Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
FLD2006-02007
`' °_ ~ ~l ~arwater ~Ce U Planning Department 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 Telephone: 727-562-4567 Fax: 727-562-4865 CASE #: ~=--c~uaC_[,to--~o~uJ DATE RECEIVED: RECEIVED BY (staff initials): ATLAS PAGE #: ZONING DISTRICT: LAND USE CLASSIFICATION: SURROUNDING USES OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES: NORTH: SOUTH: WEST: EAST: ` /SUBMIT ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION ~( SUBMIT 14 COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION including (VVV/ 1) collated, 2) stapled and 3) folded sets of site plans SUBMIT APPLICATION FEE $ '~ NOTE: 15 TOTAL SETS OF INFORMATION REQUIRED (APPLICATIONS PLUS SITE PLAN SETS) FLEXIBLE. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION (Revised 04-OS-OS) PLEASE TYPE OR PR1NT~ A. APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND AGENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A) APPLICANT NAME: I\~ (J ~ ~ 1~~~/ `-~'c(('~ f~~ ~t ~ ~Q~ /~ MAILING ADDRESS: ~ ~~ ~~ ~V1i ~J ~~CEry~"~" -`'~`~ / ~~ 1 ~ ~ ~~~ PHONE NUMBER: ~~~ _ ~`7/' ~~~/ FAX NUMBER: 7 ~~ ^ ~V I ~ / ~~~ PROPERTY OWNER(S): ~ ~ ~`~-~ ~C~~~// ~~ (Must include ALL owners as listed on the deed -provide original signature(s) on page 6) AGENT NAME: # ~A"" 1 ,,,..) ~l~'6''°b~rC ~ L' { ~-- MAILING ADDRESS: 9~ ~ `-- t,-/``~ ~~ ~ '~ ~ ~.a "~ PHONE NUMBER: f "f I ~`~ ~~ FAX NUMBER: G CELL NUMBER: ~r d ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ E-MAIL ADDRESS: ~~~ ("1' e.~C~t~~~/L~~-~~~L ~~~~ ~~ B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A) OR RECEIVED ~ / ~ ~ ~s`1/ b t it SS f su jec s e: STREET ADDRE o LEGAL DESCRIPTION: S (if not listed here, please note the location of this document in the submittal) P~NNING DEPA RWATER =1~ PARCEL NUMBER: a //~~ C~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ 2 ~ ~ ~~ s ._...c t t , T PARCEL SIZE: (acres, square feet) T PROPOSED USE(S), SIZE(S) AND VALUE OF PROJECT: Z ~~L3I ~ lNT, V r I l ~~ /~ r C~F~ ~~ ` ~~) 9~ (number of dwelling units, hotel rooms or square footage of nonresidential use) ~ ~ ~~~ ,~~/ UAC~ t~A~~ DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST(S): RFiI'~~~ FACAyf A /1/~b/ R.AI~Crnf ~ $~H~S~ /VE~/ I Attach sheets and be specific when identifying the request (include all requested code deviations; e.g. reduction in required number o rking spaces, specific use, etc.) Ac poo ~W ~:C~c~1n,G ~Q~ ~M~(r~ f~-wn/I N A,l.~ G©~1 ~ ~1/I~~~o~.S Page 1 of 6 -Flexible Development Application 2005- City of Clearwater i ~ DOES THIS APPLICATION INVOLVE THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR), A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, OR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED (CERTIFIED) SITE PLAN? YES NO (if yes, attach a copy of the applicable I documents) C/. PROOF OF OWNERSHIP: (Code Section 4-202.A.5) ^ SUBMIT A COPY OF THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY, DEED TO THE PROPERTY OR SIGN AFFIDAVIT ATTESTING OWNERSHIP (see page 6) DJ.~ WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 3-913.A) Q Provide complete responses to the six (6) GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA -Explain how each criteria is achieved, in detail: 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. ~~~aT -~ C'o,/r2~9~~~ S oFr~~. ovr~ (~LAnn-~'~~ iM~n~,~~ r~~ti?:C w~-1 M r%F~ 0 2 F1C(~~D AD~~«K~ Pl~l~~t2~~~ -~ ~}~~Oyf~ /N ~n•T~o~ Q v,~ (l~? ~ 2. The proposed development wilt not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. n'Q ~f ~ x~n,~ ~~ T w~l / f+~~(~/~" r~ ~~ ~t'~ ~l~- 'V ~! 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety or persons residing or working in the neight~orhood of the proposed use.IV~7. 2Ar~~N6 k1~~ //LC/t~StS Sj9Ffs~ 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. , /~~ , ~~ ~,,` ~ 1~~ 1,~ t ~ ~~~)~d-~ ~,n( INc~( ~~-S` 2 ~1 ~r1~2E}~C~ ~~~ (ZEb~Cr~ ~2~/ sT ~(3~F/~ o 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. yt~- Ad/ m~tio y~T rotis ~.~ D~Si ~ ~D ~o r~~i~•~-~ 2 ~ ~~ ~( ~xls~r.~ ~}2cy~~~- 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. ~/~ . (/I~y~!( rt,l ~~ M l Y ~ `~(~ Sl' t~ 1 (~n-o~r~, ~,ot~~ of 9~~ onfC~~- ~~r: N~"S ~Pc ~ ~ o ~~ ~tz,o I?~~~Y (~ Provide complete responses to the applicable flexibility criteria for the specific land use as listed in each Zoning District to which the waiver is requested (use separate sheets as necessary) -Explain how each criteria is achieved, in detail: ORIGINAL RECEIVED PiANNING D (.:ItY Vr I.LC/iKVVr~lcrt Page 2 of 6 -Flexible Development Application 2005- City of Clearwater a /~E.) STORMWATER PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteri ``~~GG Manual and 4-202.A.21) , A STORMWATER NARRATIVE MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH ALL. APPLICATIONS. All applications that im addition or modification of impervious surface, including buildings, must include a stormwater plan that demonstrates compliance the City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria manual. A reduction in impervious surface area does not qualify as an exem~ to this requirement. . If a plan is not required, the narrative shall provide an explanation as to why the site is exempt. ^ At a minimum, the STORMWATER PLAN shall include the following: Existing topography extending 50 feet beyond all property lines; Proposed grading including finished floor elevations of all structures; All adjacent streets and municipal storm systems; _ Proposed stormwater detentionlretention area including top of bank, toe of slope and outlet control structure; _ A narrative describing the proposed stormwater control plan including all calculations and data necessary to demonstrate compliance with the City manual. Signature and seal of Florida Registered Professional Engineer on all plans and calculations. ^ COPY OF PERMIT INQUIRY LETTER OR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SWFWMD) PERMIT SUBMITTAL (SWFWMD approval is required prior to issuance of City Building Permit), if applicable Acknowledgement of stormwater plan requirements (Applicant must initial one of the following): ~Stor~iwater plan as noted above is included stormwater plan is not required and explanation narrative is attached. At a minimum, a grading plan and finished floor elevations shall be p--- ,aGvi'~ed. CAUTION - IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A STORMWATER PLAN AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR. If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Public Works Administration Engineering Department at (727) 562-4750. /SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 4-202.A) ^ .SIGNED AND SEALED SURVEY (including legal description of property) -One original and 14 copies; TREE SURVEY (including existing trees on site and within 25' of the adjacent site, by species, size (DBH 4" or greater), and location, / including drip lines and indicating trees to be removed) -please design around the existing trees; [i'J LOCATION MAP OF THE PROPERTY; ^ PARKING DEMAND STUDY in conjunction with a request to make deviations to the parking standards (ie. Reduce number of spaces). Prior to the submittal of this application, the methodology of such study shall be approved by the Community Development Coordinator and shall be in accordance with accepted traffic engineering principles. The findings of the study will be used in determining whether or not deviations to the parking standards are approved; NP ~r1+~T"~f~ s ^ GRADING PLAN, as applicable; ^ PRELIMINARY PLAT, as required (Note: Building permits will not be issued until evidence of recording a final plat is provided); !/j~. ^ COPY OF RECORDED PLAT, as applicable; G. jSITE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-202.A) G~ i SITE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24" x 36"): ORIGINAL All dimensions; North arrow; RECEIVED ~ Engineering bar scale (minimum scale one inch equals 50 feet), and date prepared; Location map; f : ~ 2 (~ 206 I Index sheet referencing individual sheets included in package; l ~ ~ Footprint and size of all EXISTING buildings and structures; Footprint and size of all PROPOSED buildings and structures; G DEPARTMENT p~p,NNIN All required setbacks; F CLEARWATER All existing and proposed points of access; CfiY O All required sight triangles; Identification of environmentally unique areas, such as watercourses, wetlands, tree masses , and specimen trees, including description and location of understory, ground cover vegetation and wildlife h abitats, etc; Page 3 of 6 -Flexible Development Application 2005- City of Clearwater i r i r !- EJ' SITE Location of all public and private easements; Location of all street rights-of-way within and adjacent to the site; Location of existing public and private utilities, including fire hydrants, storm and sanitary sewer lines, manholes and lift stations, gas and water lines; All parking spaces, driveways, loading areas and vehicular use areas; Depiction by shading or crosshatching of all required parking lot interior landscaped areas; Location of all solid waste containers, recycling or trash handling areas and outside mechanical equipment and all required screening {per Section 3-201(D)(i) and Index #701}; Location of all landscape material; Location of all onsite and offsite storm-water management facilities; Location of all outdoor lighting fixtures; and Location of all existing and proposed sidewalks. DATA TABLE for existing, required, and proposed development, in written/tabular form: Land area in square feet and acres; Number of EXISTING dwelling units; Number of PROPOSED dwelling units; Gross floor area devoted to each use; Parking spaces: total number, presented in tabular form with the number of required spaces; Total paved area, including all paved parking spaces and driveways, expressed in square feet and percentage of the paved vehicular area; Size and species of all landscape material; Official records book and page numbers of all existing utility easement; Building and structure heights; Impermeable surface ratio (I.S.R.); and Floor area ratio (F.A.R.) for all nonresidential uses. ^' REDUCED SITE PLAN to scale (8'/z X 11) and color rendering if possible; ORIGINAL RECEIVED ^ FOR DEVELOPMENTS OVER ONE ACRE, provide the following additional information on site plan: ~~~ `~ ~ ZQOu One-foot contours or spot elevations on site; I Offsite elevations if required to evaluate the proposed stormwater management for the parcel; p{AI~NING DEPARTMENT i ~,• All open space areas; Location of all earth or water retaining walls and earth berms; CITY OF CLEARWATER Lot lines and building lines (dimensioned); Streets and drives (dimensioned); Building and structural setbacks (dimensioned); (/ Structural overhangs; Tree Inventory; prepared by a "certified arborist", of all trees 8" DBH or greater, reflecting size, cano py (drip lines) and condition of such trees. H. LANDSCAPING PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-1102.A) !~ LANDSCAPE PLAN: All existing and proposed structures; Names of abutting streets; { Drainage and retention areas including swales, side slopes and bottom elevations; Delineation and dimensions of all required perimeter landscape buffers; Sight visibility triangles; Delineation and dimensions of all parking areas including landscaping islands and curbing; ~ Proposed and required parking spaces; Existing trees on-site and immediately adjacent to the site, by species, size and locations, including driplines (as indicated on required tree survey); Plant schedule with a key (symbol or label) indicating the size, description, specifications and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, including botanical and common names; Location, size, and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, indicated by a key relating to the plant schedule; ~ Typical planting details for trees, palms, shrubs and ground cover plants including instructions, soil mixes, backfilling, mulching and 1~ protective measures; Interior landscaping areas hatched and/or shaded and labeled and interior landscape coverage, expressing in both square feet and percentage covered; Conditions of a previous development approval (e.g. conditions imposed by the Community Development Board); _ Irrigation notes. REDUCED LANDSCAPE PLAN to scale (8'/z X 11) (color rendering if possible); ~ IRRIGATION PLAN (required for level two and three approval); Cy' COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM application, as applicable. Landscape associated with the Comprehensive Landscape Program shall exceed minimum Code requirements to offset the areas where minimum Code will not be met. Page 4 of 6 -Flexible Development Application 2005- City of Clearwater BUILDING ELEVATION PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-202.A.23) Required in the event the application includes a development where design standards are in issue (e.g. Tourist and Downtown Districts) or as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project or a Residential Infill Project. ^ BUILDING ELEVATION DRAWINGS -all sides of all buildings including height dimensions, colors and materials; ^ REDUCED BUILDING ELEVATIONS -four sides of building with colors and materials to scale (8 Y: X 11) (black and white and color rendering, if possible) as required. J. SIGNAGE: (Division 19. SIGNS /Section 3-1806) All EXISTING freestanding and attached signs; Provide photographs and dimensions (area, height, etc.), indicate whether they will be removed or to remain. IY All PROPOSED freestanding and attached signs; Provide details including location, size, height, colors, materials and drawing; freestanding signs shall include the street address (numerals) ORIGINAL ^ Comprehensive Sign Program application, as applicable (separate application and fee required). 2G%} RECENED ^ Reduced signage proposal (8 Yz X 11) (color), if submitting Comprehensive Sign Program K. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: (Section 4-202.A.13 and 4-801.C) CIiY OF CLEA.RWATER ^ Include if required by the Traffic Operations Manager or his/her designee or if the proposed development: Will degrade the acceptable level of service for any roadway as adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. • Will generate 100 or more new vehicle directional trips per hour and/or 1000 or more new vehicle trips per day. Will affect a nearby roadway segment and/or intersection with five (5) reportable accidents within the prior twelve (12) month period or that is on the City's annual list of most hazardous intersections. Trip generation shall be based on the most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Trip General Manual. The Traffic Impact Study must be prepared in accordance with a "Scoping Meeting" held with the Traffic Operations Manager and the Planning Department's Development Review Manager or their designee (727-562-4750) . Refer to Section 4-801 C of the Community Development Code for exceptions to this requirement. Acknowledgement of traffic impact study requirements (Applicant must initial one of the following): T ffic Impact Study is included. The study must include a summary table of pre- and post-development levels of service for all roadway legs an ch turning movement at all intersections identified in the Scoping Meeting. affic Impact Study is not required. CAUTION - IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR. If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Public Works Administration Engineering Department at (727) 562-4750. L. SIGNATURE: I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all representations made in this STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and Sworn to and subscribed before me this ~~ day of authorize City representativ o visit a. photograph the property '-~ .D. 20 ~ to me and/or by described in t ' ti ~ .~ ~ who is personally known has produced ® P' as identifi io . Signature of property own representati a c~~°Y •°•~,ti CHARD DECASTRO II r j`~~ NIY COMMISSION #D0250 try ub ic, ~~~ EXPIRES: SEP 15, 2OOrMy ommission expires: Page 5 of 6 -Flexible Development Application 2005- City of Clearwater AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHORIZE AGENT: (Names of all property owners on deed -please PRINT full names) 1. That (I am/we are) the owner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property (address or general location): 2. That this property constitutes the property for which a request for a: (describe request) 3. That the undersigned (has/have) appointed and (does/do) appoint: '~~~ ~ ~~~~~~` ~ ~- as (his/their) agent(s) to execute any petitions or other documents necessary to affect such petition; 4. That this affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act on the above described property; 5. That site visits to the property are necessary by City representatives in order to process this application and the owner authorizes City representatives to visit and photograph the property described in this application; 6. That (I/we), the undersigned authority, hereby certify that the foregoing is trb~and Property Owner Property Owner Property Owner STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS Before a the undersigned, an officer duly commissioned by the laws of the~tate of Florida, on this ~ ~ day of ~~r personally appeared •s- G 21~~ wh h ing a it duly sworn D poses and says that he/she fully understands the contents of the affidavit that he/she signed. RICHARD DECASTR011 1r?'V /~ r~''~"`"~n MY COMMISSION #D of lic My Commission Expires: f EXPIRES: SEP 15, 2007 ,,,.R~ Bonded through Advantage Notary ORIGINAL RECEIVED FF~ 2 ~ 2006 S:\Planning DepartmentVlpplication Forms\development review\flexible development application 2005.doc PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Page 6 of 6 -Flexible Development Application 200 City of Clearwater , 1 .~ :. ... ~~ ._ _ _ a: T...... INST ~1 96=078134., ' -.~ '~ ~.L MAR 22~, , 199.6 4.: 44PM ' ~.'~"~; PINKLLAS COUNTY FLA.' ~'" ~ 1 QUIT ~i~ D~ OFF.REC:BK 9286 PG 929 .{ _ ~ 'L ~: ~~ This Quit Claim Deed made this day of 1996, by CYNTHIA DANIEL,•a si:ngle~woman, (Hereinafter Called GRANTOR)~,~to.ROBERT,~SCHOELLER, a _,..~ single man, (hereinafter called GRANTEE) whose Post Office address is 417 North'Prescott, Clearwater, FL 34615. ~ ~ ~ .):~~ i '• ~ WZTNESSETH: ' '. ....i '. That the GRANTOR for and in consideration of the sum of one dollar ~"'I `.?: ~~-`~~-' ($1,.00) and other valuable consideration received, hereby grants, bargains, ~, .::I.;:.::: D' sells, remises,.releas_es, conve s and confirms unto, Grantee all that certain ~ ' ";'~;; _ lands situated at 632 Drew Stmt, Clearwater, Florida, in. Pinellas County, ~.,. Florida, .. TO WIT: ~ ~ ~ 7 .,~,..~ MTF-~- - .. .. `III; Plc: LOTS T', 2 and 3,~BLOCK 7, JONE'S SUBDIVISION OF NICHOLSON'S ADDITION TO - ~~ ui~~: ~,,,...__... CL£ARWATER HARBOR, according to the map or plat thereof as recorded in Plat '.• "' •9ook 4, page 82, Public Records of Hillsborough Count Florida, which F` ~ P-ine3-las Gounly was formerly~a part, together with that portion of the South ~'~`~~ 1/2 of vacated alley abutting the North boundary of said lots,l, 2 and 3, and >.~' lying between the westerly lot'line of said Lot 1 and the East lot line of . ':~? said_LOt 3, as extended to the center of said vacated alley. LESS that part ~:":;.:~ of Lot i lying within'the'right-of-way of street on West .side. '~'.~:, t _ Being the same prop rty conveyed to Robert Schoeller and Cynthia Daniel,• j~ ~; ~iusband and wife, by warr my deed dated November 6, 1991, and recorded in j~.: '= ~ Off.Rec.Bk 7726, at Page 16 of the Pinellas County Records. The said Robert ' ~ '' Schoeller and Cynthia Dan el have since dissolved their marriage, and the =' ~ purpose of this deed is t release any interest the Grantor has in the j `\~ _? :~_ I property by reason of sai deed and marriage. ' I_ -'-, ~.~5,' i ' TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same to the said GRANTEE together with all l-'',,-, ~ i~`. tenements, hereditaments end appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise .'. `~' i ;, .appertaining. ' E ~(_. i i'. a i f~, ,; ,t,.~`y ~ . F- ' ~ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said GRANTOR has signed these presents the day _, and year first above written. ~ _ '- I t ` `-- ' `. Signed, sealed and delivered in our presence: 1,' ` . ~, ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ witness Cyn is Daniel, Grantor ~ ~ ~ W1 e s ~ t.LD53B43 PAL 03-?2-1496 16:13:D5 ' Di DED-DANTEL '.~ ~ ~ ~ nECDFDING 1 41D. SD DDC STAtiP - DR219 3 4.7D ~ Pre ared b and return to: _.._____.. P Y I `,: ' TGTAL: 411:2G i j'+~"P:~ 'DONALD C. KNAPMEYER, P.A. CHECK AfiT.TENDEfi'ED: 511.2D ~ Attorney at Law CHANGE: V 635 Cleveland Street, Suite C clearwate`Y, FL 34615 ~~?IGINAL '.: , RECEIVED 3~ .,-; _ ~ FEB" 2 4 2006 ~''~ ' - PLANNING DEpARI )VIENT . ._ .......;~ 9•E ... ,. :.. .. - ..:: ,, .. ~ ~` .. .: ; .~ •:':. i l ~• t l .: ~ r't, 1 ~, . K '+a-? ,#.. f ,~ TAE ~~ tx~ a~` ~ : j ,~. ,c~.,.~ t .~ r . ~ J F ; ., ,. ,_., .. . ..: • :•~ y -. PINELLAS CUUNTY FLA. OFF..REC. BEE 9286 PG'. 930 <' 1[... ~. STATE• OF.. FLORIDA . ,. ... .' COUNTY .OF 'PINELLAS - _, _ .; ., i .. '''TlKR,R68Y'CERTIFY, that on .this day; .befoierme, .an officer duly authorized -- ~-- in-the $tate_afaresaid.and in the County aforesaid to take acknowledgments, „ A personally appe`Ye. Cynthi D 1, who. is personally, known. to. me.or.:who ~~ ~` pro'3iiccd {-7e.••=•oiJa~°i~ification, and acKnovrledged before me that :' she 'has executed.this.instrument to be her free: act of:deed. ;~~ - - .. ~:<: ~~ WITNESS myc hand~and offAs~i,al seal in. the County. and State last aforesaid on _ this. ~`2'day`of .~t~• 1936... .. ~. ..< 2i ~ .. ~. .. pNOI~N 4 R06Eio KF~w-~iu~ ,; NotaN~'M°~8~ai NOTA~2Y, PUBLIC .. , ;;,¢~ 63 gtcNaflAroi~1 ~ My commission. expires:: ~8•w (off'? ;a SftAUISGiV 6;lOW T'-T .___ ... v ~~mMion[>~~!a+0 9 .. :, ,~ CITY OF CLEARWATER a ACISR,G~94 ST'i'- t'~ FLJ'~~DA . °IiJELLAS COUNTY Wv` ••""'••.'~P of ~ heisby cerNty that the foregoing is ~;:i~... *;~' •~; * e~ a true copy as the same appears amon ~ : ~ ~ the ntl reC s this court g ° `" '•. ~ ~ da of ^ ~' 20 ~.``~ ~ ...:., irt~ s •. • .,~ r Af`iC F. BLAKE "' t CpUH('t, rl Circuit Cour " `~ : ~v: ; Y 2 ~. .I • ~ I `L~c~ , it 1~ y ,'...ter 4 ,, ~ 1 r ~~t ~~~ ~ ':2~~'~~' •r ~ ~.s [..'. • 9~ ~1~° s ORIGINAL FLD2006-02007 632 DREW ST PLANING ~~pAR~;vi~Nr Cl~l(~F ~LLA. ~~i~~i ~: Date Received: 02/24/2006 OLD ICE HOUSE ZONING DISTRICT: D LAND USE: CBD ATLAS PAGE: 277B PLANNER OF RECORD: NOT ENTERED CLWCoverSheet Schodtler, John From: Delk, Michael Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 3:33 PM To: Schodtler, John Subject: FW: Site plan submission FYI. I don't see that a response is necessary. mld -----Original Message----- From: Tim Schoeller [mailto:timC~schoellerfineart.com] Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 12:50 PM To: Delk, Michael Subject: Re: Site plan submission Dear Michael, Thank you for taking the time to look into this issue and provide us with the information. I was not intending to imply that the comments themselves were meant to discourage but meant to point out that the manner in which they were conveyed left no clear solution and required further investigation in order to discover what was really wanted of us. The fax did not explain the rejection points and were overall vauge and would require further inquiry. It might just as well have said "come in and see me on the plans" and have been less upsetting. It is the vauge mysterious nature of it that is upsetting. I on one occasion went over the resolution of each of the rejection points from zoning with John and he verbally approved my proposed solutions. The only point I know of which was not met was the height of the back gate to our property which we intentionally did not reduce to 6' as it would go against the proportions of the architecture and found no benifit to anyone in detracting from the beauty of the building by doing so (it was also mentioned that we were intending on doing that). The gate issue was inteded to be brought before the CDB for approval as it was deemed they would recognize the artistic benefit for maintining the proportions (it's somewhat amusing that a different point of rejection covered the proportions of doors to the building size in contrast to this issue). All of the other issues have been addressed in the manner which was agreed upon. I wanted you to understand my confusion when I received the rejection. I feel anyone would be able to see the difference between the 2 plans we have submitted and upon review of the comments should recogize the difference between the 2 plans and that they show the rejection points were met. In addition the only notification of "time constraints" on the project given us were in an email from John recieved right around the time of the code compliance complaints. It seems reasonable to me that the effort spent in correcting the code violations (which we attempted to correct last year and were denied a permit for) would unavoidably detract from the time available for completing the site plan which required intensive modification. Even a cursory look at the plans whould show that they were not whimsically thrown together but created in a harmonic fashion which I feel more than addresses the points of complaint with the last site plan. I feel it should be more important for the city to have a beautiful building of artistic design seldom seen in this age, yet that does not seem to have any bearing. It takes more time and effort to make a building beautiful which is probably why most are not. were I to criticize somone elses plans I would take the few extra words to point them in the right direction and clarify what specifically is lacking. I would also make them aware of what I needed from them and in what time frame and why. To further clarify my point I will include the section from John's email: 1 I gave you until October 9 to resubmit to address the DRC's comments. When those comments have been addressed you would than proceed to the next CDB meeting which would be November 21. If they are not addressed it would push your CDB meeting date back another 30 days. Nowhere does it say or hint at what he next said in his fax: "After review of your submittal date stampted received October 9 2006, we have determined not all of the outstanding comments related to this case have been addressed and the application is deemed WITHDRAWN." Neither did he mention that failing to address his comments 100% would result in forfit of our fee and faced with the proposition of resubmitting. In addition to the above comment he attached the old list of comments all of which have been addressed. I personally went around with the very same plan he says is withdrawn to all of the other people who had issues and each one of them said that my new plans would meet the criteria which John implies in the fax are not met. He implies the new facades do not have a distinct base middle an cap! It seems the new plans were not even reviewed! The point of the facades not having a consistent fenstration pattern also is supposedly "not met". That is the basis for my upset is that the allegation is false and no explanation was give other than what is quoted above. I really appreciate your assistance in this matter and your willingness to help. I feel compelled to point out where we were not helped in the past which resulted in this problem. I understand why the review process exists, I do not understand the manner in which it is executed as with a little help and cooperation we would have long since begun construction. I am referring to a general unwillingness to communicate to us. The only voluntary communications we receive from anyone at the city is either in the form of a stop work order, notice of potential fine, rejection of our plans, or notice of withdrawal. All other communications were at our persistance. My point is that John knows what will happen if we don't submit by x date and he also knows we are doing all the designing/drafting ourselves and are not familiar like he is with all the rules. Instead of helping us he seemingly waits for us to make a mistake and notifies us after there is nothing to be done for it. I consider this to be contraty to our interests as citizens and contrary to his trust which seemingly should be the beautification of Clearwater. I am at a loss to understand it and that is what I wished to convey to you. This behavior is of more concern than the money for resubmitting the plans. Yours, Tim Schoeller On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:39:05 -0400, <michael.delkC~MyClearwater.com> wrote: > Mr. Schoeller: > I have discussed this further with John and understand where the > situation stands. He and Neil Thompson came to the conclusion that > given the extended period of inactivity and that staff comments were not > fully addressed in the recent resubmission, the matter was unfortunately > not going to be successfully concluded. Given that .Code Enforcement was > needing to conclude matters related to various violations, little > benefit would accrue further processing of the plans. > I must say that I understand why they came to that conclusion. > Nonetheless, I will reinstate the application to allow you an additional > opportunity to obtain the needed approval. I have asked John to get > with Neil and meet with you another time to go over these comments. > Development review comments are certainly not intended nor presented to > be discouraging. They are provided• in order for you to have direction > as to the matters which need to be addressed in order to move forward. > John and Neil can provide you direction in how to address these items > but they will need your cooperation by .ensuring that each is addressed. 2 > Please contact Sharon Pullin in my office at 562-4579 and she will > schedule a time for you to sit down with John and Neil. > Please note however that we need to develop a plan for obtaining > development approval in a timely manner as we will be unable to > forestall code enforcement activity indefinitely. > Please don't' hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or > concerns as this moves to conclusion. > Regards, > Michael Delk, AICP > Planning Director > City of Clearwater, FL > 727-562-4561 > myclearwater.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Schoeller [mailto:timCschoellerfineart.