential (R-R) f r • ~ Source: ~1 City 01 Clearwater, March 2007 ~ Pinellas County. May 2008 /r • ~ ~ Feet Exhibit E Existing Zoning Map Giant Oil, Inc. 3009 Gulf to Bay Blvd. City of Clearwater ENGF..I,HARDT, HAMMER & ASSOCIATES Land Planning ~ fIS• Erpcrr T'cxtimnny 3001 N. Roclry Paint Drive, Suite 3011, Tampa, Florida 33607 Telephone 813 281-3855, Fax 813 286-1.708 Map Document (E:13iart Oil, Gutl to Bay, 090331SISUAX01GIentOil_zonin~l 050103.mxd) 912008 ~- 222.53 PM CAROLINA AVE TENNESSEE AVE N r Q m N 0 K r 0 m z W J 7 V Lopl Roads ® SubJedPropeRy ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ MuniclpalBoundary Parcels Rnellas County Future Land Use - Rc~sidentie00RiceLirrnted(RIOL) 'ResidentialKhficeLimited(RIOL) 'Residential Lax (RL) ResidenD'al Low Medium (RLM) - 'ResidentialNr6an (RU) - 'TransportationlUlilities(T!U) ~~ ~~~~ ~ •~ 1 ~~, . i ~ ,.~ ~~ ROGERS ST ~. .• GULF TO BAY BLVD d 9~ L ~~ 9L >r 3~ 9O ~~ y~~ GR 3~ w l7 0 m O } Q m IY~ p • , I' I ~I Gty of Clearwater Future Land Use Resdental Lax (RL) Residential Low Metlium (RLM) Residential Medium (RM) 7 Residen~al Utban (RU) Residential High (RH) - Resort Facilities High (RFH) - Commeraal General (CG) Commeraal Neighborhood (CN) Instih3lional ll) - RecreatioNOpen Space (RlOS) Preservation (P) RoaO TransportslionlUtililies (TN) VdATER Source. City Of Cleanvaler, December 20D7 Pinellas County, October 2007 0 100 200 ~ Feet ~~ Y a~ +~ ~I- ~) 4 Exhibit F Proposed Future Land Use Map Giant Oil, Inc. 3009 Gulf to Bay Blvd. Clearwater, FL ;~;, ~~~ E1rCiF.LHARDT, F~AMMER & ASSOCIATES Land Planning • (;IS~ Expert Testimony 3001 N Rockt Point Drive, Suite JW, Tampa. Florida J.3607 Telzp6one 6I3 281-3655, Far 613 2rd 23US Map Document. (EWiant 011. Gutlto Bay, 08033'f,ISVaX0lGianlOil FLU 1 D50108.nxd) SIV2008 -- 23911 PM ' ~ ~, -, V ~ ; • ~ ~ '._ ;; `• ~; IN9'f_ l:, 99-025518 +vn :~,',.)•~,,~ JRN ,c'~7~ ~t,999 3:43PM ;'}~: '1; 'rf11SINS'rRUh1l:N'ff'RL'PARCDl3Y: t',.' PINELLRS COUNTY FLR. l.uurel ti. Lockett _,. OFF .REC ,BK 10384 PG 1632 CARLTON, FIEI.US,IVARD, EA9MA.NUEI:~,~~ `, SMITIi & CUTLER, P.A. tiC2188BE MBP 01-27-1999 U:15:29 One harbour Place Ol DED-GIANT OI! INC 777 S. harbour Island E3oulevarJ RECORDING 1 f19.50 'rampr, I'L 33(02-iT19 DOC STAMP - DR219 3 f3,150.OD i V .~; _ ~'` ~` ```"~~ T01Al: f3,169.5D ~ o. ~_;, T:~~ Parcel Identificatiot~~~lo`~ Ct~CK AMT. TENDERED: f3, 169.50 F v `~ I G/29/ 1 G/05,29•T/O.Q~/0130 CNANGE: t.00 .3 :-, ~+ u X9/1 GT53St)2/~03/0010 "=' 1G/29/1G3`53$9~003/0020 \ °! u i z -_' '+ Grantee s FeQera!''f~x I.D. # ~!o ~ - a a •!r'1 `~ 9 .n ! ,~ i;': ~' !:,C+ WARRANTY DFFD ,; .;,,~ ;. ~~~;;;T#iIS INDENTURE, made the ~Sday of January, 1999, by R. Roy Meador, as Trustee bf the R. Roy Mendor Revocable Living Trust dated 2/17!89, whose post office ~ ;~..`:lddress is 03543 Picciola Road, Fruitland Park, Florida 34731 (]tereinafter called "Grantor'), to `~. ~i.:t>rfOil, lne., a Floridn corporation, whose post office address is 3904 Corporex Drive, Suite `..~.`.1,SQ; Tampa, Florida 33G19 (hereinafter called "Grantee"); ,,, I:!~~r~ItF1:~5.,,. S'~''• Whenever used Herein the terms "Grantor" and "Grantee".include all of the parties ~'~..~/3~3,safl to this instrument and the heirs, legal representatives and assigns of individuals and the successors and assigns of corporations and partnerships.) ' ' ~ ~- WITNESSETH: That the Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars .. :::_ ' :-($10.00) and other valuable considerations, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, hereby rants, bargains, sells, aliens, remises, releases and transfers unto the Grantee all that certain land ,•.;,;;I,~J~ f ^ ituate in Pinellas County, Florida more legally described on Exhihit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Said property is not the homestead of the Grantor. TOGETIiER WITH all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same in fee simple forever. AND the Grantor hereby covenants with said Grantee that it is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple; that it has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land; that it hereby fully warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the lalvfill claims of all persons whomsoever; and that said land is free of all encumbrances except for the year 1999 and '1'AAp I $3)71 N.02 subsequent years, and the easeri attached hereto and made a pert 1N WITNESS WbI~1f~E and year first above wriEfen `'~. ;; Signed, sealed and delivered--• • in the presence of• "' P INELLRS COUNTY FLR . ' `~ ~`' OFF .REC ,BK 10384 PG 1633 acid reservations described on Exhihit "t3" said Grantor has hereunto set their hands and seals the day (SEAL} R. Roy M ador, Individually and as Trustee of the R. Roy Meador Trust dated ?/17/89 Printed) •••(SKjtness Nume Legibly Printed) J ~~~, t `~ `~~: `• STATE OF FLORIDA • ,''COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH ,:z',. "GRANTOR" i ' '' The foregoing instrument was acknowled ed before me thi <,,''°~., g s;~.rday of. January, 1999, by R. Roy Meador, Individually and as Trustee of the R. Roy Meador Trust dated 2/17/89. He [ptcasc check us appiicablcl /~/ is personally known to nte, or has produced / // his nrr ~i , (start) driver's license, or / /his (typo of identifiendon) as identification. (AFFIX NOTARIAL SEAL} ~2M~ ~~: 8onnla Brown Laney c.~ •..: MY COMMISSIONACC5467B7IXPINES ?~~ +p Apd110, 2000 •~••~RGl~~'' BOINEaiXglliigYFAINIIISnfUNCE.INC. 'fPAp 1533716.02 (Si&n,~ature) I~lY1i'P ~l /hr.'Ih ~~~ (Printed Natnc) NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF FLORIDA '~~~~/ac~ov (Commission Expiration Date) (renal Number, IfAny) ._.... .. ~ :.-r iS . ~ - . _..._ . ' F, ~~ ~tti' ~''!'•F:~T."r y_ y ~ J 'lip 4 f '~~~ (''", ~.~ . ... ... ..... .... .. .. J.Y.J~WSI;.°w.u"X'Ca'::~~C".L'::.:4.....w .. Y...-.. .~.._,.. . .. .. - .. .. ~. i ' -~`) PINELLRS COUNTY FLR. , ' l7FF ,REC.BK 1()364 PG 1634 • Exhibit "A" -~ _., G~GAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL A .. Tract A, BAY VIEW ~I~1'-;~SUBDIVISION, as recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 43, Public Records of Pinellas Courtly, ":Florida, together with one-half of a vacated right-of--way being further described as follows; From the NW corner of the SW1/4 of Section 1G, Township 29 South, Range 1 G East;-{ut~"I~89°45'07"E, along the centerline ofGulf-to-Bay Boulevard (S.R. GO) ~ 75.97 feet; thence. S~2,1a05'29"E, along the centerline of Bayview Avenue 53.50 feet; thence ! N89°45'07"E, 2C;.7S,~Ib~el;:~to the point of intersection with the South right-of-way line of Gulf-to- 1 Bay Boulevarcl.sit~i'tht:"East right-of--way line of Bayview Avenue, said point being the point of beginning; t}~ence'~cintinue N89°45'07" along said South right-of-way line of Gulf-to-Bay ~ ~' Boulevard.•{$„RV`kQ~ 250.62 feet; thence S21°05'29"E, 14.48 feet; thence S69°01'11"W, 234.22 feet to a paii~I on ;the east right-of--way line of Bayview Avenue; thence N21°05'29"W, along said East rigfiC~tif.;wa~ line, 103.20 feet to the point of beginning. Less ~i~;part=thereof lying within lands described in Official Records Book 6893, page 338 and Official `~2i:c`ords Book 6997, page 1573, Public Records of Pinellas County, Floirda. Cont~inirlg .31 G acres, more or less. • i ~ , RAR~I/L B ~~•. `~<:LYaf One (1) of Block Three (3) of McMULLEN'S BAY VIEW SUBDIVISION, according to the `~ tiap or plat thereof as recorded in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, together with • i , ~ ~~.."the Southerly %, of the right of way vacated by the City of Clearwater, Florida in Resolution 75-4 `filed 1/16/75 in OR Book 4251 ~`'~ ~ ~~ •' " ,page 153, lying to the North of and adjacent to said Lot 1, -• according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book G, page 23, of the Public Records of • Hillsborough County, Florida, of which Pinellas County was formerly a part. Lot 2, Block 3, TOWN OF BAY VIEW and known as McMULLEN'S BAYVIEW SUBDIVISION, together with the Southerly %:, of the right-of--way vacated by the City of Clearwater, Florida, in Resolution 75-4 filed 1/16/75 in O.R. Book 4251, Page 153, lying to the North of and adjacent to said Lot 2, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book G, Page 23, of the Public Records of Hillsborough County, Florida, of which Pinellas County, was formerly a part. TPAk 153~f 222.01 ,~~~:"{ ; .::, (..: i .:r.`;. ~ ~}~i mss, ~ ~ x + ,.~ r +, ~. ~ .. ._..,..,ct.j . ~ "~isu'4..: ~ ,~; ~~i>~~a.c".t~~"'S_._ab. cat a..,__, .._. ~.~ ....... .. .... _. .. - ... .. ' ~~ i PINELLR5 COUNTY FLfi. ` ,Exhibit °°B+s OFF .REC .BK I03B4 PG 1535 1. Subject to Easement to f3;le Gi'ty`of Clearwater as recorded in O.R. Book 1633, Page 47G, Public Records of PitS~I1~~;Go'unty, Florida (As to Parcel A), -~i 2. Subject to easement'recozded in O.R. Book 4251, Page 153, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. 3, Assignment of Teases, Rents and Profits by Giant Oil, Inc., a Florida corporation, to Forum Holdings, Inc.;,~iCa'ced October 10, 1997, filed October 16, 1997, recorded in Official Record Book 98:75, Page 258, of the public records of Pinellas County, Florida. ~L, 1 , , _. ~ `~ ,\ r..,:.^ . '~ • r `~. ' ... i ~? ~ .L ` TPANISJ422D.01 r''~ l: (... `. . . r; ... , ~'I I' ~~ .tr.l~~T~F'. ~ ..: '~In i~~ 'C' { ~1 .. ~ r tier f?`'~,: *~~3~;, Map Dceemenf. (E:'Gia~A Olt GuRlo Bay, 0807~1GIS~MXD1GIant0il aerial 1 OSOIOB.mxd) 91RWB ~-1,00.04 PM r • EXISTING ZONING MAP ENGELHARDT, HAMMER & ASSOCIATES Map DocumenP. (EGiant Oil, GuMto Bay, OB033'GIBMAXDIGiantQl zaain~l 050708.mr~ 51112 008 - 2 22 5 7 PM PROPOSED ZONING MAP M ENGELHARDT, HAMMER & ASSOCIATES ~~~ TENNESSEEI-VE~ ~ CAROLINA AVER ~~ V~i } m' ROGERS ST i ~ 9~ L ~~~ m~ 9G ' - . • ~ s • ~, 1 1 .~ 1 , . ~ _,..... _: ~~ ~ ~~ 9O 0~ f 'yA 2 GR ~~ ~~ ~ i I Local Roads Parcels `~~~ N p 1 ~ ~ ~ Municipal Boundary S ~ Subject Property z j Cily of Clearwater Zoning U Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) Medium Density Residential (MDR) High Density Residential (HDR) Mobile Home Park (MHP) Commercial (C) IW . TD~rISt(T) V 0 Q.. -, " m Institutional (q 0 N • Q ~ ® Open SpacelRecreation (OSR) ~~m1-~ 1.il~ilaai~! ® Preservation (P) Pineallas County Zoning Limped Office (P-1A) ~~ J Single Family Residential (R-3) I One, Two, or ThreeFamlly(R-0) ~~~ J' ~ ~ Rural Residential (R-R) CL f 11 , ~ - ~ Source_ ~~ City Of Clearwater, March 2007 ~ Pinellas County, May 2oD8 ~r /,/ ~ ~ ~ () ~ ~~ 2~~ ~ Feet Proposed Zoning Map Giant Oil, Inc. 3009 Gulf to Bay Blvd. City of Clearwater ENGELHARDT, HAMMER & ASSOCIATES Lund Planning • GLS• Expcrt Tcalimnny 3001 N. Rocky Poim Drive, Suite 300, Tampa, F}orida 37607 Telephone 817 281-.1855, Fax 813186-230N ~~~ Bay 08073~GISPAXD~Gian10il_iomn~l_050108 mxd7 SITE PLAN • ENGELHARDT, HAMMER & ASSOCIATES 28.75 * 2866 + 2BA7 + 2825 ` 28.06 27.82 f 27.59 + 26.93 COIIO611L OE HGW4Y Ala NRN Udfi GULF TO BAY BOULEVARD (STATE ROAD 60) ,~n1"~f: w./< Irc l6-y 1' / 4 fCM I .~a. fof ~~~~ I ~~'~l .wFb Arpholt Peirment / , _ _ ~ b1 I I : ru ° (a Ftl f^i fb : d f" 11 7s 11P ~ '.; 1 ~ oral IG7' +26,12 ~ 9 f:91 ~a R tl k ~; . ~, . ~ _ ~' ~ : , . . o3A 1 1 Iz .-4 .Qy,, ~ 21 _ _ 112ZIT ._ ~ _ d ~,Pr caiF ~-~>af MBPN/YE 1QA1'99 ~ 2712 , 21 be ___ 21~_ ~____ _ i ~- 2fid2 E A ~2 NWY 78Yp) 26.45 - . - _ _ - . _. 6 21 Cd-" . ~~ ~ F,26 ~` R f "Pj ~' t 26b51 1 \~;\i ~~ A ~' ~ ~%~\,`` r 1 t o G ,1, i < s m a ;yL,< P m `Tto1 o-~ ~ `,. J ~ i / 2 / ~ F / .... S21'OJ'bf. IlQ(071p7 ,F .. F F 2929 ~~`\ y~~/ + 4 16 d ~ t~.a ~ ._x zs~2 + e9.3s / yyy~~~~///loN~ ~._~ I. 2A32 / / /+ 1 ~ / / / 1 / / 19 a //// 21b 1., ~ /~a: ,1 / ~<~ / ~ / ~ / ~ / yy .~ 11 ~~ / ///PAdNN / 1 y. ~~ 1~ / /+ 27.0 k 3, A ~~ z }x( / AAa1RU b ,..i~ zzl ~ 1 ` 1 ., / +.. . V /~/ ~ 9 ' +/ X ~ yy ~` +'~ - PAER'I2 I `.. l ~~ t:~e+.79 +'.25,31 . t s 21b7 1 a `` ,, 281 ~`~ A~ J ~1 w 215, , r 5 0 f f ~ i-26 7 tt ~l e4 m '~~ e62 i +,\ h 24.49 \ \ ~~~ '~~ v'. =21.05 COPYRIGHT(C)2008 BY ENGELHARDT, HAMMER &ASSOCIATES, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 272 PALI~j2 ~ 27.D 27.1 r7 (~~ (, 26,5 ~• 26.7 C Nv{."~~CC. ~ ~'~ S~~RE E . l'oo/ l4 26.0 ~`~~ A ~Ar O 125.8 6' WALL/FENCE ALONG SOUTHERN PROPERLY BOUNDARY LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL A: Pc Pdnl of cvrrowm 1 ;0,b ;POnI of rmgncy :Ovralplbn Ar :Pent al Rerrr armwr. cawMnm E~ Pont of compana arwwre Flea Meowed P_ Paint or nlwse<lkn w •M~ canr f~7 :riot :se0a i,.. ;sty amPed Iran Rae tyz' :iomrhb u~f :o~.nwa r1. P. FawM win Rod E :CrIrM rl r. Frond M PIp A'.. :AF Comitbnr F P P. F.. Farad P4oNed Iron Pbe ,iaund Conmb 4anumnt ;Or<! SCb. Lt Canente Nonunent ' :Cmaete f AI F.. .found Ralrood SpMi u., :A Purl 01 " .No Cemr found a SN .ranpomy P.A V. ;Permonnl Rehreeu Mmument 9mchnrk .A~ :Benohnar4 :Right of Way 'Cam - Wend Fenu (Wh A Mewrvy - ma4 L4k Fbce (clr) E :Aeeleenu P J .Pont of Brgnnng :Rol Book G a :Print of Commenamenl P : Pod Eaubmrl :WMe Carr :Pape A/W :Rlgh! Or Way (1171 .Tpnal Tract A, BAY VIEW CITY SUBDIYSION, as retarded in Plat Book 9, Paqa 4J of the Puhlic Records of Pinellas County, Florida, together with one-half of a wcated right-o(--way heing further described as follows: From the Ngrll~wesl wmer of the Southwest 1/4 of SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUW, AANCE 16 EAST, run N 89'4507 E stony the cAenterllne of Gulf-To-Boy Boulewrd (S.R. 60) 75.97 Ipeh. Hence 9 21'175'29 E along the cenledlne of Baydew AAVenue, 57.50 feel; thence N 89'450 E, 26.75 feet to fhe Poin -of-Intersection with the South nght-af-wayy line of Culf-Tor-Bay Boulevard and the Eost riyyh~~t-of-way line of Bayvbw Avenue, sold point being the FONT-OF-BEGINNING; thentt continue N 89'45'UT E orlong mid South right-of-way fine of Gulf-io-Ray Boulewrd (S.R. 60) 250.fi2 fee4 thence S 21'05'29 E, 14.48 feel; lhena S 69'01 71' W 234.22 feel to a pokt on the Eoal right-of-woYy line of Boy~new Avenue; literate N 21'0529' W along said Eost right-of-way line, 103.20 feet to the PgNi-OF-BEGINNING. LESS any port therm( Irny within lands deacrbed it Officid Raords Booty 6897, Page 378 and Official Records Book 6997, Page 1577, Public Rmads of Pinellm County, Florida. PARCEL B; Lot One f1) of Block Throe (3) of Mcllullen'e Bay Yew Subdivisim according to the map or plot thereof as recur eel in Publk Records al Pinellas Canty, Florldo, together with the Southerly 1/2 of the rkhl-al- way wcated by Me City of Clmrwata, Florida in Resolution 75-4 Poed I/1fih5 in OR Book 4251, Page 153 lying to a North of and adbcent to sold Lol 1, according to the la thereof recorded In Plat gook 6, Poge 3 0l the Publk Recall of Hillsborough County, Florida, of whkh Pinellas County row farmedy a part. AND Lot 2, Block 3, TOWN OF BAY NEW, also known os LlcNullen's Bayvlew SubdivlNlon, togaether with the Southerly 1/2 of the right-ol-way wcated by the Clty of Clearwater, Florida In Resofutlon 75-4 filed 1/16/75 in OR Rook 4251, Pa a tSJ, I'ng to the North of anA adpcenl to said Lal 2, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat gook 6, Poge 13, of the Public Records of Hillsborough County, Flonda of wh¢h Pinellas Canty was farmedy a part, Project Data Teble Millman Btll9ry yApA, Grox Asa P mipxOlke Selbedro BMO, Mu. HeIpM Mu.Gmu FM Mu. Dldg. Cwxpe IngeMOUe Slwfeu ReBO Tdel Paatl VeN6lda lleeAme F,aA Wb A. ~ U.BJ CONVENIB7CE STORE AND AUTOMOBILE FUELING STATpN3 z6' 1d 20' ~~ BF 1Smry 130 Feel O.OB 1096 87% P3,181215.F. 5199 o1TdW SBe SITE LOCATION MAP: t) ~j ~ __ 1 -- i ~ ~ ~+ ~dl~ 1 I .. ~ ~ I pWMM ~~ -._ ~~{~ t~ tE 'EtM11~1 ! ~, t ~ +„ `,l , .~ ~ ~,~fl M M ~'~,. SUBJECT 1{ 7,, ~ I. ~ _ R i ,~'°,, ~ ~, ~ 141 h IJ~ I I, 1 11'1! I' V~' i ~~ III. ,I ~{1 PROJECT DATA iAe PARCEL D 16/29/18yD5192/008/0170 18/19/18/53892/007/0010 18/29/18/53892/007/007 0 PAOPEAtt g2D 0.97 AC EMSDNC ZONNC: LOW 4ENU4 DENgtt REgDD7Dk (1408) PROPOSED riWINR c04MEAak (c) Eg5DN0 CapAD4Ng1E PLAN', CWMEADk OFAEAk (CG) AEgOENIIk UABA4 (RUj PAOPOSFI7 CO4PRF71ENgYF PUN: COMMERCIAL NENNBG8i000 (CN) EIaSDNC USE: CONIBNIENCE STORE ANO AUTO40BlE SEANCE S7ADON/VACANI PROPOSEDUSE CONYFHIENCE SrGiE AN0 AV70110MIE SERNCE S7AD0f1 PROPERTY OWNER/APPUCANi tlANT aL NC, 1808 N. iRANg1N Si. TAkPA fL 3M02 LEGEND g1B,RCr PRCffRtt BOLNOARY •I- PAreDSED ASS PaD~r G`-'-~ F1051NC ACCESS PgNI p(30 EMSIINC 1AEE5 ro ~ RE40VE0 030 EMS1wc rxEES ro eE sANED 7J ZTG PAro06ED LANDSCAPE ARFAS kL rREFS ARE OAl(S dIlESS LABEIED O7HERMSE iREE OIANE7ER5 AAE 4EAg1RED IN INCHES. BEAOlGS AAE BASED IXI rfE WESIERLT R/IY UNE 6 BAY AKMIE AS BEARING N 21'10'28' W, PFR 0® ElEYA0a15 BASED rN PINELUS CWNtt al N0. 111 1928 ELEV. 28.370 PARKING TABULATION PAAACNC REaOAEa CONKnIENCE STORE: 5 SPACES/1,000 Sf [fA t6 SPACES roiAL PARKING REOUTAE0. I6 SPACES roiAL PAMONG PROW~R I6 SPACES 0' 10' 20' SCALE 1" = 20' ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 3009 Gulf to Bay BNd. Giant Oil, Inc. _E'_NGELHARDT, HAMA~R & ASSOCIATES LAnd Pldeaieg • GIS •Rapcrl Teni®oey 3001 N RodyPohx D7ivq SSri[e 300, Temps, Flonda 33607 Telephone 813 2Ab3R33, Fu 013 76(t2'iLR ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT South of Gulf to Bay Boulevard Between South Bayview Avenue and Meadowlark Lane City of Clearwater, Florida Applicant: Giant Oil, Inc. Submitted: May 2, 2008 Prepared By: Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. 3001 North Rocky Point Drive, Suite 300 Tampa, Florida 33607 Phone: 813.282.3855 Facsimile: 813.286.2308 ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT APPLICATION ENGELHARDT, HAMMER & ASSOCIATES •. AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHORIZE AGENT ENGELHARDT, HAMMER & ASSOCIATES • PROPERTY DEED ENGELHARDT, HAMMER & ASSOCIATES LEGAL DESCRIPTION ENGELHARDT, HAMMER & ASSOCIATES AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH • ENGELHARDT, HAMMER & ASSOCIATES A • TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS See attached transportation analysis, prepared by Lincks & Associates, Inc. ENGELHARDT, HAMMER & ASSOCIATES ~ - ~ Imo- I ~ ' ~ ; ~ ~, C~~;i~ R j...,?l f ~r~ ~ ' j~ ;.. i. ,. ~• - ': _ _~ 1 D~ ~~~~~~ ° ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ ~~~ I~~V1~1. ~~+~ o ° I ~~~ ~a~vd p~o~a~ar~~a. --o CQ~ Q ~'~pQ~a 1c~~~Bcwo~a~ n 1 C t i~ City of Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment Giant Oil, Inc. 3009 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Date Filed: May 2, 2008 Prepared by: Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. 3001 N. Rocky Point Drive East, Suite 300 Tampa, Florida 33607 813.282.3855 office 813.286.2308 facsimile i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS 7'qg • Application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment 1 • Affidavit to Authorize Agent 2 • Legal Description 3 • Proof of Ownership -Copy of Deed 4 • Corporation Details -Florida Department of State 5 • Summary of Site Characteristics and Site Description 6 • Assessment of Impacts 7 • Compliance with Application Standards 8 • Exhibits g A. Location Map B. Survey of Subject Property C. Aerial Photograph D. Existing Future Land Use Map E. Existing Zoning Map F. Proposed Future Land Use Map G. State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection Notice • Appendix A -Traffic Analysis (Lincks & Associates, Inc.) 10 u ~% ~,~1, __ a 9 --a p~ q{yA~ ~~, I CITY OF CLEARWATER APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (INCLUDING FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT) PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, 2"d FLOOR PHONE (727) 562-4567 FAX (727) 562-4576 APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNERS, AND AGENT INFORMATION: APPLICANT NAME: Giant 011, Inc. MAILINCADDRESS: 1806 North Franklin Street, Tampa, FL 33602 PHONE NUMBER: (813) 740-0422 FAX NUMBER: (813) 740-0617 PROPERTY OWNERS: Giant Oil, InC. (List all owners) AGENT NAME: Engelhardt, Hammer & Assoc., Inc. MAILING ADDRESS: 3_ ~~~~Drive E., Ste. 300, Tampa, FL 33607 PHONE NUMBER: , (). 282-385rJ. FAX NUMBER: (813) 286-2308 SITE INFORMATION: LOCATION: South side of Gulf to Bay Blvd., between Bayview Ave. and Meadowlark Lane sTREETADDRESS: 3009 Gulf to Bay Blvd. and two vacant parcels abutting to the south. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See EXhlblt "A" attached. PARCEL NUMBER: 16/29/16/06292/003/0130, 16/29/16/53892/003/0020 & 16/29/16/53892/003/0010 SIZE OF SITE: 0.93 AC FUTURE LAND USE Commercial General (CG) 8~ CLASSIFICATION: PRESENT: ReSldentlal Urban (RU) REQUESTED: COmmerCial NeighborhOOd (CN) Commercial (C) 8 Low Medium Commercial (C) (Pending Zoning ZONING CLASSIFICATION: PRESENTDenSItV R@SldentlBl (LMDR) REQUESTED: Amendment for LMDR properties) PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT: NA (use additional paper if necessary) I i;We), the undersigned, acknowledge that all ' representations made in this application are true and accurate to the best of my/(our) knowledge. , ' R Signatu r erty owner or representative ' Signature of property owner or representative STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF P)~IVELLAS Sworn to and s}~bscribed before me this ~'~ day of fT ~~ , A.D.~..ZOQ~ to me by ~-f~~"dJ'? Li ,who is personally known has produced as identification. / - --~..~ / `" > . .~i~ _ .. Notary public, / my commission expires! Notary Public -State of Florida y Commission Expxes Oct 31,2009 Commission # OD 473720 Bonded By National Notary Assn. 7 1 ~ CITY OF CLEARWATER `'~_ 4 AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHORIZE AGENT y~ ~~~ PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATION MUMCIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, 2"d FLOOR PHONE (727)-562-4567 FAX (727) 562-4576 Giant Oil, Inc. ' (Name of all property owners) ' 1. That (1 am/we are) the owner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property: 3009 Gulf to Bay Blvd (Parcel No 16/29/16/05292/003/0130) 8r two vacant parcels abutting to -the south (Parcel Nos. 16/29116/53892/003/0020 8:16/29/16/53892/003/0010). (Address or General Location) ' 2. That this property constitutes the property for which a request fora: Future Land Use Map Amendment from Commercial General (CG) & Residential Urban (RU) to Commercial Neighborhood (CN). u (Nature of request) 3. That the undersigned (has/have) appointed and (does/do) appoint .Engelhardt, Hammer 8r Assoc., Inc. as (his/their) agent(s) to execute any petitions or other documents necessary to affect such petition; 4. That this affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act on the above described property; 5. That (I/we), the undersigned authority, hereby,c~ti#y~f-iat~ie foregoing is true and correct. .,~ Property Owner STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS efore me the undersigned, an officer duly commissioned~byv the taws of the State of Florida, on this ~ day of ~/ L , e?UGl~ personally appeared t5f1~e.~n ~ L+ ~._---...._..._ who having been fir t duly sworn eposes and says that he/she fully understands the contents of the affidAvit that he/she sinned. ~ , -~-~ / Notary Public My Commission Expires: r ~,,,, ~,,,,, PATRICIA E. CARRANO ` O,PRV PUB/,, Nota Public -Stale of Florida S: application farms/devel dig r + d~fidY~to~~r~.Aaent~ 31, 2009 =;~ `PC M Commission# OD 473720 "'1 °` "~~` Bonded By National Notary Assn. 1 C ~ !3 1 1 e 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Parcel No.: 16-29-16-05292-008-0130 Tract A, BAY VIEW CITY SUBDIVISION, as recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 43, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, together with one-half of a vacated right-of--way ' being further described as follows: From the NW corner of the SW1/4 of Section 16, Township 29 South, Range 16 East, run N89 degrees, 45 minutes, 07 seconds E, along the centerline ofGulf-to-Bay Boulevard (SR 60) 75.97 feet; thence S21 degrees, OS ' minutes, 29 seconds E, along the centerline of Bayview Avenue 53.50 feet; thence N89 degrees, 45 minutes, 07 seconds E, 26.75 feet to the point of intersection with the South nght-of--way line of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and the East right-of-way line of Bayview Avenue, said point being the point of beginning; thence continue N89 degrees, 45 minutes, 07 seconds along said South right-of--way line of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard (SR 60) 250.62 feet; thence S21 degrees, OS minutes, 29 seconds E, 14.48 feet; thence N21 ' degrees, OS minutes, 29 seconds W, along said East right-of--way line, 103.20 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 0.316 acres, more or less. ' Parcel No.: 16-29-16-53892-003-0020 Lot 2, Block 2, TOWN OF BAY VIEW and known as McMULLEN'S BAY VIEW SUBDIVISION, together with the southerly %2, of the right-of--way vacated by the City of Clearwater, Florida, in Resolution 75-4 filed January 16, 1975 in O.R. Book 4251, Page 153, lying to the North of and adjacent to Lot 2, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 6, Page 23, of the Public Records of Hillsborough County, Florida, of which ' Pinellas County, was formerly a part. Parcel No.: 16-29-16-53892-003-0010 ' Lot One (1) of Block Three (3) of McMULLEN'S BAY VIEW SUBDIVISION, according to the map or plat thereof as recorded in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. 