Loading...
FLD2011-01003; 921 LAKEVIEW RD; THE BOILING POTFLD2011-01003 921 LAKEVIEW RD Date Received: 1/3/201111:51:48 AM The Boiling Pot ZONING DISTRICT: Commercial LAND USE: Commercial General ATLAS PAGE: 306A PLANNER OF RECORD: PLANNER: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager CDB Meeting Date: March 15, 2011 Case Number: FLD2011-01003 Agenda Item: D. 3. Owners/Applicant: Mark and Dorothy B. LeBlanc Representative: Renee Ruggiero Northside Engineering Services, Inc. Address: 921 Lakeview Road CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT GENERAL INFORMATION: REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit a 1,996 square foot restaurant in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 11,018 square feet, lot widths of 146.79 feet (Lakeview Road) and 89.77 feet (Dempsey Street), front (north) setback of 18.1 feet (to existing building) and four feet (to pavement), front (south) setbacks of 30.2 feet (to existing building) and one-foot (to pavement), a side (east) setback of three feet (to existing building), a side (west) setback of five feet (to pavement), a building height of 29.25 feet (to midpoint of existing roof), and 16 off- street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2- 704.C., along with a reduction to the 15-foot perimeter landscape buffer along Lakeview Road to four feet, a reduction to the 10-foot perimeter landscape buffer along Dempsey Street to one-foot, a reduction to the five=foot east perimeter landscape buffer to three feet, a reduction to µhe interior landscape requirement from 10 percent to 7 percent of the vehicular use area, and reductions to the width of the foundation landscape area on both the north and south sides of the building from five feet to zero feet as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G. ZONING DISTRICT: Commercial (C) District FUTURE LAND USE PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial General (CG) PROPERTY USE: Current: Vacant Proposed: Restaurant EXISTING North: Institutional (1) District SURROUNDING Cemetery ZONING AND USES: South: Medium Density Residential (MDR) District Detached dwellings East: Commercial (C) District Offices West: Commercial (C) District Manufacturing Community Development Board -March 15, 2011 FLD2011-01006 -Page 1 of 10 ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 0.253-acre subject property is located on the south side of Lakeview Road, approximately 600 feet east of South Myrtle Avenue and 50 feet west of Prospect Avenue. The property is a through lot, having street frontage on both Lakeview Road (north) and Dempsey Street (south). The property consists of a 1,996 square foot two-story building with a large concrete pad at the south side of the building and a small driveway at the north side of the building. However, the current site does not have any Code compliant off-street parking spaces. The subject property has been before the Community Development Board (CDB) on two previous occasions with requests to establish a restaurant use. At its meeting of February 20, 2007, the CDB denied case FLD2006-05032, and at its meeting of June 15, 2010, the CDB denied case FLD2010-03005. Development Proposal: The development proposal is to establish a restaurant use within the existing two-story building and construct accessory off-street parking, storm water retention, landscaping and solid waste facilities on the balance of the site. The applicant proposes to utilize the first floor of the building for the restaurant use, while the second floor would exist only to provide access to the roof. While the building and parking lot locations, as well as other site improvements, are similar to the prior restaurant application denied by the CDB in June 2010, this restaurant application is different in the following: ¦ Under the prior application (FLD2010-03005) the 320 square foot second floor of the building was to be used as an office for the proposed restaurant. As such, the project required between 16 and 35 off-street parking spaces (a ratio of 7 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area). The current proposal does not use the second floor for any purpose; therefore the parking requirement is between 14 and 30 off-street parking spaces (a ratio of 8 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area); and ¦ Under the prior application (FLD2010-03005) the dumpster was located along and accessed from Dempsey Street. The current proposal located the dumpster within the center of the site and is accessed from the drive aisle which connects only to Lakeview Road. The development proposal's compliance with the various development standards of the Community Development Code (CDC) is discussed below. Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-701.1, the maximum FAR for properties with a designation of Commercial General is 0.55. The proposal is for a restaurant of a total gross floor area of 1,996 square feet at a FAR of 0. 18, which is below the above referenced maximum. Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to CDC Section 2-701.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.95. The proposed ISR is 0.698, which is below the above referenced maximum. Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there is no minimum required lot area or lot width for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the minimum lot area for restaurants in the Commercial (C) District may range from Community Development Board -March 15, 2011 FLD2011-01006 -Page 2 of 10 3,500 - 10,000 square feet. The subject lot area is 11,018 square feet (0.253 acres), which exceeds this comparative Code provision. Pursuant to the same Table, the minimum lot width for restaurants in the C District may range from 35 - 100 feet. The lot width along Lakeview Road is 146.79 feet, while the lot width along Dempsey Street is 89.77 feet. The proposal exceeds this comparative Code provision along Lakeview Road, and is within the permissible range along Dempsey Street. This lesser lot width can be attributed to the pie-shape of some of the lots that comprise the subject property and the curvature of the roadway. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there are no minimum required setbacks for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the minimum setbacks for restaurants in the C District may be within 15 - 25 feet (front) and zero - 10 feet (side). It is noted that through lots have front setback requirements on both street frontages and side setback requirements from the perpendicular lot lines. The proposal includes a front (north) setback of 18.1 feet (to existing building) and four feet (to pavement), a front (south) setback of 30.2 feet (to existing building) and one-foot (to pavement), a side (east) setback of three feet (to existing building), and a side (west) setback of five feet (to pavement). This proposal includes the re-use of an existing building, which has existed on this site for quite some time. As has been previously stated in relation to the prior iterations of this project, Staff is supportive of front and side setback reductions to the existing building, as any proposed use will need setback reductions for this existing building. The proposed use of a restaurant requires more parking than other less intense uses within the C District (such as retail sales, medical clinics or offices), and the need to provide as much of the required off-street parking as possible results in restrictions to meeting setback and landscape buffering requirements. Other less intense uses requiring fewer parking spaces could provide larger setbacks and buffers, but Staff acknowledges that reductions to setback and buffer requirements would, to a lesser degree, still be necessary Rur other 'less intense uses. With this application, setbacks have been minimalized in order to provide even the minimum number of required parking spaces, which in turn minimizes the ability to provide meaningful landscape planting areas to mitigate views of the parking lot and for site beautification. Along Lakeview Road, the smallest provided front setback at four feet is north of the western parking row. Moving eastward, the eastern parking row is at an 8.5-foot setback to the north property line, while the existing building is set back 18.1 feet at its nearest point to the property line (northeast corner). Along Dempsey Street, the southern end of the parking lot backup flair is only at a one-foot setback, which eliminates any ability to place any landscape buffering on-site at this location to block the headlights of vehicles pulling into the parking lot to the detached dwellings on the south side of Dempsey Street. The southern ends of the parking rows are at a 3.5-foot (west) and three-foot (east) setback. The existing building is set back three feet from the east property line. The proposed parking lot is set back five feet from the west property line, which coincides with the required landscape buffer width. The proposed setbacks in this case must be reviewed in light of its affect on other Code requirements as to their appropriateness and ultimately the appropriateness of the restaurant at this location. Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there is no maximum height for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the maximum height for restaurants in the C District may range from 25 - 50 feet. The existing building height is 29.25 feet (to the midpoint of the existing roof). Whether this existing Community Development Board -March 15, 2011 FLD2011-01006 - Page 3 of 10 building is re-used for a restaurant or another permissible use in the C District, the existing building height is acceptable and compatible with the surrounding residential and commercial buildings. Minimum Off-Street ParkipL Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, the minimum off-street parking requirement for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project shall be determined by the Community Development Coordinator based on the specific use and/or ITE Manual standards. In the C District, the minimum off-street parking requirement for restaurants is between 7 and 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Based upon the 1,996 square feet of gross floor area for the existing building, the minimum off-street parking requirement would be between 14 and 30 spaces. The applicant is proposing 16 off-street parking spaces, which would provide parking at a ratio of 8 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. It is noted that all of the proposed off-street parking spaces are accessed solely from Lakeview Road and are located on the west and south sides of the building. The applicant has submitted an amended version of the same Parking Study that was provided as a part of the prior application (FLD2010-03005) in an attempt to justify the requested reduction in required off-street parking. The applicant indicates that this restaurant is intended to be a small neighborhood specialty restaurant (Cajun seafood). The methodology of the Parking Study remains as it was for the previous submittal and review of this project, which was to conduct a parking accumulation study of a similar