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 11:24 AM > To: Delk, Michael > Cc: Kronschnabl, Jeff > Subject: Re: Site plan submission > Dear Michael, > Thank you for looking into this for us. I would like to explain to you > my > own and my fathers upset on this a little that we can hopefully work > together to prevent this .sort of delay and concentrate on the completion > of the project and the enhancment of the local art scene. When I > received > the first rejection of our site plan from John in Feb. we were treated in > the same manner. A fax was sent us with a long list of problems with the > site plan but with no explanation as to what we need to do or even why we > were being sent the list. We spend countless hours putting together > creating something beautiful - which should be something that is strongly > desired in Clearwater especially since the level of art in the > archetecture alone far surpasses the vast majority of existing structures > - and receive in response a list of somewhat degrading comments and > critisizms. While they might be justified by code etc. the point is that > it does not convey the idea that we are being helped or that our project > is even desired as the fax contained only negative comments and no > recommendation of what we should do next (more on this later). I had to > come in and talk with Neil Thompson who did an excellent job of > explaining > the procedure to us and was contrary to our prior experience very helpful > (went out of his way to answer all our questions and recommend our best > course of action and otherwise encourage us to move forward). I had to > make several calls and send several emails to even get into contact with > Neil because John again was out of the office for an extended period > directly after sending the rejection. It is upsetting to receive a fax > with blatant and discourtious rejection with no hint of solution and I > feel it is not in the best interests of the city and am therfore > concerned > about this practice as it gives the appearance that we are not welcome or > worth talking to or helping (an attitute which is not "conducive to civil > service [being the primary function of the department]). I feel that we > should be assisted by the city in getting our project done but I feel we > have been stopped many times by lack of help. The situation is always > how > we failed to conform to some administrative practise or deadline and 3 • > therore the buracracy demands that we resubmit the whole site plan or > something of this nature. This is not logical to us as the there is not > good reason why we should start over or even why the time constraints are > allowed to prevent improvments to the city. My point is that somone > knowing these obscure (to us in any case) rules and likewise interested > in > helping citizens like us who are trying to bring art and culture to the > people of this city in a quite unselfish capacity (we have never made a > dime from any local sales and are not predicting sustainable income from >,the gallery) should be helped and not left to flounder helplessly through > an overly complicated process where our only notes of encouragment are > the > 2 unsavory faxes, code compliance issues, expired site plans, stop work > orders, threats of fine... I provide this explanation not so much to > complain about the city but to find a way to work together efficiently so > that we both can realize the goal of an art center in Clearwater. > Yours, Tim Schoeller > On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 08:49:37 -0400, <michael.delk@MyClearwater.com> > wrote: » Tim - I apologize for suggesting John was in. I didn't realize until I » came back to talk to staff about your matter that he was out. He will » be out on vacation through this week in fact. » I am going to look into your submission to see where this stands. » I will contact you a little later today regarding this matter. » Michael Delk, AICP » Planning Director » City of Clearwater, FL » 727-562-4561 » myclearwater.com » -----Original Message----- » From: Tim Schoeller [mailto:tim@schoellerfineart.com] » Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 5:38 PM » To: Kronschnabl, Jeff » Subject: Site plan submission » Dear Jeff, » I am running into some difficulty in getting our project moving and » wanted » to ask for you assistance. I submitted the corrected site plan with » John » Schodtler on Tues Morning and in response received a fax saying that our » submission was insufficient without specific explanation as to why. » This » particularly confused me as each of the points listed on the fax were » corrected to my knowledge. I had been in to see him this morning and » after waiting over an hour was told by an assistant that he was not in » ,till Monday. After Seeing Mike Delk about our fence he told me that » John » was around but was busy. This is a little disturbing in light of the » fact » that it seems we are being opposed in our desire to get the project » moving » and one person says John is here and another says he is not. It also » causes me to wonder why our deadline was Monday if he is going to be out » of the office so long where the plans will do no good to him? I have » been » unable to get any assistance in proceeding with the site plan. I 4 » personally went to each person who had issues with the previous site » plan » submission and showed them my updated plan and received verbal approval » on » the points they had requested correction on. This includes John who » said » "everything looks fine" when I dropped the plans off but only hours » later » he sent a fax saying we need to start over and pay all the fee's again » and » go throuh DRC again. This is quite upsetting and I don't think Robert » will take kindly to such news as I do not think it at all fair. I would » like to get this matter clarified and would ask that you please help me » in » sorting out the facts as I know you are interested like us to get this » project moving. » Yours, Tim Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ 5 Schodtler, John From: Delk, Michael Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 2:39 PM To: 'Tim Schoeller' Cc: Schodtler, John; Thompson, Neil; Hall, Bob Subject: RE: Site plan submission Mr. Schoeller: I have discussed this further with John and understand where the situation stands. He and Neil Thompson came to the conclusion that given the extended period of inactivity and that staff comments were not fully addressed in the recent resubmission, the matter was unfortunately not going to be successfully concluded. Given that Code Enforcement was needing to conclude matters related to various violations, little benefit would accrue further processing of the plans. I must say that I understand why they came to that conclusion. Nonetheless, I will reinstate the application to allow you an additional opportunity to obtain the needed approval. I have asked John to get with Neil and meet with you another time to go over these comments. Development review comments are certainly not intended nor presented to be discouraging. They are provided in order for you to have direction as to the matters which need to be addressed in order to move forward. John and Neil can provide you direction in how to address these items but they will need your cooperation by ensuring that each is addressed. Please contact Sharon Pullin in my office at 562-4579 and she will schedule a time for you to sit down with John and Neil. Please note however that we need to develop a plan for obtaining development approval in a timely manner as we will be unable to forestall code enforcement activity indefinitely .' Please don't' hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns as this moves to conclusion. r-- ~ _____~.~.. ~~~p w. _ _.___ L Regards, ~ i ~ ~ Michael Delk, AICP Planning Director ; O City of Clearwater, FL ~ 727-562-4561 myclearwater.com ~ -----Original Message----- From: Tim Schoeller [mailto:tim@schoellerfineart.com] Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 11:24 AM To: Delk, Michael Cc: Kronschnabl, Jeff Subject: Re: Site plan submission Dear Michael, '~ - ~- Thank you for looking into this for us. I would like to explain to you my own and my fathers upset on this a little that we can hopefully work together to prevent this sort of delay and concentrate on the completion of the project and the enhancment of the local art scene. When I received the first rejection of our site plan from John in Feb. we were treated in the same manner. A fax was sent us with a long list of problems with the site plan but with no explanation as to what we need to do or even why we N 1 were being sent the list. We spend countless hours putting together creating something beautiful - which should be something that is strongly desired in Clearwater especially since the level of art in the archetecture alone far surpasses the vast majority of existing structures - and receive in response a list of somewhat degrading comments and critisizms. While they might be justified by code etc. the point is that it does not convey the idea that we are being helped or that our project is even desired as the fax contained only negative comments and no recommendation of what we should do next (more on this later). I had to come in and talk with Neil Thompson who did an excellent job of explaining the procedure to us and was contrary to our prior experience very helpful (went out of his way to answer all our questions and recommend our best course of action and otherwise encourage us to move forward). I had to make several calls and send several emails to even get into contact with Neil because John again was out of the office for an extended period directly after sending the rejection. It is upsetting to receive a fax with blatant and discourtious rejection with no hint of solution and I feel it is not in the best interests of the city and am therfore concerned about this practice as it gives the appearance that we are not welcome or worth talking to or helping (an attitute which is not conducive to civil service [being the primary function of the department]). I feel that we should be assisted by the city in getting our project done but I feel we have been stopped many times by lack of help. The situation is always how we failed to conform to some administrative practise or deadline and therore the buracracy demands that we resubmit the whole site plan or something of this nature. This is not logical to us as the there is not good reason why we should start over or even why the time constraints are allowed to prevent improvments to the city. My point is that somone knowing these obscure (to us in any case) rules and likewise interested in helping citizens like us who are trying to bring art and culture to the people of this city in a quite unselfish capacity (we have never made a dime from any local sales and are not predicting sustainable income from the gallery) should be helped and not left to flounder helplessly through an overly complicated process where our only notes of encouragment are the 2 unsavory faxes, code compliance issues, expired site plans, stop work orders, threats of fine... I provide this explanation not so much to complain about the city but to find a way to work together efficiently so that we both can realize the goal of an .art center in Clearwater. Yours, Tim Schoeller On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 08:49:37 -0400, <michael.delk@MyClearwater.com> wrote: > Tim - I apologize for suggesting John was in. I didn't realize until I > came back to talk to staff about your matter that he was out. He will > be out on vacation through this week in fact. > I am going to look into your submission to see where this stands. > I will contact you a little later today regarding this matter. > Michael Delk, AICP > Planning Director > City of Clearwater, FL > 727-562-4561 > myclearwater.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Schoeller [mailto:tim@schoellerfineart.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 5:38 PM > To: Kronschnabl, Jeff > Subject: Site plan submission > Dear Jeff, 2 > I am running into some difficulty in getting our project moving and > wanted > to ask for you assistance. I submitted the corrected site plan with John > Schodtler on Tues Morning and in response received a fax saying that our > submission was insufficient without specific explanation as to why. This > particularly confused me as each of the points listed on the fax were > corrected to my knowledge. I had been in to see him this morning and > after waiting over an hour was told by an assistant that he was not in > till Monday. After Seeing Mike Delk about our fence he told me that John > was around but was busy. This is a little disturbing in light of the > fact > that it seems we are being opposed in our desire to get the project > moving > and one person says John is here and another says he is not. It also > causes me to wonder why our deadline was Monday if he is going to be out > of the office so long where the plans will do no good to him? I have > been > unable to get any assistance in proceeding with the site plan. I > personally went to each person who had issues with the previous site plan > submission and showed them my updated plan and received verbal approval > on > the points they had requested correction on. This includes John who said > "everything looks fine" when I dropped the plans off but only hours later > he sent a fax saying we need to start over and pay all the fee's again > and > go throuh DRC again. This is quite upsetting and I don't think Robert > will take kindly to such news as I do not think it at all fair. I would > like to get this matter clarified and would ask that you please help me > in > sorting out the facts as I know you are interested like us to get this > project moving. > Yours, Tim Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ 3 Schodtler, John From: Tim Schoeller [tim@schoellerfineart.com] Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 6:36 PM To: Schodtler, John Subject: Schoeller Site Plan Dear John, We received you fax. I have some general concerns about the project which are not directed at anyone specific. I wanted to ask if you would advise me the best course of action to complete the project. I will list out my concerns etc., if you would please give me your view and recommendations. 1. We will not be able to submit anything by the May deadline and were not planning on it. Based on the last meeting with Neil and all the points which were brought up it was determined that we needed to include the phase II facade in the plan. We were told by Neil that we had fulfilled our time restrictive obligations and that we were not required to make the submission deadline as we agreed to include the phase II facade to address many of the issues. The phase II facade requires a bit more design work than we have time for due to the upcoming show we have. In addition we have the rain/hurricane season approaching preventing us from building anyhow meaning that even if we were to have an approved site plan nothing would be built till Oct. we also mentioned that we will be very busy with the upcoming show we have and will not be able to dedicate the time needed to finish the design of the facade. Your fax did not mention any reasons why we must submit by May. 2 understand there is frustration at the time which has gone by already. 2.I do not understand exactly what the situation is over there. We are willing to cooperate with you however we need to know what is going on over there. What problems you have with what we are or are not doing so that it can be sorted out. A demand that we submit in 13 days does not tell us much. I assume most of the people working with our case are aware that we are not in the profession site plan construction/approval. We would therfore appreciate if anyone dealing with the project would make the extra effort to keep us informed of things needed from us, what our next step is, inform us of things we might not know. The last list of points to address was not accompanied with any explanation causing me to assume the worst. Informing me that these don't all necessarily need to be fixed by the meeting and that I simply must provide an explanation for them is a wholly different picture. These are the sorts of things we don't know and rely on people there at the city to help us to understand. Please tell me what the situation is over there; who is anxious about the project and how much more time is acceptable and why. We do not need to be threatened into completing this project and would like to be communicated to about any concerns before we receive an official notice to appear somewhere to defend ourselves. Please do your best to inform us about city concerns and if there is anyone there you feel is concerned about the project please let me know so that we can talk to them about it that we may have an agreeable experience with the rest of this project. Yours, Tim Schoeller Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ 1 ~.~ ~s'sf71-f.- ~ 1, c._ .T'~- ,.,~i~ Conditions Associated With Mme' '~'~~~~~ ' FLD2006-02007 ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ 632 DREW ST y•' +~ ~4 µi~"~~ i ~~ ~~~ ~rn•! f 1 Engineering Condition Steve Doherty 562-4773 03/17/2006 1. Parallel parking spaces along Drew Street (S.R. 590) do not meet City Standards. Revise plan _ to eliminate these spaces. The above to be a dressed prior to CDB. The following to be addressed prior to building permit: 1. Any additional water meters which may be proposed or if an increase in water meter size is proposed additional water and sewer impact fees will be assessed. General Note: If the proposed project necessitates infrastructure modifications to satisfy site-specific water capacity and pressure requirements and/or wastewater capacity requirements, the ~ ~ codifications shall be completed by the applicant and at their expense. If underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, the installation shall be completed and in service prior to construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. General Note: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review, additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Environmental Condition 03/16/2006 No issues lF~i r'e''C.o: n ~ i t i~ (1 03/21 /2006 Leonard Rickard 562-4327 x3062 Heather Faessle 562-4897 No~ Met Not Met Not Met Access to property off of streets must have 30' radius and be 24' in width. Show on plan PRIOR TO CDB /2006 ~ Where underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, they shall be installed, Not Met completed, and in service prior to construction as per NFPA-241. A hard road surface able to ._---~ support the weight of Fire Apparatus prior to any building construction being started. Required Standpipe Systems shall be in place before construction can proceed to the next level. Please ~, acknowledge PRIOR TO CDB 03%21/2006 Items to b.e addressed prior to building permit: Fire Sprinkler and Fire Alarm Systems, Tennant Not Met seperation, any other code requirements for the occupancy classifacations to be constructed. Please Acknowledge PRIOR TO CDB -Landscape 2 John Schodtler 727-562-4547 -- 03/21!2006 Provid~opies of the existing and the proposed landscape plans. Not Met ` 03/21/2006 Landscaping should be used as a design element fully integrated with the site and building. A well Not Met designed landscape contributes to the site's aesthetics and improves the livability in a dense urban environment. Landscaping can preserve and enhance the acoustic and visual privacy of a site while supporting and accentuating the architecture of the building facing Drew Street. Land Resource Condition 03/14/2006 No Issues. Rick Albee Not Met Storm Water Condition Bob Maran 562-4592 03/13/2006 Prior to issuance of a building permit the site plan is to depict clearily what is existing and what is Not Met proposed construction. Traffic Eng Condition Bennett Elbo 562-4775 Print Date: 11/08/2006 727-562-4741 CaseConditons Page 1 of 3 f r ;-~ ~ :~ • i .. ~ ~ FLD2006-02007 632 DREW ST Traffic Eng G.on~dition Bennett Elbo 562-4775 03/13/200 1. Provide a City handicapped parking and sign detail on site plan. Index 118 & 119 Not Met http://www.myclearwater.com/gov/depts/pwa/engin/Production/stddet/index.asp 2. 20-foot vehicle stacking space shall be provided from back of sidewalk to face of gate on north side of site. 3. Sight triangles for north driveway are shown incorrectly. The base of the triangles is the property line. All the above to be addressed prior to CDB. General Note(s): 1) Comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule. 2) DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Zoning Condition John Schodtler 727-562-4547 ~'~"03/08/2006 Provide one set of color building elevations, include the aint chips/cards Not Met -631~9f286~ ~ e~rate that the murals of Robert Schoeller Paintings are not considered signage. Not Met ,03/21/2006 Seperate plans into two pages; 1) how the site and building elevations exist, 2) proposed changes Not Mef to the site and building. elevations. -- 03/21/2006 1) What type of fence/wall exists along the Jones Street property line? It is difficult to tell through Not Met the landscaping. 2)What type of fence/wall is proposed between the two buildings? -- 03/21/2006 Provide more details to the windows/doors/and railings on the Drew Street building elevations. Not Met Also provide more details to the paver design in the parking areas. This could be done at a larger scale and on a seperate page to demonstrate the more intricate designs. 03/21/2006 The eight foot tall gate proposed at the Jones Street entrance exceeds the maximum height Not Met allowed of six feet. Staff is comfortable with the gate at six feet in height. t 03/21/2006 emonstrate how the two buildings (Drew Street Facade) share architectural features (doors, Not Met windows, etc). ~""~"~~~~'-'" 03/21/2006 Demonstrate how the proposed building facades have a distinct Base, Middle, & Cap. pu-r5ic5~ Not Met ~~ ~" 03/21/2006 , Demonstrate how the property located adjacent to the Pinellas trail acknowledges it through the Not Met use of connecting pedestrian paths, doors, windows, art, and such are considered appropriate. --03/21/2006 Major architectural treatments on the principal facade need to continue around all sides of the Not Met N.ti „~,iuilding that are visible from the public realm. 3/21~l2006 Windows (Drew Street) need to create a consistent and cohesive fenestration pattern between the Not Met two buildings. 03/21/2006 Need to emphasize architecturally prominent entrances (Drew Street). Doors (Drew Street) need Not Met to be appropriately sized for the scale of the building facade and enhance/support the architectural style of the building. 03/21/20-06 The use of a single color on all surfaces of the building shall be avoided. A two or three color Not Met scheme shall be utilized to provide visual appeal. The main body color should be the predominant color of the building. The windows and other accent trim should be a complimentary color to the main body color, either a lighter or darker tone. '-"~- 03/21/2006 Need to answer Comprehensive Infill Project criteria. Not Met -ss 03/21/2006 Provide a parking demand narrative to justify the reduction in parking spaces for the proposed Not Met mixed use development (27 spaces to 16 spaces). Explain what the thoughts were with regards Print Date: 11/08/2006 CaseConditons Page 2 of 3 }~ FLD2006-02007 632 DREW ST Zoning Condition John Schodtler 727-562-4547 to the number of parking spaces. CaseConditons Print Date: 11/08/2006 Page 3 of 3 r' ~- i CITY OF CIJEAIZ~VATEIZ ~' PLANNING DEPARTMENT r Post Office Box 4748, Clearwater, Florida 33758-4748 Municipal Services Building, 100 South Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, Florida 33756 Telephone (727) 562-4567 Fax (727) 562-4576 August 28, 2006 t TIM SCHOELLER 632 DREW ST CLEARWATER, FL 33755 RE: FLD2006-02007 (Located at 632 DREW ST) Dear : TIM SCHOELLER There has been no activity with regards to your application, case number: FLD2006-02007 in the last five (5) months. Please~find attached comments related to this case that are still outstanding. Your application will become WITHDRAWN unless these comments are addressed prior to: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 (12:00 noon). This will be your only notification. .~, - 9 ,F _~ ~~ _ _ -- Please contact Sherry Watkins, at 727-562-4582 should you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, John Schodtler, Planner II cc: File 6 Month No Activity Letter ~: ~ ~ ~(M~IIt1 s~.i ~' ~~" ~'\~~'. ,.9~~~;~E„~ , Engineering Condition Conditions Associated With FLD2006-02007 632 DREW ST Steve Doherty 03/17/2006 1. Parallel parking spaces along Drew Street (S.R. 590) do not meet City Standards. Revise plan Not Met to eliminate these spaces. The above to be addressed prior to CDB. The following to be addressed prior to building permit: 1. Any additional water meters which may be proposed or if an increase in water meter size is proposed additional water and sewer impact fees will be assessed. General Note: If the proposed project necessitates infrastructure modifications to satisfy site-specific water capacity and pressure requirements and/or wastewater capacity requirements, the modifications shall be completed by the applicant and at their expense. If underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, the installation shall be completed and in service prior to construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. General Note: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review, additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Environmental Condition Heather Faessle Leonard Rickard Not Met 03/16/2006 No issues Fire Condition John Schodtler 03/21/2006 Access to property off of streets must have 30' radius and be 24' in width. Show on plan PRIOR Not Met TO CDB 03/21/2006 Where underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, they shall be installed, Not Met completed, and in service prior to construction as per NFPA-241. A hard road surface able to support the weight of Fire Apparatus prior to any building construction being started. Required Standpipe Systems shall be in place before construction can proceed to the next level. Please acknowledge PRIOR TO CDB 03/21/2006 Items to be addressed prior to building permit: Fire Sprinkler and Fire Alarm Systems, Tennant Not Met seperation, any other code requirements for the occupancy classifacations to be constructed. Please Acknowledge PRIOR TO CDB Landscape 562-4773 562-4897 562-4327 x3062 727-562-4547 03/21/2006 Provide 15 copies of the existing and the proposed landscape plans. Not Met 03/21/2006 Landscaping should be used as a design element fully integrated with the site and building. A well Not Met designed landscape contributes to the site's aesthetics and improves the livability in a dense urban environment. Landscaping can preserve and enhance the acoustic and visual privacy of a site while supporting and accentuating the architecture of the building facing Drew Street. Land Resource Condition Rick Albee 727-562-4741 03/14/2006 No Issues. Not Met Storm Water Condition Bob Maran 562-4592 03/13/2006 Prior to issuance of a building permit the site plan is to depict clearily what is existing and what is Not Met proposed construction. Traffic Eng Condition Bennett Elbo 562-4775 Print Date: 08/28/2006 CaseConditons Page 1 of 3 '" ~ • • FLD2006-02007 632 DREW ST Traffic Eng Condition Bennett Elbo 562-4775 03/13/2006 1. Provide a City handicapped parking and sign detail on site plan. Index 118 & 119 Not Met http://www.myclearwater.com/gov/depts/pwa/engin/Prod uction/stddet/index.asp 2. 20-foot vehicle stacking space shall be provided from back of sidewalk to face of gate on north side of site. 3. Sight triangles for north driveway are shown incorrectly. The base of the triangles is the property line. All the above to be addressed prior to CDB. General Note(s): 1) Comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule. 2) DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Zoning Condition John Schodtler 727-562-4547 03/08/2006 Provide one set of color building elevations, include the paint chips/cards Not Met 03/21/2006 Demonstrate that the murals of Robert Schoeller Paintings are not considered signage. Not Met 03/21/2006 Seperate plans into two pages; 1) how the site and building elevations exist, 2) proposed changes Not Met to the site and building elevations. 03/21/2006 1) What type of fence/wall exists along the Jones Street property line? It is difficult to tell through Not Met the landscaping. 2)What type of fence/wall is proposed between the two buildings? 03/21/2006 Provide more details to the windows/doors/and railings on the Drew Street building elevations. Not Met Also provide more details to the paver design in the parking areas. This could be done at a larger scale and on a seperate page to demonstrate the more intricate designs. 03/21/2006 Downtown design guidelines require that parking lots be located behind the primary facade of the Not Met building. (parking in front of the office building next to the railroad tracks is considered inappropriate and creates vehicular-pedestrian circulation conflicts. The Downtown plan recognizes that the Downtown is first and foremost for pedestrians.) 03/21/2006 The eight foot tall gate proposed at the Jones Street entrance exceeds the maximum height Not Met allowed of six feet. Staff is comfortable with the gate at six feet in height. 03/21/2006 Demonstrate how the two buildings (Drew Street Facade) share architectural features (doors, Not Met windows, etc). 03/21/2006 Demonstrate how the proposed building facades have a distinct Base, Middle, & Cap. Not Met 03/21/2006 Demonstrate how the property located adjacent to the Pinellas trail acknowledges it through the Not Met use of connecting pedestrian paths, doors, windows, art, and such are considered appropriate. 03/21/2006 Major architectural treatments on the principal facade need to continue around all sides of the Not Met building that are visible from the public realm. 03/21/2006 Windows (Drew Street) need to create a consistent and cohesive fenestration pattern between the Not Met two buildings. 03/21/2006 Need to emphasize architecturally prominent entrances (Drew Street). Doors (Drew Street) need Not Met to be appropriately sized for the scale of the building facade and enhance/support the architectural style of the building. 03/21/2006 The use of a single color on all surfaces of the building shall be avoided. A two or three color Not Met scheme shall be utilized to provide visual appeal. The main body color should be the predominant color of the building. The windows and other accent trim should be a complimentary color to the main body color, either a lighter or darker tone. Print Date: CaseConditons 08/28/2006 Page 2 of 3 • FLD2006-02007 632 DREW ST Zoning Condition John Schodtler 727-562-4547 03/21/2006 Need to answer Comprehensive Infill Project criteria. Not Met 03/21/2006 Provide a parking demand narrative to justify the reduction in parking spaces for the proposed Not Met mixed use development (27 spaces to 16 spaces). Explain what the thoughts were with regards to the number of parking spaces. Print Date: 08/28/2006 CaseConditons Page 3 of 3 `~(~ 1 - ~-22'~ ~` • ~ .~- ti ~; . ~ • Aug. 29 2006 10:11AM YOUR LOGO . YOUR FAX N0. :.7275624865 N0. OTHER FACSIMILE START TIME USAGE TIME MODE PAGES RESULT 01 94614223 Aug. 29 10:09AM 02'22 SND 04 OK TO TUI~I OFF REPORT, PRESS 'MENU' #04. THEN SELECT OFF BY USING '+' OR '-'. FOR FAX ADVANTAGE ASSISTANCE, PLEASE CALL 1806-HELP-FAX C435-7329). ~' . ..~ • CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT Post Office Box 4748, Clearwater, Florida 33758-4748 Municipal Services Building, 100 South Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, Florida 33756 Telephone (727) 562-4567 Fax (727) 562-4576 May 16, 2006 TIM SCHOELLER 632 DREW ST CLEARWATER, FL 33755 RE: FLD2006-02007 (Located at 632 DREW ST) Dear : TIM SCHOELLER There has been no activity with regards to your application, case number: FLD2006-02007 in the last thirty (30) days. Please find attached comments related to this case that are still outstanding. Please contact our office with the status of your resubmittal prior to Wednesday, May 31, 2006 (12:00 noon). Please contact Sherry Watkins, at 727-562-4582 should you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, John Schodtler, Planner II cc: File 30 Day No Activity Letter ~~~A~~ ~N~++f `r • . ~ ~: wMyJ~ k.. ~. '~~ . Engineering Condition Steve Doherty 562-4773 03/17/2006 1. Parallel parking spaces along Drew Street (S.R. 590) do not meet City Standards. Revise plan Not Met to eliminate these spaces. The above to be addressed prior to CDB. The following to be addressed prior to building permit: 1. Any additional water meters which may be proposed or if an increase in water meter size is proposed additional water and sewer impact fees will be assessed. General Note: If the proposed project necessitates infrastructure modifications to satisfy site-specific water capacity and pressure requirements and/or wastewater capacity requirements, the modifications shall be completed by the applicant and at their expense. If underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, the installation shall be completed and in service prior to construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. General Note: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review, additional comments may . be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Environmental Condition Heather Faessle 562-4897 03/16/2006 ,No issues Not Met Conditions Associated With FLD2006-02007 632 DREW ST • Fire Condition Leonard Rickard 562-4327 x3062 03/21/2006 Access to property off of streets must have 30' radius and be 24' in width. Show on plan PRIOR Not Met TO CDB 03/21/2006 Where underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, they shall be installed, Not Met completed, and in service prior to construction as per NFPA-241. A hard road surface able to support the weight of Fire Apparatus prior to any building construction being started. Required Standpipe Systems shall be in place before construction can proceed to the next level. Please acknowledge PRIOR TO CDB 03/21/2006 Items to be addressed prior to building permit: Fire Sprinkler and Fire Alarm Systems, Tennant Not Met seperation, any other code requirements for the occupancy classifacations to be constructed. Please Acknowledge PRIOR TO CDB Landscape John Schodtler 727-562-4547 03/21/2006 Provide 15 copies of the existing and the proposed landscape plans. Not Met 03/21/2006 Landscaping should be used as a design element fully integrated with the site and building. A well Not Met designed landscape contributes to the site's aesthetics and improves the livability in a dense urban environment. Landscaping can preserve and enhance the acoustic and visual privacy of a site while supporting and accentuating the architecture of the building facing Drew Street. Land Resource, Condition Rick Albee 727-562-4741 03/14/2006 No Issues. Not Met Storm Water Condition Bob Maran 562-4592 03/13/2006 Prior to issuance of a building permit the site plan is to depict clearily what is existing and what is Not Met proposed construction. Traffic Eng Condition Bennett Elbo 562-4775 Print Date: 05/16/2006 CaseConditons Page 1 of 3 FLD2006-02007 632 DREW ST • Traffic Eng Condition Bennett Elbo 562-4775 03/13/2006 1. Provide a City handicapped parking and sign detail on site plan. Index 118 & 119 Not Met http://www.myclearwater.com/gov/depts/pwa/engin/Production/stddet/index.asp 2. 20-foot vehicle stacking space shall be provided from back of sidewalk to face of gate on north side of site. 3. Sight triangles for north driveway are shown incorrectly. The base of the triangles is the property line. All the above to be addressed prior to CDB. General Note(s): 1) Comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule. 2) DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Zoning Condition John Schodtler 727-562-4547 03/08/2006 Provide one set of color building elevations, include the paint chips/cards Not Met 03/21/2006 Demonstrate that the murals of Robert Schoeller Paintings are not considered signage. Not Met 03/21/2006 Seperate plans into two pages; 1) how the site and building elevations exist, 2) proposed changes Not Met to the site and building elevations. 03/21/2006 1) What type of fence/wall exists along the Jones Street property line? It is difficult to tell through Not Met the landscaping. 2)What type of fence/wall is proposed between the two buildings? 03/21/2006 Provide more details to the windows/doors/and railings on the Drew Street building elevations. Not Met Also provide more details to the paver design in the parking areas. This could be done at a larger scale and on a seperate page to demonstrate the more intricate designs. 03/21/2006 Downtown design guidelines require that parking lots be located behind the primary facade of the Not Met building. (parking in front of the office building next to the railroad tracks is considered inappropriate and creates vehicular-pedestrian circulation conflicts. The Downtown plan recognizes that the Downtown is first and foremost for pedestrians.) 03/21/2006 The eight foot tall gate proposed at the Jones Street entrance exceeds the maximum height Not Met allowed of six feet. Staff is comfortable with the gate at six feet in height. 03/21/2006 Demonstrate how the two buildings (Drew Street Facade) share architectural features (doors, Not Met windows, etc). 03/21/2006 Demonstrate how the proposed building facades have a distinct Base, Middle, & Cap. Not Met 03/21/2006 Demonstrate how the property located adjacent to the Pinellas trail acknowledges it through the Not Met use of connecting pedestrian paths, doors, windows, art, and such are considered appropriate. 03/21/2006 Major architectural treatments on the principal facade need to continue around all sides of the Not Met building that are visible from the public realm. 03/21/2006 Windows (Drew Street) need to create a consistent and cohesive fenestration pattern between the Not Met two buildings. 03/21/2006 Need to emphasize architecturally prominent entrances (Drew Street). Doors (Drew Street) need Not Met to be appropriately sized for the scale of the building facade and enhance/support the architectural style of the building. 03/21/2006 The use of a single color on all surfaces of the building shall be avoided. A two or three color Not Met scheme shall be utilized to provide visual appeal. The main body color should be the predominant color of the building. The windows and other accent trim should be a complimentary color to the main body color, either a lighter or darker tone. Print Date: 05/16/2006 CaseConditons Page 2 of 3 ~ ~ ~ FLD2006-02007 632 DREW ST Zoning Condition 03/21 /2006 03/21 /2006 John Schodtler 727-562-4547 Need to answer Comprehensive Infill Project criteria. Provide a parking demand narrative to justify the reduction in parking spaces for the proposed mixed use development (27 spaces to 16 spaces). Explain what the thoughts were with regards to the number of parking spaces. Print Date: 05/16/2006 Not Met Not Met CaseConditons Page3of3 ~ ~ ~ May. 16 2006 09:55AM YOUR LOGO YOUR FAX N0. 7275624865 N0. OTHER FACSIMILE START TIME USAGE TIME MODE PAGES RESULT 01 94614223 May. 16 09:53AM 02'21 SND 04 OK TO TURN OFF REPORT, PRESS ' htEMJ' #tO4. THEN SELECT OFF BY USING '+' OR '-'. FOR FAX ADVANTAGE ASSISTANCE, PLEASE CALL 1--HELP-FAX C435-7329). 9~~'r~~X ~-. ~. i y~~ .K,w ~ ~~ 5 ~ ~=~- F _ ~~~~ER Engineering Condition ~4 ~' Condition-~~',~~:ociated With FL~1006-02007 632 DREW ST Steve Doherty 562-4773 03/17/2006 1. Parallel parking spaces along Drew Street (S.R. 590) do not meet City Standards. Revise plan Not Met to eliminate these spaces. The above to be addressed prior to CDB. The following to be addressed prior to building permit: 1. Any additional water meters which may be proposed or if an increase in water meter size is proposed additional water and sewer impact fees will be assessed. General Note: If the proposed project necessitates infrastructure modifications to satisfy site-specific water capacity and pressure requirements and/or wastewater capacity requirements, the modifications shall be completed by the applicant and at their expense. If underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, the installation shall be completed and in service prior to construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. General Note: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review, additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Environmental Condition Heather Faessle 562-4897 03/16/2006 No issues Not Met Fire Condition Leonard Rickard 562-4327 x3062 03/21/2006 Access to property off of streets must have 30' radius and be 24' in width. Not Met 03/21/2006 Where underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, they shall be installed, Not Met completed, and in service prior to construction as per NFPA-241. A hard road surface able to support the weight of Fire Apparatus prior to any building construction being started. Required Standpipe Systems shall be in place before construction can proceed to the next level. Please acknowledge PRIOR TO CDB Items to be addressed prior to building permit: Fire Sprinkler and Fire Alarm Systems, Tennant Not Met seperation, any other code requirements for the occupancy classifacations to be constructed. Please Acknowledge ~ - Landscape John Schodtler 727-562-4547 03/21/2006 Provide 15 copies of the existing and the proposed landscape plans Not Met 03/21/2006 Landscaping should be used as a design element fully integrated with the site and building. A well Not Met designed landscape contributes to the site's aesthetics and improves the livability in a dense urban environment. Landscaping can preserve and enhance the acoustic and visual privacy of a site while supporting and accentuating the architecture of the building facing Drew Street. Land Resource Condition Rick Albee 727-562-4741 03/14/2006 No Issues. Not Met Storm Water Condition Bob Maran 562-4592 03/13/2006 Prior to issuance of a building permit the site plan is to depict clearily what is existing and what is Not Met proposed construction. Traffic Eng Condition Bennett Elbo 562-4775 CaseConditons Print Date: 03/27/2006 Page 1 of 3 • r' _ • FLD2006-02007 632 DREW ST Traffic Eng Condition Bennett Elbo 562-4775 03/13/2006 1. Provide a City handicapped parking and sign detail on site plan. Index 118 & 119 Not Met http://www. myclearwater.com/gov/depts/pwa/engin/Production/stddet/index.asp 2. 20-foot vehicle stacking space shall be provided from back of sidewalk to face of gate on north side of site. 3. Sight triangles for north driveway are shown incorrectly. The base of the triangles is the property line. All the above to be addressed prior to CDB. General Note(s): 1) Comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule. 2) DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Zoning Condition John Schodtler 727-562-4547 03/08/2006 Provide one set of color building elevations, include the paint chips/cards Not Met 03/21/2006 Murals of Robert Schoeller Paintings are considered signage. Sign code permits one attached Not Met sign. Signs painted directly on the facade of the building are considered inappropriate. 03/21/2006 Seperate plans into two pages; 1) how the site and building elevations exist, 2) proposed changes Not Met to the site and building elevations. 03/21/2006 Provide more detail to the paver design in the parking areas. Not Met 03/21/2006 1) What type of fence/wall exists along the Jones Street property line? It is difficult to tell through Not Met the landscaping. 2)What type of fence/wall is proposed between the two buildings? 03/21/2006 Provide~more~details to~the windows/doors/and railings-omthe Drew Street building elevations. Not Met this could be done at a larger scale and on a seperate'page to demonstrate the more intricate designs. 03/21/2006 Downtown design guidelines require that parking lots be located behind the primary facade of the Not Met building. (parking in front of the office building next to the railroad tracks is considered inappropriate and creates vehicular-pedestrian circulation conflicts. The Downtown plan recognizes that the Downtown is first and foremost for pedestrians.) 03/21/2006 The eight foot tall gate proposed at the Jones Street entrance exceeds the maximum height - Not Met allowed of six feet. Staff is comfortable with the gate at six feet in height. ~` 03/21/2006 The two buildings (Drew Street Facade) need to share architectural features (doors, windows, Not Met etc). ' 03/21/2006 The buildings need to have a distinct Base, Middle, & Cap. ~,v+~vtia Not Met 03/21/2006 Properties located adjacent to the Pinellas trail that do not acknowledge it throught'~the use of Not Met connecting pedestrian paths, doors, windows, art, and such are considered inappropriate. 03/21/2006 All facades of a building should reflect a unified architectural treatment, including the sides Not Met (pinellas trail & railroad). 03/21/2006 Need to emphasize architecturally prominent entrances (Drew Street). ~oo~ - Not Met 03/21/2006 Major architectural treatments on the principal facade need to continue around all sides of the Not Met building that are visible from the public realm. 03/21/2006 Windows (Drew Street) need to create aconsistent an/d cohesive fenestration pattern. Not Met OfwT. a- b CaseConditons Print Date: 03/27/2006 Page 2 of 3 • ~ • FLD2006-02007 632 DREW ST Zoning Condition John Schodtler 727-562-4547 03/21/2006 Doors (Drew Street) need to be appropriately sized for the scale of the building facade and Not Met enhance/support the architectural style of the building. 03/21/2006 The use of a single color, on all surfaces of the building should.be.avoided. A two or three color Not Met scheme is encouraged to provide visual appeal. The main body color should be the predominant color of the building. The windows and other accent trim should be a complimentary color to the main body color, either a lighter or darker tone. 03/21/2006 Need to answer Comprehensive Infill Project criteria. - Not Met 03/21/2006 Provide a parking demand narrative to justify the reduction in parking spaces for the proposed Not Met mixed use development (27 spaces to 16 spaces). Explain what the thoughts were with regards to the number of parking spaces. Print Date: 03/27/2006 CaseConditons Page 3 of 3 ""Gio +.. • Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria March 29, 2006 l . Does not deviate from use, intensity or other standards: No. As an artist's residence and studio the use would be mixed between those 2 capacities with small office space and storage for the art studio and residence. This change would reduce the intensity from the former ice factory and A/C unit fabrication firm formerly occupying the premises to a more cultural use with art on display and formal gardens. We believe this will fit nicely with the usage/intensity standards of downtown as it creates a nice atmosphere for pedestrians etc. 2. Project will not reduce the fair market value of abutting properties. No. '/: of the abutting properties are currently unoccupied. The contractor's office to the west, the church to the NW. and the gas distribution yard to the North will not be adversely affected by the artist studio and residence. The planned renovations intend to increase the public appearance of the buildings encouraging the development of nearby lots. The current value is estimated at $650,000. We estimate with these improvements that the value would increase to $700,000. 3. The uses within the project are otherwise permitted in the City of Clearwater. Yes. The mixed uses of artist's studio, residence, office space and storage are permissible in the City of Clearwater. 4. The mix of uses are compatible with adjacent land uses. Yes: The adjacent land uses include a gas distribution yard to .the North, a.medical center to the NE, an abandoned building and a flower shop across the railroad right of way to the East, abandoned buildings both to the SE and directly South. A lumber yard sits to the SW and a contractor's office across the Pinellas Trail to the West. The adjacent land uses are quite diverse.and we see no compatibility issues with any of the surrounding properties. We feel and art studio would fit nicely between the flower shop and contractor's office on our side of Drew St. as all three deal with aesthetics and should be nicely compatible. 5. The project will upgrade the immediate vicinity. Yes. The project will upgrade the facade of both buildings giving the property a presence within the city. Taking an apparently vacant building and turning it into an obvious art center. This will. upgrade the area and hopefully encourage further development of nearby lots. 6. The design creates a form and function which enhances the community character in the immediate vicinity and the City of Clearwater as a whole. a Yes. We feel an art center would enhance the immediate community by introducing art along the Pinellas Trail and Drew St., providing pleasing architecture and landscaping and introducing a possible location for a future art gallery or museum all of which will benefit Clearwater as a city as well. 7. Lot width, setback, height and off-street parking deviations are justified by benefits to community character and the immediate vicinity as well as the entire City of Clearwater. Yes. The proposed North gate being 2' higher than the limit of 6' is justified by the high hedge surrounding the gate (10-12' hedge) in addition to the high walls of the building immediately behind it (27') and the gate posts themselves (20'). We feel that the height is necessary to balance the high walls of the building across the courtyard as well as the hedges so the gate fits to the surrounding architecture & landscaping. The parking reduction is justified by the fact that our studio has 4 times its current parking. need and anticipates no increases that would exceed that figure. See below. 8. Adequate off-street parking in the immediate vicinity will be available to avoid on street parking. Yes. 16 spaces will be shown on the plan (excluding the 4 in front of the building fagade). Over the past 12 years we have only needed 4 spaces (2 for the family/workers and 2 for guests) Should we have increased need for further employees or should multiple clients appear simultaneously we feel that 16 spaces should more than adequately accommodate them. Our business is that of Fine Art & Portraits by commission as well as custom frames and prints of the art work. We mostly do onsite visits with our clients across the US & Europe (85% of the time) with only local clients (Florida} ever visiting the studio. Most of the artwork is delivered via Parcel/Post services. The only increased parking need would be in the event that we decide to hold a show in the studio which would take place in the evening for which (as it would be a seldom occurrence) we could easily arrange parking in neighboring lots with their owners (as all of our shows would take place evenings when surrounding lots would be unused) or arrange valet service to nearby park-houses. In addition to the 16 established parking spaces on the property, the garden driveways would accommodate an additional 26 vehicles using valet parking or an additional 18 otherwise. For shows parking could be marked with temporary cones in the garden driveway bringing the total parking to 24 temporarily. ~ • • Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria March 29, 2006 1. Does not deviate from use, intensity or other standards: No. As an artist's residence and studio the use would be mixed between those 2 capacities with small office space and storage for the art studio and residence. This change would reduce the intensity from the former ice factory and A/C unit fabrication firm formerly occupying the premises to a more cultural use with art on display and formal gardens. We believe this will fit nicely with the usage/intensity standards of downtown as it creates a nice atmosphere for pedestrians etc. 2. Project will not reduce the fair market value of abutting properties. No. '/2 of the abutting properties are currently unoccupied. The contractor's office to the west, the church to the NW. and the gas distribution yard to the North will not be adversely affected by the artist studio and residence. The planned renovations intend to increase the public appearance of the buildings encouraging the development of nearby lots. The current value is estimated at $650,000. We estimate with these improvements that the value would increase to $700,000. 3. The uses within the project are otherwise permitted in the City of Clearwater. Yes. The mixed uses of artist's studio, residence, office space and storage are permissible in the City of Clearwater. 4. The mix of uses are compatible with adjacent land uses. Yes: The adjacent land uses include a gas distribution yard to the North, a medical center to the NE, an abandoned building and a flower shop across the railroad right of way to the East, abandoned buildings both to the SE and directly South. A lumber yard sits to the SW and a contractor's office across the Pinellas Trail to the West. The adjacent land uses are quite diverse.and we see no compatibility issues with any of the surrounding properties. We feel and art studio would fit nicely between the flower shop and contractor's office on our side of Drew St. as all three deal with aesthetics and should be nicely compatible. 5. The project will upgrade the immediate vicinity. Yes. The project will upgrade the facade of both buildings giving the property a presence within the city. Taking an apparently vacant building and turning it into an obvious art center. This will upgrade the area and hopefully encourage further development of nearby lots. 6. The design creates a form and function which enhances the community character in the immediate vicinity and the City of Clearwater as a whole. a • • Yes. We feel an art center would enhance the immediate community by introducing art along the Pinellas Trail and Drew St., providing pleasing architectwe and landscaping and introducing a possible location for a future art gallery or museum all of which will benefit Clearwater as a city as well. 7. Lot width, setback, height and off-street parking deviations are justified by benefits to community chazacter and the immediate vicinity as well as the entire City of Clearwater. Yes. The proposed North gate being 2' higher than the limit of 6' is justified by the high hedge swrounding the gate (10-12' hedge) in addition to the high walls of the building immediately behind it (27') and the gate posts themselves (20'). We feel that the height is necessary to balance the high walls of the building across the courtyard as well as the hedges so the gate fits to the surrounding architectwe & landscaping. The pazking reduction is justified by the fact that our studio has 4 times its current parking need and anticipates no increases that would exceed that figure. See below. 8. Adequate off-street parking in the immediate vicinity will be available to avoid on street parking. Yes. 16 spaces will be shown on the plan (excluding the 4 in front of the building facade). Over the past 12 years we have only needed 4 spaces (2 for the family/workers and 2 for guests) Should we have increased need for further employees or should multiple clients appear simultaneously we feel that 16 spaces should more than adequately accommodate them. Our business is that of Fine Art & Portraits by commission as well as custom frames and prints of the art work. We mostly do onsite visits with ow clients across the US & Europe (85% of the time) with only local clients (Florida) ever visiting the studio. Most of the artwork is delivered via ParceUPost services. The only increased parking need would be in the event that we decide to hold a show. in the studio which would take place in the evening for which (as it would be a seldom occurrence) we could easily arrange parking in neighboring lots with their owners (as all of ow shows would take place evenings when surrounding lots would be unused) or arrange valet service to nearby park-houses. In addition to the 16 established parking spaces on the property, the garden driveways would accommodate an additional 26 vehicles using valet parking or an additional 18 otherwise. For shows parking could be marked with temporary cones in the garden driveway bringing the total parking to 24 temporarily. • ~ Schodtler, John From: Tim Schoeller [tim@schoellerfineart.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 9:41 AM To: Schodtler, John Cc: Thompson, Neil Subject: Re: 632 Drew St. fId2006-02007 -landscaping Dear John, In that case I would like to forward these concerns to Neil at this time in order to save time at the meeting. It is my understanding that we have about 20 mins to discuss our plan. This - as we know from our last meeting - is not likely to be sufficient to address all of the concerns on the fax. In order to be well prepared for the meeting I would like to do as much discussion as possible before then - hence my dismay at the small amount of time in which to do so. That way it will shorten the length of the meeting and make it more enjoyable to all present I would hope if we can start discussion on these issue in advance. Is Neil concerned with landscaping alone or planning as well? Thank You, Tim Schoeller On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 15:31:44 -0500, <John.SchodtlerC~myClearwater.com> wrote: > Tim, > When you come in to the Development Review Committee meeting on > Thursday, my manager, Neil Thompson will be available to go over in more > detail the comments you have received. I will be out of town for the > meeting, but Mr. Thompson has been involved with your project from day > one. > At this point, all we ask is that you read the comments and have any > questions or concerns prepared to discuss at the meeting. > John Schodtler > Planner II > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Schoeller [mailto:tim@schoellerfineart.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 1:34 PM > To: Schodtler, John > Subject: 632 Drew St. f1d2006-02007 - landscaping > Dear John, > I received your landscaping comments on our site plan submission today. > All of the landscaping is existing. That is why there is only one plan. > There is nothing left to do, it is already .done with the exception of the > small pool in the parking lot which came up in the stop work orders. It > is now in partial construction. Owing to the fact that the only proposed > landscaping was to finish the partially constructed pool we deemed it > would be rather redundant to have 2 plans for this. Sorry I did not make > this clearer on the plans. > Your 2nd comment is rather vague. I can only assume that you would like > more plants along the Drew St. Facade as it is the only area that is not > saturated with landscaping. It would be entirely possible to remove the > asphalt/concrete and plant grass and some other landscaping in front of > the buildings and we do agree that it would look nice. However as we are > planning to extend the building to the sidewalk this would cause further > problems in the future as we would then have a reduction in impervious 1 r;. > surface area in the next site plan not to mention the irrigation problems > and other expenses for a temporary lawn. The landscaping plan was > meticulous in it's conception with the intent of harmonizing with the > existing architecture. It effectively combines the 2 structures in an > aesthetic fashion which at the same time buffers the difference in > construction mediums of the 2 structures. It is possibly difficult to > see > on the plan but the landscaping is designed in such a way as to separate > the 2 buildings into their own areas without having an obvious border. > Tall hedges are used to improve the sight and feel of the garden. If you > feel that there should be a plant presence along the front of the > building > we might be able to plan something but I need more specific information > as > to what you are requiring, why it is necessary and who is requesting > it/able to make decisions about it. > Yours, Tim Schoeller Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ 2 • : ` -- Schodtler, John From: Tim Schoeller [tim@schoellerfineart.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 9:29 AM To: Schodtler, John Subject: Re: 632 Drew St. fId2006-02007 -Zoning Dear John, That does change things a bit. It was my understanding that if these issues are not resolved by the meeting than we are set back a month. If this is not the case when do we have till to correct these issues? Additionally, based on our answers what do you recommend we do about these points? I understand you will not be at the meeting but since we are not very familiar with these proceedings and know of no way in which to inform ourselves other than inquiry such as this I would much appreciate if you would tell me what our best course of action would be with our plan. Knowning more of what we should expect what would you recommend how might proceed most efficiently? Basically; what happens after the meeting tomorrow, What sort of compromises might we expect and what time frame are we looking at to make it to the next CDB? Thank you, Tim Schoeller On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 16:31:00 -0500, <John.Schodtler@myClearwater.com> wrote: .. > Tim, > These items are not required to be resubmitted by the meeting. > They are there to let you know of the concerns the City has so you will > be prepared to talk about them and discuss options with the board. > John Schodtler > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Schoeller [mailto:tim@schoellerfineart.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 4:04 PM > To: Schodtler, John > Subject: 632 Drew St. f1d2006-02007 - Zoning > Dear John, > I received your Zoning Comments today. I am going to need some help in > getting your list of issues resolved. I have to say that I am somewhat > disappointed by your requests seeing as I was at your desk over a month > ago with the express intent of gaining this sort of insight. It is my > understanding that I have less than 48 hours now in which to address > these > issues and will do my best. I hope you can understand my disappointment > and I would like an explanation and any advice on what I could do to > avoid > this in the future. > 1. provide one set of color building elevations: > Will have this to you tomorrow - sorry it has not been done yet. > 2. Demonstrate murals are not signage: > How would you like us to demonstrate the murals are not signs? We are > proposing to put a painting on the wall with the name of the painting and > the name of the artist below it. We can print out an example of one of > the paintings with the text below it? Would this satisfy this > requirement? > 3. separate plans into 2 pages or proposed/existing. > I feel it is a bit late in the game to request 2 separate plans and 1 ~' f > somewhat unnecessary. You have both existing and proposed o~he > elevations already. The fact is that most changes are in the interest of > rejuvenating the facade and would not appear anywhere but on the > elevations anyway. These are small changes such as the decorative > molding, the handrail and staircase, new doors, some stucco work and > murals which only affect the elevations. The only changes you would have > on the site plan would be the addition of the back gate posts, the > proposed new fence and the'new staircase along Drew St. These are the > only 3 differences you would see between the proposed/existing plan. > Would it not be sufficient to note these 3 factors somewhere? The new > fence is clearly marked and the 2 gate posts and the staircase are shown > on the existing/proposed elevations already. Everything else will remain > unchanged. > 4. what type of fence exists along Jones st. and what material will the > new fence be?: > The fence along Jones St. is 6' chain link. It is being sheltered from > view by hedges along the outside of the fence. The proposed new fence > will be wood slat construction (solid) to separate the parking lot from > the residential garden area. > 5. Provide more window door and railing detail on Drew St. Facades.: > Will get to work on this. The windows will not change as they have long > since be done. I will provide detail of the railing and new doors on the > Ice house. There will be no new doors/windows on the East building. > 6. Parking must be located behind the primary facade: > The parking in front of the building has been there for the entire time > we > have occupied the buildings. We have not experienced any pedestrian > conflicts any different than pulling into the side of the building. Are > these spaces not grandfathered in? All the parking on the plan is > existing and has been there for some time. We can consider this overflow > parking and primarily use the side spaces, only using the front spaces in > case of a show (evenings). It's not that we need these parking spaces as > we have never needed more than 4 spaces in the last 12 years but we have > nowhere else to include extra spaces without demolishing existing garden > area. It seems this will have to be brought up at the CDB anyway? > 7. 