1 1 /;~ ~, G .. ~s_•~ ~ ~ ~ ~> 1'v t-U }~ I ° ~~ ?'"LL i ~ '~ ~J1 r' u 1 :~ '1 ~l~:~ rNts INS'rkUMEN'r PRGPARCD nY: f'°~:, ; " P INEI.~FtS COUNTY Ft.FI , Liurol b• L°cl:cu OFF .REC ,BK 103Ba PG 1632 CARLTON. F!L'LDS, WARD, t:Mk1AtJ{lEL , ` SMITH & CUTLER, P.A. is '•. ;) Onc Harbour Place 6C2188Ad M8P 01-27-1999 1:15:29 777 S. Harbour Island noulevard Ol DED-GIANT OIL INC RECORDING 'r:unpa, PL 33bD2->7I9 DOC !;TAMP - DR219 3 t3,1S0.00 TIL\ Parcel Identificati4ti••lyo`~~ TOTAL: Ct~CK AMT. TENDERED; !3,169.50 f3 169 50 1 G/29/1 G/0`~,2~/04fi/0130 CHANGE: . t.00 1 G/29/ 1 Gr53 S~J.2/b03/0014 1 G/29/ 1 Gt53 $9~003/QO2(l Grantee'sfFe~etal'T~x I.D. # ~(o ~ • a a • rJ7 `~ ~ '' ~~~ .WARRANTY DF1'~ ,~ °~~ ;,t:`TtIIS 1NDF.NTURE, made the ~S day of January, 1999, by R. Ray Meador, as -Trtrstce'6f the R. Roy Meador Revocable Living Trust dated 2/17/89, w}tose post office ;~,'~ddr~'ss~is 03843 Picciola Road, Fruitland Parlc, Florida 34731 (hereinafter called "Grantor"), to `~~.. C%:tiri Oil, Inc., a f7orida corporation, whose post office address is 3904 Corporex Drive, Suite •,,.x,150; Tantpa, Florida 33G 19 (hereinafter called "Grantee"); ,~, i,t:,~~..~iitl:~s:.,,.. ~~~~7 s ~?`. ` (Whenever used herein the terms "Grantor" and "Grantee".include all of the parties '.~"l~s`~. ,~fl to this instrument and the heirs, legal representatives and assigns of individuals and the successors and assigns of corporations and partnerships.) - WITNESSETH: That the Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars . :: _ - :-($10.00) and other valuable considerations, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, hereby rants, bargains, sells, aliens, remises, releases and transfers unto the Grantee al! that certain land ,~:r:;1.,~Jj,ituate in Pinellas County, Florida more icgallydescribed on exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Said property is not the ltontestead of the Grantor. TOGETI•IER WITH all ilte tenements, Itereditantents and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same in fee simple forever. AND t)te Grantor hereby covenants with said Grantee that it is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple; that it has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land; that it hereby fully warrants t}te title to said land and will defend the same against the lawfill claims of all persons whomsoever; and that said land is free of all encumbrances except for the year 1999 and TPAN 153371 8.0: _i~„SV :T ~'Laf~~'~.,. .. ~" PINELLRS COUNTY FLA. ,•`' OFF ,REC .BK 10384 PG 1633 subsequent years; and the easeni~ep~sreshictions and reservations described on Fxhihit "R" attached hereto and made a ntirt hi~T`eo(' IN WITNESS W,HIi{ItE'bli, said Grantor has hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year first above written:` ;; `'~;`~ Signed, sealed and delivetecl•- • (SEAL) R. Roy M ador, Individually and as Trustee of the R. Roy Meador Trust dated ?/17/89 {;~iM ~'Y,y~ ; Bonnle Brown Laney Fr. ..= MY COMMISSION/CC54fi7B7EXPIAES 3.,:~? Apd110, 2000 ~aRf~~•• BONGEDnwuTAUTiAINIfisUAANCE,INC. check us applicable] /~/ is personally known tome, or has produced / ///his ~ ~ c F f ~r~ ~i , (start) driver's license, or J /his (type of idcntiticution) as identification. -r ~ ~. '~ .,JL,n.•.-- e . (Si mnturc) (Pnntcd Namc) (AFFIJ~ NOTARIAL SEAL) i~ i ~~"~., ~~ '~ `' The foregoing instnlment was acknowled ed before me thi g s~Jrday of January, 1999, by R. Roy Meador, Individually and as Trustee of the R. Roy Meador Trust dated 2/17/89 He [ ic• s I •`~ °~TATE OF FLORIDA BOUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH I ~, ~ __ 'I't'AA 153371 B.O: "GRANTOR" NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF FLORIDA _ ~ ~~ ac~ov __.._ (Commission Expiration Date) (Serial Number, IfAny) .!`~ ~ Mai. ~~ry,:(t I ~, _..; `., .... . .. Or .; r Yip' f ~£7:t, ~ ~p~• (., ' ~ , .. .... ;,&aY.NttfAi~tlc~+uu;Wia~M „ ~I c.: ~ ~ r :: _-... y~.n fir. 4. .~%x' ,Iy+: :...:~','fi, /t,.__y;":, ~~ ... -. k.- ~. ,'.~:,p'i t'1~~~).. 514, ~1i: .,1•i . .... .... ..~ ..... ...... ..~k.. .,,'~a ~.. G,. .~ - . •;'> P 1NELLRS COUNTY FLR . OFF ,REC,t3K !0384 PG 1634 . - Exhibit ~°A" ' ~ ~ , •_. ,GAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL A -,_ Tract A, BAY VIEW CI'1.1'~~fS`UBDIVISION, as recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 43, Public Records of Pinellas County,"~1!'Iorida, together with one-half of a vacated right-of--way being further described as follows: From the NW corner of the SW1/4 of Section 1G, Township 29 South, Range i 6 Easy; ~utr°I~]89°45'07"E, along the centerline ofGulf-to-Bay Boulevard (S.R. GO) ~ 75.97 feet; thence. S~2,la(~3°29"E, along the centerline of Bayview Avenue 53.50 feet; thence N89°45'07"E, 26.7S~fe~t:to the point of intersection with the South right-of--way line of Gulf-to- Bay Boulevarel..aitil~lre`East right-of--way line ofBayview Avenue, said point being the point of beginning; t}~ence ~ctntinue N89°45'07" along said South right-of--way line of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard~{$,~tw`~Q~ 250.62 feet; thence 521°05'29"E, 14.48 feet; thence S69°01'11 "W, 234.22 feet to a pbirlt a~n ,the east right-of-way line of Bayview Avenue; thence N21 °05'29"W, along said East riglit~$f.;wa~+ line, 103.20 feet to the point of beginning. Less;ai~?paifi~thereof lying within lands described in Official Records $ook 6893, page 338 and Offcial•'~tecoi•ds Book 6997, page 1573, Public Records of Pinellas County, Floirda. ~ Containing .316 acres, more or less. '' `z. - RA~t~EL B ,'~ :.,. _ ' ; ~~~<;~LYof One (1) of Block Three (3) of McMULLEN'S BAY VIEW SUBDIVISION, according to the ' irlap or plat thereof as recorded in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, together with <''~.' ~:., '~~:. the Southerly % of the right of way vacated by the City of Clearwater, Florida in Resolution 75-4 •- ~ •~~•'° filed 1/16/75 in OR Book 4251, page 153, lying to the North of and adjacent to said Lot 1, `'~ •~'~-~ according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 6, page 23, of the Public Records of ~~ •'`~ Hillsborough County, Florida, of which Pinellas County was formerly a part. Lot 2, Block 3, TOWN OF BAY VIEW and known as McMULLEN'S BAYVIEW SUBDIVISION, together with the Southerly %, of the right-of--way vacated by the City of Clearwater, Florida, in Resolution 75-4 filed I/16/7S in O.R. Book 4251, Page 153, lying to the North of and adjacent to said Lot 2, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book G, Page 23, of the Public Records of Hillsborough County, Florida, of which Pinellas County, was formerly a part. ' rt~nx}s~aiiz.o} ~ :; I I :., . `. ~• ~'~ ~,~ ' `;` . . ," :. ?~ ~ ~- `~1S"~"~1:?ix4i~Y•~ ;i''u t{ f~a"Jxf~-~s.~'%; 'i: , ~ :.: .. , .:Ylj.. :~. ~~TII "Sf .`I Yp ?IrN P INELLf15 COUNTY FLFI . 4,~~~`. ,.A a ,+ OFF .REC ,BK 10384 PG 1635 1 . Subject to Easement to ~ie~GiY~of Clearwater as recorded in O.R. Book 1633, Page 47G, Public Records ofPi~i~11a~,Go"anty, Florida (As to Parcel A), 2. Subject to easement recorded in O.R. Book 4251, Page 153, Public Records of Pinellas `,.,, County, Florida. 3. Assignment o~~ea`ses, Rents and Profits by Giant Oil, Inc., a Florida corporation, to Forum Holdings, Iincz:, dated October 10, 1997, filed October 16, 1997, recorded in Official Record Book 98:75, Pag¢ X58, of the public records of Pinellas County, Florida. i "t. I .~ . ti. :...~ ~` , ' r• r. ..,. 1 i.. .. ~. `L. _: rrnais3~2zo.oi is '. fr . t; r';: r'. I: ~'~~.~ ',~ ~.. ~.. :.,..,,,~ ~, --4.., 0 www.sunbiz.org -Department of State ' Page l of 2 ' Home ~ - ~ ._.. _ _ _. '"~_ _._ .._.... _.. _ . Contact Us E-Filing Services Document Searches Forms Help Previous on List Next on List Return To List _...._. No Events No Name History -..--.~.-_~__.-:....w..~_..,,._._..~...... ..E~~+.Nar~e Search . Q@~~[~ by Entity t~an'~'~..._..Y._o ..~..~._..~.._.~,_...._.. _..,,~..~.._._._._<_~__,.,_.._~._.._.._~..,....~._...w w~..~..~ ..~_......~.......:.. ' Florida P rofit Corporation GIANT OIL, INC. Filin_ Information Document Number P95000053385 ' FEI Number 650593170 Date Filed 07/11/1995 State FL ' Status ACTIVE PrinCipa! Address 1806 N FRANKLIN ST TAMPA FL 33602-2234 US Changed 04/22/2008 ' Mailing Add 1806 N FRANKLIN ST TAMPA FL 33602-2234 US Changed 04/22/2008 _Registered Agent Name ~ Address BASEM, AL 1806 N FRANKLIN ST TAMPA FL 33602-2234 US ' Name Changed: 05/01/1996 Address Changed: 04/22/2008 ' OfficerlDirector Detail Name & Address Title PD ' ALI, BASEM 1806 N FRANKLIN ST TAMPA FL 33602-2234 Annua! Reports Report Year Filed Date ' 2006 04/20/2006 2007 04/16/2007 2008 04/22/2008 ' httP:Uwww.sunbiz.org/scripts/cordet.exe?action=DETFIL&in doc n cL _ umber=P950000533__. 4/~gi~nna ii n 6 Summary of Site Characteristics Location: South side of Gulf to Bay Boulevard, between Meadowlark Lane and South Bayview Avenue Street Address: 3009 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Clearwater, Florida 33759 Geographic location: Section 16, Township 29 S and Range 16 E Political Jurisdiction: City of Clearwater, Florida Property Owner/Applicant: Ali Basem, President Giant Oil, Inc. 1806 North Franklin Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Owner's Agent: Engelhardt, Hammer and Associates, Inc. 3001 N. Rocky Point Drive East, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33607 813.282.3855 office 813.286.2308 facsimile Tax Parcel ID Numbers: 16/29/16/05292/008/0130 16/29/ 16/53892/003/0010 16/29/ 16/53892/003/0020 Property Size: 0.93 acres (40,510.8 square feet) Existing Future Land Use: Commercial General (CG) Residential Urban (RU) Proposed Future Land Use: Commercial Neighborhood (CN) Current Zoning: Commercial (C) Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) Proposed Zoning: Commercial (C) ' Site Description/Narrative The northern portion of the subject property is occupied by an existing convenience store and fueling stations, consists of approximately 0.93+ acres of land and is located on the south side of Gulf to Bay Boulevard (S.R. 60) between South Bayview Avenue and Meadowlark Lane (unimproved) (Exhibits A, B and C). The site has approximately 240 linear feet of frontage on the south side of Gulf to Bay Boulevard, afour-lane ' principal arterial, and approximately 215 linear feet of frontage along the east side of South Bayview Avenue, a local road. According to the City of Clearwater's Comprehensive Plan, the northern portion of the property (0.313 acres) is designated Commercial General (CG}, while the southern portion of the property (0.617 acres) is designated Residential Urban (RU) (Exhibit C). ' The properties to the south and southwest of the subject property are designated RU while the properties to the north of the subject site, across Gulf to Bay Boulevard, and west, across South Bayview Avenue, are designated CG. The property across Meadowlark Lane to the east of the subject property is designated Recreation/Open Space (R/OS). The developed portion of the subject property is zoned Commercial (C) while the vacant ' southern portion of the property is zoned Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) (Exhibit D). A Zoning Atlas Amendment application to rezone the LMDR property to C has been filed concurrently with this Comprehensive Plan Amendment application. The surrounding zoning pattern .includes a mixture of Commercial (C), Open Space/Recreation (OS/R), Residential (LMDR) and Mobile Home Park (MHP). 1 r 1 1 u Assessment of Impacts of Proposed Land Use Map Amendment ' The property owner/applicant has been advised by the State of Florida Department of Environment Protection (FDEP) that "regulated underground storage tanks that have been in place since July 13, 1998 are required to be upgraded with secondary containment by December 31, 2009" (Exhibit G). As a result, the subject property will have to be upgraded with secondary containment tanks and piping resulting in the overall redevelopment of the automobile service station and convenience store. Public Facilities Currently, there is a 6" water main running along South Bayview Avenue that provides potable water service to the existing facility and will continue to provide service for the proposed redeveloped use. The level of service will not be adversely affected by the redevelopment of the subject properties, as the 6" main is sufficient to service the proposed development. Concurrency review, as part of the development review process, will ensure that no adverse effects result from the proposed development. There is an 8" sanitary sewer gravity line running along South Bayview Avenue that does and will service the proposed development. The level of service will not be adversely ' affected by the redevelopment of the subject property as the 8" gravity line is sufficient to provide service to the proposed development. Concurrency review, as part of the development review process, will ensure that no adverse effects result from the proposed development. The segment of Gulf to Bay Boulevard between U.S. Highway 19 and Bayshore Boulevard is a six-lane undivided principal arterial, is functioning at a Level of Service ' "F" and has an average annual daily traffic count of 64,104 trips. The existing automobile service station currently enjoys ingress/egress driveways on Gulf to Bay Boulevard and South Bayview Avenue. For a more complete and detailed ' transportation-related analysis, please reference the attached Traffic Analysis, prepared by Lincks & Associates, Inc. (Appendix A) Environment ' The subject properties are being redeveloped to better protect the environment. The State-mandated secondary containment upgrades for the underground fuel tanks and appurtenant piping will serve to better protect the environment than the existing containment configuration. As a result of the proposed redevelopment of the entire subject property, the environment will also be better served by the addition of on-site retention, additional pervious areas, increased landscaping, and the preservation of some of the existing trees. u Community Character ' The subject property is located along an extremely important and heavily travelled component of the Pinellas County/City of Clearwater roadway network (S.R. 60/Gulf to Bay Boulevard). This corridor is characterized by a mix of uses, including general and intensive commercial, neighborhood-service retail uses, restaurants, hotels/motels, automobile repair, service and gas stations, professional and business offices and medium to high density residential uses. The Gulf to Bay Boulevard corridor serves as ' the gateway to the Gulf Beaches, the City of Clearwater and surrounding communities, thereby, further supporting the intended commercial use of the subject property. The existing service station was built almost thirty (30) years ago and was in existence at the time the Property Owner/Applicant purchased the property in 1999. The Property Owner/Applicant intends to continue this same use as part of the upgraded redevelopment of the subject property. The surrounding land uses include a City of Clearwater public park, various retail uses, a mobile home park, a church and single family residences. ' The community character will not be negatively affected, but rather will be improved by redevelopment of the subject property to meet current federal, state and local ' development standards. The aesthetics of the subject property, including the architectural style of the proposed facility will be greatly improved. Subject to current City of Clearwater land development regulations, including buffering, screening, landscaping and building setback requirements, the proposed redevelopment of the site will provide the opportunity to present an important neighborhood and community- serving retail use which will create a transition from the heavily-used and intense Gulf to Bay Boulevard to the adjacent residential neighborhood and other surrounding areas. Fiscal Condition of the City ' The redeveloped and improved automobile service station will provide an increase to the local tax base. It is recognized that the City of Clearwater desires improvement of the Gulf to Bay corridor. The redevelopment of this property, resulting from the approved comprehensive plan amendment, will help to bring the City's goal closer to fruition. i~ 1 COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICATION STANDARDS The subject property consists of approximately 0.93 acres and includes an existing service station at 3009 Gulf to Bay Boulevard (northern portion of property) and two (2) adjacent vacant properties to the south. The Department of Environmental protection and the State of Florida, under Chapter 62-761 of the Florida Administrative Code, require that, "pollutant storage tanks and small diameter piping protected from corrosion shall be upgraded with secondary containment by December 31, 2009." The Applicant intends to redevelop their entire property to come into compliance with both State and local regulations. The existing comprehensive plan future land use designation for the portion of the property currently occupied by the existing gas station and convenience store is Commercial General (CG), while the two vacant properties located to the south are designated Residential Urban (RU). The Property Owner/Applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the transitional land use designation of Commercial Neighborhood (CN) in conjunction with a Zoning Atlas Amendment of the two vacant parcels to Commercial (C). The Applicant requests this Comprehensive Plan Amendment to be consistent with the service station use and to be compatible with the proposed zoning designation. The proposed future land use map amendment to Commercial is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and is compatible and complementary with the existing and redeveloping character of the Gulf to Bay Boulevard corridor and the surrounding uses. Standards for Review 1. The proposed amendment furthers implementation of the Comprehensive Plan consistent with the goals, policies and objectives of the Plan. Objective 2.1 of the Comprehensive Plan places a high priority on the redevelopment of substandard areas. The existing service station on the property on Gulf to Bay Boulevard was constructed prior to the adoption of the current Comprehensive Plan and development standards. The subject property on the undeveloped portion of Meadowlark Lane has been vacant since November of 2000. The subject property on South Bayview Avenue has been vacant since July of 1995. The Commercial Neighborhood (CN) designation would allow for the redevelopment of the subject site while providing a commercial use that is important to the economic viability of the community. Policy 3.2.1 stipulates that individual zoning districts will not exceed the maximum allowable intensity of the plan category. A concurrent zoning atlas amendment has been filed and will be reviewed concurrent with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment application. The proposed comprehensive plan amendment for these properties will be consistent with the proposed zoning atlas amendment and subsequent review of the comprehensive infill redevelopment project application. u 2. The amendment is not inconsistent with other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment is not inconsistent with other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. To receive a Development Order, the proposed development will be compliant with all applicable regulations. 3. The available uses to which the property may be put are appropriate to the property in question and compatible with existing and planned. uses in the area. The existing service station has been in this location for many years and is an allowable use within the Commercial Neighborhood land use designation. The Applicant intends to continue this use as part of the redevelopment of the subject property. The uses allowed within the Commercial land use designation are those which are appropriately located along major components of the City's roadway network and are compatible with existing and proposed uses along this corridor. Proper landscape buffering and screening measures provide for adequate transition of the proposed use, when adjacent to unlike uses. 4. Sufficient public facilities are available to serve the property. The amendment of the properties will not unreasonably burden public facilities. Objective 32.3 of the Capital Improvements Element requires the Level of Service to be reviewed during the development review process to ensure essential public facilities are not adversely affected. Because the proposed amendment will allow for the redevelopment of an existing use to a same use, additional impacts to the public facilities will be minimal. The subject property is located along an already established commercial corridor where sufficient public facilities are available. 5. The amendment will not adversely affect the natural environment. The amendment will not adversely affect the natural environment. Environmental ' impacts will be examined as part of the development review and construction processes. Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1.9 states that, "the effects of erosion shall be carefully controlled through local permitting and construction standards, procedures and regulations, and through the development of local and regional erosion control management programs." Future Land Use Element Policy 1.1.10 states that, "the Community ' Development Code shall provide for on-site drainage detention and/or retention or payment in lieu thereof for compatibility with community master drainage plans." L 6. The amendment will not adversely impact the use of property in the immediate area. The subject automobile service station use on the property has already been a part of this area for several years; thereby the comprehensive plan amendment will pave the way for the redevelopment of this property and use in a manner that will not adversely impact the use of adjacent properties, but rather provide for the enhancement of the area. ~~ . Map DaumenC(E~'Glam Oil, GuHloBay, OB0931GISVAfOIGIantOil aenalt OSOtO8.mz1) S1SI2008-1.00:04 PM Map DaumenL (EIGIarA ql, q,tl to Bay. 03033'TIS~AIXD1Giantgl aerial 1_05010B.rtum) L1R008-1:00.04 PM 1 ' I ~ TENNESSEE AVE Local Roads - - ~.._ - ~ ®Subject Propedy ~ . 1 N d' ~ ! Municipal Boundary ~ ~d'.'el<. _ F _ 0 t L d U F m ure u an se Pinellas Camty CAROLINA AVE w ~ ResidentiallOfice Limned (RIOLI J __ J 'Residentiall0~ce Limited IRIS i V rn C - 'Residential Low (RL ~ Q ~ t m Residential Low Med~,.rr. !R'_^r 'ResidentiaWrbanlU'-,. 'TranspodalioNUtilit,~- ~~ GULF TO BAY BLVD City of Clearwater Future Land'~.s~ Residential Low (R. w p Residential Low Medium ~-_ " i ~~ w 0 Residential Medium ~.>~+.'. p 0 ~ ~ ~ Residential Urban (a.. ~~ ~ Q m L yA Residential High (Rr. ~ ~ ,' ~~ 2 ~ y ~~ ~~~~~~~•~ ~~ L f - Resort FacllRies Wgh (f±I ~ tnw~rW+^wwWf! i ~ Commercial Gene~ai nY3~ - ~~ ROGERS ST ~ Institutional fq RecreabonlOna° ~? ,s Preservation,:. CR g1 Rc- ~ i ~ ~ • ~ rra~~r _ i ~ r ~ WATEP• 1 Source 11 ~ ~ ` CilyOtClearwaler 0ecembera0~7 Pinellas County Oc[nbe~?OOi ~ ~ ,, • ~ 0 100 200 .•' ~•~ I ~ ~~~ Feet ~~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .' Exhibit D ~ ~ ~' Existing Future Land Use Map ~ ~,• ~ Giant Oil, Inc. ~ ~ 3009 Gulf to Bay Blvd. 'Y' 1 Clearwater, FL `, ~~ ENGELHARD'I', HAMMER & ASSOCIATES Lund Planning • G1.5• Ea'prrl Trs(imnny .WI :h'. Rocky Poim Drive, Suite 3W, Tampa. Florida 3360' ~ lfk' T l h Nl! 181?A55 F S13?&b e one ep ar ~ . Map Dceument(Er'~ianl Ql, GUMto Bey, Wa731GIS1M%Dlt7lantgl FLU 1 e5Dt9E.na~ 91RWa-279.21 PM e Map Document: ~E.'Gianl ql, Gulf to Bay, W0331GISVA%D1GientOil zoninA,t OSOtOSrtmA) 51ll2W8 -- 2:22:53 PM ~ ~~- ' .; .. I I ' Mao Document. (E.`GWm Oil. GuN io Baµ 0803TGiS1M%G1Giam0il_FLU 1 ~50108.mxd 51112008-2:3421 PM • ~ ~ '~..~ .~ i C ~ ,.~ ~~ ~. .~ CAROLINA AVE GULF TO BAY BLVD d ~~ G ~~ ~L rn TENNESSEE AVE _!