neighborhood specialty restaurant. The Lakeview Grill at 1510 Lakeview Road was analyzed by the applicant's consultant as the similar restaurant in January 2010. The study notes that the restaurants are similar in size, similar in lot size, both specialty neighborhood restaurants, and both located in mixed-use areas. The Study also notes that the Lakeview Grill contains 15 tables, is open from 9AM to 9PM with 3 to 4 total employees, and has 10 code-compliant off-street parking spaces. In comparison, the Study notes ,_ ,_ to 1, +„fc and (Alin er Lilal t11-1C- p1-Opposed restaurant WV'lilU employ mcJ JLa11 and would tu serve uiiui?.i oiuly, oia 'v'v'eeiu11611L3 (4:30PM -10:00 PM) and lunch and dinner on Fridays and weekends (I IAM - IOPM). The Parking Study found that on the Friday the site was studied the parking demand was from a low of zero occupied spaces (2PM) to 5 occupied spaces (7PM), while on the Saturday the site was studied the parking demand was from a low of 2 occupied spaces (8PM) to a peak of 6 occupied spaces (11AM and 7PM). The Study determined a parking demand ratio of 2.55 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area for the Lakeview Grill. The Study concludes that, transferring this parking demand ratio to this site would result in a need of five off-street parking spaces for the proposed restaurant and, even if all five employees drove separately to work, that the total demand would be 10 parking spaces. While City Staff approved the original methodology for the Study, Staff disagrees with its findings now as it did when presented as part of the prior application. The Lakeview Grill is located on the southern edge of a much larger and more concentrated commercial area than is the subject property, and further it is surrounded by relatively large attached dwelling complexes and detached dwelling subdivisions that are not part of the make-up of the neighborhood for the subject property. In its initial review of the Study, Staff questioned why there were zero occupied spaces on the Friday the site was studied so Staff inquired of the Lakeview Grill management about this circumstance, since there would be employees at the restaurant even if there were no customers. The management stated that many employees and customers walk or take a bus to that restaurant, which could account for zero vehicles in the Community Development Board -March 15, 2011 FLD2011-01006 - Page 4 of 10 parking lot. For the subject property, there is not a similar concentration of commercial businesses or a larger population in close proximity. For the subject property, there is a large lake and a City park to the south and southeast, while there is a cemetery to the north and northwest. It is the position of the Planning and Development Department that the Code required off-street parking of 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area should be provided. Staff's concern with this restaurant proposal for this site is that without an adequate number of off-street parking spaces, parking demand could result in spill-over parking onto adjacent properties and into the rights-of-way. Such spill-over parking into the surrounding rights-of-way is within residential areas, which would then be burdened with nonresidential parking resulting in traffic congestion within the residential neighborhood. Re-using this existing structure is appropriate, but with a less intense use that would have a smaller parking demand. It is noted that in addition to the Parking Study, the applicant did subsequently conduct and provide a sidewalk survey (dated February 23, 2011) that found that a large majority of the public roadways within a'/4 mile radius of the subject property have sidewalks to facilitate non- vehicular modes of transportation. While this survey does provide evidence that sidewalks exist in the area to accommodate pedestrian traffic, it provides neither evidence to state how much pedestrian traffic is currently occurring within what the Study identifies as an existing mixed-use area, nor any evidence that the proposed restaurant would stimulate any pedestrian traffic from the area. Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-201.D.1, all outside mechanical equipment must be screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. Based upon the plans submitted, it is unclear of the location of such mechanical equipment, whether such will be placed on the ground or on the roof area. The location and screening of such mechanical equipment will be reviewed at time of building permit submission, should this application be approved by the CDB. Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the proposed driveway on Lakeview Road, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20- foot sight visibility triangles. The proposal was reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineering Department and found to be acceptable. Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-912, for development that does not involve a subdivision, all utilities including individual distribution lines must be installed underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. The existing building is served by overhead utilities. Should this application be approved by the CDB, all utilities serving this building must be relocated underground on-site in compliance with this requirement. Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D.1, there is a 15-foot wide landscape buffer required along Lakeview Road, a 10-foot wide landscape buffer required along Dempsey Street and a five-foot wide landscape buffer required along the east and west sides of the site. The proposal includes a reduction to the landscape buffer along Lakeview Road from 15 feet to four feet (to pavement), a reduction to the landscape buffer along Dempsey Street from 10 feet to one-foot (to pavement), a reduction to the east perimeter landscape buffer from five feet to three Community Development Board -March 15, 2011 FLD2011-01006 - Page 5 of 10 feet (to existing building). Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E.1, 10% of the gross vehicular use area shall be provided within interior landscape islands. The proposal includes a reduction to this requirement from 10% to 7%. Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E.2, foundation plantings shall be provided for 100 percent of a building facade with frontage along a street right-of-way, excluding space necessary for building ingress and egress, within a minimum five-foot wide landscaped area. The proposal includes a reduction to the width of the foundation landscape area on both the north and south sides of the building from five feet to zero feet. Comprehensive Landscape Program: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.G., the landscaping requirements contained within the Code can be waived or modified if the application contains a Comprehensive Landscape Program satisfying certain criteria. The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with those criteria: Consistent Inconsistent 1. Architectural theme: a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall be designed as a X part of the architectural theme of the principle buildings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for development; or b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment N/A N/A proposed in the comprehensive landscape program shall be demonstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for development under the minimum landscape standards. 2. Lighting: Any lighting proposed as a part of a comprehensive landscape program is X automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is closed. 3. Community character: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive X' landscape program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater. 4. Property values: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape X program will have a beneficial impact on the value of property in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. 5. Special area or scenic corridor plan: The landscape treatment proposed in the N/A N/A comprehensive landscape program is consistent with any special area or scenic corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in which the parcel proposed for development is located. I See Analysis for discussion of consistency/inconsistency. The ability to meet the Code requirements for perimeter, interior and foundation landscape areas is restricted by the property configuration, building location, stormwater requirements and the provision of the greatest number of parking spaces possible. Given these design constraints, the applicant has designed as much landscaping as possible within the planting areas provided. Along Lakeview Road, the provided landscape buffer is the smallest to the north of the western parking row where only a four-foot setback is provided. A minimum of 7.5 feet is provided between the retention pond and Lakeview Road right-of-way, expanding to a larger dimension north of the eastern parking row and at the northeast comer of the building. The front landscape buffer along Lakeview Road will be planted with cabbage palms, Japanese privet and winged elm trees with underplantings consisting of white Indian hawthorn, minima jasmine, and schefflera. Along Dempsey Street, the southern end of the parking lot backup flair is only at a one-foot setback, which eliminates any ability to place landscaping on-site at this location. The southern ends of the parking rows are at setbacks of 3.5 feet (west) and three feet (east) where a dwarf podocarpus hedge and crape myrtle trees are proposed. That portion of the buffer adjacent to the stormwater retention area will also include Japanese privet and schefflera. Community Development Board - March 15, 2011 FLD2011-01006 - Page 6 of 10 The proposal includes a request to reduce the required amount of landscaping within the interior landscape islands from 10% to 7% of the gross vehicular use area. The only area counted toward interior landscaping is on the west side of the building. This requested reduction is also a result of the need to provide required parking for the proposed use, with considerations of the curvature of the adjacent roadways and property and the location of this existing building. The purpose of interior landscaping to the parking lot is to break up the expanse of pavement and provide shade to the parking lot. This reduction requested mirrors the other landscape reductions requested where there is inadequate land area to meet the Code requirements for the intended use. The interior landscape area is proposed to be planted with crape myrtle trees with underplantings consisting of dwarf podocarpus, schefflera, and white Indian hawthorn. The proposal includes a reduction to the required foundation landscaping area facing Lakeview Road and Dempsey Street from five feet wide to zero feet. On the north side, this reduction is due to the need to provide sidewalk access from the parking lot to the front door and the vertical wall retention pond in the front setbackibuffer. On the south side, parking is located adjacent to the building. Foundation landscaping is being provided on the east portion of the north and south sides of the building, consisting of cabbage palms with podocarpus, schefflera and simpson's stopper. Solid Waste: The proposal provides a 6-foot by 4.6 foot dumpster enclosure within the center of the property. Plans indicate this enclosure will be constructed to City standards, including the requirement the exterior of the enclosure to be consistent with the exterior materials and color of the building. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City's Solid Waste Department. Code Enforcement Analysis: There is an active Code Enforcement case for missing windows that are boarded u-P (CDC2010-00638, which has been referred to Building Division). COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards as per CDC Section 2-701.1 and Tnhlr '?-'7na- Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent FAR 0.55 0.18 X ISR 0.95 0.698 X Minimum Lot Area N/A 11,018 square feet (0.253 acres) X Minimum Lot Width N/A North: 146.79 feet x South: 89.77 feet X Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A North: 18.1 feet (to existing building) X 4.0 feet (to pavement) South: 30.2 feet (to existing building) X 1.0 feet (to pavement) Side: N/A East: 3 feet (to existing building) X West: 5 feet (to pavement) X Maximum Height N/A 29.25 feet (to midpoint of existing roof) X Minimum Determined by the 16 parking spaces X' Off-Street Parking Community Development (8.02 spaces per 1,000 sf) Coordinator based on the specific use and/or ITE Manual standards i Based on Parking Reduction Study; See analysis in Staff Report. Community Development Board - March 15, 2011 FLD2011-01006 - Page 7 of 10 COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-704.C (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project): Consistent Inconsistent 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X development and improvement of surrounding properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X development. 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street X parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: ? Changes in horizontal building planes; ? Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; ? Variety in materials, colors and textures; ? Distinctive fenestration patterns; ? Building stepbacks; and ? Distinctive roofs forms. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscane design and appropriate distances between buildings. Community Development Board -March 15, 2011 FLD2011-01006 -Page 8 of 10 COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A: Consistent I Inconsistent 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X visual. acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation im acts on adjacent ro erties. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of February 3, 2011, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the following: Findings of Fact. The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact: 1. The 0.253-acre subject property is located on the south side of Lakeview Road, approximately 600 feet east of South Myrtle Avenue and 50 feet west of Prospect Avenue; 2. The subject property has approximately 146.79 feet of frontage along Lakeview Road and approximately 89.77 feet of frontage along Dempsey Street; 3. At its meeting of February 20, 2007, the Community Development Board denied Case FLD2006-05032 for this same property to permit a restaurant with similar characteristics; 4. At its meeting of June 15, 2010, the Community Development Board denied Case FLD2010- 03005 for this same property to permit a restaurant with similar characteristics; 5. This proposal is similar in design to the prior application under FLD2010-03005, but is different in that the second floor of the existing building is no longer proposed to be utilized (which has resulted in a smaller parking requirement), and the dumpster has been relocated from adjacent to Dempsey Street to the center of the property; 6. Based upon the gross floor area of the existing building, a minimum of between 14 and 30 off-street parking spaces are required for this proposed restaurant and the applicant has proposed 16 parking spaces; 7. A Parking Study has been submitted to justify a parking space reduction that analyzed a similar neighborhood specialty restaurant (Lakeview Grill at 1510 Lakeview Road), finding that adequate parking for the subject property would be available by the 16 provided spaces; 8. Staff disagrees with the Parking Study findings of adequate provided parking and would require that 15 off-street parking space be provided per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area; Community Development Board -March 15, 2011 FLD2011-01006 -Page 9 of 10 9. In order to provide as much of the required off-street parking as possible, the proposal includes reductions to required setbacks and landscape buffers; and 10. There is an active Code Enforcement case for missing windows that are boarded up (CDC2010-00638, referred to Building Division). Conclusions of Law. The Planning and Development Department, having made the above findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law: 1. That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Community Development Code (CDC) Tables 2-701.1 and 2-704 (with the exception of the minimum off-street parking requirement); 2. That the development proposal is inconsistent with the Standard for minimum off-street parking as per CDC Table 2-704; 3. That the development proposal is inconsistent with the Flexibility criteria set forth in CDC Sections 2-704.C.1, 2, 3, 4, and 6; 4. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criterion set forth in CDC Section 2-704.C.5; and 5. That the development proposal is inconsistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A. Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends DENIAL of the Flexible Development application to permit a 1,996 square foot restaurant in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 11,018 square feet, lot widths of 146.79 feet (Lakeview Road) and 89.77 feet (Dempsey Street), front (north) setback of 18.1 feet (to existing building) and four feet (to pavement), front (south) setbacks of 30.2 feet (to existing building) and one-foot (to pavement), a 7 / +\ +l 1. +l « o+ !+ +;. L.,,;l a; Tl n;A_ f_-+'\ -4-t- of f;-_ F-+ ?4n slue `eas L) SeLvacr, Vl Llll l.l. 11.?.L `w ?xi?uug vuuuui??, a 01uV kvveOL) O?Lu"V1 vl .." -" ?w pavement), a building height of 29.25 feet (to midpoint of existing roof), and 16 off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-704.C., along with a reduction to the 15-foot perimeter landscape buffer along Lakeview Road to four feet, a reduction to the 10-foot perimeter landscape buffer along Dempsey Street to one-foot, a reduction to the five-foot east perimeter landscape buffer to three feet, a reduction to the interior landscape requirement from 10 percent to 7 percent of the vehicular use area, and reductions to the width of the foundation landscape area on both the north and south sides of the building from five feet to zero feet as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Community Development Cod 3-1202. a Prepared by Planning & Development Dept. Staff: - ? f Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; Photographs of Site and Vicinity S: iPlanning DepartmentlC D BTLEX (FLD) (Pending casesl Up for the next CDBILakeview 0921 Boiling Pot (C) 2011.03 - CDB - RMtaff Report 201103-15. docx Community Development Board - March 15, 2011 FLD2011-01006 - Page 10 of 10 Robert G. Tefft 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 (727) 562-4539 robe rt.tefft(&inyclearwater.com PROFESSIONAL :EXPERIENCE ? Development Review Manager City of Clearwater, Clearwater, Florida August 2008 to Present Manage and supervise five planners and two land resource specialists. Represent the department at Community Development Board and City Council meetings, and the City at meetings of Pinellas Planning Council and Countywide Planning Authority as well as other public bodies as needed. ? Planner III ' City of Clearwater, Clearwater, Florida June 2005 to August 2008 Performed technical reviews and prepared of staff reports for various land development applications. Organized data and its display in order to track information and provide status reports. Made presentations to various City Boards and Committees. ? Planner II City of Clearwater, Clearwater, Florida May 2005 to June 2005 Performed technical reviews and prepared of staff reports for various land development applications. Organized data and its display in order to track information and provide status reports. ? Assistant Planner Planner I Senior Planner City of Delray Beach, Delray Beach, Florida October 1999 to May 2005 Performed technical reviews and prepared staff reports for land development applications such as, UUL not 1111111611 lo. site pl[111J, VV11LLll1Vlldl uses, reGV111I1gS, land use af-nendlix-IntS, and text amendments. Performed reviews of building permit applications. Organized data and its display in order to track information and provide status reports. Made presentations to various City Boards. Provided in-depth training to the Assistant Planner position with respect to essential job functions and continuous guidance. Provided information on land use applications, ordinances, land development regulations, codes, and related planning programs/services to other professionals and the public. EDUCATION ? Bachelor of Art:;, Geography (Urban Studies), University of South Florida, 1!99 Community Development Board - April 21, 2009 FLD2008-04009 - Page 9 ? WAY m JASMINE WAY D York aS C V y MAGNOLIA DR c ? ? i PATH ?4? LOTUS PATH LOTUS n JEFFORDS ST O n r F GRAND Z a a CENTRAL W T PROJECT SITE y •?7 ••^'••°••• •• PINELLAS d 00,0 a. TUSKAWILLA ST T k in ' ElLd aw a a A ST i 0 _.. LLI :• C : LAKEVIBV SOUTH ST O .1 . ::::•.:.;;; ` .• .:.:.:.:::: u~i DST ? Z r0 p Q z z } C7 = n ? EASY O . : ? VJ ? J p E ST y g KINGS ST _jLEY :':i':i:ii:!::.;: -ti•;.:.•:. E McLENNAN Sr N ° OJEEN ST + IL??JI BLI/D - fn c{ OU EEN ?zrvay ZO ALMA 0 .•. ~ ?l1J Harris 4 .. Nl illia mien Ln :;AL4)lhlc3dR.'=:1 WAY i LLI a ¢ : L :-'•: fly- :" -. '•? WOODLAUATJ ST k c:v: ? A ,V l©DL LOCATION Owners: Mark and Dorothy B. LeBlanc Case: FLD201 1-01 003 Site: 921 Lakeview Road Property Size: 0.253 Acres PIN: 21-29-15-47466-001-0130 Atlas Page: 306A 21-29-15-47466-001-0170 12 13 N14 2 7 2 p 111 co -j N )-- } AVENUE 0 13 o y 10 0 Nu. Q `z z U 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 Dtt c'hedf6 17 18 12 Q 0 2 `IIv flings cc CID 40 00 , Go Cc TUSKAWILLA TUSKAWILLA ST AVENUE ? 0 500(5) 4 3 2 1 Cemetery 180 20 CEMETERY Lu a s Cemetery o 11/05 O a 3.8 Ac (c) --IL ISO s 30 31(5) 7 8 t vhe 11 12 g m liaa s o a 6 5 4 eta 3 ?p 2 1 7 8 we 9 in 10 11 1 1295 c °f N ? m a 120 a W 3 a De ached 4 Z um em ngs - W 13 12 11 10 O p e. ? Cemetery m3 33 6(s) Met 114 LAKEVIEW RD LAKEVIEW 1301 / 15 ,q W Off as ,?`f R 435 1300 ^ yyo 6 13 2 ces 6 ttM C (c) e 9 8 wa )fin M ufactu 2, etac Dff ces Dw i ° d 2 Cia qCe t ° De 10 'PQ 7 13 we 10 14 `- 11 O 17 161 2 13 15 ??QGJ 3 n 4 2 1 17 Q tae e anactu 10 ,2 JP ? ` 1 13 ?snQ 2 14 Q 3 a2 ed o figs 7 4 6 13 12 e 5 6 14 3 2 1 I I ED WRIGHT PARK 23/0, 13.9 A EXISTING SURROUNDING USES Owners: Mark and Dorothy B. LeBlanc Case: FLD201 1-01 003 Site: 921 Lakeview Road Property Size: 0.253 Acres PIN: 21-29-15-47466-001-0130 Atlas Page: 306A 21-29-15-47466-001-0170 a y N ^ ^ LMOR v O ? Z 7 tp °? a ? O N A rn O O ? o? oNi O O r w rn rn 0 Q ? 