8' tall gate exceeds 6' restriction: > The last gate which was approved was 12' tall. It has already been > reduced it to 8'. It really would look silly being so short with such > high gate posts. The hight of the gate posts is necessary based on the > size of the building behind it so that the gate is in harmony with the > building behind it as they are both seen together. Additionally the gate > itself will not be a complete wind/sight barrier, the black slats will be > 4" to the rear of the white front slats affording a 4" gap through which > wind may pass and glimpses may be had. It seems that there would > logically be a distinction for a gate verses the fence itself as far as > height restrictions go; is this not the case? The hedge along jones > gives > an appearance of a higher fence which is another reason the gate should > be > higher as the hedge is generally 8' tall. Additionally our neighbor > across the bike trail has an 8' fence. How was this done? > 8. Show how 2 buildings share architectural features on Drew st.: > First, they are 2 separate buildings. Second, they will both have > paintings on them and be painted the same color. Third, during phase II > of the project they will be extended to the sidewalk and have matching > facades as shown on the plan I had left for you initially showing both > phase I and II. > 9. Show how buildings have distinct base, middle & cap: > On the Ice house the moulding along the top separates the middle and cap > and the railing separates the base and middle. This is the way it was > constructed almost a century ago and we do not see how the facade will 2 i ~- > benefit from further modification. on the A/C building (Eas~)we are > leaving the wall intact and only removing the damaged awning. Any base, > middle and cap would interfere with the murals and be temporary anyway as > phase II will address this issue on both buildings. I do not consider > this too much to ask considering the substantial improvement already > planned as well as the surrounding facades. Would you like another look > at phase II? Do you still have the copy I left you? We are only doing > the Phase 1/II due to time restrictions being imposed by the City. Since > we would be building still were it not so I feel that you are obligated > accept our phase 1/phase II poposals and not restrict our phase 1 plan > based on issues resolved by phase II as both are improvments in the right > direction. > 10. show acknowledgment of Pinellas trail with pedestrian paths, doors, > windows, art: > Please note the 4 murals expressly for bike trail goers on the west > facade. Additionally the bike trail traverses Drew St. as well which > affords pedestrian friendly entrances. We additionally promise to > institute a bike rack in the event we open a gallery to the public > (contingent upon local economy/demand). > il. Major architectural treatments need to continue around visible sides > of building: > We are not planning any major architectural treatments. The only > treatment at all is the moulding on the Ice House facade which would > interfere with the murals along the bike trail should it wrap around the > building. Also the facade is higher than the side walls which would also > cause a conflict as the moulding would run out of wall in short order > were > it to wrap around. > 12. Windows on Drew st. need to be consistent between two buildings: > This is not possible as they are 2 separate buildings and were > constructed > differently. In addition phase II would address this. > 13. Prominent entrances need architectural emphasis with doors scaled to > building size. > Grandfathered in and will also be resolved with phase 2. > 14. Don't use a single color on all surfaces of the building, use 2 or 3 > color scheme between main body color, window and other accent trim to > provide visual appeal: > The windows are cast stone on the ice house and aluminum on the A/C > building. This is in contrast to the color of the wall. The murals > again > are in contrast to both of these again. The doors, being wood will be > stained a darker color giving contrast to the entrance points. > 15. Answer Comp Infill criteria: > Upon reading the questions they all seem to be answered by this email and > the answers to the questions on the application. Did I not answer the > questions on the application or are these different? I will go ahead and > give as much information as I can .on these questions but. it .is difficult > to know what sort of answers you would need. On the parking for instance > we do consider it is sufficient and can therefore say yes but we also > know > you consider it to be insufficient so should we then say no? This issue > is answered below much better I would think. The rest of the questions > do > not seem applicable or I would not know what to answer besides yes or no. > 16. Provide parking demand narrative to justify parking reduction: > We have never needed more than 4 parking spaces in the last 12 years. > Gallery space cannot be compared to retail space in it's parking > requirement as is being done in our case. Furthermore Mr. Schoeller's > work is larger than most artists requiring more space for the same amount 3 tw f > of art. Mr. Schoeller is also particular about the hanging of his > paintings and is much against the crowding of paintings you usually see > in > galleries requiring yet more space for the same amount of art. > There being larger paintings to see does not increase the amount of > visitors as it is the quality of the art not the quantity that attracts > people. The amount of visitors will depend on the amount of people in > the > area who admire and can afford his work. > Per our experience over the last 12 years having 10 simultaneous visitors > would be beyond our greatest expectations. As reference you may inquire > into Jim Warren's gallery on Cleavland having a comparable number of > works > on display with 3 parking spaces. > As far as events go, were we to host a major event (evenings) of which we > have only ever held one in the last 12 years (there was adequate parking > on the premises) valet parking to friendly neighbors or park-houses could > be accomplished with minimal effort. > We therefore see no need for so many spaces. The proximity of the garden > street parking garage also should be a factor in our favor despite the > 500' limit as well as the pedestrian orientation of downtown Clearwater. > I will get the colored elevations and paint samples to you tomorrow. > Please do let me know as soon as you can on these other points. > Yours, Tim Schoeller Using Opera's revolutionary a-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ 4 • _ • ., Schodtler, John From: Schodtler, John Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 4:31 PM To: 'Tim Schoeller' Cc: Thompson, Neil Subject: RE: 632 Drew St. fId2O06-02007 -Zoning Tim, These items are not required to be resubmitted by the meeting. They are there to let you know of the concerns the City has so you will be prepared to talk about them and discuss options with the board. John Schodtler -----Original Message----- From: Tim Schoeller [mailto:timC~schoellerfineart.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 4:04 PM To: Schodtler, John Subject: 632 Drew St. f1d2006-02007 - Zoning Dear John, I received your Zoning Comments today. I am going to need some help in getting your list of issues resolved. I have to say that I am somewhat disappointed by your requests seeing as I was at your desk over a month ago with the express intent of gaining this sort of insight. It is my understanding that I have less than 48 hours now in which to address these issues and will do my best. I hope you can understand my disappointment and I would like an explanation and any advice on what I could do to avoid this in the future. 1. provide one set of color building elevations: Will have this to you tomorrow - sorry it has not been done yet. 2. Demonstrate murals are not signage: How would you like us to demonstrate the murals are not signs? We are proposing to put a painting on the wall with the name of the painting and the name of the artist below it. We can print out an example of one of the paintings with the text below it? Would this satisfy this requirement? 3. separate plans into 2 pages or proposed/existing. I feel it is a bit late in the game to request 2 separate plans and somewhat unnecessary. You have both existing and proposed on the elevations already. The fact is that most changes are in the interest of rejuvenating the facade and would not appear anywhere but on the elevations anyway. These are small changes such as the decorative molding, the handrail and staircase, new doors, some stucco work and murals which only affect the elevations. The only changes you would have on the site plan would be the addition of the back gate posts, the proposed new fence and the new staircase along Drew St. These are the only 3 differences you would see between the proposed/existing plan. Would it not be sufficient to note these 3 factors somewhere? The new fence is clearly marked and the 2 gate posts and the staircase are shown on the existing/proposed elevations already. Everything else will remain unchanged. 4. what type of fence exists along Jones st. and what material will the new fence be?: The fence along Jones St. is 6' chain link. It is being sheltered from view by hedges along the outside of the fence. The proposed new fence will be wood slat construction (solid) to separate the parking lot from the residential garden area. 1 • • ,~ 5. Provide more window door and railing detail on Drew St. Facades.: Will get to work on this. The windows will not change as they have long since be done. I will provide detail of the railing and new doors on the Ice house. There will be no new doors/windows on the East building. 6. Parking must be located behind the primary facade: The parking in front of the building has been there for the entire time we have occupied the buildings. We have not experienced any pedestrian conflicts any different than pulling into the side of the building. Are these spaces not grandfathered in? All the parking on the plan is existing and has been there for some time. We can consider this overflow parking and primarily use the side spaces, only using the front spaces in case of a show (evenings). It's not that we need these parking spaces as we have never needed more than 4 spaces in the last 12 years but we have nowhere else to include extra spaces without demolishing existing garden area. It seems this will have to be brought up at the CDB anyway? 7. 8' tall gate exceeds 6' restriction: The last gate which was approved was 12' tall. It has already been reduced it to 8'. It really would look silly being so short with such high gate posts. The hight of the gate posts is necessary based on the size of the building behind it so that the gate is in harmony with the building behind it as they are both seen together. Additionally the gate itself will not be a complete wind/sight barrier, the black slats will be 4" to the rear of the white front slats affording a 4" gap through which wind may pass and glimpses may be had. It seems that there would logically be a distinction for a gate verses the fence itself as far as height restrictions go; is this not the case? The hedge along Jones gives an appearance of a higher fence which is another reason the gate should be higher as the hedge is generally 8' tall. Additionally our neighbor across the bike trail has an 8' fence. How was this done? 8. Show how 2 buildings share architectural features on Drew st.: First, they are 2 separate buildings. Second, they will both have paintings on them and be painted the same color. Third, during phase II of the project they will be extended to the sidewalk and have matching facades as shown on the plan I had left for you initially showing both phase I and II. 9. Show how buildings have distinct base, middle & cap: On the Ice house the moulding along the top separates the middle and cap and the railing separates the base and middle. This is the way it was constructed almost a century ago and we do not see how the facade will benefit from further modification. on the A/C building (East)we are leaving the wall intact and only removing the damaged awning. Any base, middle and cap would interfere with the murals and be temporary anyway as phase II will address this issue on both buildings. I do not consider this too much to ask considering the substantial improvement already planned as well as the surrounding facades. Would you like another look at phase II? Do you still have the copy I left you? We are only doing the Phase 1/II due to time restrictions being imposed by the City. Since we would be building still were it not so I feel that you are obligated accept our phase 1/phase II poposals and not restrict our phase 1 plan based on issues resolved by phase II as both are improvments in the right direction. 10. show acknowledgment of Pinellas trail with pedestrian paths, doors, windows, art: Please note the 4 murals expressly for bike trail goers on the west facade. Additionally the bike trail traverses Drew St. as well which affords pedestrian friendly entrances. We additionally promise to institute a bike rack in the event we open a gallery to the public (contingent upon local economy/demand). 11. Major architectural treatments need to continue around visible sides of building: 2 We are not planning anv ma~o~architectural__treatxments. The only treatment at all is the moulding on the Ice House facade which would interfere with the murals along the bike trail should it wrap around the building. Also the facade is higher than the side walls which would also cause a conflict as the moulding would run out of wall in short order were it to wrap around. 12. Windows on Drew st. need to be consistent between two buildings: This is not possible as they are 2 separate buildings and were constructed differently. In addition phase II would address this. 13. Prominent entrances need architectural emphasis with doors scaled to building size. Grandfathered in and will also be resolved with phase 2. 14. Don't use a single color on all surfaces of the building, use 2 or 3 color scheme between main body color, window and other accent trim to provide visual appeal: The windows are cast stone on the ice house and aluminum on the A/C building. This is in contrast to the color of the wall. The murals again are in contrast to both of these again. The doors, being wood will be stained a darker color giving contrast to the entrance points. 15. Answer Comp Infill criteria: Upon reading the questions they all seem to be answered by this email and the answers to the questions on the application. Did I not answer the questions on the application or are these different? I will go ahead and give as much information as I can on these questions but it is difficult to know what sort of answers you would need. On the parking for instance we do consider it is sufficient and can therefore say yes but we also know you consider it to be insufficient so should we then say no? This issue is answered below much better I would think. The rest of the questions do not seem applicable or I would not know what to answer besides yes or no. 16. Provide parking demand narrative to justify parking reduction: We have never needed more than 4 parking spaces in the last 12 years. Gallery space cannot be compared to retail space in it's parking requirement as is being done in our case. Furthermore Mr. Schoeller's work is larger than most artists requiring more space for the same amount of art. Mr. Schoeller is also particular about the hanging of his paintings and is much against the crowding of paintings you usually see in galleries requiring yet more space for the same amount of art. There being larger paintings to see does not increase the amount of visitors as it is the quality of the art not the quantity that attracts people. The amount of visitors will depend on the amount of people in the area who admire and can afford his work. Per our experience over the last 12 years having 10 simultaneous visitors would be beyond our greatest expectations. As reference you may inquire into Jim Warren's gallery on Cleavland having a comparable number of works on display with 3 parking spaces. As far as events go, were we to host a major event (evenings) of which we have only ever held one in the last 12 years (there was adequate parking on the premises) valet parking to friendly neighbors or park-houses could be accomplished with minimal effort. We therefore see no need for so many spaces. The proximity of the garden street parking garage also should be a factor in our favor despite the 500' limit as well as the pedestrian orientation of downtown Clearwater. I will get the colored elevations and paint samples to you tomorrow. Please do let me know as soon as you can on these other points. Yours, Tim Schoeller 3 Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ • a._.~s_ ~s~ __~ .~.ri .~ 'Schodtler,,Johrr__ To: Tim Schoeller Subject: RE: 632 Drew St. fId2006-02007 -landscaping Tim, When you come in to the Development Review Committee meeting on Thursday, my manager, Neil Thompson will be available to go over in more detail the comments you have received. I will be out of town for the meeting, but Mr. Thompson has been involved with your project from day one. At this point, all we ask is that you read the comments and have any questions or concerns prepared to discuss at the meeting. John Schodtler Planner II -Original Message----- . ___ n ~ .._._w .. ._~~ _~ _~_~ -~ From Tim Schoeller [mailtoaim@schoeiterfineart comj _ _ y ~ ~_ ~_ .___ _ _ __._~. , _.__w Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 1:34 PM To: Schodtler, John Subject: 632 Drew St. fId2006-02007 -landscaping Dear John, I received your landscaping comments on our site plan submission today. All of the landscaping is existing. That is why there is only one plan. There is nothing left to do, it is already done with the exception of the small pool in the parking lot which came up in the stop work orders. It is now in partial construction. Owing to the fact that the only proposed landscaping was to finish the partially constructed pool we deemed it would be rather redundant to have 2 plans for this. Sorry I did not make this clearer on the plans. Your 2nd comment is rather vague. I can only assume that you would like more plants along the Drew St. Facade as it is the only area that is not saturated with landscaping. It would be entirely possible to remove the asphalt/concrete and plant grass and some other landscaping in front of the buildings and we do agree that it would look nice. However as we are planning to extend the building to the sidewalk this would cause further problems in the future as we would then have a reduction in impervious surface area in the next site plan not to mention the irrigation problems and other expenses for a temporary lawn. The landscaping plan was meticulous in it's conception with the intent of harmonizing with the existing architecture. It effectively combines the 2 structures in an aesthetic fashion which at the same time buffers the difference in construction mediums of the 2 structures. It is possibly difficult to see on the plan but the landscaping is designed in such a way as to separate the 2 buildings into their own areas without having an obvious border. Tall hedges are used to improve the sight and feel of the garden. If you feel that there should be a plant presence along the front of the building we might be able to plan something but I need more specific information as to what you are requiring, why it is necessary and who is requesting it/able to make decisions about it. ~ ~ Yours, Tim Schoeller Using Opera's revolutionary a-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ ~ ~ • CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT Post Office Box 4748, Clearwater, Florida 33758-4748 Municipal Services Building, 100 South Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, Florida 33756 Telephone (727) 562-4567 Fax (727) 562-4576 March 27, 2006 TIM SCHOELLER 632 DREW ST CLEARWATER, FL 33755 RE: FLS2005-12103 LOCATED AT - 632 DREW ST Dear : TIM SCHOELLER The following are comments generated at the City's Pre-Development Review Committee (PRE-DRC) meeting regarding your case number: FLS2005-12103. These comments are generated early to give you assistance in preparing responses to the comments for the upcoming DRC Meeting on: Thursday, March 30, 2006 Please be prepared to address these comments and any others that maybe generated at the DRC meeting. Resubmittals will not be accepted at the meeting, please make arrangements to resubmit to Sherry Watkins after the DRC meeting. If you have any questions about times or location, please contact Sherry Watkins, at 727-562-4582. Sincerely, Jo Schodtler, Planner II cc: File DRC Pre-DRC Comments Mail Out r,~S~~~~~~'~ -. =~'~ =- -.~~~I f,~,,* Engineering Condition r .Conditions Associated With FLD2006-02007 632 DREW ST Steve Doherty 03/17/2006 1. Parallel parking spaces along Drew Street (S.R. 590) do not meet City Standards. Revise plan to eliminate these spaces. The above to be addressed prior to CDB. The following to be addressed prior to building permit: 1. Any additional water meters which may be proposed or if an increase in water meter size is proposed additional water and sewer impact fees will be assessed. General Note: If the proposed project necessitates infrastructure modifications to satisfy site-specific water capacity and pressure requirements and/or wastewater capacity requirements, the modifications shall be completed by the applicant and at their expense. If underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, the installation shall be completed and in service prior to construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. General Note: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review, additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Environmental Condition Heather Faessle 562-4897 03/16/2006 No issues Fire Condition Leonard Rickard 562-4327 x3062 Not Met Not Met 03/21/2006 Access to property off of streets must have 30' radius and be 24' in width. Not Met 03/21/2006 Where underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, they shall be installed, Not Met completed, and in service prior to construction as per NFPA-241. A hard road surface able to support the weight of Fire Apparatus prior to any building construction being started. Required Standpipe Systems shall be in place before construction can proceed to the next level. Please acknowledge PRIOR TO CDB Items to be addressed prior to building permit: Fire Sprinkler and Fire Alarm Systems, Tennant Not Met seperation, any other code requirements for the occupancy classifacations to be constructed. Please Acknowledge Landscape John Schodtler 562-4773 727-562-4547 03/21/2006 Provide 15 copies of the existing and the proposed landscape plans. Not Met 03/21/2006 Landscaping should be used as a design element fully integrated with the site and building. A well Not Met designed landscape contributes to the site's aesthetics and improves the livability in a dense urban environment. Landscaping can preserve and enhance the acoustic and visual privacy of a site while supporting and accentuating the architecture of the building facing Drew Street. Land Resource Condition Rick Albee 727-562-4741 03/14/2006 No Issues. Not Met Storm Water Condition Bob Maran 562-4592 03/13/2006 Prior to issuance of a building permit the site plan is to depict clearily what is existing and what is Not Met proposed construction. Traffic Eng Condition Bennett Elbo 562-4775 Print Date: 03/27/2006 CaseConditons Page 1 of 3 • • FLD2006-02007 632 DREW ST Traffic Eng Condition Bennett Elbo 562-4775 03/13/2006 1. Provide a City handicapped parking and sign detail on site plan. Index 118 ~ 119 Not Met http://www. myclearwater. com/gov/depts/pwa/eng in/Prod uction/stddet/index. asp 2. 20-foot vehicle stacking space shall be provided from back of sidewalk to face of gate on north side of site. 3. Sight triangles for north driveway are shown incorrectly. The base of the triangles is the property line. All the above to be addressed prior to CDB. General Note(s): 1) Comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule. 2) DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Zoning Condition John Schodtler 727-562-4547 03/08/2006 Provide one set of color building elevations, include the paint chips/cards Not Met 03/21/2006 Demonstrate that the murals of Robert Schoeller Paintings are not considered signage. Not Met 03/21/2006 Seperate plans into two pages; 1) how the site and building elevations exist, 2) proposed changes Not Met to the site and building elevations. 03/21/2006 1) What type of fence/wall exists along the Jones Street property line? It is difficult to tell through Not Met the landscaping. 2)What type of fence/wall is proposed between the two buildings? 03/21/2006 Provide more details to the windows/doors/and railings on the Drew Street building elevations. Not Met Also provide more details to the paver design in the parking areas. This could be done at a larger scale and on a seperate page to demonstrate the more intricate designs. 03/21/2006 Downtown design guidelines require that parking lots be located behind the primary facade of the Not Met building. (parking in front of the office building next to the railroad tracks is considered inappropriate and creates vehicular-pedestrian circulation conflicts. The Downtown plan recognizes that the Downtown is first and foremost for pedestrians.) 03/21/2006 The eight foot tall gate proposed at the Jones Street entrance exceeds the maximum height Not Met allowed of six feet. Staff is comfortable with the gate at six feet in height. 03/21/2006 Demonstrate how the two buildings (Drew Street Facade) share architectural features (doors, Not Met windows, etc). 03/21/2006 Demonstrate how the proposed building facades have a distinct Base, Middle, & Cap. Not Met 03/21/2006 Demonstrate how the property located adjacent to the Pinellas trail acknowledges it through the Not Met use of connecting pedestrian paths, doors, windows, art, and such are considered appropriate. 03/21/2006 Major architectural treatments on the principal facade need to continue around all sides of the Not Met building that are visible from the public realm. 03/21/2006 Windows (Drew Street) need to create a consistent and cohesive fenestration pattern between the Not Met two buildings. 03/21/2006 Need to emphasize architecturally prominent entrances (Drew Street). Doors (Drew Street) need Not Met to be appropriately sized for the scale of the building facade and enhance/support the architectural style of the building. 03/21/2006 The use of a single color on all surfaces of the building shall be avoided. A two or three color Not Met scheme shall be utilized to provide visual appeal. The main body color should be the predominant color of the building. The windows and other accent trim should be a complimentary color to the Print Date: 03/27/2006 CaseConditons Page 2 of 3 • FLD2006-02007 632 DREW ST Zoning Condition John Schodtler 727-562-4547 main body color, either a lighter or darker tone. 03/21/2006 Need to answer Comprehensive Infill Project criteria. Not Met 03/21/2006 Provide a parking demand narrative to justify the reduction in parking spaces for the proposed Not Met mixed use development (27 spaces to 16 spaces). Explain what the thoughts were with regards to the number of parking spaces. Print Date: 03/27/2006 CaseConditons Page 3 of 3 WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria) ^ Provide complete responses to the eight (8) COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT CRITERIA- Explain how each criteria is achieved, in detail: 1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel, proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from one or more of the following: use, intensity, other development standards. 2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a comprehensive infill redevelopment project or residential infill project will not reduce the fair market value of abutting properties. (Include the existing value of the site and the proposed value of the site with the improvements.) 3. The uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are otherwise permitted in the City of Clearwater. 4. The uses or mix of use within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are compatible with adjacent land uses. 5. The development of the parcel proposed for development, as a comprehensive infill redevelopment project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. 6. The design of the proposed comprehensive infill redevelopment project creates a form and function, which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. 7. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified by the benefits to community character and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. 8. Adequate off-street parking in the immediate vicinity according to the shared parking formula in Division 14 of Article 3 will be available to avoid on-street parking in the immediate vicinity of parcel proposed for development. S:\Planning DepartmentWpplication Forms\development review\2006 Forms\Comprehensive Infill Project (FlD) 2006.doc Page 3 of 7 ~~ ~ -~ ~?3 Mar. 27 2006 04:44PM YOUR LOGO YOUR FAX N0. 7275624865 N0. OTHER FACSIMILE START TIME USAGE TIME MODE PAGES RESULT 01 94614223 Mar. 27 04:41PM 03'00 SND 05 OK TO TURN OFF Rl3'DRT, PRESS 'MENU' #04. THEN SELECT OFF BY USING '+' OR '-'. FOR FAX ADVANTAGE ASSISTANCE, PLEBE CALL 1-800-F-~.P-FAX C435-73291. Clearwater February 27, 2006 Robert Schoeller 632 Drew St Clearwater, F133755 CITY~O-F CLE~RWA`~~E`R PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576 W W W . MYC LEARWATER. C OM RE: FLD2006-02007 -- 632 DREW ST -- Letter of Completeness Dear Robert Schoeller The Planning Staff has entered your application into the Department's filing system and assigned the case number: FLD2006-02007. After a preliminary review of the submitted documents, staff has determined that the application is comulete. The Development Review Committee (DRC) will review the application for sufficiency on March 30, 2006, in the Planning Department conference room -Room 216 - on the second floor of the Municipal Services Building. The building is located at 100 South Myrtle Avenue in downtown Clearwater. You will be contacted by the Planning Department's Administrative Analyst within one week prior to the meeting date for the approximate time that your case will be reviewed. You or your representative (as applicable) must be present to answer any questions that the DRC may have regarding your application. Additional comments maybe generated by the DRC at the time of the meeting. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 727-562-4547 or John. Schodtler@myclearwater.com. Sincerely yours, ~~%.R.~r~ly~-- Jo n Schodtler Planner I Letter of Completeness - FLD2006-01007 - 632 DREW ST ~1G ~ - ~ z~ ~ ~ Feb. 27 2006 01:12PM YOUR LOGO YOUR FAX N0. 7275624865 N0. OTHER FACSIMILE START TIME USAGE TIME MODE PAGES RESULT 01 94614223 Feb. 27 01:11PM 01'02 SND 01 OK TO TURN OFF REPORT, P1~SS 'MENU' #04. TI-®+l SELECT OFF BY USING '+' OR '-'. FOR FAX ADVANTAGE ASSISTANCE, PLEASE CALL 1-800-HELP-FAX C435-7329). FLD2006-02007 632 Drew Street ~. 3/6/2006 `~fr'~I f3PANT lp3~ by o-~ 3u ~ ~'-"~~ ~~ ~ iI--~ -ST g~g ~~ ~ CPRLTON ~ 1.~. ~ g ~~ ~ ¢ a ~ TMPGERNE a Sf @/C$PAN 0~ ~ jq Z ~ ~DPYQL ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ yu ~~ usnLtE 57 a PntM ~~ a,c 0 sr PN M ~urF sT d ~ ~ ~ d d O CT~' ~ ~ $ %- ~ ~ ~ ~ a cEaR sT o e ~° PALL&T70 ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ N m NIWDLSDN Q ^ ~~ ~o.o~^oc~~~ ,~ ~~®~~ O - ~ ~ Sf ELDRIDQE ST MMLE ~ O LEE 5T a a PNTn O ~ < ~ a ~ S7 31CK50N RD PROJECT ~Gw SITE ~ ~~~ ~ Z k ES s 9T ; Og~ ~ ~ 4 ~ Q7EW ST SR. 6B0 ~ [~ ~§~ ~ ~ ~ DBC~ N.E. a'Y~^ N PORK ~ <~ ~ ~ ~ ~a~~~ ^~~a ~ ~ PIERCE ' ~ PEE 3T ~~ D D O Pr-RCE ~ ~ ~ ~Ka~~ a ~ ~ ~ =a~ ~ o ~ a ~T ~ a®^C1 g~~oo~~~ A Rosh '~ &POwNEIl Sr a^ ~ ~ ^ a~~ ~ ~-~ d L_J OESTNUT Si COURT Si _ ROGERQ ~ ^ ~ ~ a RO(ERS ~ ^ ~~ R TURD.