~ 9Q ~~ ~~ Z G~ ~1 H Q m w O a 2 0 m z W J U w O m O } Q m - r r f • , 11 • , ~1 ~~ • , Local Roads ® SubJed Property ~ f ~ ~ ~ Munlcipal8oundary Parcels Pnellas County Future Lantl Use ResidentiallOfficeLimited(RIOL) ResidentiallOffce Limited (RIOL) 'Residential Low (RL) Residental Law Medium (RLM) 'Resitl~tialNrban (RU) 'TransportatiorJUtilitles (T1U) Gry of Clearwater Future Land Use Residential Law (RL) Residential law Medium (RLM) Residential Medum (RM) Residen6alUrban(RU) - Residen6'al High (RH) Resort Fadlltles Kgh (RFH) - Commercial General (CG) Commercial Neighborhood (GN) Instihrtlonallq - ReaeatioNOpenSpace(RIOS) PreservaGOn(P) ROAD TransportelioNUtilihes (TN) WATER Source: City Of Clearwater. December 2007 Pinellas County, October 2007 0 100 200 ~ Feet Exhibit F Proposed Future Land Use Map Giant Oil, Inc. 3009 Gulf to Bay Blvd. Clearwater, FL ENGHI,ITARDT, HAMMER & ASSOCIATES Luna Planning • f15• Eepcrr TrsNmnny 3001 N. Rocky Foinr Drive, Suita.300, Tampa, Florida ;1,1607 Telephone 8112N2-3N55, Faa 81??66~23U8 ROGERS ST 7 1 /D i ~ PLANAMENDMENT ~ TRANSPORTATIONANALYSlS 1 ~ GIANT OIL - ' GULF TO BAYBOULEVARD Prepared For GIANT OIL, INC. 1 ' Prepared By LINCKS c~ ASSOCIATES, INC. Engineers -Planners Tampa, Florida PLAN AMENDMENT TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS GIANT OIL -GULF TO BAY BOULEVARD Prepared For GIANT OIL, INC. Prepared By LINCKS 8~ ASSOCIATES, INC. 5023 West Laurel Street Tampa, Florida 33607 813-289-0039 State of Florida Authorization No. EB0004638 May, 2008 Project No. L08051 ~' + ~l1~r1~WiMa'11.3u'ib ~`~ t' iY~J~y ~. F ~ ~ Sfea;e ` ~ - ~~~~ ~~ ,+ti'` .:~ ,, ~~ o } ~r l~ i ~~ ~','. ~. t~F (~ f - - G~. a-~ ~?~~~ . ~:z v ' LINCKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 Estimated Daily Project Traffic ......................................................................................... 1 Percent Consumed Determination .................................................................................. 4 Appendix LIST OF TABLES 1 Estimated Trip Generation Comparison ....................................................................... 3 2 Percent Consumed Determination ...............................................................................5 LIST OF FIGURES 1 Project Location ............................................................................................................2 t ~~ LINCKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to provide a Transportation Analysis for the Plan Amendment Application for the property located south of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and east of Bayview Avenue in the City of Clearwater, as shown in Figure 1. The existing property consists of the following land uses: t 1 • 0.617 acres of Residential Urban 0.313 acres of Commercial General The proposed Plan Amendment would modify the entire 0.93 acres of the subject property to Commercial Neighborhood. This report shall evaluate the impact of the change in the land use on the adjacent roadway system. ESTIMATED DAILY PROJECT TRAFFIC The trip rates utilized in this report were obtained from the Trip Generation Charac#eristics contained in the Pinellas Planning Council Countywide Plan Rules dated March 19, 2007. Based on these trip rates, it is estimated that development of the property under the existing land use categories would result in 189 trip ends, as shown in Table 1. The development of the project based on the proposed land use category would result in 326 daily trip ends or a net increase of 137 daily trip ends. LINCKS ~ ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Dia$ite Y~ Garth ~ ~aB a.,4;t A ~ p ,~c Myf~ ~ 7 ~ " s 5 rd ~ u•$h.E i7,! ,~Q~o` ~~.$"~` it;^s~ ~.{kk~~'' $~'1S5St5 ~ .~ ~p .ti ~ti~" ~ ~ ~ ~~ . ~ K Pdr< ~ g Q~'.x, of ,,, ~ ~ v`7 Sumner L$!~ Yrh'~I: 7arrate: Crviz 5 !!~~'pr ~ ~ ~ .E. ~~I r ~ ~°, r ~~ >.'lyti°~ g~6t~ ~~ ~a of $ "' ~,Sar~h Dr tam ~ °~Sar ~ ~ .~ ia~~t 5~ xi ~ ^~r 7th SL. r t :. ~ ~~ Dr ii nth t ~~4 3w' SOIiFN , , ~ ~ ~' S ~'~~-mge an Cs-~`'~ ~ ~ St S' 4 ~ i~~ '4` ~ apCll'Y'FARK ~ / Si, ° John i ~.1 r ~ !f . t'- ~,rr9 nr ~ °" ~ 6ayr~dea',, fOY~~ -$ ~~ .-~- 9 f:.'~ _.; -~~ K ih s_1~.__IIritTz-~l 7 ~~„ a 1_' 1 ~ ~y~~'~`4~0~: ~;( , .~~~~I ~GrB~~dt ~irw~ ~ v,~_,+^, ~ ~_, ~ yy S ~~-~ ~ ~ ' ~ ,a ;tom! f-. _- mNE/3ai ~J`~~ -.~,_,~ "~N k!ue A'v ,r . ~~-Ca dkC' Q' weo , ~ 4 ,~.... P tt ~ Ru h ~;" / ~~`~ u ~` 2 v ._~~ m ~~ ~~ fckcrd Hilt ~-;.-. y ~ ~~o ~ m 1~ ~ ~~~~?/~p °~ f~_~~~~j'Avth EcY.rid~NaA: 9 r ~~,E fey "`4~ •'~t~r °~'. .~~'.4,~' a a KaY a ~ rn~ a ~' ratios ~„ $t~R,~b m~a r' y~ t r; ~ ancr` y' ~yny ..y M~aa'ixs ^'~.$ ~St Gfe, OakAvt,< 1= a'~, `~d Lt ` 5~ ~ 6.m Gvlns ~ I Nate*u[e~~r~5 '6fEiiF EMS:1ff~RK obr~i a A S¢y~aid(rtne ~ .~, ~-••-,~•.~..•4 ~p~ '_~ ~r ~~,f5 ~ r ~,:f hrt Must~am--~SY" Eti_e~~ sr„.Y erw r '~ 4 ~ . S A ~'\ Terta L~ ?n: it •~ ~ 5. rr:' 3 ~y~yip r ' ~~ '"`~yz .. _ ,gr }"o!*, ,r~~-.y~ ~ ien z,'--•--'t6.: San la Berr~dino__ ,~~Y.i ~,, ~ 5[tt ~_ 5t~ > ~ Av j~~:: nn Mateo-5f ~'v~ ~1 _~gg_~_ A~p ~. { Sao.T Sl eern~i-f: Av g'i 7Tromas Rtl 5~` Q~~~a i1( i Hvyi , Av ! Woife Rd ~'~1°~' R!P ~~`"1 t__ jri v'°iS ytr .. ' f/. ~••tK ~.D ~_~'~- ~c1 ~~ 2 Chain F' r. E / }" T~lrtidp6~(a SaeA'a+vmd -~~~^ ..- ~v ~• u~..mz- ?.~ .. r n irfr. ~~~ ~A~~F 4h T'~* ~~tfa~rl"~ sr '~_p~~`~~r1 ' o ~.S~s tee ~~i3 isles ~. Ba rod _,~ , ~ - !'seagrace Gr t r m ~, ~!Yrgmia Av i° ~°~ ;ohns Pk~~ry m~; ~ ~ ~,15(2Y16t~ ~++ ' o a~ ~;' ~1 a' ~; ~ =Dorm S[ x,~ .,,' ~ Tcnms~n F _ ~ _ ~~"'" ri ~ a~, o~ ~t.17~ ;nv I'S ~~ u.~ 1b mi-~ re, e! ~'. f.tt ~tra„~~i• i. Ca{g1L~Sa1... ~ ~ p ~ r cd ~ ~ .J' ~' i ~ ~.--~.--- ~~a r t ~ ~tF ~ ° ro 'flar'~~'~,~ ~ °° etvn d ~ ~~ __.._.. ~~ e~_ t~~ tc~ ~'- ~^~ N' ThantJw.Rd~~Tiwm~`~I~ T~, ~/ '~ E! s ,~ ~~ f~ ~ ~'~ :'~ PROJECT ss ~ ~ `y~-.~ t f ~ ,i. ~ti sp ~~ :~. ~~ ~o ~~ LINCKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. NafbOr Marina 1 11i'esrexoad Ct S 2 2 tb Av S: 3 i ik ilv 5. 4 1 tlt•Av S 5 lkMon- in °°Y PRO.~CT LOCATION t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TABLE 1 ESTIMATED TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON Daily ,Scenario Land Use Acres Trip Rate (1) Trip Ends Existing Residentia{ Urban 0.617 70/acre 43 Comrneccial General 0.313 465/acre 146 Existing Total 0.930 1 gg Proposed Commercial Neighborhood 0..930 350/acre 326 Difference 137 (1) Source: Pinellas Planning Council -Trip Generation Characteristics LINCKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 3 PERCENT CONSUMED DETERMINATION As indicated in the previous section of this report, the proposed land use plan amendment would result in a net increase of 137 daily trip ends, which equates to 0.26% of the capacity of Gulf to Bay Boulevard, as shown in Tabie 2. lINCKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. t TABLE 2 PERCENT CONSUMED DETERMINATION Daily Additional Percent Roadway From To Lanes Ca aci Project Consumed ~, Traffic 2 Gulf to Bay Blvd. Bayshore Blvd. US 19 6 LD 53,500 137 0.26% (1) Source: Florida Department of Transportation 2007 Generalized Q/LOS Tables. (2) See Table 1 of this report. LINCKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 5 APPENDIX ' LINCKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. FUTURE LAND USE MAP LINCKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ s r ~w a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ TENNESSEE AVE R i ®sugee vropedy ~ ~ R wM,y,i eewrdary Okanvakr Ftdurt Land USe :....... :.:... ._ ,... .,.c,.m . ,. ,.. .._...'-,, o Resitlmtkl LOw (Ry . 1 ~ Residennd Low IINYen (RLM) m CAROLINA AVE W Re,idanlld MMium (RIRI 4- .-- t---__'_~~__. _._ J I ~ Ra,NeM1i UNan (RU) - U - f ReaitlentW Nigh (RHI > - m Resod FecRitks Nigh HiFHI - Conererclal oeneral (CO) - pnHMlonsl lA GULF TO BAY 6LVD ® Re~.e.tioNOwnsw~e IRrosl - vr„rew.nen Iv) O Rono o_ - n.n.wrt,noNwnme, (nul 0 > NNTER a ~. .~~- PineY,s County Futwe Land Uw - W/ , No Ovurlptbn (NOIDE9) (?~~ ReeideMkVORka Lhnned (RIOL) ROGERS Si _ _ ) ._ ResidrdW Low (RLI Resldentkl Low UNirm (RL AI) - {dl1L i / Resldenikl Nediun lRAtil ~ ResWentkl Urnm lRll) _. 3~ ~• .. ~ , TransportatlpdUlYttks ITIUI el WATER I ~ /~ I ~ Souru: ,ems Cey a Ckarwter, Oucenbn MO] ~~ ~ ~ ~.., ! _ ~ Vmelas Goanry, OcroEer 200] / r ~ ±~ ~~ 1 1 \ / e 0 100 200 R ~ Feet 1 1 R I Exhibit A Rte' Future land Use Map I ~ / \ ' ~ Giant: Gulf-To-Bay ~~ ` i --_- _ - - --- ~~ r1.CfIII4RDT I11~1\IIIt ~esiul~'eS ~ ~ R:.:MIt PPC TRIP GENERATION RATES ' LINCKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. Table 1 SUMMARY CATEGORY MATRIX D.U./ACRE F.A.R. I.S.R. TRAFFIC GENERATION RATE CLASSIFICATION CATEGORY/SYMBOL MAX. MAX./STD. MAX./STD. ~ADT/AC.) RESIDENTIAL: Residential Rural (RR) .5 .30/.18 .60/.45 10 Residential Estate (RE) 1.0 .30/.18 .60/.45 14 Residential Suburban (RS) 2.5 .30/.18 .60/.45 28 Residential Low (RL) 5.0 .40/.24 .65/.50 51 Residential Urban (RU) 7.5 .40/.24 .65/.50 70 Residential Low Medium (RLM) 10.0 .50/.30 .75/.56 63 Residential Medium (RM) 15.0 .50/.30 .75/.56 96 Residential High (RH) 30.0 .60/.36 .85/.65 183 Residential Very High (RVN) .60/.36 .85/.65 301 MIXED USE: Residential/Office Limited (R/OL) 7.5 .40/.24 .75/.56 1 l9 Residential/Office General (R/OG) 15.0 .50/.30 .75/.56 170 Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) 18.0 .40/.24 .85/.65 336 Resort Facilities Overlay (RFO) Per Underlying Category Resort Facilities Medium (R.FM) 18.0 .65/.39 .85/.65 167 Resort Facilities High (RFH) 30.0 1.2/.72 .95/.72 310 COMMERCIAL: Commercial Neighborhood (CN) ]0.0 .40/.24 .80/.60 350 Commercial Limited (CL) 18.0 .45/.27 .85/.65 364 Commercial Recreation (CR) 24.0 .55/.33 .90/.68 546 Commercial General (CG) 24.0 .55/.33 .90/.68 465 INDUSTRIAL: lndustrial Limited (IL) .65/.39 .85/.65 170 Industrial General (iG) .75/.45 .95/.72 199 PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC: Preservation (P) .10/.OS .20/.10 0.3 Recreation/Open Space (R/OS) .25/.15 .60/.45 4 Institutional (l) 12.5 .65/.39* .85/.65 167 Transportation/Utility (T/LT) .70/.42 .90/.68 18 PLANNED REDEVELOPMENT Residential (R) Per Approved Special Area Plan Mixed Use (MU) Per Approved Special Area Plan Commercial (C) Per Approved Special Area Plan Industrial (IND) Per Approved Special Area Plan SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS: Water/Drainage Feature Not Applicable Scenic/Non-Commercial Corridor See Otherwise Applicable Category Activity Center (AC) See Otherw ise Applicable Category and Multipli er Factor Community Redevelopment District (CRD) Per Approved Plan Central Business District (CBD) Per Approved Plan *Notes: See Bonus Provision, Section 2.3.3.7.3 Traffic Generation Characteristics are Average Daily Trips Per Acre Countywide Plan Rules 2-57 March 19, 2007 FDOT GENERALIZED CAPACITIES ' LINCKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. I I t 1 I 1 1 TABLE 4 - 1 GENERALIZED ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY VOLUMES FOR.FLORIDA'S URBANIZED AREAS* UNINTERRUPTED FLOW HIGHWAYS FREEWAYS Level of Service Interchange spacing? 2 mi. apart Lanes Divided A B C D E Level of Service 2 Undivided 2,200 7,600 15,000 21,300 27,100 Lanes A B C D E 4 Divided 20,400 33,000 47,800 61,800 70,200 4 23,800 39,600 55,200 67,100 74,600 6 Divided 30,500 49,500 71,600 92,700 105,400 6 36,900 61,100 85,300 103,600 115,300 STATE TWO-WAY ARTERIALS 8 49,900 82,700 115,300 140,200 156,000 Class I (>0.00 to 1.99 signalized intersections per mile) 10 63,000 104,200 145,500 176,900 196,400 Level of Service 12 75,900 125,800 175,500 213,500 237,100 Lanes Divided A B C D E 2 Undivided ** 4,200 13,800 16,400 16,900 Interchange spacing < 2 mi. apart 4 Divided 4,800 29,300 34,700 35,700 *** Level of Service 6 Divided 7,300 44,700 52,100 53,00 *** Lanes A B C D E 8 Divided 9,400 58,000 66,100 67,800 *** 4 22,000 36,000 52,000 67,200 76,500 6 34,800 56,500 81,700 105,800 120,200 Class II (2.00 to 4.50 signalized intersections per mile) 8 47,500 77,000 111,400 144,300 163,900 Level of Service 10 60,200 97,500 141,200 182,600 207,600 Lanes Divided A B C D E 12 72,900 118,100 170,900 221,100 251,200 2 Undivided ** 1,900 11,200 ]5,400 16,300 4 Divided ** 4,]00 26,000 32,700 34,500 6 Divided ** 6,500 40,300 49,200 51,800 BICYCLE MODE 8 Divided ** 8,500 53,300 63,800 67,000 (Note: Level of service for the bicycle mode in this table is based on roadway geometrics at 40 mph posted speed and traffic conditions, not number of bicyclists Class III (more than 4.5 signalized intersections per mile and not using the facility.) (Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown below by number within primary city central business district of an of directional roadway lanes to determine two-way maximum service volumes.) urbanized area over 750,000) Paved Shoulder/ Level of Service Bicycle Lane Level of Service Lanes Divided A B C D E Coverage A B C D E 2 Undivided ** ** 5,300 12,600 15,500 0-49°/n ** ** 3,200 13,800 >13,800 4 Divided ** ** 12,400 28,900 32,800 50-84% ** 2,500 4,100 >4,100 *** 6 Divided ** ** 19,500 44,700 49,300 .85-100% 3,100 7,200 >7,200 *** *** 8 Divided ** ** 25,800 58,700 63,800 PEDESTRIAN MODE Class IV (more than 4.5 signalized intersections per mile and within (Note: Level of service for the pedestrian mode in this table is based on roadway primary city central business district of an urbanized azea geometrics at 40 mph posted speed and traffic conditions, not number of pedestrians over 750,000) using the facility.) (Multiply motorized vehicle volumes shown below by number of Level of Service directional roadway lanes to determine two-way maximum service volumes.) Lanes Divided A B C D E Level of Service 2 Undivided ** ** 5,200 13,700 15,000 Sidewalk Coverage A B C D E 4 Divided ** ** 12,300 30,300 31,700 0-49% ** ** ** 6,400 15,500 6 Divided ** ** 19,100 45,800 47,600 50-84% ** ** ** 9,900 19,000 8 Divided ** ** 25,900 59,900 62,200 85-100% ** 2,200 1 ],300 >1 ],300 *** NON-STATE ROADWAYS BUS MODE (Scheduled Fixed Route) Major City/County Roadways Level of Service (Buses per hour) Level of Service (Noce: Buses per hour shown are only for the peak hour in the single direction of the higher vaffic flow.) Lanes Divided A B C D E Level of Service 2 Undivided ** ** 9,100 14,600 15,600 Sidewalk Coverage A B C D E 4 Divided ** ** 21,400 31,100 32,900 0-84% ** >5 >4 >3 >2 6 Divided ** ** 33,400 46,800 49,300 85-100% >6 >4 >3 >2 >1 ARTERIAL/NON-STATE ROADWAY ADJUSTMENTS Other Signalized Roadways (alter corresponding volume by the indicated percent) (signalized intersection analysis) Level of Service Lanes Median Left Turn Lanes Adjustment factors Lanes Divided A B C D E 2 Divided Yes +5% 2 Undivided ** ** 4,800 10,000 12,600 2 Undivided No -20% 4 Divided ** ** 1],100 2],700 25,200 Multi Undivided Yes -5% Source: Florida Department of Transportation 05/17/07 Multi Undivided No -25% Systems Planning Office 605 Suwannee Street, MS 19 ONE-WAY FACILITIES Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Multiply the corresponding two-directional volumes in this table by 0.6. http://www.dot,state.fl. us/p(anning/systems/sm/los/default. htm " Values shown are presented as two-way annual average daily volumes for levels of service and are for the automobile/tmck modes unless specifically stated. Although presented as daily volumes, they actually represent peak hour direction conditions with applicable K and D fac°ors applied 17tis table does rrot constitute a standard and should be used only for general plamring applications. The computer models from which this table is derived should be used for more specific plann ing applications The table and deriving computer models should not be used for cortidor or intersactioo design, where more refined techniques exist. Level of service letter grade thresholds are probably n ot comparable across modes and, therefore, cross modal comparisons should be made with caution. Furthermore, combining levels of service of different modes into one overall roadway level of service is not recommended Calcdaaons are based on planning applicatOns of the Highway Capacity Manuel, Birycle LOS Model, Pedestrian LOS Model and'fransit Capacity sod Quality of Service Manual, respectivety for the automobile/tmck, bicycle, pedestrian and bus modes. •*Camnot be arlrieved using table irtprG value defauhs. "*'Not applicable for that level of service letter grade. For automobileJtmck modes, volumes greater than level of service D become F because intersection capacities have been reached. For birycle and pedestrian modes, the level of service letter grade (including F) is not achievable, because drere is no maximum vehicle volume threshold using table input value defaults. 08f 26f 2008 14:44 To Council Press, Clerk AllG 2 5 Y~bB Manager AttomeY 72756240^ ~. CLEARWATER GITY~TY CLEAR~itr.A.'It. BAIT ANI~ TACKLE 2999 Guff To Bay Blvd. Clearwater, Florida 33759 August za, zaas Subject: LUZ208-05001 To: Clearwater N,tayor and City Commissioners At the end of the two hour March 19, 1996 CPA meeting involving an application almost identical to the subject application and a#ter seconding Commissioner Stewart's motion to deny Giant Oil's application for a Bayview land use change, Commissioner Seibert stated: "There is an impact on the neighborhood, thirdly, axxd I thitirk that goes to the constant problem we face which is people's expectations. And you have to rely oxt thaw e~.pectations and that's probably the bottom line forme on this one. I stn convinced by the testimony that the neighborhood had developed long-term expectations ofhow that propexty would be zonned." The motion to decry was passed unaaimously leaving the land South ~ of the service station with s residential zoning classilxcatiot~, PAGE 02/05 In the past, I have bowed to your wisdom and followed the advice and decisions laid down by your staff I would therefore expect that the City of Clearwater would treat tne, john Spence, as an equal to t3iant Oil by not letting the residerntial zoning and land u~ of Bayview be changed from residential to commercial. From the documented information in this letter, you will see that I was denied star equal opportw~ity to make a sirniIar application by the information and advice I received from your staff. If the subject Criant Oil application is denied, the information I received from your staff will have been correct. If the application is app~ra-ved, however ,their advice will have been wrong and cost xne thousands of dollars I might otherwise have earned. Xour own Assistant pity Attorney Leslie K. L~ougal- Sides is preventing your staff and the Community L?evelapment Board from seeing the VCR tape or ~~+rira txattscription ofthat tape furnished by the historic Bayview Association. ~Iiding information dealing with as almost identical application made by the ,same applicant l2 years ago while discouraging me from making application during the same time frame does not appear unbiased but rather a matter of playing favoritism. A rundown of 08/26/2008 14:44 72756240 CLEARWATER CITY~TY PAGE 03/05 5 Page 2 documented events leading up to this conclusion wilt help you to understand my position on this matter. In December of 1999, and prier to my signing a lease agreement with Mt. Robert R. Meador, rr. on 1~'ebruary l5, 2Utf0, I met on the property located at X999 Gulf To Bay $1vd. with. an~official from the Clearwater City Zflning Department and was told that everything was ire can~pliance to open and operate a used car and truck sales lat. Irt addition, Inspector Herb Atwood of the State Arlcrtar Vehicles Department stated that the tend and building nnet with their requirements and would be appxo~red provided that I receive a Clearwater City Occupational Permit for a Motor Vehicle Dealers License. Based on the advice anal infarn~ation given me by these oi~icials, I signed a 3 year lease with an option to buy covering the period February 15, 2000 through December 3l, ZDQ2. Next, having documents proving my control of the laud and building, I went to city staff to acquire my occupancy permit for a matar vehicle dealers license and was denied based open a change in the law now requu ing a minimum of 1 acre of Isnd. Either the advice given by Clearwater City Staff was wrong or the law clxanged ~ a ~nnatter of a few days. The remedy was quite simple: I had a lease with an option to buy the store and the Residentially zoned 5 I O Bayview acreage, South of the Coxxunercially zoned property I was using at 2999 Gulf Ta Bay Blvd.. By applying fox and receiving a Commercial honing desi~gnatian in the Residential area South of me in Bayview, I would have me# the 1 acre require tent permitting nne to acquire my occupa~acy pewit ~-m the City of Clearwater. PROBLEM SOLVED. However, this was not tci be. Mr. Neil C. 'I'laon~.pson, Development Review 1vlanage~r of the Planning Department told nee that it would be impossible to ever get a lend use plan 17rom residential to camtnercxal because of ttxe ~ticn~ taken by the county m reverse the city in 1966. In retrospect, it appears that he was accurate in his assessment. Qtherwise Assistant City Attorney Leslie K. Dougal-Sides would allow the use of the March 19,1996, County Gaaa~missian VCR tape and Transcription while processing die present Giant Oil application. l:Ier reasart to deny the use of the Tape and Transcript was that it was not fair to the applicant, The dacunaents were too old to be relevant. In retrospect evetythi~ng I was told appears to be in error. The Bayview residents believed that a precedent had been set to beep their community residential just the same as a precedent is set when an area is changed to Commercial. Based 08!26!2008 14:44 7275624021 CLEARWATER CITY~Y PAGE 04!05 .. ~. 1?age 3 upon what staf~'told me prior to Mrs. Dougal-Sides decision to the contrary, I abandoned my original plan and salvaged what I could by opening a Bait and Tac1CIe stoic. Changes in Clearwater City policy which I must rely upon to make my decisions become very costly. Each policy change seems to favor the Giant companies while hurting the little businessman like me. But wait, there are other relaxed cireum-atat~ces which, add to the dettaise of the little businessman. Then huge Companies such as ~riant ()il join forces with large lteligiaus groups such as Our Ladies of Divine Ft+avXdenGe in a goveental issue such as the subject Cleatwater zoning change, the separation of Church and State is bridged. The ;fear of not complying with the wishes of religious leaders governs the actions of those around them. Agreeing to sign a petition or sanction an action wanted by a leader is automatic. However, such a meeting did take place and an agreement vas reached between the prayer group and Giant Ail. Mx: and Mrs. Brown control the Catholic Prayer Urganization land of Our Ladies of Iaivine Pra-vidence amounting to much of the Bayview area. The a,cr+eage behind my Bait and Tackle shop and across the street from the residential zoned Bayview area involved in the subject application is nov~r owned by the B~row,as. This land was illegally sold to the Bt+ow,ns by Mr. Robert R. IVleador, Jr. As mentioned previously, on February 15, 2000 Mr.1Vleador and I signed a 3 year lease with an option to buy my present land and store and the Meador house and land to the South of it. In a letter t4 me frox~n Mr. Meador dated January 16, 2003 he states that sometime earlier he had sold the 510 South Bayview A-ve. Meador house and land South of nne for $175.000.00. I-Ie lxad done finis without my knowledge or agree~rnent. In that same letter he demanded that I pay hire $256,OUa.40 or signs another agreement. This was a clear, documented and signed admission of guilt. I was not notified that he planned to sell the house anal taand and was therefore denied my right to purchase the land that will be eligible for a cornmer+cial designation due to a precedent having been set should you approve the subject application. Ferhaps that is the reason the Browns are so eager to convince their congregation and adjacent neighbors of the benefits of expanding the Giant Oil Service Statxan and Convenience Store into the residential zoned land of Bayview. Fiaaancially, they would benefit enormously. All at my expense. 