1295 'o N co o ° N CE CO) 1301 Met q a 1300 N w) OS/R ?s o ?o , P OS/ Owners: Mark and Dorothy B. LeBlanc Site: 921 Lakeview Road PIN: 21-29-15-47466-001-0130 21-29-15-47466-001-0170 ZONING Case: FLD201 1-01003 Property Size: 0.253 Acres Atlas Page: 306A O 126 F ' $?ycY ?j. ?+ Looking NE along Lakeview Road at cemetery N of subject property and detached dwellings on E side of S Prospect Ave 921 Lakeview Road FLD2011-01003 View looking NE from Dempsey Street at office building at 925 Lakeview Road E of subject property View looking N from Dempsey Street at rear side of the building at the subject property m Horthside, February 3, 2011 City of Clearwater 100 S. Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33755 RE: Boiling Pot FLD2011-01003 921 Lakeview Rd. Dear Sir/Madam: Below please find our responses to comments associated with the civil site plan: GENERAL ENGINEERING: Prior to the issuance of a building permit: Civi Land Plannin; Due Diligence Report Re-Zoning. Lind Use, Annexation Stornrwater Managemen Utility Design Traffi, Construction Administration 1. Show on the plan a double sweep clean-out for the sanitary sewer lateral and include Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards Detail #305, pg. 1/3 on the detail sheet. Response: Please see revised sheet C5.2 for Detail as per your request. 2. Any new concrete driveway apron(s) constructed within the right-of-way shall be a minimum 6" thick fibrous concrete, and a minimum 3000 psi with 6"x6" / 10x10 w.w.m. Include City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards Index # 103, page 2/2 on the detail sheet. Response: Acknowledged, see sheet C4.! and Civil Detail sheet C5.2. New dumpster enclosures: Maximum 6'-0" high and constructed of concrete block. Materials used should be consistent with those used in the construction of and architectural style of the principal building. Include on the plans City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards, Index #701. Response: As per discussion at DRC Dumpster sized as per Sanitation Dept direction and will be picked up daily. Dumpster will be enclosed with a solid 6' high fence and painted to match the building with gate and bollards as per the above referenced detail in lieu of a masonry enclosure. City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards, Index #701 has been added to Civil Detail sheet C5.2 of the site plans. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy: Prior to Engineering Sanitary Sewer, Engineering Storm Water and Engineering Final Inspections, the applicant shall submit 5 sets of as-built drawings that are signed and sealed by a State of Florida Registered Professional Engineer. The Construction Services Inspector will field inspect as-built drawings for accuracy. Response: Acknowledged. 300 South Belcher Roiid Clearwater, Florida 33765 t€:ch s7.,morel'rsitlraa~:ngir7eF?rir?rg.corrr General Conditions: 1. All resubmittals shall be accompanied with a response letter addressing how each Departmental condition has been met. Response: Acknowledged ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Please Note: An Asbestos Survey is usually required prior to conducting any demolition or renovations. Please contact Pinellas County Air Quality (464-4422) for further information. Response: Acknowledged. FIRE REVIEW: This building has an existing residential fire sprinkler system. This must be redesigned to be in accordance with NFPA 13 as a commercial occupancy. Acknowledge prior to CDB Response: Acknowledged, fire sprinkler system must be redesigned to be in accordance with NFPA 13 Commercial Occupancy. 2. Narrative states on page 2 bullet point #2 that the proposed second floor office has been deleted for the proposal, is this just access for the mechanical area and roof maintenance ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO CDB Response: Acknowledged, area is access for mechanical area and roof maintenance only. Things to be addressed at building permit stage: 1. NFPA-10, 2002 edition Standard for Potable Fire Extinguishers 2. NFPA-13, 2002 edition Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems 3. NFPA-17A, 2002 edition Standard for Wet Chemical Extinguishing System 4. NFPA-72, 2002 edition National Fire Alarm Code 5. NFPA-96, 2004 edition Standard for Ventilation Control and Fire Protection 6. NFPA-101, 2006 edition Life Safety Code, exiting, and interior finishes etc. 7. Must meet the requirement of FAC 69A60 Florida Fire Prevention code to install signage at entry doors to identify if this building has been constructed with lightweight truss floor and roof system. You may contact this office for a copy of details at 727-562-4327 X 3062 Add note to cover sheet of plan showing intent ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO CDB Response: Acknowledged, please see note added to sheet C1.1 which states Architect to address above items as per DRC comments prior to permitting. 