-~.J O~ a ~~~ 1NRatp ^ ~ ~ PINE ~ L4 wg Poan PINE PIPE 3T PINE ~ ~ ~~~ Y~ Z @ PILE ~ = U 3 ~ <~~ ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ DH11D ORUIO RD W CRUID RD Z Location Map Owner. Robert Schoeller Case: FLD2006-02007 Sites: 632 Drew Street Property 1.51 Size Acres Atlas 2776 Pa e: PINS: 09/29/15/44353/007/0010 S:\Planning Department\c u is\r~t~ {r~u/ ~renaing cwe~wF~ PvP nIa PICAI ~~~- ~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~.~•~ ~- w-- ~~~ House (D-OB) JVS\maps\location.doc r ,~ ~ ~ -' i ._ _~ ~! ~~ ..1 R _ ~ Iw = ;~ w t . .1. t Y^ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ `~ •• _ _ it -_ / ±~ih K ~ R ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ •~Ve ~~/~~~~~i~. .!l?t~'L.~' 8l' ~ ~ ~, e - ~ _ _ ~ i ~ ~~ '~~ ` • ~ r~ P f. ' ~L ~ ~_ ~ ~ ~ l~ ._ 'i~ • 4 ! 'I ~2 • e ~ ~ i ~' s. ^. £ J ~ a ,~ _,• f ~t ~ r ~ ~~ i - + " a h ~' " i ~~ J 1 ,~ ' i ,~ : r ~~ ~ ~, t ~ r 1 ;~ t 1, ~~L "~ ~.. !~ ~ x .. .P ~~ ~ _ ~ -~..~.. M ~ ~ : }_ t - y ~ ~ w Aerial Map Owner: Robert Schoeller Case: FLD2006-02007 Sites: 632 Drew Street Property 1.51 Size(AcresL _ _ _ Atlas 2776 Pa e: - - - ---- PINS: 09/29/15/44353/007/0010 S:\Planning Department\L U ti\r~tx (rw/ ~renaing coses~up ivr rnC ~,C,c~ urci. woovw ~~~~ .~~~•• ~~ w+~ ~~-~- House (D-OB) JVS\mops\aerial.doc • .__ r - 1 C ^ HART ST HART ST ~j„~ ' ~ C G ~ °C~3D~ ~ ~ ~ 1 . I I 308 iti n II I I°------, ~.li LI -- 5 ~~ -I I ~ ~ f~ 1 1 RM ~ 310` j c - I-~ I _~ j' f~ 2 j "--- I---- I -F~6Q -i Mf 1 ~ -i I I ' 1 ~' - ' ' CBD I3o3 -- I 1 ~ j~,i pp _~4 N ~ I$ 1 I _v --- ~D C JONES ST ~Bp ~~ CBD ~_~- 1 ~ ~ C~3D ; --- - I 235 ;_- 1 ; , - -----~;- ~ _ _ I ~ I --~ rJ I I ~ ~ \\ < ` ~ J I r___ I I___-~ ~ _- \ i `---~ 1~ I ____-1 1 I I - \~ ~~\ \ 8 j ~ I I ~q ra!'~ I ~ 1~/ I I I ~ i. _-__.. m DREW ST ~--+-- CBD I I I L 1 ~ --" ~^ ~ Z --- 1 , r, i..~ ~ I ;~ ;---- tL! ~ ~ ~ J ~ I I- 115 ~ ~ = ----- ----- , -- ~ ' ' 7 7 ~ 1 I 615 I l , . r I--- I I \ I I 750 \ I I f--- I L ~ 1 Q (7 ~ __ --- 1 - I I I \ ~ j 1 I ~_- - I ----1 W ---- Z 775 ~ I ~ ~ 120 109 ~Bi~ 7 ' -__ ------- 1 ~ sad W i r-~_ _ - ~--- ~ ~ GROVE ST ~ 177; GBD , ~ i---res--- y 10~ 1 ~I ,~ ~ '---°--- I ~ ~ f~ 1 I I I I I i-l r-__ -i I I 1 I I ~ I I' I I' f I 1 1 ----- HENDERI `-- io5 ~ i ~ i i ~ ~ ~ 1 I I ~`~ -- ii BBD I \, ; r------------ I --- - I I -----'~ '~ ~ -- , ~------------~ 1---J-- i 1 ~~~g ~----. ~ ------- ~------ I t I 1 VBL/ ~ I I ~ o n 100 L-~.--~ ~ :°_ ~ ~ 'o `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 Ir--___-__ ~~ ~--------- Future Land Use Map Owner. Robert Schoeller Case: FLD2006-02007 Sites: 632 Drew Street Property 1.51 Size Acres Atlas 2776 Pa e: PINS: 09/29/15/44353/007/0010 S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX (FLD)\Pending cases\Up for the next DRC\033006 DRC\Drew St 6321ce House (D-OB) JVS\maps\future land use.doc n o; ,. ~Ia, I ~ f; ~~ ~ I~ I / / r___ 407 I-- -_ rl 1--.~ 1 jl lI i/ ~ ~-- ~` //~ I I 1 402 I J 403 I I I 4p2 i •.--L ! t--i L 41~ i I I I I I ` ' ~ W -- I 401 - p ' U L-----' //H// I 400 h ® ~ I I ~ I i_~ 40D r 410 I I (/ ~GI I I fo ao ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I___I ...- ~ ~ HART ST HART ST 40o H ~ ~ 7° Q I-- 2 ~ ~ ~ 309 I I ~ i ~ ~~ ~, I I 1 ~W !~; ~ I .-~05 ~ 307 ~~ I I r' I _ _ 2 I I ~ 31(t j _ _ 1 J I__J ~ ~J I J 302 ~ -__~ I I --- I I I--------I ~ I- 11 _ ~ 300 1 ~ 1 1 1 - __ 1 I 304 r i ~ 1 1 i I L~ ^_-_. 1303 I I L I I I . _ 1 ~-J 5 f3- ~ ----~ --~ m t ~ p ~ ~ ~ _ -- JONES ST r - ; ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ------- ~ I r 1 ! ` ~_r- I I ----- - I I I 235 i--' _ ~ I ' ~ 1 - I I j -------- : °• ypy-t ti `--~ it \ 1 6 r----- I I I----~ ~- I I I 1 r-----t I I 1- I I 1 I . \. \ \`~ \ i .~ I I 1 1 1 -- o I ~ ~ I ~ t-_-_~ f- c r ~ o i j N I I ~ rt I I~ I 1 \ ~~ ~~ I~ 1 ffi I I L__ _ _- ^ ~ 1 l -J DREW St t'r3 ~ ~ fd` Pd ~ t3 t3 `g ^ ~--------- I---- 1 ! ..J I I ~ _ry~ ~ I _ ~----- j 22 / I j ~! 1 1 6i5 175 (------I \\------ I ^ I~ ---=7 ~ ~ j `I I---I 1 120 I I i --- r---~ / I I I \\ 150 1 I 1 ~ --- 1 ~ I ~ II---- 1 I 1 ---- 115 ~ ~ ~ ~ 120 ~ i09 I 1- I I it it ---I to ----- r----- I ` ~~ ~ - GROVE ST --- ~ 711 ~---, - L i --106--~ toy I ~__ -~ i ~_ ~ I ^ I ^ ~--------- io1 I' 631 1 ~-, __-- ~-~ -- ~ ~ i i i I i~ I i i ~-- n r`---i. I ~ _ ' I ----- HENDERIC ---- 105 i , ~ I i i I Zoning Map Owner. Robert Schoeller Case: FLD2006-02007 Sites: 632 Drew Street Property 1.51 Size Acres Atlas 2778 Pa e: PINS: 09/29/15/44353/007/0010 S:\Planning Deportment\C D 8\FLEX (FLD) \Yending casesWp ror me nexr urcc.. ~wavvo ~R~ wrCw ~~ w~ ,L.G House (D-OBJ JVS\maps\zoning.doc L } I< ~6~ $ m m ®~_ h~ I_ m ~ ~ ~ _ _ 1 _s 1 w .. / \ HART ST HART ST L ` f 40o '-- 3oa ~ , , , ~ m 308 -~~ 1--------I ' - ~~ LI .--~D5 307 r1 0 __I I ~ r~ 1 j I ~ 310` j I _ -`I ~ ~J l i I__J I 1 302 ~ "'- I ~_--7 I L_____-_I - ~ I 1 304 -- ~ --~ I ~ ` 1 1 I^, -1 11 i ~ i 1 1 1 ~L---'1 O I I 1303 y I I I II 1_ I W I A N O 1 0 1 ~ ____"r I -`- JONES ST 1 ~ --, m 1 1 1 i `° ~ ~ ~------- ~ I 1 ~ ~ __ I _l ____ _ _ 1 1 _ -- 235 i_ I ~ i I ' -------- ^ j115'1 ~ J ~--- ---,r ~ \\ 1 ~~ . I J - `__ ~`__, f, j 1 ~~ <, 6 1 ~ -----1 I I j I 1 1 1 ~ ~5 I I \~ i / 1~ I I 1 I ~ I ~ ---~ 1 j I i ~ I ~ 1 o ° I h h ~ ~-.---' r---- 1 I 1 ° ° r Imo' Ig g ~ 1 1 I 1 11 ~ ~~~ N ~~ n ~~ 1 - ~ m ~ i I 1 --- r` I r ~-- _ 1 1 L_-1 n m DREW ST ~g----- Z L--- 1 ~ .., ~ ~---- ~ W f j ~ 115 F ~ ' -- 124 ~ 122 ~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~- --- t------ I I 615 i--- i , ~ r = 1 Ij --- ~ ~ 1 ~ I 1 r--- 120 ~ ~ j 1 I I `\ 150 --- ~--- i i i `---- j Ij I I ,`-----1 W ~----- ~ 115 ~ 1 i i 120 109 I 1----1 f0 ~ ~ -------'~-- ~ W 1 --- ~ r_Z GROVE ST ~ 1111 ___ ~ --Yoe---- y 10~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ - -'------- I ~'----° ~ tot r ss1 ~ - i _ r_i ~ i ^ " I 1 ~ 1 j , /-----, r 1 1 r-__ 1 ~ I I i 1_J I 1 --- 1 1 I_ I 1 I i ~ 1 Z 1 1 I I ~ i l 11 --- HENDERIC C ---- 105 1 1 i 1 1 ' ' i ~ ~ I l 1 ~--~ -~, 1 - r-___---_--__ ~ ~ '- , -- --- ~ ~, I I 11 I I J 1 \ i I f33 ~ 1 / _-- ___., - 1 I I I I I I I _~.___ ---- / ~ 1 ^------- -- I- -f- I I~~g ~----. I ------- ~ 1 l y 100 1 \` N b g 1 1 1 ~ _ m fo `e°- m 1 1 1 r--------- `~ L___'--__-- ______ _ i6 Existing Use Map Owner. Robert Schoeller Case: FLD2006-02007 Sites: 632 Drew Street Property 1.51 Sipe Acres Atlas 2776 Pa e: PINS: 09/29/15/44353/007/0010 S:\Planning Department\C D aV~r-tx rr~u) \renamg cases~up ror me nexl urc~ ~www ~R~ ,~,~W ~r ~~ ~~~ House (D-0B) JVS\maps\existing.doc r i FLD2006-02007 632 Drew Street 3/6/2006 Subject property 6,2 Dre~~ Street SOnth BUIldlllg Facade of Ice House Subject propert} 6~2 Dre~~ Street South Building Facade of Ice House Subject propertc G,2 Dre~~ Street South Building Facade • Subject propem C ~2 Dre~~ Street South Buildutg Facade Subject property 6,2 Dre~~ Street North Buildutg Facade of Ice House Subject propert} C>,2 Dre~~ Street South Buildutg Facade Subject propcrt~ (~~? Dre~~ Street Garden Court Yard. Subject propert}~ 6~2 Dre~~ Street North and West Building Facades (Pinellas Trvl). Subject Propert} 6~2 Dre~~ Street East Building Facade (Railroad tracks). Subject Propert} (i?2 Dre~~ Street Northern Property line. Grog e Street Cl~~-racteristics - Clearn titer Gas & Vacant Produce C.ompan}~. 3 h~~~~~~•~~~~w~ r ~ • Clearnater Gas Directh North. • ~, 9.00 am Case Number: FLD2006-02007 - 632 DREW ST Owner(s): Robert Schoeller 632 Drew St Clearwater, F] 33755 TELEPHONE: 727-441-3071, FAX: 727-461-4223, E-MAIL: No Email Representative: Tim Schoeller 632 Drew St Clearwater, Fl 33755 TELEPHONE: 441-3071, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: tim@schoellerfineart.com Location: 1.51 acres located on the north side of Drew Street approximately 260 feet west of Myrtle Avenue. Atlas Page: 277B Zoning District: D, Downtown Request: Flexible Development approval to permit a mixed use (4,750 square feet of artist studio (retail), 1,350 square feet of office, and two residential dwellings) in the Downtown Old Bay District, with reductions to the minimum parking requirement of 27 spaces to 16 spaces and exterior architectwal enhancements, as a CComprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project per section 2-903.C. Proposed Use: Mixed use ~ -- ~" / Neighborhood Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Association(s): Clearwater, Fl 33758 P O Box 8204 TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email PC resenter;~John Sch'odt]e>•; Planner II y--~ Attendees Included: The DRC reviewed this application with the following comments: . General Engineering: 1 , 1. Parallel parking spaces along Drew Street (S.R. 590) do not meet-City Standards. Revise plan to eliminate these spaces. The above to be addressed prior to CDB. The following to be addressed prior to building permit: 1. Any additional water meters which may be proposed or if an increase in water meter size is proposed additional water and sewer impact fees will be assessed. General Note: If the proposed project necessitates infrastructwe modifications to satisfy ` site-specific water capacity and presswe requirements and/or wastewater capacity requirements, the modifications shall be completed by the applicant and at their expense. If underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, the installation shall be completed and in service prior to construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. General Note: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review, additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Environmental: 1 , No issues Fire: 1 , Access to property off of streets must have 30' radius and be 24' in width. 2 . Where underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, they shall be installed, completed, and in service prior to construction as per NFPA-241. A hard road surface able to support the weight of Fire Apparatus prior to any building construction being started. Required Standpipe Systems shall be in place before construction can proceed to the next level. Please acknowledge PRIOR TO CDB 3 . Items to be addressed prior to building permit: Fire Sprinkler and Fire Alarm Systems, Tennant seperation, any other code requirements for the occupancy classifacations to be constructed. Please Acknowledge Harbor Master: No Comments Legal: No Comments ~, ~~ Development Review Agenda - Thwsday, March 30, 2006 -Page 13 r ~ Land Resources: No Issues. Landscaping: 1 , Provide 15 copies of the existing and the proposed landscape plans. 2 . Landscaping should be used as a design element fully integrated with the site and building. A well designed landscape contributes to the site's aesthetics and improves the livability in a dense urban environment. Landscaping can preserve and enhance the acoustic and visual privacy of a site while supporting and accentuating the architecture of the building facing Drew Street. Parks and Recreation: No Comments Stormwater: 1 . Prior to issuance of a building permit the site plan is to depict clearily what is existing and what is proposed construction. Solid Waste: No Comments Traffic Engineering: 1 . 1. Provide a City handicapped parking and sign detail on site plan. Index 118 & 119 h ttp://www. myclearwater. com/gov/depts/pwa/engin/Production/stddetlindex. asp 2. 20-foot vehicle stacking space shall be provided from back of sidewalk to face of gate on north side of site. All the above to be addressed prior to CDB. General Note(s): 1) Comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule. 2) DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Planning: Development Review Agenda -Thursday, March 30, 2006 -Page 14 ~ ~ 1 . Provide one set of color building elevations, include the paint chips/cards . 't~~ie~#es~- 3 . Murals of Robert Schoeller Paintings are considered signage. Sign code permits one attached sign. Signs painted directly on the facade of the building are considered inappropriate. 4 . Seperate plans into two pages; 1) how the site and building elevations exist, 2) proposed changes to the site and building elevations. 5 . Provide more detail to the paver design in the parking areas. 6 . 1) What type of fence/wall exists along the Jones Street property line? It is difficult to tell through the landscaping. 2)What type of fence/wall is proposed between the two buildings? 7 . Provide more details to the windows/doors/and railings on the Drew Street building elevations. this could be done at a larger scale and on a Seperate page to demonstrate the more intricate designs. 8 . Downtown design guidelines require that parking lots be located behind the primary facade of the building. (parking in front of the office building next to the railroad tracks is considered inappropriate and creates vehicular-pedestrian circulation conflicts. The Downtown plan recognizes that the Downtown is first and foremost for pedestrians.) 9 . The eight foot tall gate proposed at the Jones Street entrance exceeds the maximum height allowed of six feet. Staff is comfortable with the gate at six feet in height. 10 . The two buildings (Drew Street Facade) need to share architectural features (doors, windows, etc). 1 I . The buildings need to have a distinct Base, Middle, & Cap. 12 . Properties located adjacent to the Pinellas trail that do not acknowledge it throught the use of connecting pedestrian paths, doors, windows, art, and such are considered inappropriate. 13 . All facades of a building should reflect a unified architectural treatment, including the sides (pinellas trail & railroad). 14 . Need to emphasize architecturally prominent entrances (Drew Street). 15 . Major architectural treatments on the principal facade need to continue around all sides of the building that are visible from the public realm. 16 . Windows (Drew Street) need to create a consistent and cohesive fenestration pattern. 17 . Doors (Drew Street) need to be appropriately sized for the scale of the building facade and enhance/support the architectural style of the building. 18 . The use of a single color on all surfaces of the building should be avoided. A two or three color scheme is encowaged to provide visual appeal. The main body color should be the predominant color of the building. The windows and other accent trim should be a complimentary color to the main body color, either a lighter or darker tone. 19 . Need to answer Comprehensive Infill Project criteria. Other: No Comments Notes: Development Review Agenda -Thursday, March 30, 2006 -Page 15 John Schodtler 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 (727) 562-4547 john.schodtler(u~myclearwater.com PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE • Planner II City of Clearwater, Clearwater, Florida January 2006 to present Performed technical review and preparation of staff reports for land development applications such as, but not limited to: site plans, Flexible Standard and Flexible Development cases (variances and conditional uses). Made presentations to various City Boards. Created custom Crystal reports for the planning department. • Planner I City of Clearwater, Clearwater, Florida March 2005 to January 2006 Duties consisted of assisting customers with basic zoning and planning related issues. Performed technical review and preparation of staff reports for land development applications such as, but not limited to: site plans, Flexible Standard and Flexible Development cases (variances and conditional uses). Made presentations to various City Boards. Created custom Crystal reports for the planning department. • Development Review Specialist/Associate Planner City of Clearwater, Clearwater, Florida August 1998 to March 2005 Assisted customers with basic zoning and planning related issues. Performed technical review of and prepared staff reports for Flexible Standard cases (variances & conditional uses). Created custom Crystal reports for the planning department. Computer Systems Administrator. Maintained the department computers, software and networking systems and trouble shooting difficulties at the departmental level and acting as liaison to the Information Technologies Department for larger scale problems. • Customer Service Representative City of Clearwater, Clearwater, Florida October 1996 to August 1998 Duties consisted of assisting, directing and informing customers with occupational licenses and building permits. Additional duties involve greeting customers, reviewing building plans, accounting and general data entry. EDUCATION • Bachelor of Arts, Business Management, Minor in Human Development, Eckerd College, 2006 LICENSES & CERTIFICATES • American Planning Association FLD2006-02007 632 Drew Street 3/6/2006 Subject property 632 Drew Street South Building Facade of Ice House A~~ ~• . M r ,~ Subject property 632 Drew Street South Building Facade ~. Subject property 632 Drew Street South Building Facade Subject property 632 Drew Street North Building Facade of Ice House ~. _. y,Y Subject property 632 Drew Street Garden Court Yard. ~K ~. „~~ 4 .~ _ 'i-~` ~ ~ r?~ ~ ' i ~ 'ujF:: Subject property 632 Drew Street North and West Building Facades (Pinellas Trail). Subject Property 632 Drew Street Northern Property line. Subject Property 632 Drew Street East Building Facade (Railroad tracks). ` ~ ~ ,t. y1{ ~ ~~,,,~t .y '.~'~' ~ +, ~ . '~' r.~'yr.~r n ..ri. ,'t 7°.~ rc~ l'a~a°~i ., '.r,.oSS.y ~ ~ ~~`< . t ~ y ~=~"r~f'4. ~~ 8 ~k - . ..s 3• h' ~ r'~'' ~ ~ r`J ~. nw+h".~t L 'i!" ti "" -~3 3'~.'~,.. ~ r ~ ~ '~.`;~r~ .t~. t 4~~• i ~.c °K +i+ t ~~ x~..:a. I-wT+b'.t ~e• •~. v: '"'r Grove Street Characteristics - Clearwater Gas & Vacant Produce Company. - - - _,~ .~~i ~ ~ o2j'°' ~ 4 r ~ ~ rn ~ . a'k ~ ~-: :' T ... ~ ` .! A~ _ fe ~ ~5i 1 ws v ~ ~ q, ~ ~~ : k F _ ~ ~. ~-TT t ' _ ...ry,,:... .,. .. _. y _ __ Clearwater Gas Directly North. RIR 4GX ,i. ;Q '_." ,?iii; ~'I~I is :.I~, ~~r,-, i ~..._ _ _ 1 rA ._?,S. _'f,, •i ~_. ~ i I~~ ~ I L _L1~b ~4'~T ~ ~ ~it-1 ~~ ~ ~~~ D ev , °. ..._.,.. I ~ CEDAR ST ' } I 1 1'r~ I' I ..i. ~ a , I 1 tt ,;;..._ ,_ r ,,-, „~....,L. ~ merit Po en is r _. 1~ el t t e mi b a -r , r• _/ s ( "f` east _ _~ 1. _.._ _- .. ~ r...._.i F-,..J .. I .._- - Downtown .Plan Character Districts "~===w=~ FAR -'0.5 ~ Density - West of N. Garden Ave <2 acres - 25 dula >2 acres - 50 du/a B/w N. Garden Ave & Pinellas Trail <1 acre - 7.5 du/a >1 acre - 25 duly Height - West of Osceola: -Blw Drew St 8~ Georgia St -150' -Blw George St & Eldridge St -120' -North of Eldridge St to Old Bay Boundary -100' -B/w Osceola Ave & Ft. Harrison Ave & b/w Jones Stand Drew St -150' East of Osceola Ave - 40' a~zsx::`~.:;~,:::::~~-: FAR -1.0 ti ~.~~uD~p~ .Density - 30 dula or '1 I l~--~~.1~..,: ~ 40 hotel units/a 11 .......I~._...1.1!.... Height - 75'' I IIII ._. ,a-. _ ........a ....,. ~I I I tIIERC~'S; _.._... .... l.., :~~ 1,1:11:.:I::~' + ~.~ (~Towln~Lake ~ F;-~ ~.- Business Park; `~ ... acrpEasi' ~ ;ake = ~.LL~111~ 1 ~~. ~ I ~.:~ ~:_.._ ~f ~I ~~il~.~ ._~:. Intial - -~~ _.~.~t~...:I ~~ I III rl:...I ~` •~, FAR - 4.0 ~..... . ':I :::::::Ii...._ . i_1.__: Density - 70 du/a; 95 hotel units/acre ^S'O~ • Height -Along Cleveland St.; consistent ~ ' 11 i w/ the historic building patterns 8~ Gates ...... i::1........ l.. i. •. _:..1. design guidelines i - -• •••••I ~ R1N~.~ Balance of District; no maximum .S ~.._....I,~ height restriction ~ "'r 'I ;,~ I _ ,_ Q m .......I,.i..•m . ,.. .. ., .. _.... .JASMIN E.YyAY. ~. . .. ;..~; __: ... _ ....:. I FAR -1.0 Density - <2 acres - 25 du/a >2 acres -Residential only - 35 du/a >2 acres & mixed use project - 50 duly Height - 50' g.._. `; . _:.... ~ ~:.. , i ; , ~ / ~ , . ; , ,, ....•~ , :.......: ....:..:.........R. ;. . > ....... ...... ~ ,.. ;...... ..._M... ........,. f .. ;. ......._. ..... E ~ ~ .... MAP,..I i .... , . ,S,T ...............:. r...._.,.. .....:. .:., :...... ;1 ...... _ .~ ........: :..... r.. ..:........: :...:. ...., t ~::::: ::.............< .a ~.. r°, ptS:ftEsr itfi Q o . I.. ~ j v9c ;_ ... ;. ......:.......: : . , x ,AR ~6A CIR~ ...... W x.... : ...._F......i I ~ : tui ~:,.. :i 'Areas currently located in the Downtown zoning district FAR - 0.55 Density - 30 du/a Height -Office, 50' Commercial, 25'-35' 'Areas currently located in other zoning districts shall be governed by the applicable ,zoning district. FAR -1.0 Density • 30 du/a or 40 hotel units/a Height - 75' i ~ it ~I T i l I 'la ..'...r..r.l.~_ORt110 I....._ ti ~ ,._i11.._,_~! !~J ~I . l i •._._"_,....r i "`"I~•••-r~~~~ Y! JASh11ME;WAY_. I_._. • ~ ,J~ l I i i...l~u i- I I I i i I ,.. PARK _... PIFFCE SS ... ~a ~ ... DE LEDP ... ~.: ~, , ,..:..~. i __ .;. ,:. :.; ,:, , ,.:: ...a...~.......:.L.. N w~t_ s o aoo eoo Feet 0 25D 500 1 000 ..------Feet -- -~ (~'BAWIEW COND09 I ze a.~--- - HARPoSON VILWGE 18,093 mm. eq.R. d7 tl.u ISLAND VIEW 279du. AR sT MET70 sT a~ METTO 900 N. OSCEOLA AVE 133 d.u. / __. ~ ~ -__ ~- .. ~J _. J ~ - - ~ ~ 'Old Bay Character District GARDEN TRAILL TOW NHOMES I ~ ~ _ 80 d.u 'LAURA 8T.7OWNHOMEB 18 d.u Mein LBKay L. L~ovuntown Core Character LTistric8 STAf10N SCIUARE 10,000 ewn. eV. R. 120 d.u. 'MEDITERRANEAN VIt1AGE 100 du (15 mrmtruohd) Dmvrtown Wry6ndinp ! ~-... i'- ~~ _I I_ .._. Sl9nege Afea r----.., .__ I IT~~ _.._ _. _ ~_~ - I- -- -I cau ~- ~ 1 I I ~ r_ .~R0r3E ~ -g~~ --~ j FT. HARRI60N 9HOPPE8 ~~~~' ~ ib B38 mm. eq R q- I ~-~~ j-"rL1- ~+ 1 HAROLD Cr Wme 2 s,.o~ Si edu-~ ~~-~ ~AM80UTH ~ 'pE I I 19704 mm. ep. R. _ I ~. ~Pk 830 COURT 8T. 73 d,u. 80B HAROLD C7. ~~ 18 du. South Gateway ,Character District W ~ ~ a _g..._-~ NIBISCUS ~ .-.- ~___-_._~ S P Q~ -~ __ _ City of Clearwater WAwU,! ]~ _ __.~,~_'- ~ Downtown Development Projects EtN1WD~ J~~~L ~ SMALL L_~~ _,___ ~ Source: C/ty of C/eanvater Piann)ng Department MFRr; APLE _ Prepared by: C/ty of Clearwater Plannfng Department, 5/3/05 - ~~~ _ __ _ _ M1fP'E., - _ c~mr t uobd) 32 835 0 SOt 98 -- ~ { I RI00 . _U_ TM,sndlnY 27.997 I 398 -~Sr~,~__J L_ I .J i__I I A' fi0,832 899 J _ Icy ~-...___.l 'l I ' , r__ _._. I_ I _ i. t I, L_. ~ PINEW00~ Town Lake Residential r -~--, L - -- _. Character District - ~ I -"~R- I _-_ __ _ _ _ - East Gateway Business Park ~._~~ oAlcwoo¢ -- _ r- `~~ Cfhta-rac-ItleLr~Disfirict _. ~ S( _ ___ ~~ I I ..~ .~.~ ..._ - - - L_-L~_I L.T~~~~ I ~~~LI _: ~ _L.J ROSE WOp I7. is _ - -r- - I I r ,-, I ' `~ - ~ ~ I _ 113 KENWOOD AVE. _ ~_ _.`. ,A~.. -_~-.. Ll l.l_~_I ~ I _ I.T..I_.I f` - 2d.u. S I_.i1t~!ll~J~t.: I_La _I~ 5 - DOWNTOMAV LOF78 _ 1 - T 1N KENWOOD AVE. --_ I_-__ _s.__ LLLI 1_L I ~ ~ l j:: '._. ~1_I P1 47 du, ~ ~. _.. ~~ ~ 2a.u. _ .._ ~ f1L..1._..I ,....--irl ,~- LAURA ~ -(- _ ~~ r~ :I I n~~~ cr ~ .: --, ~ -~. ;~.I ~---_ ~~ ~r-ir ~I rI {I {r I` Ir 1I'~ _:I: , CLEVELA~ .__ - __~ .. _ 1300 PARK 97 -` j }~ ~ ~ l.L l ~'~'~\ \.I l.b, I I OLLE I l~tL t ~ 1 . -T... ;~ 7680mm. eq.R ST ~ a MK -.i '~ ~ ~ ' . . ~ ~ '1363-7 PARK ~ '.~. "~ . rr ~ . L f I r ~ 1 II} FdA ~ ._~ ~,~ - r r_~r ~. I I, r l fi 1 111 ._ - I_ ~- ~~~~k-~~ ~~~ ~l~ j % ;~ l ~-Jo~ IEIOIr41 ~ qs,~ .ter ~ II~_ ~_ _ J I _` - _r... II r ~'rl \r_ ',~ I,- GULF TO I r ~rll ~Z~_LI ~Ll ~} II-I Z I I-- I I i - -Town Lake Business Park -~ I L ,_~ i I I I EWINGPIACE TOVJNHOMES Character District + ~' RopeRS -~ t I I ~ 7~ .~ w roa.u. `I i ~ 1 I.,.~1J-!!~1_`l__ ~ L F:.?. a al _ _ Z ___~ Legend __ ~ I ~I teC SreN~ ;,O 3T r ~ ~ ~ i ~Ll~ ~ Mv~tl ~ ~7 P~1a~ ;~~ W ~-' ~ .. r_} Pendhq '•PmJecfe ~fprovedpdorro ~W ~~ -~ adyfbn oldowNOwn pNn ,~ +7 ~~- _ _..~ r _. ,--r- RO----- Z - - • ORIGINAL t~FrGni~ ~ i' ;; ~ ~ Location :1'~1 a ~~ FEB 2 4 206 ~~ RoberrSchoeUer PLANNING DEPAR1iVIENT NIDIRTH 632DnewSrn~et CITY OF CLEARWATER \ _ CKUNE' i i ~ ~ ~ 1 V C IIC1 ~>; 131 I Ib' ~J!~ y rfhE~-,AU Iri -~ ~ ~ _i ~ y`'Ji :1 ~ ir( ;"; ! 1~I ~` ~4 I I 'aL~a NV~~;: ~i ~tf.~ Il~j ' jaI G7TEN it :FCtiA :CIS 1 ~_ I I ;- ~Ni ~--- ,,o , ~Z !FRfh.^E55 + ~~~ j ~ ~ \ ~ ~• f I { j ~ c 5EN1 LA I l1 I I \ I PLEA.SAN, fill \ ;~j, .: ~ ~ ,1 ~ 1 i ~~ 1<~ 4AR~ ~ q~1 ,~ i `L~ ! ?66'Rc. CT L_ ~~1 j~/ /r ~ % ; \ ~\ %r N TERRACE ~Rf, ~i1hl < ~uFwCwT ~ yr'^{~(", ~ i -lam I EpRyGN' l~l / ,/ ry r'1 L---~lo! J<, I I .oi ~~ \~~~£! ; 1 1 L_J MMNf`%'.~ i"^~ ECRE.7t I \x` IFI ''P-M-[-K-`iC~ j7 (~ ! `!. ~ I-J / - : ~:! _"~ ? ! i_._}~tr~, ! 1 ''\?~ SN! f '~ 1 L~a a PA(U yap `,' ` r tl ,~hl -~• I I:i ~% _J efUE77 cl fit. •~ ~ \3C !~~cT-~~ C / ? MARSH ~ r S. a t \~ \ ~ ~ 1L11~J QaC 1 i' r/ Cl l u` ! lal~ ~l..i 3 ST ' i~i ; ; DR SPRWGCKE~ 5T ~ ~~ /~~ ~I3~~ q~--Ig RUSSELL cl I 1 O~[~EA <T ' ;~;~ ~!ERyy,~. ,~~.I IS'I 1 'ANGERMC G? W, ~~ ' ~-7 O yL__ <~J ~ ~ ~f i 1 ~f ~ ~~~ ` Enw^Aw1 ' S7 ~ a EhCM,Wj7 LMt f jJ Br ~lt Yr~r lol i i ~ ~ I PAY `_~~! 1 i ~-'A S4:E ST g = Itj I~~ j //f~~ ~~ @~C `.r <~-{ ,7;Y 1 ~c~AL':Tr ~ 1~ AiJtlYir1~ Iii ~ ~~ r1 ~YI PALM BL~U« ~' Iri ~ I ( l i / _! :" PAIR 6i _'fF c. >; ! •~li i I Ltt 1 I I ~~~ i5nl~l,;,! ! ~~! ri c c'> I ~<I:°~ jc 'x~ ~~l_ 1 ~`. I_ M ~ r /!!~ .N^Fi.EN.. ~ ~' CEOAi, WBSCLS St~ ~~c !~ i lei ~E1TC `S:-..~~_, I:,iIE! r i kr; 1 ~-~ S ~ilgc ~r_~/l~ FAIYETT' ii /~ ~~/7~ 7 5. ~~W li~I 1 ~ i ~~ MC1i0LS~:N S7 .I ; I I J MICMCY_V' 1i `{ ~ __. 1 / ~~ S~8 ~ SEMMCiE jT ~ j w ~ ,~ ELLYr10GE ' Si ~ i L ,h''~Ir ~ ~~~Y~ L ~ ~^ !`~ 57? 1 Eli?R~ 57 I~ a v4~E j " MAPLE ~ ~ .i ~l r~ ~'/r I` PEA ~ I ;,I ,~ 'ai r ~ ~I 'J~y(~~'~1Y}I{ I GECRuA ~ I:1 j j ~ I ~ I ' f , 1 ~ ~a1 I<I ( I 1 1`l 11 j ~ I I ! I? t~~ I ;_J L ~ ~~'1 L~~JJJ LLLJJJ i j ~ •T 7 iI~ ~ MAURT ~~ $t J~CNSGN ~ {' FJREST I L_~ i:~ I(I.~i17 y -, ~-j 3t 12~ ~~i j ; I'~i !G~ I i I~~ I S /_'~ OR[r I c? "` Li - c.R 59L~_~ ~ L~ ? . i_~ ~_ :JJ ` i ~ LJ \ I~~ IaL ~A `A`cr,4~nIDRICxV i+i i ' { !/`~~p OK ~ ~ 'y1~Jzl. "l.J~l I ~ j`~ la~ S.R. 6, 1 tEK''U:O y CT !~a~~L_i ~,j 1~ j"^'I I I t ( i i ~ 1 -~•<,~ 1 `I~ I~~ {~, I_ ~ILJd` ._J Iii 1 1 I ; g((~~ z i~~ PAFK ~ jT ; ial i : 1 PARK s*`~fllgf lIi ~8j~"~~ P ' ~~,~~zL~J~'I~ i ; `4 ~ 'Y' ~ ~ !~i<i ' ~-' r :(~t Ji ~~r""Ir 's ~------+ `. _ f `- PIER;,( '' < c I I -,~ ~ ' ._ J ~'~ v`t ~ ~ S (~-~ r--- t ~~~ f l u • ` I 1 '21 Iz I ;;~aK<:\ I i! a '~`' I Q ,~~ I .~ RAMLM f'- r $T_, ~il 'YI ~~1 iNi 1 C~ /'~'L ~~~L_ `;~.[i ~J YT7MXL', ~I COUR7 ~_ = i t J 1'{ I,y~ ~z L r,____~ ~'^n,..' I :° % '~ T OE `EJh L_..-t ~! -; 1 L ,_.\\' wro _r+ELI e7 ;~--~' r'-~ ~' rsA~- ~uw ROARS 51 i 1~~1 q~,Ekc 1 l j i-1 ; i ~-~ ~'~•'~~ i 1 r'-. COURT 57 -~Yr n ~ II ~ I . ~-~ ; j I ~~yy j ~ ~1 1 I f ' I Rth~RS 5. ! ~ (YI_J <~ U LJsU ter: I.L_i i-_.r I _ _. __ 1 .. ..~~-~' I `l ROARS C1T1F OF CLEARMATER. FlARIDA 1 ~~~~~9` , _. -~a~ PUBLIC 1~ORkS ADIIINLS'?RATfON ~~~ ENGIHE£R1NG ., ~ . 4 13 8 ~ ~ ~\ 1~/! 6 1 ~ 39 8 ~ ~ ~~ I '' ' ! \ \l'' 3 9 9 I 10 11I 10 = f ~ \~, / I 1 8 ~ 2 3 10 ~' 36 1 HART ~~ Z~ ~ STREET 2 = t--1 3 1, o ~` 44/02 9 8 7 6 ~~, ~~, E S j tiT x`141 / ~ 4 13 `~ ~ ~ 14 2 3 q 1 ~ O Z ~ 32 15 ~ 5 3 ~ GON- W 31 i 6 Z 2 30 17 JONES STREET a W 12 63 29 18 z 6 O 9 8 7 6 ~ 8 7 64 28 19 'Q ~ 7 6 5 8 9 10 11 A 65 27 20 •~ 7 1 2 3 a 5 1 3 ~ 1 2 4 6 5 3 .1 ~ 66 Z 21 I ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ 6 O ~~ 67 ~ 25 24 2 S.R. 590 S 1 2 W 4 ~ Z s~ 7 8 7 9 6 10 ~p ~~ 4 Z 4 i z a~ 1 9 8 0 4 3 2 1 ~ ~ 9 7 E 4 3 2 1 c~ 2 22/Oi 11/01 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 222 2 ~Qir, d~ 31 678901 2z ~~~ 7 6 ~ 5 5 ~ GROVE sTREET 0 Z _ 7. 1 98 4 32 1 ~iENORICKS STREET 10 11 1 1 2 - -1 I 8 3 \ 13 14 15 17 18 12 t3 14 15 t6 3 2 u-uRA sTRE~ET E~C1S~'ING3 SURROUNDING USES . OWNER: Robert SchoeFler CASE FL 00-it-57 SITE: 632 Drew Street ORIGI ,o~ROPERTY SfZE (ACRES): 1.51 i P1N: 99/29l~S/14 35 3 /001/0010 i ,. [r {{]] (~ U ~ ~ ~Ofls F ATLAS g77B L PAGE: ptANNING DEPAR1iVIENT CITY OF CLEARWATER ~ ~ FL 00-11-57 632 Drew Street 11 /28/2005 ! • Enter text here. Enter text here. .., . .~t~~:~ s Enter text here. ~' --- ~~ • ~'- ~ .`~ i " ,!1 ~~~. :.:;,, rr..~. Enter text here. • Enter text here. Enter text here. i'` Enter text here. Enter text here. _ ~ rte,.. ~` ~ -_ . 4 - -- ,~-'' = _~ Enter text here. Enter text here. Enter text here. ,~ .° :~ ~~-r ~•. .gYzv~r~ ~YT ... ~.; Enter text here . • Enter text here. • ;y~~- .. Enter text here. • -_..~ RR e ~r~ ~~ ~'-" - - Enter text here . R _ dip, ~,_ •'~ , - r~ _ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~~ ~_ _ i ~ ~ _-• - .~ Enter text here. r ~ Enter text here. __ _ . -,- .: A .._~- ,.. < < ._ . - __ ~ ~``~ Enter text here. • r-- Enter text here. • w,~.„~ f ~ ~ , x- Enter text here. `'"'~: "'~.. , :~ u.di~ ~ ~ ~'` . Enter text here. ~ ~ ~~-_. ~`, I' - - -~~. Enter text here. • • ~~ - _ - ~ '~~ ~ .mow +' ~ ~ .! ~ i Enter text here. ~t ~ ~~ ~ r~. '~ 't ~~ • ~ ~Pt a ;~' 7 '1' ;~ ~- Enter text here. ~ ~ CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT Post Office Box 4748, Clearwater, Florida 33758-4748 Municipal Services Building, 100 South Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, Florida 33756 Telephone (727) 562-4567 Fax (727) 562-4576 October 10, 2006 TIM SCHOELLER 632 DREW ST CLEARWATER, FL 33755 RE: FLD2006-02007 (Located at 632 DREW ST) Dear : TIM SCHOELLER VIA FAX: 727-461-4223 On August 28, 2006 a notice of inactivity was sent with attached comments related to case number FLD2006-02007. The notice indicated that the application would become WITHDRAWN unless the comments were addressed prior to October 9, 2006. After review of your submittal date stamped received October 9, 2006, we have determined not all of the outstanding comments related to this case have been addressed and the application is deemed WITHDRAWN. Should you decide to pursue this development project, a new application with associated fees and submission materials is required. Sincerely, John Schodtler. Planner II cc: File Withdrawn Letter ~~'r~r '' . ~ o • ~,,;~i~`~"~~~~~%~~ Conditions Associated With ~~~~, ~ '" °.~R FLD2006-02007 e~~ ~; 632 DREW ST :~y~~~EP'~~v~~` ~,,;. Engineering Condition Steve Doherty 562-4773 03/17/2006 1. Parallel parking spaces along Drew Street (S.R. 590) do not meet City Standards. Revise plan Not Met to eliminate these spaces. The above to be addressed prior to CDB. The following to be addressed prior to building permit: 1. Any additional water meters which may be proposed or if an increase in water meter size is proposed additional water and sewer impact fees will be assessed. General Note: If the proposed project necessitates infrastructure modifications to satisfy site-specific water capacity and pressure requirements and/or wastewater capacity requirements, the modifications shall be completed by the applicant and at their expense. If underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, the installation shall be completed and in service prior to construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. General Note: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review, additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Environmental Condition Heather Faessle 562-4897 03/16/2006 No issues Not Met Fire Condition Leonard Rickard 562-4327 x3062 03/21/2006 Access to property off of streets must have 30' radius and be 24' in width. Show on plan PRIOR Not Met TO CDB 03/21/2006 Where underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, they shall be installed, Not Met completed, and in service prior to construction as per NFPA-241. A hard road surface able to support the weight of Fire Apparatus prior to any building construction being started. Required Standpipe Systems shall be in place before construction can proceed to the next level. Please acknowledge PRIOR TO CDB 03/21/2006 Items to be addressed prior to building permit: Fire Sprinkler and Fire Alarm Systems, Tennant Not Met seperation, any other code requirements for the occupancy classifacations to be constructed. Please Acknowledge PRIOR TO CDB Landscape John Schodtler 727-562-4547 03/21/2006 Provide 15 copies of the existing and the proposed landscape plans. Not Met 03/21/2006 Landscaping should be used as a design element fully integrated with the site and building. A well Not Met designed landscape contributes to the site's aesthetics and improves the livability in a dense urban environment. Landscaping can preserve and enhance the acoustic and visual privacy of a site while supporting and accentuating the architecture of the building facing Drew Street. Land Resource Condition Rick Albee 727-562-4741 03/14/2006 No Issues. Not Met Storm Water Condition Bob Maran 562-4592 03/13/2006 Prior to issuance of a building permit the site plan is to depict clearily what is existing and what is Not Met proposed construction. Traffic Eng Condition Bennett Elbo 562-4775 CaseConditons Print Date: 10/10/2006 Page 1 of 3 • - . • FLD2006-02007 632 DREW ST Traffic Eng Condition Bennett Elbo 562-4775 03/13/2006 1. Provide a City handicapped parking and sign detail on site plan. Index 118 & 119 Not Met http://www.myclearwater.com/gov/depts/pwa/engin/Production/stddet/index.asp 2. 