4 08/26/2008 14:44 72756240 1 CLEARWATER CITY. TY PAGE 05/05 ... Page 4 At this point, you wouldn't think that the official acts of govertunental officials or blatant dishonesty of an individual selling his inherited pxopexty could have impacted xne sa adve~ely. Hovvevex, t'he fatal blow fell when Giant Oil was forced to cleanup the gasoline contaxninatirnn caused by its storage taa~ks that had been leaking for a period of more than 20 years. To pay for tZie cleanup, giant Gil felt it only right that the City of Clearwater xeverse the Pinellas County Can~mission's 1994 decision a~xd allow them to move their business South into the residential community o:f Bayview. At the time that this took place, I was leasing the BP station from Giant Oil at a loss. Credit card fees eat up any profit which might be realized from gasoline sales. Any profits which might be gained must therefore come from the sale of convenience store items. Knowing tb~a~t Giant Oil was making an application for a zoning and land use change I contacted Clearwater city officials and met with Neil Thorn-pson, Development Review Manager ix~ the Clearwater Planning Department. lie again made it very clear that this was not possible. I therefore gave up my lease with Giant Gil and again soak the resulting loss. If Giant Oil is compensated for its losses iun having to cleanup the gasoline contamination on its BP station property caused by years of neglect by the City of Clearwater g~rantxng a zoning and land use change, I should also be compensated fox Yny losses even though I am a sma11 businessman. I have faithfully complied with Clearw~tex advice, rules, regulations and laws. I pay taxes and axn entitled to treatment no differern from that afforded Clearwater's huge oorporatioAS and otber large land owners. ;~ sin , ~ ohn Spence Clearwater Bait and ~'ackle ~~- PI pre~`"~,are a response for the Mapoz't signat~ue. CG atyCounc~ ~pC D1tC~ 9 /3/a S~ `~-~~ CPA MEETING ~~~~~ v ~~ 3-19-96 - 7:05 P.M. MAY ~ ~ 203 ROUGH VERBATIM ~~~ ~~ ITEM 38 B. ~pFAtet A. HOWE, BOARD REPORTER (into tape 1) MR. MARQUIS: This is a Clearwater case. It's a request for an amendment from RU to CG, staff concurs with the PPC recommendation of denial. MR. HEALEY: Chair, members of the Boa. Dave Healey representing the PPC. What I want to do I guess is in two parts. First to describe briefly the amendment itself and the background by which it got to where we are tonight; and then give you the reasoning and the findings of the Planning Council used in making our recommendation to you to deny the amendment. The requested amendn.znt is a request by the City of Clearwater to amend the Countywide Plan from residential urban to commercial general. The parcel is .31 acre in size, some 13,000 square feet. It's approximately equal in size to the existing site of the FINA gas station which is located here, which is no classified commercial general. The proposed amendment is to reclassify this area behind it and south of Gulf-to- Bay Blvd. to commercial general. It is proposed to serve as the location for an expanded gas station and convenience store, and by way of trying to orient everyone, let me use the aerial, this is the site here shaded here behind the FINA gas station which shows in the lighter shade. Some of the uses adjoining it, to give us a point of reference in our discussion include the Clearwater Food Mart on the west side of Bayview Avenue, which is located here; the eastern boundary 1 i /, r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. March 19, 1996 CPA of this aerial is approximately McMullen Booth Road, this is Gulf-to-Bay, to get everyone oriented. West of the food mart are two mobile homes, the Bayside Gardens MHP located here and adjacent to it the Baybreeze MHP to the west, the western boundary of the aerial we're looking at here, configured by the water's edge, a new office building located here. On the north side of the Street, Bayview Avenue extends across Gulf-to-Bay in this location. There's a vacant parcel here. The Wilder Office Building and Center is located here. The, I'll call it the ... Services Office, I don't.,know if that's the...(cighing)...two-story office building with parking underneath. The Crum(?) Personnel Services is one of the primary tenants here, and located between that are two bars and adult use activity in a bar, for which I can give you no first-hand testimony. Beyond that, the Kapok Travel Trailer Park, and across the road on the south side of Gulf-to-Bay, the former Bayview MHP located here on this four acres, now largely has been vacated as a MHP. South of it, east and south of it are County properties that adjoin and are actually part of the right-of--way for the Bayside Bridge and serves as retention for water purification purposes. And then further to the south and immediately south of the site proper, the Bayview subdivision. That shows up a little better in another illustration, and in particular I think will help the Board understand some of the inter-relationships here between the properties that I'll try and discuss and I know will be the subject of discussion later this evening. When we talk about the Bayview...neighborhood, we're talking largely about that residential area south of Gulf to Bay Blvd on either side, east and west of Bayview Avenue located here. One of the things we've shown here is the location of the...in the unincorporated County outlined here in green. This block of 2 • • March 19, 1996 CPA properties and these two properties, the remainder of the property remains"within the incorporated limits of the City of Clearwater. By way of background, this request was first submitted by Clearwater to the Planning Council as a subthreshold amendment. It is less than one acre in size and would ordinarily qualify ~to be treated as a subthreshold amendment through the official acceptance process. At our first public hearing in December the Council was requested and gave lengthy consideration to removing it as a subthreshold amendment and treating it as a regular amendment. The Council, after listening to testimony, the ,~ . pros and cons of that, voted 11-0 to continue the amendment to its January meeting and consider it in accord with the rules as a regular amendment. At our public hearing in January, again after some considerable testimony from both sides, the Council voted to deny the amendment by a vote of 7-2. To be accurate and complete in the record, in both those cases, both as to the subthreshold status and the recommendation on the hearing itself, the PAC which reviews these before it goes to the Council, had recommended it remain as a subthreshold amendment and that the amendment in fact be approved. The Council did not...(someone clearing throat). The Board (Authority) has twice continued this case routinely; once in order for the Planning Council to complete its process in January, and the seoncd time in February, to allow the time frame for appeal for the administrative hearing process, which is part and parcel of our procedure, to expire. That time frame has now run its course and has expired so that the case is properly before the Board (Authority) to be heard. Let me stop there before I go into the second part of what I'd like to do in terms of explaining the Council's reasoning and findings, and simply ask if there are questions relative to the 3 x March 19, 1996 CPA description or location of the amendment that I can answer to get us all on the same pages from the beginning. COMMISSIONER SEIBERT: It's not about the description, but it's about jurisdiction, and perhaps Susan is the better person to answer this, but, David, does our criteria for review change if it's subthreshold or not? MR. HEALEY: No. And the complete answer I think is it is no longer a subthreshold amendment. Under the Rules, the Council and/or this Authority can remove any amendment from its subthreshold standing, and review it as a regular amendment, which simply means full staff review and discussion... COMMISSIONER SEIBERT: Is there criteria in your Rules for the PPC to elevate to a threshold amendment? MR. HEALEY: There are not specific criteria or guidelines. The Council, early on, because the question arose early in the use of that process, essentially said that it would remove items from the subthreshold amendment status only if it involved or raised specific countywide policies or Rules in the Countywide Plan. And in the testimony that they received in December, .their conclusion was that it did raise those issues and those concerns. CHAIRMAN PARKS: Proceed, Mr. Healey. MR. HEALEY: The PPC memorandum which was submitted to you as part of the Council's 4 ~° • • March 19, 1996 CPA report to you, Exhibit A in the information submitted, includes the findings and recommendations of the Council. The Council's recommendation to deny is based on the record established in the PPC hearing and maybe summaried by tla~ eight findings in the agenda memorandum, and it's on pages 6 and 7 of what we submitted. What I'd like to do is try to simplifyy that and abbreviate that if I inay, and I reduced it to eight simple statements that I think captures the essense of those eight findings that the PPC reached in making its recommendation to you. Let me just read the eight to you then I'll elaborate... The first finding was that it was inconsistent with the Countywide Plan Rules; second, that it was inconsistent with Plan policies; thirdly, it intruded into a residential neighborhood; fourthly, that there were negative interjurisdictional impacts with which the Council was concerned; fifth that it had the potential to compromise with the historic importance of the Bayview neighborhood; sixth, that there was the potential for regeneration of adverse traffic impacts; seventh, that there was a potential precedent involved here with a negative ramification; and lastly, that the existing plan category was in fact appropriate to the property which is the subject of the amendment. What I'd like to do is take a minute, I know I could use all my time elaborating on those, I don't want to do that, I'd rather touch on the highlights and leave to your...questions...and further explanation of each of those points if they're not clear. But by way of trying to elaborate, I think the sense of what the Council was concerned with and their recommendation to you embodies; the first point is simply that the commercial general plan classification doesn't fit. One of the first tests of any amendment is to look at the purpose and locational characteristics of that specific planning category and apply it 5 • • March 19, 1996 CPA (Tape 2 ` to the subject site. And when we do that here it doesn't work. I'm not going to read to you the purpose and locational characteristics, but one, just to give yq~ the flavor of that, the commercial general plan category is used in and adjacent to activity centers, which this is not; where surrounding land uses support and are compatible with intensive commercial use. And I don't think anyone has suggested that that indeed is the case or the intent here. Simply said that, the commercial general plan category doesn't fit. It's the wrong category in the wrong place for the wrong reasons, and it fails that first test applied... The second concern was with respect to the inconsistency with countywide plan policies. There are five specific policies selected from the countywide plan with which this amendment was found to be inconsistent. Those are enumerated on page on the Council report to you. Again, I won't site all of them. I'd like to read one to you that I think one or two that captures the sense of this. "Land development pattern should recognize and support coherent neighborhoods. Neighborhoods should be insulated wherever possible from disruptive land uses and nuisances." And the fifth one, skipping to the last one: "preserve and restore properties of special value for historial, architectural or aestetic purposes." And when you apply this amendment to this location against those criteria, it doesn't measure up. It fails to meet those criteria. And those criteria are kind of our guideposts for all of the amendment process so that we consistently apply each amendment against the same criteria. The third item, the third issue which the PPC concluded was of major concern to them had to do with intruding into a residential neighborhood. The amendment does that in a number of ways. I 6 • ~ March 19, 1996 CPA ~=-on't describe all of them to you but obviously it physically extends into and replaces what is now a residential designation, on residential lots, and until very recently have housed two homes. It expands the commercial area by about 100 of what is now commercial on the frontage. It's basically a doubling of the commercial area, and would extend not only the color on the map or the plan designation, but physically extend the facilities, the building itself and the facilities that support it, the parking, the lighting, the retention that go with the expanded area. In terms of trying to measure that, the existing building, we approximate there a very small building adjacent to the existing gas pumps as maybe 300 square feet or so. We understand from testimony at the PPC meeting that the proposed building is some 1,500 square feet, so about afive-fold increment in the size of that facility. It will encourage by its ~very~ nature by bringing the commercial area down Bayview Avenue; additional access and turning movements from Bayview Avenue, which are largely now limited to the intersection given the configuration of the current use and parcel. And those things in combination simply begin to intrude upon and erode the residential character of the neighborhood. The fourth finding had to do with the interjurisdictional impacts, and I think this speaks to the fact that it's not a Clearwater issue alone. Portions of`the affected area in unincorporated Pinellas County. Just visually, I would suggest to you that's about 1/3 of the area by actual count. About 1/3 of the 24 or so homes that are in `the location here are in unincorporated Pinellas County. The roadways that are impacted here are not Clearwater's alone or their responsibility alone. S.R. 60 being the obvious exception. There's a small, really a local street, C.R. 31, in this location that is, 7 -F March 19, 1996 CPA to the best of my knowledge, still a County road. The amendment then takes on an importance beyond its size because of these interjurisdictional issues and it's altogether appropriate that it come to this form as the Countywide Planning Authority to make that final decision on the amendment. The fifth point that the Council raised in their recommendation to -you was that it compromised the historic importance of Bayview, and I don't pretend to be an historian or an expert on history, but there have been two, separate studies, both of which are referenced in the. PPC report. One done in 1980, and one in 1995 that sited the importance of Old Bayview or Town of Bayview as one of the first settlements in Pinellas County dating back to the 1870s. Both those reports and our plan include policies that would suggest we ought to protect and recognize the historic value of this neighborhoo~: and this amendment would in fact be inconsistent with those efforts- to encourage preservation, restoration and recognition of a special neighborhood. Adverse traffic impacts was the sixth factor. Traffic typically is an issue. I will tell you up front I don't think it is the overriding concern in this case, but it is a factor. Gulf-to-Bay, according to the methodology that we employ using the most recent published MPO data, the generalized tables classify the level of service as F. To be more specific, because I know we'll hear testimony to the contrary shortly and that is that there are actually two lengths of Gulf-to-Bay that are measured, the first length from McMullen Booth Road to Bayview, which is LOS D. It's about .27 of a mile, 1/4 of a mile in length. The remainder then from Bayview west to U.S. 19 is classified as LOS F, and in combination their aggregate LOS is F. You can't typically measure 1/4 of a mile and get an accurate reading, that's the reason for combining them. The volume 8 • w March 19, 1996 CPA on this section of the road is cited as SS,000 vtpd. We recognize that the addition of the estimated 214 trips that the plan amendment would yield is not of itself a major issue, but combined with other existing deficiencies, including tl verticle curvature of the roadway, the hill here, 'the grade, which causes site distance issues, as well as the combination of turning movements when you move from the seven-lane configuration here immediately in front of the site to actually 10 lanes here with the turning movements at its intersection with McMullen Booth Road cause additional concerns. There are documented recent concerns with respect to vehicular pedestrian accidents in this immediate vicinity which point to safety issues. Adverse precedential ramifications, I know the Council hears these continuously with every amendment. Let me point to three specific examples and why the Cou~icil thought this was of real importance in looking at what otherwise is a fairly small amendment in terms of its size. There are three specific sites that we think are directly impacted by the action on this amendment. The most obvious being this parcel. I think it is shown as lot 1 here in yellow, and it's my understanding from the record that it's also owned by Mr. Meador, the property owner of record in this application. It obviously is immediately opposite and would be affected by this amendment. It was a previous application in 1986 rejected or denied by the City of Clearwater for amendment. of this site to commercial, so there's some history here...in doing that. The other two obvious locations impacted by the result of this amendment are I think first the mobile home parks here immediately west of the site. These are older mobile home parks, I think subject to the same kind of pressures and transition that we've seen immediately to the east on a mobile home park that's 9 .J March 19, 1996 CPA just been vacated and the units actually remove :. So that is the third example. This four acres is vacant at present. There is some indication from the record itself that Clearwater either has or will entertain an intensification of that use artd that was of concern of the Council in terms of the action on this amendment. The other precedential issue I think that came into play and is cited in the Council report has to do with this location in general on Gulf-to-Bay Blvd. as a main entry, not only to Clearwater, but Pinellas County as a whole coming across the Courtney Campbell Causeway just beyond the intersection of one of our main north/south routes which is a scenic noncommercial corridor on McMullen Booth Road, and the fact that there is obviously some transition in use going on here. As you see the older uses being converted to different uses, to new uses. The opportunity I think to make a clear choice here about what the future of that corridor is going to look like and what it's going to be. Lastly, with respect to the existing plan category, it is the determination of the Council and the recommendation to you that the existing plan category is appropriate. There was no substantial...evidence submitted at the Planning Council to suggest otherwise. In fact, one of the factors to be evaluated is whether it meets that first test that I cited in terms of the location and purpose of the residential urban, and it is our belief that it does. The area proposed to be amended provides for reasonable use. Until very recently in fact has housed two homes for some 50 years as evidence of that reasonable use. Really only the applicant's purchase of lot 2 and the removal of the house on that lot has changed anything from the situation as it has existed these many years. The applicant I know will argue that it's not reasonable to think that those properties can continue in residential use, and let me just say 10 • • March 19, 1996 CPA that I think there's a serious flaw in the logi'' and position that they have submitted whereby they would have us believe that it would be appropriate to change the use of these from residential to commercial, remove two existing residences, extend the commercial use to that property, in fact occupy part of the remainder that is outlined here, the dash line, with retention in support of that commercial, leaving what is suggested can be a viable residential lot here, and that that somehow is more consistent with and provides a better buffer to the adjoining residential neighborhood. I suggest to you that that just doesn't fly. It begs good reasoning. Those are the eight reasons why the Council recommended its denial to you, and I'd like to summarize that and give you the flavor of that best by simply reading the motion from the Planning Council minutes of that January meeting. Councilmember Kone reported that she had discussed the matter with a member of the planning staff of the City of St. Petersburg and had been advised of the issues considered by them, suggesting in effect she had heard those arguments and discarded them, that feels strongly that the local government has an obligation to protect the integrity of its neighborhoods, that information presented this date shows that there are some compelling issues in terms of the neighborhood integrity, intru~tion into single family neighborhoods, and safety and environmental concerns; whereupon she moved, seconded by School Board Member Thacker that Case 95-58 be denied, which subsequently it was. I-ask your indulgence for one more minute and conclude by asking you to take into account two other factors, other than the findings and recommendation of the Planning Council. The Planning Council heard extensive well-founded testimony from the property owners most directly 11 March 19, 1996 CPA affected, who believe this amendment will adversely affect them. I guess ~f I'd sit down you'd probably hear directly from them and judge that for yourself. Very clearly that was a point in the deliberation of the Planning Council. Secondly this process provided for an approval by the applicant, the city and/or the property owner himself, for an administrative hearing from the recommendations of the Planning Council. The purpose of this provision is to afford every opportunity to address an issue with respect to the process...facts in the case with which the applicant may take exception. The City and the property owner have declined to take advantage of this process. Thank you, and I'll be glad to try and answer any questions the Board has. CHAIRMAN PARKS: Questions? Is there anyone else from the audience who wishes to ask a question of Mr. Healey at this time? MR. ALVORD: My name is Jack Alvord, 606 Bayview Avenue. I'm a County resident, I'm with the Historic Bayview Association. I noticed on the chart that you showed that the land across the street from me I think is shown as City land. That is County land. There's a tremendous amount of County land there. And I just wanted to be sure you knew that his house is also County. MR. HEALEY: If you show me I'll try and-- MR. ALVORD: I live here, and this is County here. 12 • a March 19, 1996 CPA MR. HEALEY: That shows correctly. This shows as part of unincorporated Pinellas County. MR. ALVORD: .. I'm sorry, I thought that was County there. Thank you, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN PARIGS: You're welcome, that's all right. Anybody else? Okay, thank you, David. Is someone here from the City of Clearwater, or who is presenting the-- Oh, okay. MR. SHUFORD: My name is Scott Schuford, I'm the Central Permitting Director for the City of Clearwater. This is a case which has been very frustrating to me. I probably spent more time on this one than I did on the Morton Plan Hospital master plan. And you've heard a lot. You've gotten an enormous amount of written material, and if you just take the PPC Executive Director's report to you, you took all the words and laid them out end to end they would circle this small property three tunes. So I'm not going to spend a lot of time talking to you about rebutting his points, although I really can't understand the extent of his testimony on traffic issues when he shows only a 214 trip per day increase and no level of service impact. But, I want to point out to you that this has been, since it's inception, a very controversial case. It was a 4 to 3 vote in favor of it by the Clearwater Planning and Zoning Board. Our City Commission considered it and sent it on to you by a 3-2 vote, with Commissioners Thomas and Berfield voting against the issue. The PPC, as the Executive Director has pointed out, has voted against this by a 7-2 vote. But one thing I want to point out to you is the only place the vote hasn't been close is with the PAC. These are the local experts in the public 13 C~ March 19, 1996 CPA sector...land use planning. As Mr. Healey mentioned, PAC considered it twice, did not want to take it off the subthreshold approval process by 11-0 vote, recommended in favor of the commercial general classification proposed by tl City by a 10-1 vote. And here why they said they voted that way, here's why they did it. They said first it's not a countywide impact. Second, the area is more commercial than residential. And last, the southern portion of the property will remain in a residential classification, conforms to City lot size requirements and would allow a single family dwelling to be built on that property and that would create an adequate buffer for the neighborhood. I've gotten caught up in all the issues in this and I've turned what I think is a very simple case into a, complicated one. So I'm not going to spend my time here tonight and waste your time talking about site plan issues. I'm not going to go into a lot of detail about the tree canopy would be preserved and the City's plan development zoning, and tht only one tree would need to be removed, 21 would be planted and over 300 shrubs would be planted. And I won't talk about the stormwater driveway and the pollution improvements that would come through our zoning process. I would point out to you, however, that the site will only have 5% of its total area covered by a building, and over 60% of the site would remain an open space under our zoning. And we think improved buffers will insulate the neighborhood. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on our commitment to the Bayview neighborhood because we have said to them that we will do a zoning study of their area and at their request postponed that. We've done a historic inventory of their area, and that was part of Mr. Healey's report. And we do eventually intend to provide design...for those structures in that area which merit protection. 14 March 19, 1996 CPA And as I mentioned, I'm not going to go into discussing each of Mr. Healey's eight...so I can rebut each of those. But here's what the case is really about. You'll note that I have the land use plan classifications indicated. This is Gulf-t~- Bay Blvd., McMullen Booth turning into Bayside Bridge, the property's right here. This is the existing land use plan classification. Here's what's being proposed: We're going from a commercial classification with 23 feet of depth on Gulf-to-Bay Blvd on one comer; one with 104 feet of depth on Gulf-to-Bay Blvd. That's what this is about. Now I consulted one more expert before I made my recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Board, and I asked my wife whether she thought this was the right thing to do. And she said, Honey, it's Gulf-to-Bay. The experts are right. PAC is right, my wife is right, it's really pretty simple. And I ask to you support the City of Clearwater request. Are there any questions? CHAIRMAN PARI<.S: Any questions? COMMISSIONER TYNDALL: I assume all the red is Gulf-to-Bay Blvd itself? MR. SHUFORD: Yes, sir. In Clearwater, and I want to point that out just for the record. In Clearwater we do not have the segregation of the highways in terms of our land use plan category and so when we created this map that would show that, so, on other maps that you've seen you would see that as a wider... CHAIRMAN PARIGS: Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to ask a question of Mr. Shuford and his presentation? (none) Are there proponents to speak in favor of the 15 ~ ~ March 19, 1996 CPA application? ATTORNEY CLINE: Madam Chairman, my name is Harry Cline, and I represent the applicants hem. And we would like to propose is that we have a 20 minute presentation, approximately 12 to 14 minute~of that by our expert, our substantial evidence map which Mr. Healey said wasn't at the last hearing, and present a tape to you so you will see and I think get very well informed on this site. Behind that we would like to have the operator, the man who's been there since 1974 and will be there for the next 20 years, if this is approved, Mr. Jim Smith to speak, and I would like to reserve my time simply to rebut, to close, if that's permissible under the new procedures. CHAIRMAN PARIS: So how much time are we talking about, Mr. Cline? ATTORNEY CLINE: 20 minutes. CHAIRMAN PARKS: Sounds fine to me. ATTORNEY CLINE: Thank you, we'll proceed. Let me start by introducing Mr. Dutter (Richard IC.), a modest man that he is, let me just tell you that he's with Icing Engineering, he is a 20 year expert, he has a masters degree and a doctorate involving land planning and environmental issues. He has been a professor at Rutgers, and that's where his degrees came from, and he has been a director for the Division of Zoning in Brunswick New Jersey. He has been successful in both the public 16 w • March 19, 1996 CPA and private sector. You have about a 2-1/2 page resume on his credentials, let me introduce Mr. Richard Dutter from King Engineering. MR. DUTTER: Thank you very much and good evening. I do not possess a doctorate, but I do possess a masters degree and an undergraduate degree as well, but I do thank you, Harry. My presentation will be given by video tape which I will provide narration to...best opportunity to condense a lot of information into a fairly short period of time as I think you'll see as we go through. (Video presentation) My name is Richard Dutter, I'm Director of Planning for Ding Engineering Associates. I have over 20 years experience as a professional planner, both in the private and public sectors, and possess a masters degree in city and regional planning as well as a bachelor's degree in landscape architecture. I'll focus on three major issues tonight: compatibility of the proposed use with surrounding land uses and the comprehensive plan designations, the role the revitalization of this site will play in stabalizing the neighborhood; and showing how the proposed renovations is essential and represents the only reasonable use of the property. First I'd like to address land use compatibility. The future land use map identifies the existing .3 acre FINA site as CG, commercial general. We propose to correct a nonconforming commercial lot deficiency by providing an additional .3 acre of commercially designated land. Gulf to Bay Blvd., contrary to Mr. Healey's characterization, is a highly developed commercial corridor. Atypical commercial lot ranges in depth from 150 to 300 feet. Other than this proposed site, there is no other residential urban land use designation located within 250 feet of this major commercial corridor. Our proposed minor expansion is less than 1/3 acre, 17 C • March 19, 1996 CPA y ~t will only be 121 feet in average depth. A tour on Gulf to Bay Blvd. between U.S. 19 and the Bayside Bridge reveals a mixture of highly intensive office, commercial and high density residential uses. There's no question that Gulf Bay Blvd is an established major commercial corridor. In many instances, insufficient lot depth has caused site overcrowding and visual chaos. Uses vary along the corridor ranging from the Clearwater Mall to restaraunt facilities to adult entertainment establishments. In many areas along the corridor, redevelopment is proceeding, however. As existing new business are constructed or older faciliiies revitalized, they're brought up to current codes standards, including drainage, lighting, landscaping, and appropriate building setbacks. There are however, considerable additional opportunities for continued revitalization, including the existing FINA site. Residents of the Bayview neighborhood are, as they should be, concerned over the fate of this important commercial site. Stability for this site and the neighborhood will result from the proposed revitalization. The condition of the property is substandard. The existing building is far too close to Gulf to Bay Blvd. We do not have the ability to provide on-site and perimeter landscaping, on-site drainage, or other features which would enhance the appearance and functional aspects of the site. Also, diesel service will be eliminated as part of the site revitalization. It is important to consider alternative uses currently permitted on the site under the CG land use classification. Here are a series of uses existing along Gulf to Bay Blvd., located within the CG land use category which would all create much greater impacts on the neighborhood than the proposed minor expansion of the FINA station. Issues such as site aesthetics, circulation, lighting, and types of uses will be closely 18 w • March 19, 1996 CPA controlled under our proposal fora site plan regulated zoning district. Revitalization of the FINA site will provide stability, not only for the neighborhood, but also for this important community gateway. The proposed site modifications will enhance this gateway view by causing the building and other site features to be recessed, and camouflaged by the existing major trees and proposed landscape improvements. We recognize the importance of maintaining the character of our neighborhoods, particularly those with historic significance. Here is a brief tour, first down the east side of Bayview Avenue, showing the existing characteristics of structures and in the case of older homes, their approximate date of construction. As can be seen, there's a mixture of housng types along Bayview Avenue. This is a complete inventory of each house along than roadway. Various styles of architecture and sizes of homes are included in this neighborhood. With the extreme southern portion of the roadway now approaching the extreme southern terminus. Now we're heading back up north. You see the variety of styles and sizes. Avery nice neighborhood but a mixture of uses. In addition, a religious establishment, aquasi-public use is located along Bayview Avenue. It's also constructed in a contemporary style. Continuing to drive north on Bayview Avenue. It's important to note as we progress north, that the only residence, the last one that you'll see here, the only residence that will front, even partially on the proposed commercial expansion, is the residence owned by the applicant, Mr. Meador. That's his property right there. The following is a map of the Bayview area drawn around 1950 showing the status of Bayview community during the period between 1850 to 1889. Although the area certainly has historic significance, none of the structures along Bayview Avenue, 19 • • March 19, 1996 CPA which are illustrated on t'us map, are still in existence. Observe that this historic area also extends far beyond Bayview Avenue, stretching throughout this section of Pinellas County. Revitalization of this commercial facility will produca community and neighborhood gateway far superior from that which now exists. Clearly we have an unstable condition, which if not corrected, will result in the failure of this existing business and its replacement by an unknown commercial use. Following site revitalization, the neighborhood stability at this commercial intersection will exist for decades to come. This is a computer generated image illustrating what the site will look like after the renovation is complete. The land owner is entitled to reasonable use of his property. In this area of Gulf to Bay Blvd., three other service stations exist, all of which have been recently constructed or have undergone major renovations. All these other service stations are many times more intense in the number of pumps and more than three times the building area proposed for the renovated FINA site. To remain a viable commercial operation, the proposed improvements are essential. The City approved site plan has evolved based on both city and neighborhood suggestions. The CG land use category permits over 10,600 square feet of building on the site. We are proposing on1y1,500. Just on the existing .3 acre site, over 5,200 square feet pernlitted. 15% open space is required. Our proposal will result in not 15% but 61 % open space. For all practical purposes, the intensity of the site development will decrease significantly. Noise level is an important consideration in evaluating the appropriateness of the proposed amendment. You're now listening to the noise level on Bayview Avenue at the C.R. 31 intersection. Compare what you've just listened to the noise level at the edge of our proposed 20 • • March 19, 1996 CPA commercial expansion. Listen as I walk from the southern portion of vacant lot 2, also owned by Mr. Meador, toward Gulf to Bay Blvd. As I approach the proposed commercial boundary, notice the marked difference in noise intensity The eastern edge of the property only has a 23-foot lot depth. It is not...urban residential land use designation 23 feet from Gulf to Bay Blvd. Adjacent commercial uses range from the adult entertainment use directly across the street to a modem multi-story office building. Also including a bait shop and produce stand located opposite the FINA station on the west side of Bayview Avenue. The transportation LOS of Gulf to Bay, based upon travel time studies, is LOS B, not D or F. LOS C exists if the analysis is run based upon traffic volumes. Regardless of the LOS classification, the proposed FINA renovation will generate far fewer new trips than any other commercial use that can be put on the property under its current designation. A significant part of the history of this area is the magnificent oak trees that exist on and around the property. In our proposal, all but one of these trees will remain. Our proposed revitalization will also provide controlled access points to Gulf to Bay Blvd. Currently, unrestricted access can occur, causing potential traffic conflicts. The opponents of this project have submitted in the record a site plan sketch using only the existing site acreage, claiming that we could accommodate our use on the property. Deficiencies of the plan include siting a building 400 square feet less than that which is required by the applicant; inadequate drainage; eliminating most of the tree canopy, including seven major trees and over 1 SO caliber inches of trees; not providing required front setbacks; and not providing separation between the building and the pump parking. Our site plan meets all City of Clearwater requirements. The red stripe 21 v March 19, 1996 CPA area illustrates the proposed commercial land us.. expansion. Only the building is located within the expansion area, allowing extensive tree preservation. In summary, the proposed site plan renovation will provide improved bufferir surrounding the property, access control, drainage, improve the view from the road, and enhance and stabalize the entry to the neighborhood. The proposed amendment, contrary to Mr. Healey's comment, is totally consistent with the Pinellas County Comprehensive Plan. We are consistent with land use policy 1.1.3 requiring compatibility with the natural environment, services and surrounding land uses. Our proposal clearly promotes redevelopment and renewal. We'll be helping to maintain the economic vitality and viability of this existing commercial use. Our site plan illustrates how careful we have been in preserving the naturally treed site. Adequate support facilities exist to service the proposed minor expansion. Our plan to upgrade the site will correct on-site traffic deficiencies. Current stormwater standards will be met which will significantly improve area drainage. The proposed change will correct the existing condition where a rnediurn density residential use will no longer exist 23 feet from Gulf to Bay Blvd. Both the PD zoning and plan amendment have been approved by the City of Clearwater. The Planners Advisory Committee has voted overwhelmingly, 10 to 1, rather than 11 to 1, in support of our request. Therefore, why should you approve the project? By properly siting the building and saving the trees, this gateway to both the County and the neighborhood will be significantly enhanced. The proposal corrects a zoning nonconformity with respect to commercial lot depth and properly designates land only 23 feet from Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard for commercial rather than residential urban use. The commercial site will become 22 • March 19, 1996 a stable part of the neighborhood for decades to come. And possibly most important, commercial general is the appropriate use designation for this property. This permitted use must be allowed to be renovated in order to survive. And in closing, it's just a final scene showing, again, the existing condition followed by the proposed structure which will locate the building back in among the trees. And I'll be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN PARIGS: Thank you. We'll go back up here and-- MR. DUTTER; Please do. CHAIRMAN PARKS: Thank you for being willing to improvise with us, and we could see it fine. Okay, members of the Board, are there any questions? COMMISSIONER SEIBERT: I have a question. You're probably not the right person to answer it but you're up here right now. Probably make life a little easier. How are we to assure that the commercial use will stay the FINA that has been proposed? How do we assure that? Or would the City of Clearwater, should FINA decide not to expand, just have a larger commercial use that could inhabit that space? MR. DUTTER: Maybe Scott can address it in more detail, but it's my understanding that the proposed expansion and approval, or recommendation for approval of the comprehensive plan amendment, were tied together. And the zoning is not a 23 C March 19, 1996 Euclidean zoning, a general zoning, it's one that is tied to a specific site plan. So to the extent that the site plan is modified, it has to come back through tl e rezoning process certainly. I would assume there are no guarantees in terms of a land use amendment that at some point in time some other user could come in apply for approval for another use compatible with the CG zone. But at this point in time what's been applied for is a comp plan amendment in conjunction with the zoning amendment which is tied specifically to the site plan that you've been viewing here. And I think the important point is that this CG designation, regardless of the use, is appropriate given what's across the street, what's next door. The depth of 23 feet is almost a reverse situation where we're not only dealing with existing commercial and it's expansion, we're considering, is it appropriate to have a residential lot 23 feet from Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard, and is it appropriate to have that develop residential? It hasn't done so so far in terms of a viable residential use, so that's almost part of the equation as well as should the commercial expand. Should the residential be forced to remain CHAIRMAN PARKS: Okay, we have Mr. Shuford waiting in the wings. Let's let him see if he can respond to Commissioner Seibert's question. MR. SHUFORD: Thank you, Madam Chairman. To further elaborate on your question, Commissioner Seibert, the City zoning is a land development zoning and it only allows three uses on this site, the gas station, indoor retail sales, and the sale of alcoholic beverages in package. So those would be the only uses that could occur 24 • March 19, 1996 there. It would have to occur in conjunction with the site plan that has been presented. The only way that could be changed is through a zoning plan amendment, and you would not see those. The County Commission would not see those. You would only see the land use plan amendment. But I can give you this information as far as the City's commitment to that particular planned development proposal, that particular site plan, and the applicant originally requested the entire property, including that residential residual you saw in the site plan, to be in a commercial general classification. And we couldn't support that because we weren't sure about the use and we couldn't evaluate all the impact. Our Commission asked us to review whether the planned development approach might work with this particular property in order to address i.hese ' impacts, and we thought we had set the applicant up with an impossible task because we said, we want you to fix the driveways, clean up the pollution on the site. We want you to address the stormwater issue in a manner that even exceeds City code requirements because of the way the property is configured, and we want you to preserve every tree on the site. And much to our surprise they came forward with a plan that did that with the exception of one tree would have to be cut down. So we are committed to that site plan. CHAIRMAN PARIGS: Okay, any other questions? Mr. Cline, are you continuing this or we've got--okay. JIM SMITH: Good evening. My name is Jim Smith. I'm the president of Cobb Oil Company. We have operated the FINA facility at 3009 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard since 1974. 25 March 19, 1996 I addressed the majority of my issues in a letter to Chairman Parks and I copies you all. I wanted to address the pollution issue which was not there. Any petroleum facility that has existed for any length of time has residual pollution on it. This site has operated as a petroleum facility since the early 1950s. It is there. It is not ahigh-ranking site although the State Department of Environmental Protection saw fit to improve its ranking, or raise its ranking from a rank of 10 to a rank of 35. Under current statutes that the State Department of Environmental Protection is operating under, no site under a ranking of 70 is even considered for clean up at this time, under 95-2, the Senate bill passed last year. Currently funding for that site, if we just sat back and waited for it to go along, would probably exist and the pollution would be addressed sometime in the year 2007, 2008. As it sits right now, nothing has to be done on that property as far as storage tanks are concerned until 2009. Our proposal is, once we have the opportunity to expand, and the reason for expansion is to produce sufficient income to repay the investment that we're going to make on that property, and take out an underground situation that may exacerbate problems in the neighborhood, but has not now and not ever migrated off site contrary to anything you will hear. We have hydrogeological studies that can be produced. There is no migratory plume that has left the property at this time. What we want to do is put state-of--the-art equipment underground. That's double-wall, everything, with interstitial electronic monitoring, and take it to the year 2030 and beyond. If I'm going to spend that money, in addressing Commissioner Seibert's question, if I'm going to spend $300,000 to $400,000, you can bet I'm 26 • • March 19, 1996 . going to be there for a l~,ng time to recover that cost. Thank you. If there's any questions I'll be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN PARKS: Questions of Mr. Smith? Thank you, Mr. Smith. Who do we have next, Mr. Cline? MR. CLINE: We'd like to reserve our time for rebuttal. CHAIRMAN PARIGS: Okay, is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to speak as a proponent? Are there those in the audience who wish to speak as opponents to the proposal? And, if so, who is representing--is there someone representing you for the 20- minute time period you have or thereabouts? Who's our guy here? Mr. Hubbard? JOHN HUBBARD: Madam Chairman, I represent one individual specifically. I think it's fair to say that I represent a concensus of the neighborhood but I cannot give you a list of the persons I represent. Under your present rules I don't know what that entitles to me in the way of time. CHAIRMAN PARIGS: Can I see a nod of the heads of people in the audience who might say, you feel okay about his representing your point of view? Each of you will still have three minutes, but he has the larger period of time. Is that okay with you all. (Yes, from audience.) Mr. Hubbard, come forward. 