20-foot vehicle stacking space shall be provided from back of sidewalk to face of gate on north side of site. 3. Sight triangles for north driveway are shown incorrectly. The base of the triangles is the property line. All the above to be addressed prior to CDB. General Note(s): 1) Comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule. 2) DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Zoning Condition John Schodtler 727-562-4547 03/08/2006 Provide one set of color building elevations, include the paint chips/cards Not Met 03/21/2006 Demonstrate that the murals of Robert Schoeller Paintings are not considered signage. Not Met 03/21/2006 Seperate plans into two pages; 1) how the site and building elevations exist, 2) proposed changes Not Met to the site and building elevations. 03/21/2006 1) What type of fence/wall exists along the Jones Street property line? It is difficult to tell through Not Met the landscaping. 2)What type of fence/wall is proposed between the two buildings? 03/21/2006 Provide more details to the windows/doors/and railings on the Drew Street building elevations. Not Met Also provide more details to the paver design in the parking areas. This could be done at a larger scale and on a seperate page to demonstrate the more intricate designs. 03/21/2006 The eight foot tall gate proposed at the Jones Street entrance exceeds the maximum height Not Met allowed of six feet. Staff is comfortable with the gate at six feet in height. 03/21/2006 Demonstrate how the two buildings (Drew Street Facade) share architectural features (doors, Not Met windows, etc). 03/21/2006 Demonstrate how the proposed building facades have a distinct Base, Middle, & Cap. Not Met 03/21/2006 Demonstrate how the property located adjacent to the Pinellas trail acknowledges it through the Not Met use of connecting pedestrian paths, doors, windows, art, and such are considered appropriate. 03/21/2006 Major architectural treatments on the principal facade need to continue around all sides of the Not Met building that are visible from the public realm. 03/21/2006 Windows (Drew Street) need to create a consistent and cohesive fenestration pattern between the Not Met two buildings. 03/21/2006 Need to emphasize architecturally prominent entrances (Drew Street). Doors (Drew Street) need Not Met to be appropriately sized for the scale of the building facade and enhance/support the architectural style of the building. 03/21/2006 The use of a single color on all surfaces of the building shall be avoided. A two or three color Not Met scheme shall be utilized to provide visual appeal. The main body color should be the predominant color of the building. The windows and other accent trim should be a complimentary color to the main body color, either a lighter or darker tone. 03/21/2006 Need to answer Comprehensive Infill Project criteria. Not Met 03/21/2006 Provide a parking demand narrative to justify the reduction in parking spaces for the proposed Not Met mixed use development (27 spaces to 16 spaces). Explain what the thoughts were with regards Print Date: 10/10/2006 CaseConditons Page 2 of 3 FLD2006-02007 632 DREW ST • Zoning Condition John Schodtler 727-562-4547 to the number of parking spaces. CaseConditons Print Date: 10/10/2006 Page 3 of 3 ~ r Oct. 10 2006 03:33PM YOUR LOGO YOUR FAX N0. 7275624865 N0. OTHER FACSIMILE START TIME USAGE TIME MODE PAGES RESULT ' 01 94614223 Oct. 10 03:30PM 02'21 SND 04 OK TO TURN OFF FORT, PRESS ' MENU' ttO4. THEN SELECT ~F BY USING '+' OR '-'. FOR FAX ADVANTAGE ASSISTANCE, PLEASE CALL 1-800-HELP-FAX C435-7329). CDB Meeting Date: February 20, 2001 Case Number: FL 00-11-57 Agenda Item: C3 • CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT BACKGROUND INFORMATION: OWNER: LOCATION: Robert Schoeller 632 Drew Street REQUEST: Flexible Development approval to increase the height of a tower as part of a mixed use development from 50 to 66 feet and to reduce the number of required parking from 91 ~- spaces to 21 spaces, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. PLANS REVIEWED: Site plan materials submitted by Thomas Coates, Architect. SITE INFORMATION: PROPERTY SIZE: 1.51 acres DIMENSIONS OF SITE: 235 feet by 266 feet PROPERTY USE: Current use: Artist studio, warehouse Proposed use: Artist studio, office, and two dwelling units PLAN CATEGORY: CBD, Central Business District Classification Heavy Commercial (Downtown Redevelopment Plan) ZONING DISTRICT: D, Downtown District Page ] The exterior walls will remain masonry in appearance but will not resemble standard concrete blocks. Much of the existing brickwork will be preserved and incorporated into its design. All structures will have flat roofs with etchings atop. The two existing buildings will be adjoined by a two-story addition; the upper floor will be enclosed and serve as part of the studio while the lower floor will serve as a breezeway and covered parking. The Drew Street elevation will be completely redesigned. It will include the addition of a large, arched window, a gated entry to the parking lot and a medallion with the symbol of the artist's studio. The gated entry will include columns on each side of the drive aisle topped with statue figurines. The Jones Street (north) elevation will appear as the most ornate of the four facades including several design elements such as moldings, arches and brickwork. Windows will also be added to this otherwise blank elevation. An approximately 45-foot tower building will be constructed along the north property line that will resemble a gatehouse. This building will be used as a 2,120 square foot dwelling for the applicant's son. A six-foot metal grill fence is proposal to enclose an interior courtyard. The courtyard will contain several amenities including a series of gardens, statues, a pond and a reflecting pool. Generally, the courtyard will resemble those found around fine art museums. The east and west elevations will remain relatively bare but will contain some moldings. Window additions along the railroad tracks to the east and the Pinellas Trail to the west would be impractical with this proposal due to security and noise concerns. As an attempt to continue the Renaissance villa theme, a 66-foot tower is proposed in the center of the site. The tower will help balance the building's design and reinforce the feel of a Renaissance style. Code permits a maximum height of 100 feet as part of a Flexible Development application. The landscaping is limited on the site as appropriate for a downtown area. The varieties proposed will accent the building and be heavily focused to the interior courtyard. The applicant plans to use 15,330 square feet for his personal residence. He routinely hosts guests and desires a large space. As previously explained, the applicant's son will occupy the 2,120 square-foot gatehouse tower for his personal residence. The remaining 22,033 square feet will be studio use and accessory uses. The studio will include a photography sitting area, space for frame making, an area to mix paints, multiple painting areas with varieties of natural light and large spans of storage. The applicant has future plans to convert approximately 2,500 square feet of his personal residence as flex space where he would expand his gallery for private showings. The studio and gallery will be operated by a maximum of six individuals on any given day. Studio workers include the applicant (artist), the artist's son, two office staff, apart-time frame maker, and possibly one additional staff member in the near future. Customers generally attend the site by invitation for a specific event or appointment and generally limited to one or two people at a time; walk-in clientele are rare due to the nature of the business. The artist intends to operate the studio from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. and may open for weekends. Page 3 • • The applicant has requested a reduction in the number of required parking spaces from 91 spaces to 21. Code requires- four parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area for retail sales and service land uses as a Flexible Standard application. (This parking standard is the most conservative of Code for this use) Code also requires 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit; three spaces for this proposal. The applicant contends that 21 spaces will meet the entirety of the site's parking need and that the Code requirements are impractical for this use. Routinely, staff attempts to limit the amount of on-site surface parking in the Downtown District as an effort to create a vibrant, pedestrian-oriented business district. A large surface parking lot would degrade the architectural style of the building. The building square footage will not generate the same parking need as traditional retail sales uses. By applying a parking standard based on need rather than square footage, the site should only need approximately eight spaces. In the event the artist chooses to host a gallery show, parking spaces may be leased from adjacent properties including a vacant site to the south, an office to the west. Valet service to downtown public parking garages would also be an appropriate solution to any potential parking shortage. Additionally, gallery openings are normally held at night when many surround parking lots are vacant. The proposal meets the intent of the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the Downtown Design Guidelines, and the City of Clearwater Comprehensive Plan which together suggest that all redevelopment projects should be architecturally-pleasing, built to human scale and primarily oriented to pedestrian traffic. The proposal also meets the intent of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project and basic planning principles for a central business district with its unique design and its potential to influence similar redevelopment. While this ambitious proposal will positively impact downtown, staff is concerned whether the property is improved in a timely manner. Currently, there are several vertical pieces of metal rebar that have been installed onto the western building's roof. The rebar will serve as support for decorative roof elements included in the redevelopment proposal. There is also a large, concrete block pond to the interior of the property that was constructed without a building permit. Additionally, the existing loading dock along Drew Street continues to be a safety concern due to the lack of a barrier or railing. City Building Inspectors has opted not to cite the property owner for these violations in the event redevelopment efforts are commenced immediately. Staff is concerned these items may remain outstanding unless a time sensitive condition is attached to its approval. CODE ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS: The site has a history of several code concerns. Many of the recent violations include unfinished building construction, constructing a pond without a permit and poor property maintenance. Approval of this application will potentially prevent future code enforcement violations. Consideration in accordance with this application is the applicant's method of complying with the violations. Page 4 • A. COMPLIANCE WITH MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL STANDARDS IN THE D, DOWNTOWN DISTRICT: STANDARD PERMITTED/ EXISTING PROPOSED IN REQUIRED COMPLIANCE? DENSITY 70 dwelling units 0 dwelling units 2 dwelling units Yes per acres (105 units FLOOR AREA 5.0 (329,875 0.25 0.33 Yes RATIO square feet)* IMPERVIOUS N/A 0.89 0.80 Yes SURFACE RATIO * The property includes amix-used development. Site intensity may not exceed the allowable density, floor area ratio or combination thereof. B. FLEXIBILE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE D, DOWNTOWN DISTRICT: STANDARD PERMITTED/ EXISTING PROPOSED IN REQUIRED COMPLIANCE? LOT AREA N/A 65,975 square feet 65,975 square Yes minimum feet LOT WIDTH N/A 255 feet 255 feet Yes minimum HEIGHT N/A 24 feet 66 feet (highest Yes maximum tower FRONT YARD N/A 3.4 feet -Jones 1 foot -Jones Yes SETBACK Street; 9.7 feet - Street; 0 feet - minimum Drew Street Drew Street SIDE YARD N/A 0.5 feet -west; 0 0 feet -north; 2 Yes SETBACK feet -east feet -south minimum REAR YARD N/A** N/A** N/A** N/A** SETBACK minimum PARKING Determined by 21 spaces 21 spaces Yes SPACES the Community minimum Development Coordinator based on the specific use (8 spaces) and or ITE Manual standards. ** Double frontage lots shall have two front setback, two side setbacks and no rear setback. Page 5 C. FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS: 1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use, intensity and development standards. The applicant desires to redevelop a blighted property into amixed-use Renaissance villa. The project will include a 66 feet tower that will add architectural interest to the project. The reduction in parking is appropriate because the use of the building will not produce the parking need as required by Code and a Renaissance villa theme cannot be successfully accomplished if the site is covered primarily by surface parking. 2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project will not materially reduce the fair market value of abutting properties; The site is blighted and the buildings are in need of numerous repairs. The surrounding properties are industrial in character. Additionally, several vacant lots surround the property. It is expected that the redevelopment of this site will actually serve a catalyst for redevelopment in the immediate vicinity and downtown Clearwater as a whole. 3. The uses within the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project are otherwise permitted in the City of Clearwater; Mixed-use developments are both permitted and encouraged in the Downtown District and other activity centers in the City. 4. The uses or mix of uses within the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project are compatible with adjacent land uses; The mixed-use proposal is less intensive in character than existing adjacent uses. The proposal is more compatible and more appropriate with other, more stable uses in the Downtown District. 5. Suitable sites for development or redevelopment of the uses or mix of uses within the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project are not otherwise available in the City of Clearwater. The Downtown District is, perhaps, the only appropriate area in the City for this type of mixed-use development. It is common planning practice to locate signature buildings, mixed-use initiatives and artist studios such as this in the central business district. Page 6 • 6. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; The site remains in a blighted state and contributes to an appearance of a neglected neighborhood. The proposal includes a signature building and will serve as a catalyst for redevelopment in the immediate vicinity and Downtown as a whole. 7. The design of the proposed Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project creates a form and function which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole; The proposal includes the development of a signature building in the City's central business district. Downtown areas customarily contain unique architecture that is built to human scale. The building will serve as a landmark and help create an identifiable skyline for Clearwater. The proposal will significantly enhance the Downtown character and the City as a whole. 8. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified by the benefits to community character and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole; The proposal includes amixed-use development to resemble a Renaissance villa. In order to successful give the appearance of a villa, a 66-foot tower is pertinent to the design to create architectural form and balance. The reduction in required parking is needed to prevent large spans of asphalt parking. Flexibility in regard to height and parking is justified by a creative design that will serve as a catalyst for redevelopment in a blighted area and an added landmark to the City's skyline. 9. Adequate off-street parking in the immediate vicinity according to the shared parking formula in Division 14 of Article 3 will be available to avoid on-street parking in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. Parking for this proposal is based on need rather than gross floor area as required by Code. The parking provided will adequately serve the use and will not result in a regular need for on-street parking. Page 7 n r: D. GENERAL APPLICABILITY: Conditions which are imposed by the Community Development Coordinator and the Community Development Board pursuant to a Level One or a Level Two Approval shall ensure that: 1. The proposed development of the land will be' in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density, and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. The proposed building scale is appropriate for a central business district in which it is located with a variety in facade design and building features. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. The proposed development may encourage more appropriate redevelopment in this area of Downtown Clearwater. The existing character of immediate vicinity neither encourages pedestrian activity nor spurs architectural interest as intended by the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, the Downtown Design Guidelines, and the Community Development Code. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. The proposed development is should not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. The proposal may actually improve safety in the area by upgrading an otherwise blighted property. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. The proposed uses are not expected to generate significant traffic. During the weekday, ample parking is provided. During gallery events, the parking provided on-site should adequately serve customer needs. Additional parking maybe utilized along Jones Street where on-street parking is readily available yet rarely used. The applicant may chose to lease space at adjacent parking lots for large events or conduct valet service to nearby public parking garages. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. This mixed-use redevelopment initiative is appropriate for a Downtown District. The Comprehensive Plan, the Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan and the Downtown Design Guidelines encourage this type of development in the City's central core. Page 8 • 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. The proposal is not expected to product an adverse effects onto adjacent properties. All art work will be produced inside or behind gates. There will be no storage of materials outdoors. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The application and supporting materials were reviewed by the Development Review Committee on January 18, 2001. The proposal is in compliance with the standards and criteria for Flexible Development approval, the maximum development potential, requirements of Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects, and with all applicable standards of the Community Development Code. The Planning Department recommends APPROVAL of the Flexible Development application to increase the height of a tower as part of a mixed-use development from 50 to 66 feet and to reduce the number of required parking from 91 spaces to 21 spaces, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, with the following conditions: 1. That trash collection facilities are provided to the satisfaction of the Solid Waste Department and the design is coordinated with the Planning Department; 2. That in the event square footage that is allocated for residential uses are converted into nonresidential uses the Planning Department shall recalculate the parking requirement for the converted square footage (the approximately 2,500 square feet of flex space to a gallery shall be exempt) and Code requirements must be met; 3. That in the event the artist studio portion of the building is converted into any other use (including other types of retail) the Planning Department shall recalculate the parking requirement for the converted square footage and Code requirements must be met; 4. That an application for a building permit be submitted for the first major portion of the project and that all outstanding code violations be resolved within three months of the Community Development Board decision; 5. That all outdoor storage and debris be removed prior to the issuance of any building permits or within two months whichever is less; 6. That outdoor storage of materials be prohibited; 7. That all signage meet code and be architecturally integrated into the design of the building; and 8. That a minimum of a five-foot sidewalk be provided along Jones Street. Prepared by: W. Ryan Givens, Planner Page 9 r ATTACHMENTS: Aerial Photograph of Site and Vicinity Location Map Future Land Use Map Zoning Atlas Map Application IIMSIIPDSIPIanningDepartmentlCDBIFLEXIPendingApplicationslDrew 631 SchoellerlDrew 632 StaJjReport.doc Page 10 March 13, 2001 Mr. Robert Schoeller 632 Drew Street Clearwater, Florida 33758 RE: Development Order regarding case FL 00-11-57 - 632 Drew Street Dear Mr. Schoeller: This letter constitutes a Development Order pursuant to Section 4-206 D.7 of the Community Development Code. On February 20, 2001, the Community Development Board reviewed your application for Flexible Development approval to increase the height of a tower as part of a mixed use development from 50 to 66 feet and to reduce the number of required parking from 91 spaces to 21 spaces, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. The proposal includes the redevelopment of the site to include an artist's studio, supporting offices, residential and gallery space. Based on the application and the staff recommendation, the Board found that the proposal is in compliance with the standards and criteria for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, the maximum development potential standards and all other applicable standards of the Community Development Code. The Community Development Board approved the application with the following eight conditions: 1. That trash collection facilities are provided to the satisfaction of the Solid Waste Department and the design is coordinated with the Planning Department; 2. That in the event square footage that is allocated for residential uses are converted into nonresidential uses, the Planning Department shall recalculate the parking requirement for the converted square footage (the approximately 2,500 square feet of flex space to a gallery shall be exempt) and Code requirements must be met; 3. That in the event the artist studio portion of the building is converted into any other use (including other types of retail), the Planning Department shall recalculate the parking requirement for the converted square footage and Code requirements must be met; ~ . ~Y '7 Schoeller, Page 2 632 Drew Street -Development Order March 13, 2001 4. That an application for a building permit be submitted for the Drew Street facade and that all outstanding code violations be resolved within four months of the Community Development Board decision (June 20, 2001); 5. That all outdoor storage and debris be removed prior to the issuance of any building permits or within two months (April 20, 2001) whichever is less; 6. That outdoor storage of materials be prohibited; 7. That all signage meet Code and be architecturally integrated into the design of the building; and 8. That a minimum of a five-foot sidewalk be provided along Jones Street. Pursuant to Section 4-407, an application for a building permit shall be made within one year of Flexible Development approval (February 20, 2002) unless otherwise required by the above conditions. All required certificates of occupancy shall be obtained within one year of the date of issuance of the building permit. Time frames do not change with successive owners. The Community Development Board may grant an extension of time for a period not to exceed one year and only within the original period of validity. Please remember that a building permit and impact fees will be required prior ~ to the construction of the project. Should you have any questions, please call W. Ryan Givens, Planner, at 727-562-4504. Very truly yours, Gerald Figurski, Chairman Community Development Board Cc: Jeff Kronschnabl, Development Services Director Bob Hall, Development Service Manager Kevin Garriott, Building Official S:\Planning Department\C D B\FLEX\Pending Applications\Drew 632 Schoeller\Drew 632 Development Order.doc WinWord Document: DESIGN VIEW BOARD ` Page 1 of 7 ~~ WinWord Document: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Previous Next D First Hi Native Wi W d Vie g I Back to R l N e ~ Help Document ocument t n or ma a esu ts y ue DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER January 14, 1997 Present: William McCann Kathy Milam Robert Herberich Mark Cagni Alex Plisko Howard Hamilton Leslie Dougall-Sides Don McCarty Gwen Legters Chair Vice Chair Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member http://199.227.233.29/ISYSquery/IRL8BFF.tmp/9/doc 11/28/2005 WinWord Document: DESIGN VIEW BOARD ~ Page 2 of 7 Assistant City Attorney Design Planner Board Reporter Absent: MacArthur "Mac" Boykins Board Member The Chair called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. in the Greater Clearwater Chamber of Commerce Community Room, 1130 Cleveland Street. To provide continuity for research, the items are listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. Minutes Approval -- Friday, December 13, 1996 Member Hamilton moved to approve the minutes according to copies submitted in writing to each member by the Board Reporter. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. C. Proposals for Design Review 1. DRB 96-020 Chamber of Commerce Building, Kathy Ration, Executive Director 331 Cleveland Street (signage) This item was continued from the last meeting at the request of the applicant, for signage revisions on the west and east sides of the building. Mr. McGarry presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating today's request is for only one building identification sign, to be located on the east side of the building. Drawings submitted in the board packets indicated colors, size, placement, and conformity with the City sign code. The sign will not be internally lit. Ms. Ration said molded letters similar to those on the Citizen's Bank building and the Harborview Center will be affixed to the east side of the building, lighted with gooseneck lamps. The burgundy letters will match the exterior the trim, and will be the only signage on the building. The Laura Street signs are not to be replaced. She said a tenant identification sign request will come forward when the United Way agency moves into the building. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Member Hamilton moved to approve Item #1, DRB 96-020, as requested. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 2. DRB 96-021 The Ice - ~ House - [, Robert Schoeller, Owner (John Sykes, Architect) 632 Drew Street (building & site) This item was continued from the last meeting to allow time for staff to meet with the applicants to http://199.227.233.29/ISYSquery/IRL8BFF.tmp/9/doc 11/28/2005 WinWord Document: DESIGN VIEW BOARD • Page 3 of 7 obtain drawings, and get the specifics necessary to prepare a staff report and summation. Mr. McCarty presented background information and written staff recommendations, stressing the importance of timely implementation of the project, given the prominent. location of the site and its impact on the City. Robert Schoeller and John Sykes circulated elevation drawings and site plans for the Drew Street side of the development. Discussion ensued regarding the background of the project to date, and Mr. Schoeller's plans to implement the project. He responded to questions regarding garden work in progress, setback from Drew Street, site plan approval, and required parking associated with the business activity to be conducted. It was indicated the development will have both commercial and residential uses. Mr. McCarty said engineering site plan review will address the structural and mechanical aspects of the project. The DRB will focus on design review. One board member indicated he likes the architectural treatment of the building as proposed. Concerns were expressed with the uncertain time schedule for execution of the three phases. Board members were unclear what they were being asked to approve. Concerns were expressed with the incomplete plans being subject to change after approval. Mr. Schoeller said, while he wanted to start and complete the project as soon as possible, the drawings he submitted were designs, not working drawings. He was reluctant to bring forward specific designs until it is known whether or not DRC site plan approval will be obtained. Concerns were expressed the applicant is still not ready to implement the project, and completion could stretch out for several years. It was indicated both DRB and Development Review Committee (DRC) approvals are valid for one year. Mr. McCarty suggested board members decide whether or not to approve the concept of the overall master plan. If the applicant chooses to implement his project in phases, design approval of each phase could be requested, with time extensions requested as needed. If the building permits for the approved improvements are not pulled within a year, the applicant would have to reapply, meeting any criteria adopted in the interim. Mr. Schoeller expressed an interest in proceeding with his project in three phases: 1) the garden; 2) the building on Drew Street; and 3) a colonnade connecting the two buildings. The board cautioned Mr. Schoeller appropriate maintenance of each completed phase would be required pending project completion. One member noted the lack of workers on the site, and expressed concern the applicant may not have been exerting a contentious effort to get through the project. Another member explained the DRB was created to be a user friendly board, charged with promoting timely improvements to downtown buildings, not allowing developments to linger incomplete. Mr. Schoeller explained some of the reasons the project has been delayed and said he is ready to move forward now. He complained of miscommunications with staff regarding the site plan approval process. Mr. McCarty related a chronology of what the applicants were told with regard to the application process. Discussion ensued regarding the factors involved in engineering versus design review. While the majority of the members felt the concept is good, concerns were expressed the back-out parking onto Drew Street is illegal, and renovation of the former air conditioning building does not appear to be part of the current plan. Member Herberich moved to approve the site plan design concept for Item #2, DRB 96-021, subject to City Engineering and Zoning approvals; removal of the back-out parking along Drew Street; and addressing the facade of the existing air-conditioning building. Any modifications of the design as submitted shall require a new hearing before this board. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. http://199.227.233.29/ISYSquery/IRL8BFF.tmp/9/doc 11/28/2005 WinWord Document: DESIGN VIEW BOARD • Page 4 of 7 Mr. Schoeller was advised to call Mr. McCarty in the Central Permitting Department for guidance with regard to starting the certified site plan process. 