27 March 19, 1996 MR. HUBBARD: My name is John Hubbard. I'm an attorney practicing in the City of Dunedin. I don't have a fancy video tape presentation for you today. I have something that is very non-technical in nature, very non-technical in character, and I think a great deal better than a video tape. I represent Mary Booth McMullen who is this lady who is sitting right over here. You can see the white-haired lady sitting next to the column. That is Mrs. McMullen. Mrs. McMullen is 98 years of age and Mrs. McMullen lives immediately adjacent to the subject property and faces the possibility of having a gas station/convenience store/liquor store extended further up and closer to her front porch than it now exists. I hope when I'm 98 years of age I'm not going to be facing a similar situation. C HAI R.MAN PARIGS She's not 98. MR. HUBBARD: Mrs. McMullen put your hand up and swear you're 98. (laughter) Avery nice lady and I'll also say that Mrs. McMullen has attended virtually every meeting on which this has been discussed at the City and the County PPC level, and now tonight. She obviously cares very much about the situation. I think I can also fairly say that I represent a consensus of the people in the neighborhood relative to this particular project. I have provided you with a rather extensive memorandum and attachments to it. I will try not to repeat much of that. I hope you've had the opportunity to read it. It does summarize a great deal of what I'm going to say and so I'm not going to spend much time trying to cover the same 28 • ~ March 19, 1996 topics again. And I will try to limit myself belc~v the 20 minutes that you have given me. My client concurs in the recommendation of the Pinellas Planning Council and in your staff professionals, and obviously in the recommendation of the PPC and the recommendation of the County Administrator. The basic issue before you today is really a pretty simple one I think. It's whether or not you're going to allow the intrusion of a commercial use in the form of a gas station, liquor store, and convenience store, into somebody's neighborhood. I suggest that you put yourself in their shoes to the degree that you can. In my memorandum I said, this is not a big broad zoning issue. This is a local issue. This is small, and my opponents~attempt to use its smallness to justify it. I suggest to you because it is a small neighborhood, because it is a fragile neighborhood, that this is even more a dramatic impact on them than some area-wide rezoning possibly could be. This v~~ill have a more direct and immediate effect on them as human beings and on their lives than a general legislative rezoning of the area. It is--the issue before us is really a matter of incompatible uses. We have a fragile, historic neighborhood and we have a convenience store with all it's attendant problems that all of us know about. The problem here is, and inconsistency here is, and the City of Clearwater--and I understand the property owner's position here. He wants more; everybody does. What I can't really understand is the City of Clearwater's. Because what's funny about this thing is when this whole process started they recognized the incompatibility. They recognized the illogic of what they were doing. And I've given you some exhibits on this package that indicate when they first were considering this, they made what I consider to be the 29 • March 19, 1996 legitmate statements having to do with this. And then somehow when they started focusing on this site plan thing, they lost complete control of the big picture. They forgot what they were really dealing about. They forgot who they were really representing and they somehow got themselves focused on the minutia instead of the big picture. Because if you go back to the City of Clearwater reports to its Planning and Zoning Board, they say, "it's the stafFs understanding that the intent of the applicant is to utilize the two lots in conjunction with the ~' existing gas station site for commercial development. It is felt that any commercial development on this site would infringe on the quiet, residential nature to the south." Now what has changed from that date of Apri15, 1994, just almost exactly two years ago? On May 3rd of that same year, in a report, again, to the Clearwater Planning and Zoning Board from the Central Permitting Department of the City of Clearwater, "the proposed change would expand the existing commercial opening along Gulf-to-Bay southward into an existing residential site. It is felt that any commercial development on this site would infringe on the quiet, residential nature to the south." And then they found why it wasn't compatible with their zoning codes and why it wasn't compatible with their comprehensive plan. It says, "the available uses to which the property may be put are appropriate," this is the standards they use, and they found that they failed each one of the standards. And then lastly the memo to the Clearwater City Commission of May 19, 1994. It said, "it is stafFs understanding that the intent of the applicant is to utilize the two lots in conjunction with the existing gas station for commercial development. It is felt that any commercial 30 ~ • March 19, 1996 development on this site would infringe on the quiet, residential nature of the area to the south." The available uses to which the property may be put if these amendments are approved are not appropriate to the property and are not compatible with the existing uses in the area. Now they got off base somewhere and I don't know where and I don't why, and we'll never~no~lwhere or why is my guess. But somehow the City of Clearwater has lost sight of what it was doing here. What is occurring here, or what is attempting to occur here is that they're going to double the size of the commercial site. Now that'$ commercial site has been in its essential configuration for approximately 50 years. That gas station has been there that long. It was rebuilt in 1976 and it's been there for about 50 years and it's been a success for about 50 years. And what they failec' to do when they come up and tell you about the unfortunate aspects of the present property is they forget to tell you that nobody made a good, strong attempt to improve what they have. Rather, they would rather go on to their neighbors--into their neighbors' property, or get closer to their neighbors' property and make some changes there so that their neighbors can pay the price of improving the property rather than improving what they already had. The store, the convenience store on the property, is going to go from 336 square feet to 1,500 square feet and it moves deeper into the neighborhood. It comes off the front of the property and goes closer to the residential properties. Mrs. McMullen's property is the property immediately adjacent to lots 1 and 2. And I think now it's important to make another point that I don't think has been made so far. And I don't know if you can see this or not. It's not a--and I don't know how to 31 • March 19, 1996 operate your system. CHAIRMAN PARKS: I think they'll focus in from upstairs. MR. HUBBARD: If it's possible to make this thing bigger that would be nice. If not I'll do the best I can with what I've got here. MR. WICKS: Okay, there we go. MR. HUBBARD: Thank you so much. This shaded portion right here--this right here is the existing .site. This shaded portion right here is what they plan to change. What they plan to change is portions of lots 1 and 2. Mr. Meador owns all of lots 1 and 2. What they fail to tell you is that the City of Clearwater has granted a variance on lots 1 and 2 to handle the retention for this site. So in fact, the truth of the matter is if we were really being candid with ourselves, we would recognize that really what they have done is intrude into this neighborhood for all of lots 1 and 2, because what they're doing is using this and that to serve that. And they would argue to you apparently that this and that leaves some type of residential usage. I don't know who is going to build into that retention pond or put up that, but I would suggest to you that the true intrusion is back to these lot lines, because that is the property that in fact services this commercial site. Let me very generally deal with conflicts with the Countywide Plan. David Healey addressed soiree of them. I would like to, again, very briefly hit them. The first one is, "land 32 • • March 19, 1996 development patterns should recognize and support coherent neighborhoods. Neighborhoods should be insulated whenever possible from disruptive land uses and nuisances." I personally cannot think of anything that is much more of a nuisance than a convenience store, a gas station, or a liquor store if it was put immediately next to my property. But it says that we are, as a County, "we are trying to insulate those neighborhoods." We cannot insulate the neighborhood by intruding further into it. They would have you believe that these represent a buffer and that is a positive aspsect. I suggest to you that it is exactly the opposite of course, that the buffer now lies right at this line, and that they have intruded further into the buffer to impact the people who live here. Deep in mind that this particular business has operated there for approximately 50 years without any necessary further intrusion into the neighborhood. The next one I'd like to bring to your attention is "incompatible land uses such as industry and residential should be segregated. Where they abut, appropriate buffers should be developed." Our comprehensive plan tells us we have an obligation to separate incompatible uses further. This brings them closer together as I've said previously. The next one is, "land planning should weigh heavily the established character of predominantly developed areas when changes of use or intensity of development is contemplated." In other words, protect the established character of the neighborhood. This obviously does exactly the opposite from that. The amendment dramatically changes the use or intensity of these particular properties, and I also need to bring to your attention that there was an historic home on these properties and Mr. Meador was faced with the choice of 33 • • March 19, 1996 maintaining and preserving and protecting and improving that home or tearing it down. He chose to tear it down. On that basis I guess, if we work on that theory, it can go any depth in here as long as we're willing to destroy what history has left for us. The next one I'd like to talk about is, "plan for a program of neighborhood renewal, emphasizing property maintenance, rehabilitation, and redevelopment." What he has done and what this will encourage to be done in the future runs exactly contrary to that. It is an encouragement for the destruction of the historic structures. You have an older structure where you have to put a good bit of money into it to preserve it, if you can turn it into a gas station, there unfortunately is a negative incentive to go the wrong direction. I hope you would agree with me that that is the wrong direction for us to go as a county. It encourages the destruction of the neighborhood, not the preservation of . it. Lastly, "preserve and restore properties of special value for historical, architectural, or aesthetic purposes." I think the video tape he showed you to some degree works against what he's trying to encourage you to believe, and that is when they drove down that street--and by the way that was just one street; the neighborhood is actually larger than that of course. But driving down that one street you saw the beautiful homes that were there and it seems to me that that is worthy of preservation. The City of Clearwater did conduct two different studies, one in 1981 and 1985. I provided them to you. I think they are very eloquent in some portions of them and I would encourage you to read them if you have not already done so. But unfortunately the City of Clearwater has utterly failed to do what it promised its citizens it would do in its comprehensive plan. 34 • March 19, 1996 By 1992 they were supposed to have done extensive historical studies to protect historical neighborhoods and they have utterly failed to do that. They have made promises upon promises that they're going to do it at some time in the future and they have not. And you cannot rely on the City of Clearwater unfortunately to preserve that historic neighborhood. You are going to have to do it, because I think they are unwilling to do so. I'm going to read you one brief excerpt from the historical study because frankly I think it really sums it up and again, I'm no historian but the person who wrote this was. "Today, if one chooses to venture off busy and developed S.R. 60 to the south at Bayview Drive, one will find the vestiges of an old community which survives in a relatively unaltered state of preservation. The fact that Bayview exists at all today is due to the concentration of McMullen descendants who chose to keep their homes and families in the area which helped to shape the history of Pinellas County. However, time and progress has taken its toll. The future of this environmentally sensitive area, which is one of the oldest settlements in the County, is at best uncertain. What is certain is that it will take more than a handful of McMullens to save Bayview. Preservationists, concerned citizens and government alike must rally to preserve this most important aspect of the birth :of Pinellas County. True concerns for the maintenance of these beginnings of our County are of the utmost importance and must be preserved as part of our heritage." That is much better than I could ever possibly begin to say it, and I think it speaks immediately to that issue. Mr. Healey generally addressed the precedential factor and frankly that is a great concern to the residents of this neighborhood. What precedence would this set? 35 • • March 19, 1996 Mr. Meador owns that property right there. He owns this property right here. This was his mother's house as I understand it, and he inherited it, and in 1986, right after he inherited it he came in and he tried to get it to be zoned commercial. He owns this property right up here. He owns this and this. One of these had an historic home on it and that's now destroyed. Bayview Mobile Home Park is right over here, it's four acres. And in my memorandum to you I gave you a .listing of different actions that the City of Clearwater has undertaken in talking to the Connollys who own this property. The Connollys are absolutely convinced in their own minds that they have an absolute right to the highest and best commercial use on that property. When the City of Clearwater spoke to them about possibly even purchasing it, they said you can purchase it all right, but you're going to have to pay the appropriate price for the highest commercial usage on the property. They are convinced that this is going to go commercial, and I again have outlined that in my memorandum to you. I won't bother to go in and read all the letters but they are attached as exhibits to the memorandum. The applicant makes a big point of this being an unstable site, this being something that needs improvement, this being something that intruding into his neighbors' yards is going to make more desirable for all of us. What he fails to recognize I think is that they can make the site stable; they can improve the quality of their gas station if that's what they wish to do. They can build a larger convenience store on the site if they choose to do so, if they're willing to stay within the site and do what is necessary in development techniques to make the site. They come to you and say, it's got some hazardous waste on it. It has some 36 u • March 19, 1996 ~,il. Therefore, you should give us the ability to intrude into our neighbors' homes with this additional commercial development so to speak. We've made a mess on our property and therefore you should reward us by rezoning some property that we own and give us a bigger commercial site. I think, again, that goes the wrong direction here. What Mr. Shuford was candid enough to tell you and which I think deserves repeating right now is that this is your last voice in this process on this particular property. If you allow the comp plan to be changed to commercial general on this particular property, they will not be coming back to you for all those little site plan niceties that they promised the City of Clearwater if the City of Clearwater changes its mind or if a subsequent property owner decides to do something else on the property. You will have no say in what is on that property except that it will have to conform with the commercial general comprehensive land use plan restrictions. But other than that the County will have no further say in it. Basically the application before you violates numerous Countwide Land Use Plan policies and goals. It severely damages-- potentially damages--an historic gateway to Pinellas County. It represents a windfall profit to the property owner but at a great cost to his neighbors. They are asking you to give them something of great value, in my opinion of great damage to your citizens in the County, and only for a very, very narrow scope of benefit to one particular property owner. There's lots and lots of people who will be hurt. And I thank you very much for allowing me to speak to you tonight. CHAIRMAN PARKS: Okay, thank you Mr. Hubbard. Questions? 37 • • March 19, 1996 MR. SMITH: Did you mention that Mrs. McMullen doesn't live there any longer? I missed that; I was writing some notes. MR. HUBBARD: That Mrs. McMullen does not live in the home? MR. SMITH: Yeah, adjacent to the property. And also that the property was condemned, the house was taken down? Again, I apologize, I was taking notes and...mentioned. MR. HUBBARD: Give me a moment if I may. BARBARA SARTOR: My mother maintains a room in that home and she is there at least once a week. (Questions from Mr. Hubbard, inaudible.) MS. SATORI: The home is still there. MR. SMITH: All right. I misunderstood. MR. HUBBARD: Her home that she lives in, again, because of her age her ability to live independently is obviously somewhat constrained from time to time. It wasn't until very recently that this occurred to the best of my knowledge. And the house that I'm talking about that's immediately adjacent, she still lives in from time to time, just where I pointed it to you on the map. 38 March 19, 1996 CHAIRMAN PARKS: Okay, thank you Mr. Hubbard. Commissioner Seibert. COMMISSIONER SEIBERT: I'll ask counsel this question. The reasonableness of the existing land use category on the subject property is of interest to me. Can you speak to that issue? MR. HUBBARD: Surely. The applicant of course tries to convince you that having a house iininediately adjacent to the existing commercial site is very undesirable and cannot be sustained and is therefore not reasonable to keep it in that location and that therefore they should be able to use it for some other purpose. I would suggest to you that the house that was on there had been on there for many, many ,many years. This gas station site has been operable for over 50 years and that house was able to live very nicely there for all that period of time. The illogic of that argument I think, Commissioner, is that if that is true then it is equally true once they extend further into the residential neighborhood, that the immediately adjacent property then becomes less desirable and therefore that same land use question arises and on and on and on and on. At some point we know we draw lines where you don't go over that line any more, and I think this is the logical place to draw the line on this particular small, sensitive and historic neighborhood. CHAIRMAN PARKS: Okay, thank you Mr. Hubbard. Okay, are there any others who wish to speak as opponents, and you have, if you don't mind, approximately three minutes and try 39 • ~ March 19, 1996 not to cover things that Mr. Hubbard has already covered. SHEILA COLE: For the record, my name is Sheila Cole. I'm president of the Coalition of Clearwater Homeowners Associations. We would like to make it very clear that we are completely against the encroachment of commercialism into our residential properties. It's hard not to repeat things other peoplel have said tonight, but I will tell you that we looked at Mr. Shuford's drawing and you saw Gulf-to-Bay and it was a nice wide, red corridor. And then we started to see little areas of red coming off of Gulf-to-Bay. And those areas of red coming off of Gulf-to-Bay are going to get deeper and deeper into our residential neighborhoods until we no longer have the sanctity of residential neighborhoods in this City. I think the people who live in Bayview have done a beautiful job of modernizing their homes. I don't think that video proved the point it set out to make. They may not still look like George Washington's house, but they are beautiful residences that are kept in an area that has historic reverence to our City. It surprises me that the City of Clearwater along with the Pinellas Planning Council in 1980 and again in 1995, did a Bayview architectural and historic inventory and yet are ignoring that. I don't know why we pay money for these kinds of studies when we ignore the findings. The house that was torn down, according to the notes I've been given, was built in 1894. It seems a shame that that house was torn down for no reason. We are now, in the City of Clearwater, finding other neighborhoods where we have the same type of situation going on, where there is encroachment of commercialism into our residential neighborhoods. A small gas station doesn't 40 ~ • March 19, 1996 sound bad. A large gas station, and a liquor store, and a package goods store, would you really want that on the corner of your street? I wouldn't want it on the corner of my street. Gulf-to-Bay is a corridor and in deference to Mr. Shuford's wife, it's Gulf-to-Bay. But you come across that Gulf-to-Bay with your eyes open and come past our beautiful new entryway to our beautiful bridge, and then you look at Gulf-to-Bay corridor and you tell me, are you proud of that being the entryway to your County, to the City of Clearwater? I also serve on the Clearwater Beautification Committee. We're certainly not content with the way that road looks and we're now working with the State on trying to improve that road. I don't think that because the neighboring businesses, be it Baby Dolls across the street or three other gas stations down ~he road, makes anything else right. I don't know when those three wrongs would make this fourth thing right. It doesn't work that way. We need to improve our city. We need to protect the residents of our city. That's the most important thing I think is the quality of life of the residents within our County, our City and our State, and that should come before any other consideration. Thank you. CHAIRMAN PARKS: Thank you, Mrs. Cole. Are there others who wish to speak in opposition? BRECK PARKER, 716 BAYVIEW AVENUE: My name is Breck Parker. I'm a native of this area. I'll be 52 in the fall and I've lived in the Bayview area for 20 years. I came over horseback riding in the 50s in this area. Let me talk to a couple of main points. First of all, this really is the gateway to Pinelas County. You've got the International Airport; you've got the 41 • • March 19, 1996 interstate and the Courtney Campbell Causeway; you've got the new Bayside Bridge that they spent millions and millions of dollars on, the widening of McMullen Booth. It really is the main entrance to Pinellas County so it really is of Countywide significance. As was mentioned much of this land including the vacated trailer park immediately to the east is County property. We have County enclaves down there. We have County wetlands and lowlands down by the bridge and the ponds, there's much County property in there. The whole theory of this case is precedent, precedent, precedent. This is historical. This is the womb of Pinellas County. It's really the oldest settlement in the County. It was established in 1870 before there was a Pinellas County. It used to be part of western Hillsborough County. It had a post office box. It's the oldest settlement in the County. So there's historical issues. There's definitely traffic issues. That Bayview intersection is a terrible intersection. People are killed up there routinely. It's the place where they had the big school bus wreck just last week. You probably all read about it where all the kids from school. Children from the Bayview neighborhood go up there and catch the school bus at that intersection. We had our traffic planner testify, the City of Clearwater and he indicated that there would be a 500% increase in traffic at this site if this is granted. There are environmental problems here. The man says, well, every situation is environmentally contaminated and that may be true and I don't know exactly what the level is. But the point is, up until a couple of years ago you could get the State to clean it up for you for free if you made application. They never chose to make application. They couldn't be bothered. Now all of a sudden they're 42 • • March 19, 1996 trying to say, well, we'll clean it up if you'll let us have this increased zoning. So it seems to me they're trying to blackmail something that they should have done responsibly on their own and that the State would have paid for. There is such a precedent here. If you grant this, the trailer park is for sale and the Connollys have indicated that they want the commercial zoning. The Wilder Corporation who owns the trailer parks immediately to the west have also indicated in the file that they are interested in this. So what you're doing right now is granting a precedent for this property, the trailer parks on both sides, which are many, many acres. Mr. Meador owns the big, beautiful house right across the street, an acre and a quarter. He inherited it from his mother in 1984 or 85 after her death. First thing he did, he came in and tried to have that beautifiil old house bulgydozed down and zoned commercial. That was denied. Then he came across the street and bought this present house and this present lot which he's trying to get rezoned today after he'd already lost on his mother's. The lot that he is trying for today has been previously denied in 1982 or 1983. So he knew that. He doesn't even live in this County. He lives up in Leesburg. He's trying to come in here and speculate and make money, into a neighborhood which is historic and into a neighborhood which he has already been turned down. It's not right. The arguments are that there's some sort of economic hardship. We specifically asked the man at the hearing and they could come up with no testimony that there was any economic hardship. The fact is that they're pumping lots of gas there and they're doing just fine economically. They just want to make more money. The fact is you can make a lot more money selling asix-pack of beer than you can 43 • • March 19, 1996 filling up a tank of gas, and they want to build a bigger convenience store. There is no public interest because the man already has a convenience store right across the street, a bait shop, convenience store. They sell produce; they serve the neighborhood. They have everything there, but he wants to have another store which is in competition with the store he already has. Perhaps he wants to make the little store go out of business and then he can take it and try again from his momma's house behind it and just go on down and say, look, I've got it across the street now, it's not fair that you don't give it to me here. They talk about commercial corridor. Every situation is unique. In this situation there are residential properties to the east of this property. There are residential properties to the south of this property. There are residential properties to the west of this property. This is a unique area. The commercial corridor area just doesn't hold up. Let me finish. Mr. Shuford said the vote was real close. The fact is PPC voted 7 to 2 against it. One of the two who voted for it was Commissioner Berfield. She had to with the City of Clearwater. If she could have voted her mind, and I'm not going to say this, but I'rri sure that she would have voted for it and I believe the other man was from Dunedin and he wanted to make it like he wasn't being partial to Mr: Hubbard because they had tried to get certain people disqualified because of Mr. Hubbard. So I really believe it was 9-0. So tha`t's close. So I think that you ought to go with your PPC recommendation, your staff recommendation, and really try to look at this whole gateway issue and how it affects us in the neighborhood and the whole future and to try to not make this another Ulmerton Road and a bottleneck that's just going to cause all sorts 44 n March 19, 1996 of trouble and there's just going to be commercialization. Just look at the big picture and protect us and thanks for your time. CHAIRMAN PARKS: Thank you, Mr. Parker. Others to speak as opponents. I know that for all of you it's difficult to remember to try not to repeat what others have said already. So, yes, sir. JACK ALVORD, 606 BAYVIEW AVENUE: My name is Jack Alvord. I live at 606 Bayview Avenue. I live in the County. I'm a County resident. I moved up here 22 years ago from Miami, Florida. I lived in Miami, Florida for 20 years, and I saw what happens when a City grows big and when commercialism takes over. I didn't like it. So 22 years ago I moved into my home in Bayview. I am a member of the Historic Bayview Association. I made sure that in your package you got information from all of us, our side of the story I hope. Somethings you can't write on paper. When I moved there 22 years ago there was a well on my property that had been there before my house was built in 1897. That well is 125 feet deep; it's into the aquifer and it was used to water the cattle that were driven in to Bayview when it was known as "cow swim." There were feeding pens there. They watered the cattle out of my well and then swam them out to schooners, put a belt on their stomachs, and lifted them with windlass into the ship and they went to Cuba and they went to Tampa and they went all over from the end of my street. When I moved there you could drive down Bayview, turn left on County Road 31, and drive to a light at McMullen Booth Road. We no longer can escape with a light. You talk about 45 • r March 19, 1996 moments of stark terror. What I ask you to do is to have the FINA station on your right, your five year old grandaughter with you, trying to turn left into the traffic. You think you're going to make it and somebody whips into the filling station. I know that won't improve but it's scary. I hope you'll come down there and get a thrill. You'll get a real thrill. The thing is that you can talk to my neighbors and they will tell you it is still a quiet, wonderful residential area. There's a lot of County land there. There's a lot that could be done. The County could buy that four acres and make a wonderful park out of it. It could also be tied into the Pinellas Trail. It could also be a park, a terminus, for going across over to Tampa. A bicycle trail could be put over to Tampa and there's much could be done by the County with that land. I beg you, don't let commercialism encroach into our neighborhood. Don't set a precedent. I'm 70 years old. Everybody else has told you their age I notice. I'm 70. I was going to tell you I was 23 but I just figured you wouldn't believe me. But the thing is we ask you not to set a precedent. I don't want to move again. I'm too old. Thank you. CHAIRMAN PARIGS: Thank you, Mr. Alvord. Anyone else to speak as an opponent? MARY ALVORD: My name is Mary Alvord. I'm that gentleman's wife so obviously I live on Bayview also. I just did want to state that if you've ever been down in that area, if you've ever driven down that street, you will probably be very shocked because all the people that I know that have ever come down there for the first time have been very surprised that there's such a place that exists in our extremely strip- 46 • • March 19, 1996 mall, commercialized town of Clearwater and County of Pinellas. It's an anachronism. It's also very small. We have only 25 residences. We have fought collectively for many, many years against the very thing that's going on right now. And of course getting a little tired of it, but we still manage to hold forth. The area is very tempting to developers, especially since the building of the new Bayside Bridge. I'm sure that every developer from here to Pookatookie(?) has looked at it and salivated and thought of all the kinds of ways they could make money in that beautiful area which still remains quite wooded, which is called Bayview. Roser Park in St. Petersburg is an area which fought development and commercial intrusion. Harbor Oaks in Clearwater has also done the same thing. Finally, they preserved themselves by being declared historic districts. The City of Clearwater was supposed to have declared Bayview an historic area four years ago. Mr. Shuford by his own admission said that he meant to do this but he never got around to it. During this past few years we've lost two historic homes, the Booth house, Dr. Fred McMullen's house, and if Mr. Meador had received the commercial zoning that he requested 10 years ago, his mother's lovely old home would now be in some landfill. Also I wish to note that at the intersection of Bayview and Gulf-to-Bay, within one mile of that intersection we already have four gas stations. We have three convenience stores, one of which of course is leased on land that belongs to Mr. Meador, and two gas stations that are there already serve beer and soft drinks. I would like to continue living in Bayview and I would like to think that it will be there for a long time to come for people to come down to and look at and enjoy, and I certainly request and hope that you 47 ~ • March 19, 1996 will vote against this rezoning. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN PARKS: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Yes, ma'am. MS. SATORI: My name is Barbara Sartor, I'm Mary McMullen's daughter. My mother has lived in that house for many, many years, over 50 years, and I have visited here there when it was so dark you honestly couldn't see your hand in front of your face on a moonless night. It's been a lovely place to live. My father used to walk down the hill and throw his cast net and catch mullet, bring them back up, clean them, we'd have them for breakfast. The various aunts and uncles lived either on Bayview Avenue or across Gulf to Bay. They were a family that got together that visited impromtu, you never knew who was going to show up and just sit on the front porch and shell peas or tell stories. I have a lot of really beautiful memories of Bayview. Almost every evening when I was there we'd walk down the hill to the bay and look at the sunset, talk a little bit. And when I was a child, we used to go there, there was a dock, and went swimming off of the dock. It was a great place, it was a wonderful place and we thought it would always be that way. Now the possibility of having all night lights next to my mother's house; of the noise, of course there's a lot of noise already, but it still is buffered somewhat. But to have it closer and to have the intrusion of things going on all night there would just make it possibly unliveable. I'd hate to have that happen, it's a beautiful piece of property. 48 • • March 19, 1996 CHAIT~MAN PARKS: Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, sir. MR. SORENSON: My name is Early McMullen Sorenson, I live at 517 Bayview Avenue in my grandmother's house, right next to Mr. Meador's property. I hadn't intended to show you this, but here's where we live, here's where our family has this property for 50 years. This is Mr. Meador's gas station. Here's the two residential lots, the one that he just bought and the one that his mother willed him. That's the way it is now and our property has this residential buffer from Gulf to Bay. This is the way it will be if you give him what he's asked for, if you say yes today to his rezoning, or whatever it is he's... All this will be commercial -this is his stormwater pond and his stormwater outfall ditch. This is the residential lot that Scott Schuford says is a very viable residential lot and fits in with the rest of Bayview, 4,500 square feet. I'd like to ask you all, also, I'm vice president of the Historic Bayview Association and I'd just like to ask if you got our letter? CHAIRMAN PARKS: Yes. MR. SORENSON: Thank you. Okay. I am a registered engineer in the State of Florida, I'm a general civil engineer, I've been practicing professional engineering in this area for 20 years. The State of Florida registers engineers pursuant to State law 471 to protect public safety, health and welfare. I see a public safety problem, a public health problem, and a public welfare problem in this application. To start with, 49 • March 19, 1996 public safety. It just so happens that this location is a very high accident location, as Mr. Healey said. Part of it has to do with the fact that there's a steep vertical curve and the site distance is limited. This application will quadruple the number of trip generations into this site, that's the number of people having to turn in and turn out. And that is at a location where people are either, all your tourist or business traffic are coming into Pinellas County from Tampa Airport and I-275 or trying to go back north. And I don't think that the County wants them to be greeted or the last thing for them to be left with is an accident. And that's also a safety problem. Public welfare -Ulmerton Road. This application is a Trojan Horse. The City is saying that this is a very site specific solution to a very site specific problem. In fact, this is the precedent setter for rezoning residential to commercial along a deep strip of Gulf to Bay. Right next door, the Connolly Mobile Home Park. Mr. Connolly's been down to the City asking about commercial zoning right next door to Meadors. On the other hand, ...Wilder has a mobile home park. He has written a letter to the City says he has no problem with commercial zoning on Mr. Meadors. There are 22 other mobile home parks in the City and the Clearwater Times reported that this sets the precedent for those, and 11 of them are on Gulf to Bay. Well, Gulf to Bay as DOT says is already LOS F, and Gulf to Bay is one of your two main corridors for bringing again, tourist and business traffic from Tampa International and I-275 into Pinellas County. If you let this precedent be set, I think you're going to have an Ulmerton Road. I don't think that's good for business in Pinellas County. Public welfare. Public health - In the package that the association sent you there is very 50 t March 19, 1996 detailed information on ::his EDI contaminated site. This is a site that the State has on its list as contaminated. We, the neighbors had to go to the State and explain to them that they're ranking was wrong and they agree with us and bumped it up from 10 to 35. Mr. Meador was informed by the State in 1987 that this was a contaminated site and the State had a program where he could have gotten it cleaned up for free. Not one penny out of his pocket until last year, and he didn't ever lift a finger to clean it up. Now the City is saying, well, who's going to clean it up, and this is a wonderful public service that he's going to do. But in fact if you look at the fine print on his construction plan, it does not say he's going to clean it up. He says he will work with the City on a cleanup program. The City has absolutely no legal jurisdiction. That jurisdiction rests with the State as your environmental manager will tell you, and the City is not delegated any of that jurisdiction. The City cannot enter into any cleanup agreement on that property, and that property is not going to be cleaned up because it'll cost $250,000. This is very important because this is an old neighborhood, one of the oldest in the County, there are many deep wells, and there could be many wells that we don't know where they are, leaking his contamination right into the aquifer and into the County's drinking water right now. And if you let him build, I don't think it's ever going to get cleaned up. And I think that's a public health problem. And that's it. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN PARIGS: Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak? 51 • March 19, 1996 MS. PARKER: I'm Trisha Parker and I live at 716 Bayview. I just wanted to make one real quick point and that was the question about whether the residential lots really are viable. You can drive up and down Drew Street, you can now drive up and down Gulf to Bay, and you will see that there are viable beautiful homes on these major thoroughfares where some people like to be where the action is. Up until a few months before the historic home was torn down by Mr. Meador, he had tenants in there. He's owned that property for six years. If you let your property go, you can in fact let it go to the point where it is condemned, and that's what Mr. Meador chose to do. And so I would just like to say that the fact that there is residential there now, there has been residential there until he had the tenants leave and he tore it down is no indication that this is not a viable residential lot. This property has no Gulf to Bay frontage, and so you would in fact be taking property that has no Gulf to Bay frontage and turning into Gulf to Bay frontage. CHAIRMAN PARKS: Thank you Ms. Parker. Any other speakers that are opponents? MR. STOWELL: Alan Stowell, 2873 Thornton Road. I've lived in Clearwater close to this property. My property formerly was in the County and it was annexed into the City as a lot of the former property was. I have two concerns. One is historic, the other is safety. I'd like to briefly go over that. History-wize, the 1970 historical study that's a professional study conducted says that in 1874 Captain McMullen decided to found the community of Bayview by applying for and receiving post . 52 • March 19, 1996 office status under the name Bayview, Florida. That existed for quite a few years, the post office, it was a real town. ...concerned citizens and government alike must rally to preserve this most important aspect of the birth of Pinellas County. True concern for the maintenance of these beginnings of our County are of utmost importance and must be preserved as part of our heritage. I agree very much with that. I believe that we as citizens should give something to our children, some heritage for them to look what our County was like. That was the 1980 study. The 1995 study conducted a professional study by Howard Hanson, very quickly, that it says, the 1995 historic resource survey identifies and recorded nine historic standing structures located in the Bayview area. Eight of these buildings are along Bayview Avenue and for-n a potential historic district. Very few 19th century buildings survive in Pinellas County and this rarity makes them important. The eight houses as a group, however, do have significance for their ability to convey the history of this pioneer county. Bayview is a significant chapter in the history of Pinellas County. I'm just taking very quick excerpts here. The eight houses are considered to be eligible for the listing in the National Register of Historic Places as contributing resources to a historic district. The other issue is safety. As you know, this has CPD zoning, commercial planned development. It's site specific. They cannot do anything other than what has already been approved by the City Commission. A letter from William McDaniel, Jr., he's the district secretary to district 7 of the Florida Department of transportation, says a preliminary review was performed by the Department on July 30, 1995. It was the opinion of our office that the existing service station 53 March 19, 1996 has significant circulation problems in that the proposed site plan only provides marginal improvement. We would encourage the developer and the engineer to meet with the Department to resolve the access issue. I do have here for you today Ms. Judy Smith with the FDOT. She was at the meeting that they had July 30. There have been no additoinal meetings. The site plan that was approved by the City of Clearwater does not meet DOT regulations and therefore could not be built. There's a letter here from our City engineer dated January 12. It says, this is from Rich Baers(?), the City engineer, to Scott Shuford; however, the commission was adamant that the safety access issue be addressed prior to construction. I have an outstanding and unresolved safety concern should the access pump island were failed to be accomplished. This has not been done. If you have any questions, Judy Smith will be glad to answer them for you. She is with FDOT and is knowledgeable on the safety issue. \ CHAIRMAN PARKS: Thank you, Mr. Stowell. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in opposition? Okay, David will you close please? MR. HEALEY: I have nothing further unless the commission has questions of me. CHAIRMAN PARKS: Questions? Okay, Mr. Cline. ATTORNEY CLINE: I'm going to be forced to make some responses to these many statements that have been made and try to get them factually accurate, and then I will try to go 54 ~J March 19, 1996 back to the issues you're here to deal with. It is, in my view, inappropriate, I think we as lawyers get bad names for...extenuating facts and circumstances. Mr. Hubbard, on multiple ocassions, and he has done this in what he has filed is referred to as a liquor store. There's never been one there, it couldn't be approved under what's on the ... He says his client's house is immediately adjacent and the plan before belies that. In fact, Mrs. McMullen does not live there. When he faults us for the retention plan on the commercial, it's there because they requested it. They requested it on the outset, and it was straight commercial zoning, do something for the trees. That was put where they requested. The historic studies that they referred to, if you take time to read them, Mr. Hanson's specifically, the strongest point in that neighborhood are the historic trees, the canopy. This is an attempt to save that. When they pick on the site for pollution, and Mr. Smith specifically, this was the 83rd site in the State of Florida to apply for EDI. The law was passed in `86, he applied in `86, he was approved in `87, and I think most of you on this Board know, you don't tell the State when to clean up, they tell you when to clean up, based upon priority ranking of pollution. So let's see now if we can get-- and it goes on, but it just, I just, Mr. Smith and I have been sitting over there and it's difficult to sit there quietly and not making a true Snyder hearing out of this and cross examining, we're doing that, and I hope that we're not losing something because of that. And Mr. Seibert asked, I think what is a very incisive and important question, and that question was, as I wrote it down, "is it reasonable to say that the north half of my residential lots are properly land used as residential?" And I refer you to the tape 55 • March 19, 1996 where the man stood 23 feet, and you heard the noise, okay? I will tell you, and you think of your own experience, there is not another single family residential zone within 23 feet of Gulf to Bay Blvd. within the City of Clearwater. If this is the right map, I don't know where the map is, but there is one other single family residential zone on the north side of Gulf to Bay and my memory is it's 200 feet in from Gulf to Bay. They talk about the fact that Mr. Meador, that he destroyed a historic house on that site. Let me tell you what destroyed that house is Gulf to Bay Blvd. When all this started, we had atwo-lane road there. And if you go back and read the record, which we all have, both sides in this matter, their folks, and they learned not to say it again, stood up and said Mrs. Booth had to move out of that historic house that Mr. Meador demolished because the noise from Gulf to Bay got too bad, it became untenable and she moved out. The record would reflect their own people recognized what killed those houses. Mr. Meador, when he bought the historic house he demolished, he bought it because it was on the market for 2-1/2 years, nobody else would buy it. And he bought it, and sure he didn't put money into it, it was outside of code and ultimately had to tear it down. So those are some of the facts relative to the property. Now let me, and I'll be as brief as I can, but a property owner, both sides, these folks and these folks have certain property rights that need to be recognized. And what you're looking at now is a .3 acre service station that is a nonconforming site on the heaviest east/west corridor in the City of Clearwater. All they want to do is to make this major intrusion into this neighborhood. We're not going interior, we're on the edge, and we look out on Gulf to Bay. And look at the math. It will be 56 r • March 19, 1996 50 feet, plus or minus, don't hold me exactly, 50 feet more intrusion into the neighborhood, leaving a 75-foot buffer of our own for the single family lot that they requested. That was responsive to them. Now, is that a reasonable land use request? I suggest that it is to say...we're entitled to a conformity. That's all we're doing. .3 acre. We'll be a conforming use, we can expand with no variances, we can use our site, we will create a gateway, an enhancement to the community. They talk to you about safety. There's a safety issue. You sit at that intersection and try to go out and what's there? The FINA station. It's right there on the corner. It won't be there anymore because the setbacks will be met. The safety issues, there's no detention/retention. All those things can happen, but only through this process of giving this landowner and this operator the right to a reasonable use of his land. The goal in the land use programs and plans you have for this community says that you seek a reasonable land use, a reasonable conformiing land use that is compatible with first our land, we've got a 50-year use. What happened? We went to a seven-lane road. Things have changed. We seek to just continue this with a reasonable increase. That's one thing. Is it compatible with the existing use, sure it is. Aland use that's compatible with the surrounding uses, okay, Gulf to Bay. You've seen it enough maps, you know it well enough, you know what that corridor is. It's characterized as a commercial, high intensive developed area. And lastly, is the land use request in the public interest. These folks would say that it's not. I say that it is. Because it's not in the public interest to force a nonconforming piece of property that cannot survive on your major entry to part of your County. It isn't. Several things can happen 57 ,. ~. March 19, 1996 here. It can limp along on one lung until somebody tries to force the site plan they suggest to you that has more holes in it than a Swiss cheese, and cut down all the trees, or it can just...unable to complete with all these new type of facilities that you see springing up. This is a real effort on this man to try to save this site and keep his business there. So you've got aone-lung operation if this is denied, or you've got Baby Dolls across the street, or whatever commercial general allows. So it is in the public interest. This is the gateway. You've heard that used. It's a gateway to their community, it's the gateway to our town. All these trees, this site, miniscule, .6 acre. All we're talking about tonight is .3 to add to it. That's the land use. And I think it's consistent with our property rights as an owner to have that access, we're providing our own buffer. Mr. Meador owns the property to the south, it's a conforming lot. Mr. Meador owns the property to the west, conforming lots. Mr. Connolly owns the property to the east. I think the major controversy that has, or what was caused the controversy here has been the fear of precedence. They don't want the Connolly property or the Wilder MHP changing, because that really would change them. And if you vote to approve this, which I think you should on all reasonable land use bases, you ought to make the statement that this is not precedential. One, it's miniscule, it's .3 acre. Two, it's allowing a nonconforming situation to survive. It's consistent, it's conforming, it's nonintrusive, it's...to that neighborhood, and will have absolutely no impact other than a positive one. It's a difficult decision when you have a lot of people come and be willing to stay here unti19:00 o'clock. It's equally difficult to have a piece of property that you can't use without getting reasonable 58 • • March 19, 1996 treatment, and that's what we want. .3 acre. Please approve it and I greatly appreciate all your time, and if you have any questions I'll try to answer them. COMMISSIONER RAINEY: Harry, how do you not set a precedent with that mobile home park by approving this zoning? ATTORNEY CLINE: One of the major differences is that I think as a historic use, I'm entitled to some other consideration. Nobody else can stand in those shoes. I'm not trying-- Those aren't commercial properties. It's a mobile home park. I've been commercial since day one. And I'm undersized. I can't do anything legitimately with that site. I really can't. And it's just going, it represents a problem. The Connolly parcel is I think four acres. 