3. DRB 97-001 Pinch-A-Penny, Bob Aude, Architect 651 Court Street (building & site) Mr. McCarty presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant wishes to remodel the former Badcock Furniture building. A portion of the building's front will be removed, restoring the front setback and returning to the original footprint. The new building front will be created to form an entrance patio and covered canopy. The north elevation will feature a pitched roof and new columns to reflect some of the design elements of the adjacent train station. Staff felt the project has the potential for a good development, but many details and enhancements are unknown related to a blank east wall in the view corridor, parking in the front yard areas, restricted vehicular circulation, and lack of landscaping or site amenities. Robert Aude, architect representing the applicant, referred to a January 7 letter submitted with the proposed site plan and elevation drawings. He profiled project details as follows: 1) the proposed use as a Pinch-A-Penny retail store; 2) north and east elevation features; 3) signage; and 4) "Key West" monochromatic color theme in shades of gray and white. He elaborated further regarding: 1) proposed use of floor space; 2) creating a building scale compatible with the train station and "Key West" theme; 3) fenestration, roof pitch and other architectural details; and 4) conditions on surrounding properties. Mr. Aude displayed a photograph of the existing building. Discussion ensued regarding the elevation drawings illustrating the proposed colors, facade design, and signage. The potential exists for a professionally created graphic, mural, or similar treatment on the south elevation, to reflect the theme of the adjacent train station and Pinellas Trail. The owner is receptive to including a graphic on the east wall as well, to break up the blank expanse. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Board members were pleased with the prospect of a pool store in downtown. In response to questions, Mr. Aude explained no additional doors or windows are proposed in the east wall, because of the high demand for interior wall space to display retail products. He explained a short construction time frame is required in order to accomplish needed repairs before the busy season. He the building to the east is not part of the Pinch-A-Penny Store. The owner hopes to hold it aside for a special future use related to the trail. Discussion ensued regarding numerous buildings shown on the plans, all held by the same owner. While the applicants were applauded for their efforts to date, concerns were expressed with the lack of landscaping and other details the board would expect to see as part of an application packet of this nature. Discussion ensued regarding building use; potential for outdoor display; signage; type of pavement replacing the front portion of the building; the tree survey; parking calculations; and pedestrian accesses after the trail goes in. It was indicated signage and landscaping will be brought back as a separate application. A question was raised regarding whether a back door is required. Mr. Aude will investigate in conjunction with the site plan review. Member Plisko moved to approve Item #3, DRB 97-001, for design of the exterior building front as submitted. The remainder of the site plan will have to be brought back for DRB review. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 4. DRB 97-002 Hughes Supply, Inc., Jon Lyon, Branch Manager http://199.227.233.29/ISYSquery/IRL8BFF.tmp/9/doc 11/28/2005 WinWord Document: DESIGN VIEW SOA~D ~ Page 5 of 7 951 Pierce Street (canopy/awning) Mr. McCarty presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant wishes to place a small canopy/awning on the front across the main entrance of the existing metal building. According to the canopy contractor, the small canopy support columns meet structural requirements and will not be changed due the additional cost involved. Staff recommended approval, but felt more substantial columns or distinctive support elements were preferable. Jon Lyon and Ted Turner addressed the board, stating among their product line are various types of pool equipment and supplies sold at wholesale. They requested prompt approval of a replacement canopy, because rain has been coming through the front door. They displayed color samples of the recently repainted building, showing an ivory background with deep blue trim and graphics. The Hughes Supply emblem and colors shown on their business cards will be reflected on the metal canopy, and backlit for emphasis. Mr. Turner explained they would rather not have canopy supports, but the columns are needed to support the metal structure .The columns will be painted the same color as the building to minimize their appearance. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Member Plisko moved to approve Item #4, DRB 97-002, as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 5. DRB 97-003 Old World Deli, Clyde Hall, Owner 11 Jefferson Avenue (signage) Mr. McCarty presented background information and written staff recommendations, stating the applicant wishes to install two signs on the canopy faces of the existing building. The applicant has worked extensively with Central Permitting staff to design signage that meets square footage requirements and design criteria. Sign dimensions and the hunter green and black lettering on a white background were illustrated in the board packets. Photographs submitted with the application show the existing building on the corner of Cleveland Street and Jefferson Avenue. Mr. Hall described the proposed signage design and placement on the existing facades. He verified the proposal meets sign area requirements. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Member Milam moved to approve Item #5, DRB 97-003, as submitted. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. Hall was invited to talk about his new deli business in the former Donnell's catering building. He will specialize in sausages and other ethnic dishes, and will open daily for lunch. The public was invited to sample his fare on Saturday, January 18 from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The following Monday will be the first day of business. D. Preliminary Mandalay Avenue Streetscape Design Mr. McCarty introduced Diane Hufford, with the City's Economic Development Department, who was present to hear the presentation. He displayed a color graphic and gave an overview of the preliminary design, from Pier 60 park, north to Baymont Street. He said, after viewing the proposal, the City Management Team asked staff to look into incorporating some more extensive alternatives into the design. http://199.227.233.29/ISYSquery/IRL8BFF.tmp/9/doc 11/28/2005 WinWord Document: DESIGN~VIEW BOARD • Page 6 of 7 ~. Discussion ensued regarding types of landscaping; sidewalk and crosswalk finishes, pavers; clustering groups of palms at crosswalks and intersections; coordinating pedestrian furniture, street lighting, bike racks and waste receptacles. A bronze color theme was chosen over black or green. In response to a question, he detailed locations of bike racks. Board members favored: 1) the appearance and durability of brick pavers over a stamped concrete finish; 2) the concept of using street treatments, landscaping and stop signs to calm traffic and bring it down to a pedestrian level; 3) getting rid of overhead power lines. Mr. McCarty emphatically agreed that underground power lines and mast arm traffic signals are essential to an aesthetic streetscape design. Board and Staff Discussion 1. Annual Review of DRB Rules of Procedure Mr. McCarty submitted modifications he prepared to bring the rules into agreement with board procedures. Member Plisko questioned whether minimum submittal requirements could be added. He felt it is important for the board to receive rough sketches showing sign placement, and site plans showing landscaping. General discussion ensued regarding minimum submittal requirements, and the most effective means of presenting such written requirements. Board members will review the amended rules for adoption at the next meeting. 2. Election of Board Officers Member Milam nominated William McCann for reelection as Chair. Mr. McCann accepted the nomination. Hearing no further nominations, William McCann was unanimously reelected as Chair. Member Hamilton nominated Kathy Milam for reelection as Vice Chair. Member Milam accepted the nomination. Hearing no further nominations, Kathy Milam was unanimously reelected as Vice Chair. 3. Other Issues Mr. McCarty said Mr. Shuford has indicated the Land Development Code rewrite in progress will represent a phenomenal change in the community; the way proposals come forward; the way approvals are obtained; and the advisory board application process. Charts and tables are proposed to simplify language. Mr. McCarty reported design guidelines are being written for the Clearwater beach area. He hopes to bring a draft to the next meeting. Member Plisko expressed concern the board is not at its full complement of members. He requested staff to determine whether Mr. Boykins intends to continue serving on the board. Board members wished Mr. Boykins a speedy recovery. Discussion ensued regarding the difference between murals, billboards, and graffiti. In response to a question from Member Milam, Mr. McCarty said Assistant City Manager Bob Keller is meeting with Alan Ferri, Winn-Dixie, and Clearwater Neighborhood Housing Services, regarding the Winn-Dixie development proposal along Cleveland Street. Discussion ensued regarding the delays frequently experienced by public/private partnerships, related to the complicated grant funding involved. Member Milam reported she will not attend the February 11, 1997 DRB meeting. http:// 199.227.233.29/ISYSquery/IRL8BFF.tmp/9/doc 11 /28/2005 WinWord Document: DESIGN VIEW BOARD ~ Page 7 of 7 Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m. mdr01 a97 6 O 1 / 14/97 Ask me about ISYS http://199.227.233.29/ISYSquery/IRL8BFF.tmp/9/doc 11 /28/2005 • • ADJACENT LAND USES: North: Governmental Use (Clearwater Gas) South: Retail and vacant parcels East: Warehouse West: Office CHARACTER OF THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY: The immediate vicinity is composed of a variety of non- residential land uses. ANALYSIS: The 1.51-acre site is located on the north side of Drew Street, east of the Pinellas Trail and west of the CSX Railroad tracks. The general vicinity has a mix of land uses including an office to the west, the City of Clearwater Gas company to the north, a warehouse to the east and retail and vacant land to the south. The site is located near the northern boundary of the Downtown District and southeast of the Northwest Expansion Area of the Periphery Plan. Properties along Drew Street are not well integrated and are in varying states of maintenance and redeveloment. Generally, the existing land use pattern is normally found in suburban industrial locations rather than a central business district. The proposal is designated as CBD, Central Business District on the future land use map. The Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, a special area plan, designates the property as Heavy Commercial on its more defined future land use map. Uses that are encouraged in this classification include light assembly, office/warehousing and distribution. As a general rule, a parcel may not be more intensive than what is designated on the future land use map although less intensive uses including retail, office and mixed-use are permitted in the Heavy Commercial future land use classification of the redevelopment plan. The site is in need of several repairs and refurbishing. The buildings were previously used as an ice storage house and always referred to as such. The site is very industrial in character including a loading dock along Drew Street, large blank masonry walls and an interior parking lot full of debris. The site contains two distinct, 24-foot tall buildings. The western-most building has a brick facade with new decorative window frames. The eastern building has a facade along Drew Street resembling an office while the other elevations are blank masonry walls. The site is almost entirely covered with asphalt and landscaping is virtually nonexistent. The site has been at the center of much discussion regarding maintenance and the appearance of neglect and blight. The current owner uses the site for his artist's studio where he paints portraits for domestic and international customers. He intends to redevelop the site for use as his personal residence, a dwelling for his son, an art studio, including a gallery and office. The proposal includes the transformation of the existing warehouse buildings into aRenaissance-type villa reminiscent of those found in southern Europe. The design will incorporate the existing warehouse buildings into amixed-use development. The applicant compares the design to the Ringling Museum in Sarasota, Florida. Page 2 WinWord Document: DESIGI~VIEW BOARD r ~ Page 1 of 5 WinWord Document: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Previous D Next D First Hit Native Wi W d Vie ~ I Back to R lt N e ~ Help ocuument ocument n or ma a esu s y ue DESIGN REVIEW BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER December 13, 1996 Present Kathy Milam Vice Chair Robert Herberich Board Member Mark Cagni Board Member Howard Hamilton Board Member Leslie Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Don McCarty Design Planner Gwen Legters Board Reporter Absent:: William McCann Chair MacArthur "Mac" Boykins Board Member Alex Plisko Board Member The Vice Chair called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. in City Hall. To provide continuity for research, the items are listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. Minutes Approval -November 26, 1996 Member Hamilton moved to approve the minutes according to copies submitted in writing to each member by the Board Reporter. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Proposals for Design Review http://199.227.233.29/ISYSquery/IRL8BFF.tmp/8/doc 11 /28/2005 WinWord Document: DESIGI~VIEW BOARD ~ Page 2 of 5 1. DRB 96-011 Burning Bridges Design Studio Hiram Berry, Owner 700 Court Street Mr. McCarty stated this item was continued from the November 12 meeting for board review of Mr. Berry's proposed "products display window ." While the applicant had indicated he was ready to make a presentation, he has since requested a continuance. Consensus was to continue to the next meeting. 2. DRB 96-020 Chamber of Commerce Building, Kathy Rabon, Executive Director 331 Cleveland Street Mr. McCarty presented written staff report and recommendations, stating the applicant is seeking approval of signage for their new Cleveland Street location, at the former Citizens Bank Building. Preliminary discussions with the applicant indicate all proposed signage will comply with the City sign code. Final drawings and details have not been submitted. Kathy Rabon, Clearwater Chamber of Commerce Executive Director, addressed the board. Referring to her written proposal, she requested a continuance of items #1 and #2, relating to signage on the west and east sides of the building. She requested board approval today of signage on the existing awning in front of the building, as illustrated in photographs submitted with the application packet. She proposed to have the name, "Greater Clearwater Chamber of Commerce," in six-inch high white lettering, professionally sewn or silk screened onto the burgundy awning over the Cleveland Street entrance. No verbal or written support or opposition was expressed. Member Cagni moved to approve DRB 96-020, for awning signage only, as requested by the applicant. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 3. DRB 96-021 The 1 Ice ~- House ~ , Robert Schoeller, Owner (John Sykes, Architect) 632 Drew Street Mr. McCarty reported he had not received any information regarding this application as of 1:00 p.m. today, and was unable to prepare written recommendations. The board was interested in hearing some type of presentation, but pointed out a decision might not follow, due to lack of documentation. Mr. McCarty concurred the decision can be made later, but stressed the importance of board direction to the applicant regarding a time table. Staff stressed the importance of submitting drawings, site plans, and timely implementation of the project, given the prominent location of the site and its impact on the City. John Sykes stated he submitted drawings today, in accordance with Mr. McCarty's request. He gave the background of the project to date, explaining it has taken a lot of time to repoint and regrout the existing structure to make it safe. Mr. Schoeller is from Vienna, and likes a classical style of architecture and design, which takes additional time. He submitted drawings of the proposed design as seen from Drew Street, looking south from the garden in back. It was indicated Mr. Schoeller is an artist of renown. Robert Schoeller, the owner/applicant, responded to questions, stating the building is to be his residence. Elevation drawings were presented an reviewed at length. Mr. Schoeller responded to questions, stating he owns the entire block and wishes to make it "his http://199.227.233.29/ISYSquery/IRL8BFF.tmp/8/doc 11/28/2005 WinWord Document: DESIG~VIEW BOARD r ~ Page 3 of 5 world," so he feels comfortable aesthetically. Some of the rooms will be used for a studio, some for hanging his paintings, some rooms private. He was not able to pinpoint a time frame for implementation or completion of the refurbishment. He elaborated on project details, such as creating a gallery from the existing loading dock on Drew Street, starting the garden within a few months, and plumbing and mechanical installations inside the building. Mr. McCarty responded to questions regarding site plan approval, reflecting pools, landscaping in the interior spaces, and required parking associated with the business activity to be conducted in conjunction with the studio. The site plan is not ready for engineering review and today's presentation is the first time Mr. McCarty had seen elevation drawings and renderings. Staff will meet with the applicants to get the specifics necessary to prepare a staff report, summation, and obtain drawings. Board discussion ensued regarding the impressive proposal, the location, and controversial history of the site. One member questioned the projected opening date for the gallery. Mr. Schoeller responded he has experienced problems finding anyone in Florida who can do the custom masonry work he requires. While he said he wanted to start as soon as possible, he would not venture a guess until the site plan is approved. He explained at length why it appears nothing has happened during the considerable time since he started the project. He detailed a complicated process of molding custom sandstone-looking masonry materials, the amount of time spent gutting the building, removing 700 tons of debris, restoring brickwork, roofs, ceilings, and windows. He said there was never a time when nothing was happening, but nothing was apparent from the street side. No one knew what was depicted was inside. He said he researched his design in Europe. He is dealing with a nursery for large selected palm trees, similar to those seen in past centuries. He hopes to create a unified environment with a lot of water, trees, and palms. In response to questions from Mr. McCarty, Mr. Schoeller listed details regarding finishes, materials, and colors on the Drew Street Side of the property. Mr. McCarty explained the purpose, use and intent of the design guidelines for the downtown district. Because of the scale and finishes described, he will meet with the applicants to finalize details and schedule them to come back with a more comprehensive presentation. The board thanked the applicants for appearing, encouraged them to work closely with staff, and to keep moving ahead with the project. Consensus was to continue this item to the January 14 meeting, if feasible. 4. DRB 96-022 City of Clearwater City Hall 110 South Osceola Avenue Mr. McCarty presented written staff reports and recommendations, stating the City is doing minor building upgrades to bring fire sprinkler and exiting requirements into compliance with the life safety code. It is necessary to create a separate fire exit from a stairwell to the exterior. The proposed exit and stairs will be constructed on the north stairwell on the west side of the building. He distributed drawings of the proposal and overall view of the west elevation, showing the position of the stair exit between the first and second floors. Jim Wood, City Building and Maintenance Department supervisor, gave an overview of the configuration options. He said the materials will match the building's exterior, handrails, etc. http://199.227.233.29/ISYSquery/IRL8BFF.tmp/8/doc 11/28/2005 WinWord Document: DESIGN~VIEW BOARD ~ Page 4 of 5 ~:.~ Y Board members pointed out handrails and stair risers depicted in the plans do not follow NFPA or ADA codes. Discussion ensued regarding building codes versus life safety codes, and how the plans will look when all appropriate codes are met. Mr. McCarty related alternatives regarding potential handrail design. He will meet with City Building and Maintenance staff to finalize the design. In response to questions, Mr. Wood said construction will start on January 13. He has been given two months to complete the project. Discussion ensued regarding how the project progressed to this point without code compliance. Board members suggested a continuance and requested revised drawings in time for the next meeting. Discussion continued regarding design alternatives. Mr. McCarty pointed out compliance with stair hand rail design standards is extremely difficult due to the number of contradictory codes involved. He will work with staff on final drawings for the January meeting. In response to questions, Mr. Wood said sufficient funds have been allocated for the project. Mr. McCarty said retrofitting the building was intended to make City Hall usable for three to five years, to allow time to study which is more appropriate: a complete retrofit; continuing with the building as it is by adapting to meet requirements; or replacing the building. The City Commission does not want to become involved in an extensive project involving a lot of funds at this time. Member Herberich moved to accept the proposal, subject to compliance with Figure 19 of NFPA 101, the Standard Building Code, and use of aluminum railing to match those in use on the existing building, without a screening mesh. Some board members were not comfortable approving a concept for which final plans have not been prepared. It was felt to be more appropriate of the City to revise the plans, correcting the necessary details, before bringing the issue to the DRB. Other members were satisfied with the project as presented, subject to the conditions stated in the motion. Mr. McCarty did not think adding one tread would significantly change the overall appearance, as long as the handrails stay the same. He said the Central Permitting Department and Plans Review will sign off on the plan when it meets code. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Board and Staff Discussion Central Permitting Director Scott Shuford arrived to ask the board for direction regarding a proposed code amendment regarding outdoor sales/displays in conjunction with conforming indoor retail sales uses. The draft, prepared late in 1994, was copied into the board packets. If the board is comfortable with the general concept as presented in the draft, he will incorporate the ordinance into the Land Development Code revision process. He explained staff proposes to allow limited outdoor displays without the need for seeking a conditional use permit. Leslie Dougall-Sides left the meeting at 3:50 p.m. Mr. Shuford thanked the board for attending today's special meeting. He responded to questions regarding outdoor displays and sandwich board signs, stating the must not interfere with pedestrians or motor vehicles, should be portable and not permanently attached. The intent is not for a permanent outdoor display, but to allow things likely to be brought in at night when the facility is closed. Concern was expressed it will be difficult for any business to meet all the requirements of subsection #2. Discussion ensued regarding whether any locations exist on Clearwater beach that provide opportunities to have outdoor displays while maintaining afive-foot minimum clear area. Mr. Shuford discussed setback requirements in the General Commercial district. He will look at the amendment to see how it http://199.227.233.29/ISYSquery/IRL8BFF.tmp/8/doc 11/28/2005 WinWord Document: DESIGN~VIEW BOARD ~ Page 5 of 5 :a could affect some areas ofnon-conforming buildings. In response to questions, he said the ordinance will apply City-wide. Staff will put together a more organized program for a general concept regarding sandwich board signs. The DRB will not be responsible for approving the designs. He will bring the ordinance back in a more finished form, along with illustrations. The item will proceed through Planning and Zoning Board and Development Code Adjustment Board review before going to the City commission. Member Hamilton expressed concern regarding vending machines and news racks in front of Clearwater beach businesses. He said he has asked to have them removed from the front of his business numerous times, without success. Mr. Shuford said placement of news racks has become a first amendment issue, and the City is limited in the number of things that can be done. He suggested contacting the City's Community Response Team, which wrote the existing regulations and coordinates the compliance process through the newspaper companies. Mr. McCarty distributed a copy of the Mandalay Avenue Streetscape survey, and the tabulated results. Messrs. Shuford and McCarty wished board members a happy holiday season. Mr. McCarty reminded board members the annual review of the board's rules of procedure will be due at the first meeting in January. A question was raised regarding whether a full complement of board members exists. Mr. McCarty responded he has not received any letters of resignation. In response to a question regarding status of the City Annex demolition, Mr. Shuford said Assistant City Manager Bob Keller has expressed an interest in looking at proposals that will generate jobs in the City. Member Milam was encouraged by the opening vista and looked forward to seeing the property redeveloped. Mr. McCarty agreed, stating the board will be seeing fewer non-conforming setbacks and landscaping situations as new developments progress throughout the City. Other exciting new developments mentioned were the proposed A to Be School, Win- Dixie downtown plaza, and Mr. Schoeller's "palace." Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 4:04 p.m. Chair Design Review Board Attest: Board Reporter mdr1296 5 12/13/96 Ask me about ISMS http://199.227.233.29/ISYSquery/IRL8BFF.tmp/8/doc 11/28/2005 City of Clearwater Interdepartmental Correspondence TO: File FROM: Victor C. Chodora. Assistant Director, Central Permitting SUBJECT: 630 Drew Street Chronology - "Ice House" DATE: September 15, 1994 September 25, 1991 -Notice of unsafe condition (Water Tower) at northeast corner of building sent to owner, Thurman Hively, giving until October 7, 1991 to correct. September 26, 1991 -City was notified of Sheriff's sale to be held on 09/26/91. October 18, 1991 -New owner, Republic Bank, pulled a demolition permit to correct the above conditions. November 12, 1991 -Building suffered fire damage to the south half of the structure. Work being done without permits. November 13, 1991 -New owner, Robert Schoeller, was issued Notice of Unsafe Building. Owner erected six-foot chain link fence to secure property and commenced removal of the damaged portion of the structure. Owner expressed desire to restore structure to original appearance. In the following months, the demolition progressed slowly. This included removal of all equipment for the making of ice. Notice gave until January 21, 1992 to correct unsafe condition. (Code allowed additional 180 days to comply, after first order.) November 14, 1991 to December 16, 1992 -Met with or talked to Mr. Schoeller and his representatives over this period of time, trying to keep the project moving. The work being done was mostly the removing of the old equipment. Mr. Chaplinsky, Construction Inspector Supervisor was the City's main contact person. November 18, 1991 -Received letter from Ms. Daniel expressing interest in renovating the building. December 17, 1992 -Permit issued to recover roof on the north half of the building. Only one inspection requested. February 1993 -Received information from an employee of Mr. Schoeller that architect and owner could not come to an agreement on design. February 17, 1993 -Letter sent to Mr. Schoeller informing that permit must be pulled and work commenced on repair or demolition giving him until Apri18, 1993 to complete repairs and renovation work. This was a warning letter not a notice of violation. July 8, 1993 -Issued Notice of Unsafe Building on south half of building to repair the structural damage to the walls and roof of the building. This notice gave Mr. Schoeller until August 21, 1993 to complete the work. (Code allowed Building Official to grant time extensions up to 120 days.) July 20, 1993 - OSSI Construction obtained permit to start exterior demolition and removal of front block wall. (No inspections) August 23, 1993. -Key Engineering sent a note with a copy of a contract signed on August 23, 1993 with Mr. Schoeller's Assistant Ms. Cathy Darby. The contract is for engineering evaluations at 630 Drew Street. August 24, 1993 -The City files a request for hearing to the Municipal Code Enforcement Board. The City Clerk schedules the hearing for the September 8, 1993 meeting. The notice of hearing is served on September 3, 1993 to Ms. Daniel. September 2, 1993 -Plans submitted for permits to address the July 8, 1993 Notice of Violation by OSSI Construction. September 8, 1993 -The Municipal Code Enforcement Board continued the case to the September 22, 1993 meeting at the request of Mr. Schoeller's representative, Mr. Litton. September 9, 1993 -Final approval of repair permit application is made. 2 • September 20, 1993 -Plans received for the shoring of the south wall. September 22, 1993 -The Board ordered compliance within fifteen (15) days, by October 7, 1993, or payment of $100.00 per day fine. The Board, however, expressed that they were only concerned with the structural aspects of the south and east walls of the south one-half of the building. Mr. Litton told the Board that the south wall has temporary braces in place. September 27, 1993 - A letter was received with a proposed itinerary for the renovation from Thomas Everett Lamb, Design & Development Inc. The itinerary cut lined work including putting a new roof on the structure where there is no roof. The itinerary also specified completion dates for work. October 6, 1993 -Florida Tectonics, Inc. submitted an inspection report seven days after Mr. Lamb's schedule. This report noted 14 areas of concern and recommended six areas are addresses immediately. October 7, 1993 -Deadline for Code Board Order. No evidence of compliance. October 12, 1993 -Only work completed on schedule was the temporary shoring of the south wall. The owner was in violation of the Cole Board action. After consulting with the Legal department, we sent out a new Notice of Unsafe Building. Using wording reflecting the changes in procedures. The Notice was hand delivered on October 13, 1993, giving the owner until November 12, 1993 to comply with specific requirements. (Code allows up to 30 days to comply, with no more than a 90 extension.) Mr. Chaplinsky delivered the notices to Mr. John Shield, son of Ms. Daniel, and to Ms. Cathy Darby, Mr. Schoeller's business manager. Mr. Jeffrey Litton was present at Mr. Schoeller's business. Mr. Chaplinsky explained to Mr. Litton that this notice was in addition to the Code Board order. Ms. Darby and Mr. Litton indicated this was no problem. This information is from handwritten note to file by Tom Chaplinsky dated 10113/93. October 19, 1993 -Note in file by Mr. Chaplinsky indicating no additional work started on the building. October 22, 1993 -Permit issued to Pierre Cournoyer to make repairs as per the City's July 8,.1993 Unsafe Notice. 