4.something acres. The Wilder I think is around 10. Those are different circumstances. Precedent I know troubles you, but this one is unique. And I've got pre-existing rights, I think, I like to think I do, that they don't enjoy. My filling station was here even before Mr. Alvord. And Mr. Alvord and I sometimes were friends and he talks about his age, I was 55 when I came in and I'm 62 now. But the precedent is only there...see it, Commissioner, but I think the distinctions are clearly here. It's just there'll never be another spotted horse like this one. CHAIRMAN PARKS: Any other questions of Mr. Cline? COMMISSIONER SEIBERT: 59 • March 19, 1996 How do you argue there's no precedence to your client's property to the west? ATTORNEY CLINE: To the west? COMMISSIONER SEIBERT: To the west. Is it about the same depth of what you're asking for here that currently carries a residential designation? ATTORNEY CLINE: That property is not dependent upon the traffic neighborhood that is there. I'm a filling station, that is a bate shop/produce stand. That's been called many things. And it is truly local to a neighborhood. I don't know it's depth without looking at the map, but I think it roughly goes down to the depth I'm seeking. It's essentially the same. And so on a precedential value, you're establishing lines of intrusion into that neighborhood. That's the answer back. But I don't have the map here, but if you look at it you'll see it's, we're going down to approximately the same depth. COMMISSIONER RAINEY: Who's got the map? CHAIRMAN PARIGS: Yeah, I was going to ask for that map again. I think somebody scarfed it up by mistake. ATTORNEY CLINE: We'll have one right here. CHAIRMAN PARIGS: 60 • March 19, 1996 i~avid, you-- That one you have is fine. ATTORNEY CLINE: David's will probably work, it's a little different... MR. HEALEY: I can help interpret... ATTORNEY CLINE: No, David, you wait. There you go. So, if you see-- Here's the souther extremis of the existing, this would be the...of ours so it's less south in total distance. On the road, its a little bit-- One a squared off basis it's almost the same. So there's your distinction on the property. It's interesting that until 1985, all of this property was zoned commercial down here, I believe to about there. And it was rezoned and I guess land used at that point, it just followed, you know, lines of what was there. People drove by in a car and said this is it, and that's the way it was done. But anyways, that's your answer, Mr. Seibert, right there. COMMISSIONER SEIBERT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN PARIS: Thank you, Mr. Cline, that'll do. But if you'll leave that map up there we may need to look at it. Did you want to say anything, Mr. Shuford, since you are the appicant, in closing? MR. SHUFORD: I don't have much to say in rebuttal because it's really rebutting a number of facts that Mr. Hubbard said where did the City staff go astray and he's quoting the 61 • • March 19, 1996 context of the entire site going into an unlimited zoning classification which would allow anything in the commercial general land use plan and our general commercial zoning plan. As far as characterizing package sales at a convenience store as a liquor store, I think Mr. Hubbard needs to get out more and experience the world. With regard to the historic home, this is a picture of it, and that's the exterior of it, and you'll notice on the bottom the City of Clearwater unsafe structure notice. We had postponed any enforcement on this property until we received a request from the neighborhood, said it was vacant and there were problems. When we went into it, this was the first site on the front porch; conditions there; obviously deteriorating. And then on the interior, you'll see a very imcompatible renovation of this structure, in fact incomp~:tible with not only historically but within a reasonable code requirements because there's no shower or tub in the bathroom. CHAIRMAN PARKS: Mr. Shuford, may I ask, I'm not sure what house what you're talking about. MR. SHUFORD: This is the historic home that was torn down, so many references had been made. But a point has been made that Gulf to Bay destroyed that home and I think that's reasonable given the fact that the home was old and to do a compatible renovation of it, you're just not going to be able to do it in that location in a way it would make any sort of economic sense. Historic preservation is a very emotional issue, certainly one the City of Clearwater supports, but we also need to support it with our eyes open with regard to the economic impacts of that. 62 March 19, 1996 The retention pond that there's been so much made of is only one foot deep. It is a dry retention pond and it was placed in the location at the request of the neighbors and also to preserve the most trees. And assuming that they're correct and no one would want to locate a residential structure on a piece of property that had a dry retention pond of one foot in depth, then essentially they have a nice added buffer beyond what they've requested in terms of a green area as opposed to having a home there. We think we can enforce our cleanup agreement through our zoning provisions. We know that the State will have to be involved in that and we will require the applicant to go through that. And last but not least, the driveway design, that's a bit of a confusing issue as it's been presented to you, but it was designee by our City engineer, Richard Baird, who's assistance and-- And the memo that was quoted was his desire to maintain our commitment to that design because as a former DOT employee before he came to work for the City, he thought it was critical in terms of improving the way that site worked. And I don't have anything unless you have questions for me. COMMISSIONER RAINEY: Put a piece of paper across that like Harry did and following Commissioner Seibert's question, the property next to the applicant's to the east, you've got a pretty good argument as far as commercial zoning is concerned, as far as I'm concerned. The next question is, the mobile home park, you consider that to be precedent setting now? MR. SHUFORD: No, sir, in fact the Parks and Recreation Director asked me to give him some 63 ~, .. A • March 19, 1996 honest comment with regard to what I felt the possible change might be to that particular property now that the mobile homes are off. Probably it would not remain as a mobile home park even if it improved to meet current standards because of its location there. But a medium density residential will obviously will fit within the general land use plan pattern or a low density office. But we would, any sort of rezoning or land use plan change to that property, because of its importance to the entryway to Clearwater, we would want to take through the same planned development process in order to ensure that the tree canopy there was protected and the development was in scale with the environmental surroundings. I can't tell you what the ultimate use for that property will be, but you will be able to see that through the land use plan amendment process, and I am convinced and seen you in action that this Commission can tell the difference between a four acre major land use plan amendment and a .3 acre subthreshold amendment that's -merely a correction to a really poor zoning situation. And I think you'll be able to make that distinction. So, in terms of precedent, I just don't see it for the Connolly property, for the property across the street. Our efforts have been to design a site plan for that property that will have a stamp of finality on it, and in the, any commercial intrustion there and yet allow what I think is a real unreasonable land use depth along Gulf to Bay for any property. CHAIRMAN PARKS: Did I misundertand you? Did you say the Parks and Recreation Department asked you for an opinion? 64 • • March 19, 1996 MR. SHUFORD: Yes, ma'am. Our Parks and Recreation Department was discussing the possibility of purchasing the Connolly property, the mobile home park property that's to the east, as a park for the City, and the Connolly's have asked for the property to be appraised and purchased by the City at a commercial value. In response to our Parks and Recreation Director's request, I provided him what I thought might be the potential changes that the staff could possibly support for that property. I don't know if you have a copy of that memorandum in your file. I know that Mr. Hubbard had it and used it very effectively with the PPC meeting. He didn't use it tonight, but, and, I'm not going to characterize the accuracy of his representation of it at the PPC meeting, but the point that I would make to you is we would prefer to see, would insist on seeing a low intensity office use or a residential use on that property. And we think that you probably would accept that, too, if it came to you for consideration. CHAIRMAN PARKS: Okay, I think everyone has been heard, all sides have been heard and the procedure has been closed unless anyone has questions of staff. I'm going to close the public hearing. We've had over two hours of testimony and information and opinions, and we are considering the overriding of the PPC's decision will take at least a supermajority, at least four votes. So, gentlemen. COMMISSIONER STEWART: I'll start since I had the distinct pleasure of not hearing this once but hearing it twice. Not hearing two hours worth but hearing four hours worth. And I think 65 :. • • March 19, 1996 I get a pretty good feel for this situation. It was not an easy decision for me the first time when I had to vote on it with the PPC, and Mr. Cline has some strong persuasive arguments as does Mr. Hubbard and the residents who are affected most by it. I, even hearing it the second time, seeing the film for the second time, hearing the testimony for the second time, haven't changed my opinion. And the main points that keep coming back to me as I listen to the testimony is, the incompatible use, the doubling of the size of the commercial space, the conflict of his conflict with the countywide plan, the very human issue of trying to protect the character of the neighborhood and the encroachment of the commercial into the neighborhood further, and I asked during the PPC proceedings, there was one vote on the PAC that didn't support this, that was the County's voice. The County's representative saying this wasn't the right way to go. There's a lot of different gateways into Pinellas County. This is not the only one. And this is not maybe the most significant one. But it is an important one. And that cannot be I think denied. And I think do. we want to add larger gas stations or more gas stations to that gateway and does that enhance the attractiveness of first timers visit to Pinellas County or to Clearwater, I think not. And finally, and this doesn't go away from my thinking process, is the size issue. And it's not a big issue, .3 acre. It's been referred to as miniscule. And albeit that the truth, there is a precedence factor here. We dealt with this at the PPC and we've dealt with it here at the Board recently with issues on Ulmerton. And quite frankly, I'm struck by the similarity, although the size is vastly different, the similarity with the issue. Bottom line, I think that we should follow through with the PPC's 66 • a~ March 19, 1996 recommendation and deny this request. MR. MARQUIS: That is a motion, sir? COMMISSIONER STEWART: I'll so move. COMMISSIONER SEIBERT: Second. Let me tell you why. We are scrutinizing so carefully land use amendments, and the reasons to support them must be compelling. Commissioner Stewart has listed several of them that I agree with. I find, and we have to set a structure so that we try to deal with these consistently, I find no change of circumstances, which is a usual reason to support an amendment. I think there is a precedential impact, specifically to the property to the west, and perhaps for the mobile home park, although that's not as operative to me. They're small, but this neighborhood is small, and so it's a factor that I think is important. There is an impact on the neighborhood, thirdly, and I think that goes to that constant problem we face which is people's expectations. And you have to rely on those expectations and that's probably the bottom line for me on this one. I'm convinced by the testimony that the neighborhood had developed long-term expectations of how that property would be zoned. The applicants made very reasonable arguments of trying to fit something in and very reasonably asking to expand, but when you're balancing that against longheld expectations, to me the expectations win out, and on hard cases we end up balancing all the time and this is a tough balance. Lastly, the question of what's the most 67 Y ~ ~ ~ ~~ !L March 19, 1996 reasonable use of that property, and Mr. Cline nailed it because it still is a concern to me, that the existing designation of residential, is that still reasonable. And its arguable that that's just too close to Gulf to Bay, but the testimony of the lady that came up that said, it has been that way and there are occasions where you can be off of a major thoroughfare with a residential use. Now granted, at one point of the property it's 23 or 25 feet, but the rest of it's farther. To me it's a close call, but I do not find the compelling reasons to make a dramatic change, and that's why I support the motion. COMMISSIONER R.AINEY: Just a word of advice to the residents. If I were you I would pursue the idea of making the mobile home park a City park because when the application is made, that mobile home park will be setting the precedent for another examination or re-examination of the commercial piece of property of the applicant. If one doesn't set the precedent, the other one will. CHAIRMAN PARKS: I'd suggest, and do certainly mention it, too, Commissioner Seibert, that we're really looking at a sort of a microcosm of a neighborhood where that .3 acre may not be very big in the scheme of things on Gulf to Bay or in Clearwater, but in the scheme of things in this neighborhood, it is big and it is important. And it's my view that, and we've already and heard already about the inconsistency with the countywide plan, but it seems ironic to me that earlier we were talking about historic preservation in Palm Harbor and we might fail to appreciate it here, I think the...of what I'm hearing from my fellow commissioners is that we do value 68 • • March 19, 1996 the integrity of the neighborhood as well as, historic integrity of the neighborhood as well as appreciate that this is a small-scale project and kind of a different animal than many things that we deal with. Would have been an interesting contrast had we dealt with the East Lake issue today, for example whic is far more substantial than this.. But I will support the motion. All in favor say aye (all ayes). CPA adjourned: 9:25 P.M. 69 f#~~.e += -~ RE50LUTION p ~'~J . , .<x f WHEREAS, it has been requested by R. R. Meador, the owner of c rtai=-, real ro ert in McMullen's Ba view Subdivision, in the City of P P Y Y ! Clearwater,. Florida, that the City of Clearwater, Florida, vacate a certain platted right-of-way; and } WHEREAS, after proper public notice and public hearing thereon, the City Commission finds that said right-of-way is not necessary nor required, and it is deemed to be to the best interest and advantage of the City and the general public that the same be vacated; g ~. Y NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CLEAR'WATER, ,FLUR.IDA, ,t. ~: IN SESSION DULY AND REGULARLY ASSEMBLED, AS ;j ~ FOLLOWS: 1. That the following:- _ That 50 foot portion of platted right-of-way' lying North of Block 3_, of McMullents Bayview Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 6, Page 23, of the Public Records ,of Hillsboro County, Florida, of '.which Pinellas County was once a part; less that portion lying within the North 50 feet of the SW 1/4 of Section 16, Township 29 South, Range 16 East, Pinellas County,. - :. - be and the same is hereby vacated, closed and released, and the City of Clearwater hereby quitclaims and releases all of its right, .tixle and interest thereto to the persons, firms or corporations entitled-thereto by law, excepting-that the City. of Clearwater. hereby retains 10 foot. sanitary sewer easement - lying 5 foot each side of a .line parallel to and 182 feet Easterly of the Northerly .extension of the West Line of Block 3 of said McMullen's Bayview Subdivi- Sion; said centeriir_e extending from the South lot line of Lot A, Block $, of Bayview. City Sut.~division..as recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 43, of the . Public Records..of Hillsboro County.; .Florida, ofwhich Pinellas County was once. a part; to the North lot line of. Lot 1, Block 3, of said McMullents . -. Bayview Subdivision; said easement being 5 feet ;each-side of an 'existing _ sanitary sewer-line lying in the above `said vacated right-of-way. 2. -That the City Clerk is hereby directed to record this Resolution. _ in the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida.. . PASSED AND ADOPTED this . 6th day of January, A. D. 1975. 1'~ / ~r~~~~act ug~a - ~ Mayor -Commis s lone r Attest: City Clerk ~.~/f ". ,~ k~. ,~ j : a :' V ~ z ~ W + ' filLE fI/U , ' D / Uflr~Y 16,1925-- 3: 2~-P.ly. i , n F ///~~R 0 ~ ls.8.0~UlNNClerk. 1 C «'; ' :' ~ ' / ~ has.11 ~I, on, A.C. +, 1 . . t~~ ~ m,,r y , Ai b ., ~ Q ~ z 00 wryw~ 7' ~~ p. ..~..~_ 0 ~~~;~~_ ..~...~ M - .... . ,; 1;' ~ , - ~ ~1. .~~ 0 M ~. .. ~,r+ p Q ~ ~ 3p ~ ~~, ~ ~ ~; p ~, ~ !.! ~. ~, ~: Y.z a•a ~, ~~ ., ; i'-" ~ ~' x ~;. ~_. xr. ,. •50,5 0 5 o So 50 r ~ I r: 3 4~ 5 G n n0 o p 5p 5p o ' ~~ 5 5 '. h ~ ~ .. ,~ . N I 2 3,. ' q 5 N ~ ,. E ~ .r ~ ~ ' ~'' ,~ i n ~ ~~M ~ J .. ~ 1 w,, ,. a ~...1 ~, ~ ! u ~. ' ~ ~ N I I I 10 9 8 ~ N r ~ .. r .. nId' 9 •y &N 8. :~ { - ~, z ~ ~ z ° 00 H P, .:~ ~ ~a , .~ So 0 50 50 o A ~ \ .~ ~~ `~ ' i :n ~~~• 0 19g7 i a w ~ w W w cr 4 ~;} ~ V' iu ~ 'f p v ~ r : rn ~; ~ 5 SO 5o go S Q Z ~ '1 ::t y ! •' tll ~ 1 r ~ I ~, ;, ~" . .c' y' z* `, +.• `s ~ ice: .J .~ ~ ~W '.W .l .~. ~ . 1 0 `,~~ ~. ~ ip ~ + ~,,,+;a, , ~ + ! ~ ~ ' ~ w :' ~:: ~ OC ,(A ~~ ~ `:~:o ~~ r' ~~ HJd 9 8 ~ Gdf~ a o ;~ ~ ` °' ~ ~ 1 r,#,. ~M `.. ~` i ,'.>KY.; jo.. ~.~ ~ , y it +;~~~ v~ ~i ~,•„~ -~, ~ ~ 50 50 6o Sa Bo ~~ ~. ~ T ' yy !f" 0 ~ ~ 5_ vl ,. ) q~ 411('' G ~ l: ~ •. hn+' ! ~, f7 ~, . ~ n•rs r ~ ,. ;. ` I~/ t it id ka ~, , + a ~ Vi j ~ ~ ~1 a ~: ,. I ' try ,. ~3F' ".d ..~'„ ~+ ~~ ~,° _ :~ ~~ .. ;~ `1.; _ ,~ ~' x U .. ~'~ I I ! I i~ ,• i ,. ~ ~+ a R I~UA ~. 1 ~f: ~~ ~i ;~ 0.5.,5p 50 0 • 5d p ~c'~.',50 -•5~ So r 5o Sa I Iwo I ~' ~ S ! ~ ~ '~~. ~ ~ ! I . ~ ~ ~.. ,~ .a .. .1• ( E ~.,,. Y' ! SP,r. ~, ..} i 1 .r., ~ ~ f I~ I ,~,. .I'r.~ , , . ~~ 9~so n / Its ~a., + I ~. i E • ~ t ~ ~ v1 ~ ~ ,4. ~ . _! yo I~, 1.! ~a .i .7 ~~ tp7'~.+ '~! .~' Z o /~ ~ i ,w~ v.l' I •I. 1 .,y • 's n 4V'~ f t +~ ae: 'u ~ m .._... yT,9z .~ i G ~ } ~, ,~, ° ~' 1 ,~ J i ., taa,o . . ~,. ' ~~~. ' ,.. :, . .+ r ~ ~:.. ., r~ 4, a~~ ~~ ,. ,} c~" ,: e , ~' i., ! , i ~i f ,'• f a s 11 +L 4u L'F~a ti~~ ~1l1A~~~ ~;, • I ~ _ ~, 1 ~ 1 . '- . ' C,. ' .: • ~ o w~ o NWl~ '9 .2~ 8.166. . ~EOINMINB AT 'Tilt . ~IVW C RH~'A OF 1 ~,~ F g EC. li T4VP. 4UN 5. &111. ~xb~~"Q E,Aev~! Ito YDS. AIrSa ~41t, z ,aF M~MULLEN~ ~: 6AYVIEw & P~IRT OF;S~ of W^OF9W4~ tiF NW4 ltNG RZ. OP W~ of 9w~ .. ~ ~ 4 , a GF W- 9~ , f6 TiMp' 9 ,(~ 8T INCt;ilpED IN M f'~tJl,IENS ~1YVIEw, N ~ ,.; .. 2 R b N PINR!:f`~4S CQUNTY •FLDRlpA• +' ~ ~ •' ' :. 4. ' - - ' .^ 0 Ofi O:P...6! iCICG Y .f f ... N~ ~ ht'JE. y + w N •, S V ~.:~. A ! ~.> o ~. ~'u~ v 8 ~ 116'Ydww D•pY {".~,. ~ ..M h4 1 ': ~ - ~. I.M. ~. ~. , { ~'r a.; ;~: ~~; r . Wi ` I:,. M ,i'~1.~. x •Y '. is-. ."~I. . Y~.i A *• 9CI4CE f )Dk ~ u. a •~ ~ .,. r F~ T, a~uaa ~ ~, ........ ,~Y~stl~trxa_r~,~_ f i i ~-- i I i I I ti ; ~ ~+ ~ 3a H ~ ~ ,~1 ~~ i g r C ivf~ ~• 1 h7,S •• 4Zb 0 0 o c ¢ 5 6 ? '! 4~•s 47•s we . ~ ti ~ c? vJ E ~ t~ ,~n' U! , 2~ r~ L~~ , ~~ ' b RST AVE.. ~ . ~ PlNEN~ :, .. ""1 ' ~r , }' ' z ~~ Vr~~ ~, ~ ~ ~I d rC1 z~• Z '~? 47.5 i1 ~ .. 47• II a ~ I s 9 8 0 .0 ` ,S ~ 47s -:-- ~~ ., W 23 W L• W Z , ! az ~. ;r 4T,5 47s qqs k9• 12 ~3 14' i5 0 ~ 0 6 ~ v 47.5 ~i9.s a~5 47•S ! 40 u RsT wE. fR#~lTN ,, ., i 21 _ ~ --- ' ! a ., ~ ~ r- . s Y ~ 1' ~` b _.... b 20 i $ ~ ~-. w 1. ~ ~2 N h h .? p U.! , ' - (~ i .. 1' . ~ J 9 ~ 19 b ,; , ~ 5~ o ~~ ~ '~ 4~ r. '~ ~ :F ~ ~~~ `~ , ~ of„1 '~a ~~ .r ~ . 'i ... ~.:_ • ~~~ ~ ' .:~ •f ,' , . rl . ~,k.na 8 ' ~.. , .~1 . a a .W 1XE# s' o.~ N~ sub ivi ion H a •eSOti! •'Sac,~S T,v .3!-s~ R J4-E. ~ P F:' t ; , w ~ * ~ ~, , ~~ ' - ,,. 1 ~~~,,; ~r,. ',l~ r °~.' , 'i r+ ~~ ~Per~la ~ r~. rs ~~d ~~ , ' .k ~: y F/L.ED rE~RU/~F1Yf;r9~..~r ~G~,r~ ?` -~ ~r:: ~~#': S •~w, ~ . nk~j y~y i 1 .,~ t~ ~~ f P .} i! ., ~ . ~ . yO L~R /NN k 0 ¢U rsl3 . ~ . , r,~~ KjN ~ ~ .'t V~• S'~~~~1 ~ ' ha:>,NRljanjQG ~ ~ 73 -Gen r~l A ' , , s _; .~ ,~;:.~: '-+ ' ~ ~ -9~ 5~ ..: ~ + L~ r~ ~ { S ~,~ am s ~ p. T.. ;~ t I P 3 t.: ~ y ~• ~ M w . b ~'r "~ ~ ~ ' . ... , ~ Y ad. ~~. 4 ,k ~ r.. F l L w~ ~Y ..'!{', . bt t~~i j~ t f F 1~ !` ~Z~ t! ~ h ~ .y .. i ' 1` l ~ ~t., . ft ,"g ~p r Y L ~h ! ~s. pp r ; .. Y..-. ! .3 .:~.v' 1- ~ecA ¢:. ,l J t 6+ 'r~--..- f r ,' ~+'~ .at .q y . U' '~2: . T Y JG ,% r a, ;, as ~a ti ,a~ ,:Ya & . .~ n b r. ~~~- ~. 4.t •. ~ . ~ ,. r ~ ,;~, r ~' ~ r 77 i "~ ' ~ ~ ` , : 4 F ~ ,. ,.. 4 1 ~•:, { < ~ ~ 4 P ~. ':xa 4 ), F - o-f ! .~ ~ . f ~€. a. +. ~~ . s ~ ~r ,1 } Q t 1 ' ,n s , f ~' ~,r y i ~ fi. ¢ "U lA' ~t : b~ f lR ; Jk a~ I ~ ~ ~ A ~ 4 ' ~ . ; ~y ~3 t ~ M I ,! s.. .~~. 'c S r. a~t~'t' / 3Ai C.' t Y i .9, • h . K, _ x. ~.,~ e ... : i t u^. , .y' e ur'r. + k .. ~. ,~ . b ., • ... .,. .d.,.i ;' ..5 ~.,1... .as~_ I~r ~1.~ . -:. i > ..._ ,~.! ~~>>h... a~.1~... ~.sN_.v..~1LfRE' e`•.,Y