3 i ~ October 25, 1993 - Mr. Chaplinsky filed and affidavit ofnon-compliance with the Municipal Code Enforcement Board. This is 18 days after the Board's order to comply passed. No notice is required to be given to applicant /owner. October 27, 1993 -Municipal Code Enforcement Board accepted City's affidavit of non- compliance. The City Clerk sent notice of the Board's action to Mr. Schoeller by certified mail on November 9, 1993. November 15, 1993 -Title search is ordered since owner did not comply with the Notice of Unsafe Building. November 18, 1993 - Mr. Chaplinsky photographed the building. Work was just beginning on closing the window openings. Mr. Chodora received a call from Mr. Tim Johnson. Mr. Johnson informed Mr. Chodora that he is representing Mr. Schoeller and wanted to be copied on any correspondence. November 22, 1993 -Title search is received confirming ownership. Asbestos survey is ordered and request for demolition bids is made. Specifications faxed to three (3) contractors. Mr. Chaplinsky met the asbestos consultant at the site and took some photos from the roof. Photos show workers repairing the floor in the southeast portion of the building. November 24, 1993 -Received asbestos survey and report from Florida Tectonics, Inc. The engineer's report stated that work was inspected on November 22, 1993 and the six items he had suggested complied to his satisfaction. He also stated that this was a temporary solution and needed a reinspection in six months. The building is still without a roof and is considered unsafe by the Building Official. Mr. Chodora sent a letter to Mr. Schoeller and Ms. Daniel informing them of the City's intent to continue with the demolition process. Mr. Chodora also talked to Mr. Johnson about the demolition and notification process. November 29, 1993 -Photographs were taken showing compliance with Code Board Order of September 22, 1993 and the Notice of Unsafe Building dated July 8, 1993. 4 • • December 1, 1993 - Mr. Chodora met with Mr. Schoeller and Mr. Litton about extending the time limits to complete the repair work. Mr. Schoeller explained his difficulty in finding an architect to design the building he wants. He also said he has no architect now, but feels he could have drawings completed by the end of February, with work to start in March. December 2, 1993 -Letter sent to Mr. Schoeller starting that additional time extension could not be granted and the demolition process would continue. December 3, 1993 -The faxed requests for demolition bids are received. All three bids came in over $10,000. A formal bid advertisement was requested on December 6, 1993 December 6, 1993 - Received a letter from Mr. Tim Johnson advising that he is representing Mr. Schoeller. He also asked to receive any other notices sent to Mr. Schoeller. December 7, 1993 -Formal bid package for demolition sent out by Purchasing with bid due date of December 23, 1993. Mr. Chodora sent update of the demolition process to Mr. Schoeller and Mr. Johnson. December 23, 1993 -Bids are opened, but not evaluated until the following workday, Monday, December 27, 1993. December 27, 1993 -After discussion with Purchasing, the Building Official decided to award the bid to the second lowest bidder. Lowest bidder had 21-day completion time on bid, while specifications required 15 days. January 3, 1994 -Request to award the bid was presented to City Commission. Owner's attorney asked for additional time. Commission gave an additional two weeks for owner and his attorney to modify a proposed agreement with the City. Request was made that the building and grounds be secured from unauthorized personnel. January 7, 1994 - Ms. Kathy Rice, Deputy City Manager, Met with Mr. Schoeller concerning the Ice House. In a follow-up letter she sent to him she reminded him of the Commission's requirement and the deadlines. January 12, 1994 - Mr. Chodora faxed Mr. Schoeller and Mr. Johnson a reminder note of the agreement deadline. • January 18, 1994 -The City Commission heard a presentation by Mr. Johnson and Mr. Schoeller requesting additional time to complete the renovations of the Ice House. Mr. Johnson felt the City was unfair and caused confusion to Mr. Schoeller. The Commission asked the City Attorney and staff to listen to the tapes to verify if what Mr. Johnson was saying is reflected in the City's records. Mr. Galbraith was asked to prepare a report and recommendation to the City Commission by Thursday night's meeting. Mr. Chodora, Mr. Chaplinsky and Mr. Galbrait visited the site after the meeting to verify the securing of the building. Each found areas where access to the building could not be gained. One was an unlocked passage door leading under the dock on the south face of the dock and the other a space between the fence and the building on the northwest corner. January 19, 1994 - Mr. Chodora, Mr. Shuford, Mr. Chaplinsky, and Mr. Galbraith met to discuss Mr. Schoeller's proposal and the comments made by Mr. Johnson. It was decided that, if the site could be developed into a vital business, all of Clearwater would benefit. This proposal gives Mr. Schoeller and opportunity to develop the site and gives the City the means to eliminate the problem should Mr. Schoeller fail to live up to his commitment. January 24, 1994 -City Commission discussed the change to the proposed agreement and decided to accept the timetable and sign the agreement after Mr. Schoeller signs. This sets up a timetable of April 15, 1994 for all the plans to be submitted for the renovation of the building; May 21, 1994 to have engineer inspect the building; May 31, 1994 to obtain permits and start construction; January 16, 1995 substantial completion; and April 17, 1995 completion of the entire project and obtaining of Certificate of Occupancy. February 3, 1994 -Received letter from Mr. Johnson confirming the timetable. February 14, 1994 -Memo to City Commission from Mr. Galbraith with a copy of the proposed agreement from Mr. Johnson explaining that his client, Mr. Schoeller, would sign the agreement as revised. The timetable remains the same, except for change to time when City would cease pursuing demolition as a solution to the violations, which is after the plans, including site plans, are submitted, permitting issued, and construction begins. 6 • April 15, 1994 -Central Permitting received an application and preliminary plans for permit to renovate the building. Plans showed only the layout of the existing building. There were no dimensions or details showing how the building was to be renovated or repaired. No site plans were included. Not enough information was supplied to issue permit. April 18, 1994 -Talked to Mr. Schoeller. He asked that we postpone review of the plans for at least one week while his architect completes the plans. April 19, 1994 -Talked to Mr. John Sykes, architect. He asked if the plans could be completed in stages so work could begin on repairing the structure while the complete plans for renovation are being completed. I told him I had no problem working with him and the contractor in this manner. May l 1, 1994 -Sent letter to Mr. Schoeller reminding him of deadline to submit the plans and start construction per his proposed timetable. I also reminded him that he and his architects promised completed plans by the end of April, and that if he was to meet the May 31, 1994 deadline in getting permits and starting construction, we would need the plans no later than May 23, 1994. I also reminded him of the required May 23, 1994 engineer's inspection of the temporary shoring. May 27, 1994 -Informed Mr. Schoeller that I was approving a permit for renovation work at the east end of the building as per the plans submitted to date. I also informed him that this would not, in any way, authorize the user of the building for any specific type of occupancy. This was a permit only to make the building safe. May 31, 1994 - A permit to make the building safe was issued to Pierre Cournoyer. June 4, 1994 - Mr. Chaplinsky talked to Mr. Sykes who indicated that Mr. Schoeller wanted him to recertify the building as being safe. Mr. Sykes told Mr. Chaplinsky that he is working with Mr. Schoeller to get everything ready for the contractor to start working so he could write a letter stating the specific work being done will bring the building up to code. Mr. Sykes also told Mr. Chaplinsky that a mason had started tuck-pointing on the inside of the building. June 7, 1994 - Mr. Chodora visited site -Found no evidence of work done. 7 • June 20, 1994 - Mr. Chodora visited site -Found no evidence of work done. June 27, 1994 - Mr. Chodora visited site -Found no evidence of work done. June 28, 1994 -The Ice House is placed on the inspector's schedule to photograph and prepare new unsafe building notice. June 30, 1994 -Contacted architect for the project. He advised that he is continuing work on the plans for renovating the entire building. I informed him of my intent to issue another unsafe notice for the building. The architect supplied me with a telephone number for the contractor. I called and left a message on the recorder. July 6, 1994 - Letter of Determination of Unsafe Structure hand -delivered to Mr. Schoeller and Ms. Daniel. July 12, 1994 - Mr. Chodora received a copy of a citizen's complaint from the Mayor's office about the condition of the building. He was asked to prepare a response for the Mayor. July 14, 1994 - I received my letter from Mr. Schoeller stating his disagreement with my decision about the structural stability of the building and stating that his engineer was going to reinspect the building. July 15, 1994 - After a discussion with Mr. Galbraith, I sent Mr. Schoeller a letter informing him that I would present the case to the Building /Flood Board of Adjustments and Appeals at the next scheduled meeting on July 20, 1994. July 18, 1994 -Noticeable construction took place over the weekend. Mr. Shuford asked Mr. Chodora to explore the possibility of a continuance at the Bldg/Flood Board. After a discussion with Mr. Galbraith, Mr. Chodora decided to present the case to the Board. July 20, 1994 -The Building/Flood Board of Adjustments and Appeals, heard the case. After considerable discussion, the Board decided to visit the site. The board toured the site and after a short discussion decided to uphold the Building Official's decision, that the building is unsafe. 8 • • Mr. Chodora and the Board told Mr. Schoeller, that he had the option of filing an application for additional time to complete the necessary repair work. Ms. Darby presented Mr. Chodora with an updated engineer's report on the building, after the board adjourned. Mr. Schoeller and Ms. Darby said that the roof and windows would be in by the next Board meeting. They said the materials were ordered. There report prepared by Florida Tectonics, Inc., recommends that corrective action to the roof and windows be completed by August 19, 1994. July 20, 1994 -Inspector John Witkowski visited the site several times a week between July 20, and August 19, 1994. This was done at the request of Mr. Chodora. The contractor was not requesting inspections, and Mr. Chodora wanted progress checks on the project. (See permit history for inspection results). August 2, 1994 - Mr. Chodora prepared another response to a concerned citizen about the process of the Ice House case. August 9, 1994 - A 27 day reminder letter was sent to Mr. Schoeller and Ms. Daniel. August 17, 1994 -The Bldg/Flood Board heard Mr. Schoeller's request for additional time to complete the necessary repairs. After considerable discussion, the Board decided to deny his request. Mr. Chodora, ordered Mr. Witkowski to place a stop work order on the job. Mr. Chodora wanted to prevent the owner form investing additional money in the project if the City was going to demolish the building. After the Board meeting, Mr. Sykes told Mr. Chodora he is no longer involved with the project. Mr. Chodora started the demolition process for this structure. That is he requested bids for demolition and started notification to all utilities for their removal. A tentative agenda item was prepared for City Commission approval of the demolition bid. 9 • August 29, 1994 -The County Tax records where checked once again for the listed owner and value of the property. The records still show Mr. Schoeller and Ms. Daniel as the owner. The records also indicate the building value as $0.00. September 2, 1994 -The demolition bids were opened. A revised agenda item was submitted recommending the City Commission award the contract to Howard Jimmie's Demo for $ 21,800.00. Updated Chronology 620 Drew Street This update starts after report sent To the City Manager on July 7, 1994 9/7/99 Apri125, 1996 -Complaint received, vacant building. July 1, 1996 -Sent notice of unsafe building. August 20, 1996 -Follow up of unsafe letter. July 21, 1997 -Next letter follow up. July 23, 1997 -Called and asked for appointment to inspect. Owner representative wanted to call back. October 2, 1997 -Met with owner representative, after they began to paint the exterior. October 6, 1997 -Letter to owner stating we found items that need engineer report. October 15, 1997 - No Engineer report received. November 5, 1997 - No report, no contact from the owner. 10 • December 22, 1997 -Owners office was closed and no Engineers report. January 5, 1998 - No contact from the owner or report. February 2, 1998 -Stopped by office and representative stated they have a report from Engineer. However, they could not find it. February 6, 1998 -Received Engineer report stating building cracks were repaired before the stucco was installed. Called and asked for an appointment to inspect. No time given. Will get back to us. February 24, 1998 -Received fax stating owner representative was going out of the County and will get back to me when he returns. March 17, 1998 -Faxed letter to the owner representative asking for an appointment to inspect received a fax from the owner representative setting the appointment. March 26, 1998 -Inspected and found problems -sent letter with violations. April 1, 1998 -Structure was placed on unsafe status list again. Apri17, 1998 -Received signed postal green card from unsafe letter. April 10, 1998 -Letter from owner stating they have an Engineer to check the building. April 15, 1998 -Owner applied for hearing before flood board to ask for an extension of time. April 16, 1998 -Engineer report stated the building is safe, except for the minor items that need repair. Apri127, 1998 - Received a letter asking for May 4, 1998 inspection. The owner appears to be working on the building, paint, stucco etc. Apri128, 1998 -Letter accepting May 6, 1998 to inspect. 11 • May 8, 1998 -Items in the letter of violation not completed. Received complaint letter from a neighboring Attorney stating the building is a mess and eye sore to the City. May 11, 1998 -Letter sent on remaining minimum code items not completed. May 13, 1998 -Flood Board Hearing. The owners did not come to the Hearing; they are about 80% complete with the minimum unsafe code requirements. May 18, 1998 -Called and asked for an appointment for Vic & Lorenzo to inspect, requested appointment again, no response. June 8, 1998 -Owner has not responded, appointment request again no response. July 10, 1998 - No response form the owners. July 31, 1998 -Numerous calls made, message left with no return phone call. Tried to make an appointment to inspect for all involved (CRT, Fire & Building). August 21, 1998 -Unable to make contact with owner to gain entry. September 11, 1998 -Have been calling, unable to make contact. Stopped by the office, they were closed. October 2, 1998 -Tried to contact - no response. October 3, 1998 - No contact -another strategy discussed. December 7, 1998 -Notice of Violation of Unsafe Letter sent. December 8, 1998 -Notice of Violation letter returned unclaimed. 3anuary 25, 1999 -Posted notice of violation on entry door to office of owner. February 9, 1999 -Owner requested hearing at Municipal Code Enforcement Board. 12 March 22, 1999 -Owner stated to Kevin he has Architect and contractor ready to rehab the structure. April 5, 1999 -Kevin and Antiona visited the site to discuss new code requirements with the owner. April 20, 1999 -Called the owner, no contact from the owner. July 14, 1999 -Owner spoke with Building Plans Review Committee (BPRC) to discuss his plans and new code requirements. Brought Architectural drawings owner seeking Architect and contractor that can obtain the European Castle look. July 27, 1999 -Appears the owner is working around the property. They have installed a new fence. September 11, 1999 -Have not been able to contact the owner or representative. October 12, 2001 -Sent notice of violation. October 23, 2001 -Sent to Code Board for hearing, owner made repairs before hearing. December 4, 2001 -Has not met unsafe interior conditions. January 15, 2002 -Structure back on monitoring list. April 9, 2002 -Owner applied for permits to build living quarters. July 16, 2002 -Owner is building a goldfish pond. October 30, 2002 -Permit has expired on goldfish pond. December 31, 2002 -Working on pond, no active permits. April 15, 2003 -Building ponds and statues. JuIX 29, 2003 - No work on building but it looks like the pond is completed. 13 December 1, 2003 -Property has been fenced without permits. April 29, 2004 -Owner has working with gate open, has built numerous items without permits. Apri130, 2004 -Posted building with stop work order. August 27, 2004 - No action from owner to get permits fro work done. October 1 1, 2004 -Unable to get inside fence. However it appears he has added more work with out permits. February 2, 2005 - No change to exterior view of building but still building in fenced area. April 11, 2005 -Filed for Code Board Hearing. May 17, 2005 - No permits. August 30, 2005 - No change, no contract from owner. November 30, 2005 -Code Board ordered to file proper paperwork to Development Review Committee by February 24, 2006 of $250.00 per day fine. December 16, 2005 -Nothing done to obtain permits. February 27, 2006 -Papers were filed and hearing with Development Review Committee will be held on March 30, 2006. Complied with Code Board order. March 30, 2006 -Told to complete plans and apply for Community Development Board Hearing. May 15, 2006 - No Development Board approval. August 8, 2006 - No paperwork or application has been submitted for the Community Development Board, and no applications for permits for all the work done with permits and/or inspections. 14 August 9, 2006 -Soffit and facia boards rotted and missing in areas. Exterior surfaces need cleaning and paint. Fence is in disrepair (rotted, broken, and missing boards). Outdoor storage consisting of building materials, car parts, and piles of junk inside the fence. Unsecured trap door is located on loading dock. Notices of Violation have been issued for all violations with compliance date of August 24, 2006. 15 MapQuest: paps Page 1 of 1 ~- ~~ ~. 632 Drew St Clearwater FL 33755-4108 US Notes: A, MR,PAUES~,.. _ _.... __ . ____~_,_ ~r ~ ~ '. ' Vlrazt~tvadrd Ps~t '~ ~ ,, ~ i ,~= m ~. ~~ fi 9 ~~ '`E~ ~7sczrap ~. t-c; $ Ffar6 a r [' '~ HE 1..#N ~ How Much Gan I [3orirovM? 6 What Will My Pavmerrks Be? c~ 15 or 30 Yiear'Term ~jl' ~_ ~~~~~ _n~ ~: ~: . Loan Type: .... Select Loan Amount• Area Code: ..Find o Refinance Hume Eauitu v consolidate Debts . o Home Irnpro~uement .-_ W ~_ _.~. _. - M- ~. r1 ~, ~~ s isalm Bluff St _--- ~ et > ~ ~i!lett~St ~, ~, ' ,a m ;y, P ~ ~_ ~ ~; ~ r ~ ~ Plaza ~t iGeorc~b ~t j ~~ ~ --- ~` ~ jc ! Ja m tia~t St _ rt, E 1- . y ---- t~D ~ ..}h1t1+5 h'u't ,1a k Nick41SOt1 St-.. . i1p Russo __ [Stadium 5~~51~bIR St ; ___......iLl _ ~LIr6t~i~ St p1a St ~ ~ ~ .-.a..-~ ~ i ~' _ 3 E Y ~ ~_ ~ ". ~- Dr~W St i i ~ ~ ~ ~ . _._.._±~...._,....,..... ~ ,~i .~.os----......- TK. ~~ d . ~~7N 7[ Fi~drPCK$ St ~ ..y, .,, ~ ~'~ey~D (~ ~ r~ ,~ C~tovi~ SI ~ ~ Sri ~ --. e ~~ ,~ ~ ~~ ; ~ S ~. ~ ~ Laura Si , . ___W__ W s, ~ m, c ~ g __. t ,yy ~le~lr~nrat~r r,R ! ~ .. ' ~ 1~veland 5t ~ a , _ 'ark St _ V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. r~r _ ~ ~ r ~ ; ~ ~ ro _ rn- r. ~ ~ __. cyi_. #~~nrc~ St - _~- r ~ ~~- m 4 ~ ~ i ~Ci ~ r j,~ ~ ~ ~~ !D ~ ~ ~`" ~." r:. g o _ r .. ~ ! ~„ ~ t ,- ~ ' -~ A\ , ~c ~ ~ 'O tl jeY$ .rid ~ ;.,.. s. Ci l1P5fT'lllf SZ - _. .~. ~ ~ ~~ S au .. "__. .~a..,...._ -. ,.._„_... ..~,,, ~~' __ ~~,~-~-~ _.,.«n.,.. 7 ~ ~ i C , ~' _ ~ ti ~ ~A ~ ~ ;~' ~ y ~ _m __ -- ' ~ c jf O ~, ..- -. ~Tumi~t 8c~ D ._ ! _T3oaic~ ~ ~' D _~ c ~ ~C ~ ( ~ - .` b' , 4G _ 1 ~ ~111~ ~~ rp ~ Pln~r $t 1 ~A?dTa4 _ .._...~, ~t Pl ~ , _ _ ~. ~ tla ; w ~,2(i~~ P~apQu~s#, ~rtc, ~._ . raid R~tll~ druid 32d 1= , i p ~ All rights reserved. Use Subject to License/Copyright This map is informational only. No representation is made or warranty given as to its content. User assumes all risk of use. MapQuest and its suppliers assume no responsibility for any loss or delay resulting from such use. http://www.mapquest. com/maps/print. adp?mapdata=bLaOkxtG3 xsxX6GgB Lp2cIu%252bT... 3/8/2006 File Edit C~ptior,; 1+~lindoa5~ Help _ .1 _L1 i ., _ _ ~/ it Esir Urr Open T :~ Lwt OEE GIS ; ~ `r"' ~ ~ - :'. Gl~~st Edit Project Group r,dd OL;ne poreel ,~.ctivity people Fees '~/alvation +' j iena G~: c Notes T~q> C -,~ ~dr nt ~. ~' -~~ - ~ ~__~ hdarne:OUbrNER UE~dated ~ '=~~'~CIQ6 ~~,1~C i"~tlc-,s -,- ~~r~'~ ,~;ddre's: F3 ~ DF'E1+'J ST Pdtaster#,B P24QG-rlSittlil ~~ j PR~I# BCP2006-~8F[IO Prujer t ;tiC H(+ELLER. Rt}BERT ~ r'e-ier,yl Descriptiun !REP,~1(~4JE AWNING ON BUILC7ING ANCt F'J>~INT; STUCCC}; PATCH WORK; rii'JCi' 1 HANG MURALS j T rye ..r __ I t 'iri: i - Fence ~ ~ T ~I rl~~^of Pern~it (nspectar ~ umrr-~er~tti i -Nli~Ir ~ Ff~l~illltEiiT9S ~~ _. __ ~ - + -- i'' i` Ci,~te F~eCelt+eL ~ I~'~' ~'i.IL~ FrJ;~~r,~ Project _~ F'~aldentlal,' .nrnmenaL J __ __ ; 'F'~ nJ~r~tl~~ _ , _-_ _ _ _ ' T~~r.aet CJ•~fr }~ '~I_~r_I i i-;NET CIF CUIdGITII I~~J q -- _ __ ._. i r IJI~I~ET ~,IR CUIJC~ITI1~N ~• ~ ~ i_ nrrirri~rit~, `=~er~it D-~i~r ~ ~ Farnil,' ~.~ :Iderlr_~ _ SLHUELLER: RUE~ERT {'rn ~ngFt~ I_I~el- - - - - - , C~~~~ ~ ~;i~~~J __-- - __ Tree TALL 6 FHA DRIP EDGE TORCH ON GhJDIF ~CHOELLER F~OEEFIT 1 W 1 _ F,~trlll; F.~tild~ri! e i- _ ~ _ ~ER SCHUELLER,ROBERT _. i l_ r~ t ~: ~turies. = eri~u~. ,E~~r~, ;# ~ Cats Fir~~l~~ ~ ~ ~j i ~•~ l c ~ I i ~~ ~ ,~J~ ~~_,~ ~ ~ Cri~actinn-. 1~~ CONSTRUCTION PERMITS AND INSPECTIOtJ~ - ___ _ _ I _ _ _. "l.L.~i_~! iUG-U l i;t~ i j .... ._.,-. _....__.......... ,~,l. i ~, .... G_;~ untw 5 r ,_. __..._.__. .. _. _.._~. ~__.._-_ rence m aisrepair , . __,... - .__..__. _.... _.~._.__.__... .. t CC:~C2006-01863 ",J,CT '632 DREW ST Property Maintenance • r.CiC2006-018b4 AL:T 632 DREW ST ... soffit and fascade boards missing and rotted I COD1992 3813 CMP 632 DREW ST SIGN AMORTIZATION ' I CC1D1994-2968 CMP 632 DREW ST '.SIGN Wro PERMIT AT ART STUDIO T __ j ~ _.._ .... _ ..._ _ ....... _ ADDRESS ~ T SCHOELLER PORTRAITS CHANGED ( _ _._ _ _ _ . __ _ . _.. _ _... _. ,_ ... . ..... . . _. __. _ _ _ ... _. _ ~ _ _ COD1996.0682 =CMP _ X632 DREW ST _ . . ._ _. ... . - _.......- _. ..._...._. j O OrL .. __ . _ . _-- .. CL1D199$-01975 'CMP h32 DREW ST b~_iilding materials stored outside CL1D1999-0169U ',CLS t32 DREW ST 'G~,fergrown vines on bldg _. j COD2000.05~64 Lh~iF t~2 DREW ST __, oig __..__..,._....~... _..~ ____._...... _., . _ ~ . .~ ~I ~ i ._ t ~ r ~> .. . ___ -- --- - - _ ~G~OSE' CI-Jrferll !^.~IJldU4V -- - - - - _.._ _.__.._- -- s` I,;~Start , .~ ~ J ~. ~~~ j i Tidemark Advantage [. :%~Cle~r~+aater Zurnnr~ - t•Ucr~ _._ ~i 'r _~~ 2;09 PP~1 r---~ ~~ ~. C ~`/ a Z ~ i _, g a 3 G ~''4 /~+ /'7°' ;,E ,, j ~ " `~~, ' ~`•.. • ~- ~. . ~ 4 `t y~. ~ ~' . , , ti ' "~_ a ~ ~ yti i ,yt~ ~ ' 0 5 ,~ ry'' ~ ,~~ ;~ a "Q~,~Y x. . E4 ~ ' !'~ E .. ~, .aY "\ X4.1` ~. 1 r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~~ y~~ ~ ~ y ~. t . ~ a M1 ~, d(„ R q ~ ~ ® ~ 0 t ~, b ~ ~ i fi B O lJ N D A R Y ~ ~ ~/ E Y ADDRESS: ~& 630 DREW STREET CLEARWATER, FLORIDA. REET JONE S ST _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ SCALE: 1"~ = 40r 60'R/W CENTERLINE 235.80'(TM) CONC. CURB FCM 3'X3" S.89'17'37'E 230.46'(M) m " FIR 5/8 N 0.8'ON `~ `O 6'CLF 1.2'OFF ~ 4.9' k ~ METAL ~ 52.0' ~ k "c D SHED '` ~' RIGINAL CEIVED CONCRAMP F ~ `~ 4 2O o z ASPHALT ~, ° PLANN DEPAR CITIr~ CLEAR ' CONC. STEM WALLS V ~o J Q -. ~~ CONCRETE ~ o ~ 25.3' ~ ~ N N rn TAR N ' " ~ FCM 3 X3 F/R 1/2" NE S Q J ~ 1.4' 83.0' ~ g5/MERGIP~ o Y o G W ~ `~ CONCRETE C 8 II-~IN vi Z O ~ 19.2' (~ = TORY ~ S T gRI ~Ip,I. ~ N 85/ coMM~a-Nc U g ,~ 9.6' ~ N 68.0' ~ A 13.2' • 5 ~ CONC. LOAD/NG DOCK o CONCRETE cd 70.3' A ,2' 19.6' ASPHALT ~ ~ ~ d; FCM 3'X3" FCC WB FCC BLOCK WEST 251.78' M ' ( M CORNER 255.80 - - - - 8'CSW DREW STREET _ _ - - CENTERLINE - - 5O R/W LEGAL DESCRlPT10N.• A BOUNDARY SURVEY OF LOTS 4, 5, 6, 7, AND 8 AND THE VACATED ALLEY BETWEEN LOTS 4 AND 5 AND THE NORTH 1/2 OF VACATED ALLEY LYING SOUTH OF LOTS 6, 7, AND 8, LESS RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY ADJACENT TO LOT 8 ALL IN BLOCK 7 OF JONES SUBDMSION-D OF N/CHOLSON ADOl770N TO CLEARWATER BLOCK 7, 8, 9, AND f0 ACCORDING TO THE PLAT 1NEREOF AS RECORDED 1N PLAT BOOK H-4, PAGE 82 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF HlLL580ROUGH COUNTY , FLORIDA OF WHICH P/NELLAS COUNTY WAS FORMERLY A PART. TO WIT.• LOTS 1, 2, AND 3, BLOCK 7, JONESS SUBDIVISION OF N/CHOLSON 5 ADDITION TO CLEARWATER HARBOR, ACCORDING 10 THE MAP OR PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 82, PUBLIC RECORDS OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLOR/DA, WHICH P/NELLA5 COUNTY WAS FORMERLY A PART; TOGETHER WITH THAT PORT/ON OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF VACATED ALLEY ABUT/ING THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF SAID L075 1, 2, AND 3, AND LYING BETWEEN THE WESTERLY LOT LINE OF SAID LOT 1 AND THE EAST LOT LINE OF SAID LOT 3, AS EXTENDED TO THE CENTER OF SAND VACATED ALLEY. LESS THAT PART OF LOT 1 LYING WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF STREET ON WEST SIDE. BEING THE SAME PROPERTY CONVEYED TO ROBERT SCHOELLER AND CYNTHIA DANIEL, HUSBAND AND WIFE, BY WARRANTY DEED DATED NOVEMBER 6, 1991, AND RECORDED IN OFFIGAL RECORD 800K 7726 AT PAGE 916 OF THE P/NELLAS COUNTY RECORDS. This SUrvey Was conducted WIthOUt A =ARC DE =DRAINAGE EASEMENT MH =MANHOLE BM =BENCH MARK EOP =EDGE OF PAVEMENT OHP =OVERHEAD POWER LINE EOW ~ W the benefit of an abstract of title, BRG =BEARING =EDGE OF WATER P =PLAT ~, therefore, there may be other C =CURVE FCC a FOUND CROSS CUT PC =POINT OF CURVATURE Z CALC =CALCULATED FCM =FOUND CONCRETE PCP =PERMANENT CONTROL POINT easements, right-of-Way, 0 setback lines, agreements, CB =CATCH BASIN MOUNUMENT PI =POINT OF INTERSECTION W CHB =CHORD BEARING FH = FlRE HYDRANT pP = pOWER POLE //r~~ CH a CHORD FlP =FOUND IRON PIPE R =RADIUS reservations, restrictions, Or other similar matters of public V CLF =CHAIN UNK FENCE FlR @ FOUND IRON ROD SIP =SET IRON PIPE CONC. =CONCRETE FN =FOUND NAIL SIR =SET IRON ROD WffH CAP #4495 W FPP FOU record, not depicted On this SUrvey. - ND PINCH PIPE UE =UTILITY EASEMENT CSW =CONCRETE SIDEWALK ..~ D =DEED M =MEASUREMENT WB =WATER BOX FLOOD INFORMATION: LEGAL: SECTION: 9 TOWNSHIP: 29s RANGE: 15E C E RT 1 F I E D To ZONE: X x NUMBER: 125096-0015-D SEE ABOVE x DATE: $-19-91 X x FLORIDA BENCHMARK INC ER~c BLR~~G~~c~w~oo DER ~ o , . D F' R O E E S S I O N A L S U F2 ~/ EY O R , TECHNICAL STANDARDS AS SET FORTH BY THE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS IN CHAPTER 61 G17-6 OF 1882 DREW STREET PH. (727) 298-0286 THE FLORIDA ADM/N/STRATNE CODE, PURSUAM TO SECTION 472.027 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES. NOT VALID WITHOUT CLEARWATER, FL. 33765 FAX# (727) 461 -0696 SIGNATURE AND EMBOSSED w/TH suRVLyoR SEAL. AUTHORIZATION NO. LB 6947 E""~ r FIELD WORK BY: TT S K DATE: 12-28-00 REVISION DATE: 1: PAGE ~ / ~ ~ F ~I~ j/ I ~':~,;,,t.., (} / M DRAWN BY: BW DATE: 12-28-00 3: JOB # 00-4276 M. G. MAYER PLS 4495 DATE 1ENT fER The sign at 632 Drew St. will be painted directly onto the facade using black/blue paint for the block letters and silver for the artist's signature. The block text will be 16' x 16" and the signature will be 3.5' high ~~ Fine Art Paintings, DOS WWV1/.Schoel{erFineArt.com In addition to the signs the artist proposes several murals for the front facade of both buildings and the east wall of the parking lot. These would be permanently adhered to the wall and renewed as needed when their durability has keen exceeded. Stormwater Plan Tn lieu of the fact that we have removed a total of over 16,000 sq. ft. of impervious surface (asphalt) and added a 2nd retention pond capable of holding over 6,000 gallons a stormwater plan was not deemed necessary by the public works department. ORIGINAL RECEIVED FEB 2 4 2006 PLANNING DEPARI'iVIENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Signage information s We are proposing the addition of 2 signs for the property. One at 630 Drew St. (old Ice House} directing traffic to the 632 Drew St. entrance and a 2nd sign on the 632 Drew St. facade. The sign at 630 Drew St. will be constructed of ornamental stone and the text area shall be white with engraved text. It will be constructed with decorative moldings and crafted to withstand the outdoors. The sign will be 2.5' wide by 2' tall. R.~~~ERT ~:H~~ELLE~. ~TL~1~Ic~~~ I'LL:~E I1`~~CIIR.E AFT L~~~~~R. ORIGINAL RECEIVED FED 2 ~ 2006 PLANNING DEPARI`MENT CITY OF CLEARWATER ~~1~~~~~~ ~o ui~ 1N3W.L~d3a 9NINNMd 9002 ~ ~ ~~~ a3/113~3~ lb'NI9Rl0 JONES STREET ti ~II~ OJ~RpI~VE~H~~R})Y ~~---~ ~ ; srupm ~r~-~i POND ... ~.~ ~ m ICE NpUSE ~ ~ '~/C' 8U(LpING pFFiCEE Y ~p S TRF_E SURVEY DA 7E: .~`„ PROJECT: /~~ J TREE SURVEY Z~ FEB 'PS ~~ . r iriE tEEnousE JOB NAME: GRWG A: ~~"~•'~«~a.~ SCHOELLER G-2R~.fdO ~~ __ R - -C$41 AY IAEM ST18ET PRaFCr: "SS~.dC'~° " ~ 'dam Scole = 50 l0 1 ~. ..~~ tC.b~~~7~..... ~w.t~EAPec ww 'hE A'EIQfE ~ ' ' ~ ~ NO TREES ARE BEING RE410VED ~ ^-~ ;; T " ~ ~' cn N ~" ~ RCi..=...,....,._ , ~ _ CRNGa:02 f~Vk00 ~'._rT"~'..w o.". "cw m»mn N n !D U (n fESr EIEVAipJ wjELLAS iRALI EXSTPG FAUEE TEST ELEVATgpf ~Pp~ELLAS iRALI K.WCI'.EO F/CA~ EAST ELEVAi'QJ R1ALfip•L~ E%ISifJCi PO ENAhCtii Scel~ t/6' + f$ 3 µTtTH ELEVATpJ iD~ES siFFEn Ez5TPl. ~~ w+P fAIVENAV 1y~y~ Pnvfpr,~~ff. =+ vv rxrn tlES STFFEi ~~J'd'....w~ ®®®® ~ ~ EAST ELEVATLJ S03tttl.Fp E%EiTpJG 4 ICNNd£ IQ%~Y.+ENTp Vkli SifBEf I mITM ELEVATpN F~- QEN $IFFEi tw=aim V_ O GIx.Eq wrti ~~ }~ u IJ u IESt ELEVAryW If1llpttnRd Ez15TAG Iwih ~cyc,M! mreL4 ^ ~ TI ^ ^ ORIGINAL St)ENiIAL 4~t+d ~ FT b ~ ~ EM ~r~s ~~~3~~~~-". ~_- - _ '~ a ,,.. ~ ,..., ... ..,.Q, r ' f.wirv ~~ __ c 28~P AV 6EN STf~ET ~' PROJECT: 7ra$'°••m ~; Y ..,~,I. ! ALTEFArtons Scala 1/E@ + f-B C ~~r , N~..+`pC~:2NO.~.ae Aft Af()ITlOpS AT 1}E iCEW.EE ~~~ °. °' Y one: ~~ -n-- ra:, ~~- .=- '-' , . z3 EEEI arc ' ~~~._..._ oRw+c `. ':.:~..~.... w . x.. sue, ml a,. 01 RECEIVED ~~~ 2~2 zoos PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER fDtTN ELEYATp1N F,~ CvdyJ PRQ+U.Ep $ ~ s NDRTH ELEVATION I..JOI~S ST.1 PROPOSED . ~~'o ~~~ 0 EAST ELEVATION ICOURTYARO) EXISTIt~ t+ 1 CHANGE IORNAI~NTn SOUTH ELEVATION PROPOSED DREW STREET . •NC ~J.DNT IEDR • N WEST ELEVATION fCOLIRTYARDI EXISTING Iwtl.1, proposed mix-elsl M ORIGINAL RECEIVED pLANNiNG DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER ^ ~a .~.;~,s.~~. ~ 00 ^ .. I!i :: WEST ELEVATION IPINELLAS TRAIU PROPOSED FACADE