2 PLANNING REVIEW: Sheet C1.1 - Revise the Street Map to show the correct size of the property that includes the 25' wide lot purchased from the adjacent property to the west. Response: Acknowledged, see revised Civil Sheet CI.1 with corrected Street Map. 2. Sheet C3.1 - Revise for the following: a. There is a blank information box in the south portion of the parking lot with an arrow pointing to the west side of the site. Fill in the infonnation in the box or remove the box. Response: Acknowledged. This information box has been removed from the site plans. b. There is a blank information box in the NE corner of the building with an arrow pointing to the east side of the site. Fill in the information in the box or remove the box. Response: Acknowledged This information box has been removed from the site plans. c. There is a 32' dimension on the south side of the building that is measured to the angled portion of the south property line. This dimension is meaningless, as it does not provide any reference mark to where the dimension is indicated. Response: Acknowledged This dimension has been removed and replaced with a 30' dimension from the building to the bend in the property line. This shows the building setback. d. Revise "outdoor sight lighting" on the SW corner of the building to "outdoor site lighting." Response: Acknowledged The following note has been revised to read "outdoor site lighting" as requested e. The "30 sf interior landscape" indicated on the south side of the building does not meet the Code requirements for location and size to qualify as interior landscape area. Remove and recalculate interior landscape area and the % of the vehicular use area. Revise legend on this sheet and in Site Data on Sheet C1.1 Response: The "30 sf interior landscape" area has been removed from the site plans. The total interior landscape area and the percentage of the vehicular use area has been recalculated, the Site Data Table on Sheet C1.I and the legend have been revised f. Curb the edge of pavement south of the dumpster enclosure. Response: Please see revised plan, the edge of pavement south of the dumpster now includes curbing. g. NE parking row has been moved closer to the Lakeview Rd ROW (from that indicated on the last application). Provide a dimension from the edge of pavement to the north property line. It is noted that this redesign places the northernmost parking space in this row within the sight visibility triangle (an issue in 2007). 3 Response: Acknowledged A dimension of 4.1 feet has been added to the site plans. This dimension is from the outside edge of curb to the north property line as requested h. Remove the 8.6' dimension east of the parking lot from the north property line. This dimension indicated the distance from the north property line to the edge of pavement in the prior application. The pavement has been moved closer to the ROW (see above comment f). Response: Acknowledged This dimension has been removed from the site plans. i. There are arrows west of the main double doors on the north side of the building that do not indicate what they refer to. Fill in the information or remove the arrows. Response: Acknowledged The text has now been included on sheet C3.1 to read "Ex. Conc. Walk': On the north side of the building remove the 19.3' dimension, as it does not relate to any improvements. Rather, provide a dimension from the NW corner of the building to the north property line (19.6'). Response: Acknowledged This dimension has been removed and replaced with a dimension reading 19.6 feet coming from the northwest corner of the building to the north property line. k. Relocate HC sign location to match that on the detail Sheet C5.1 (within landscape area). Response: Acknowledged. The HC sign has been relocated to back of curb. 3. Sheet C4.1 - Revise for the following. a. There is a blank information box in the south portion of the parking lot with an arrow pointing to the east side of the site. Fill in the information in the box or remove the box. Response: Acknowledged This information box has been removed from the site plans. b. There is a blank information box in the NE corner of the building with an arrow pointing to the east side of the site. Fill in the information in the box or remove the box. Response: Acknowledged. This information box has been removedfrom the site plans. 4. Sheet C5.1 - It is noted that the Single Dumpster Enclosure detail will not be built per that shown on Sheet C3.1. Response: Acknowledged Please see sheet C5.2 for additional notes as per our discussion at DRC. 5. Sheet L1.1 - Indicate the Japanese Privet (LJ) to be a minimum caliper of 2" at time of planting (may be multi-stem). Response: Acknowledged. The Japanese Privet (LJ) now shows a minimum caliper of 2 inches. 6. Description of Request Narrative - In paragraph after 'J" on Page 1, unclear in the fifth line of "from 10 percent to 5.5 7.0 percent" as to what percentage is proposed. Revise the interior landscaping percentage also based on other Planning comments and any redesign. 4 Response: Please see revised narrative providing the corrected areas/percentage associated with the interior landscaping. 7. Proposal Use - In the last paragraph, it is noted that Incredible Edibles moved out of 721 Lakeview Rd on or before August 2010 to Largo. Response: Please see revised narrative. 8. Response to General Applicability criteria #1 - In the last paragraph, it is noted that Incredible Edibles moved out of 721 Lakeview Rd on or before August 2010 to Largo. Response: Please see revised narrative. 9. Response to Comp Infill criteria #6.b - In the first and second paragraphs, revise the proposed square footage of interior landscaping based on other Planning comments and any redesign. Response: Please see revised narrative. STORMWATER REVIEW: Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit: 1. Storm pipe outfall from retention pond #2 cannot cross the adjacent property. Response: Acknowledged The storm pipe location has been revised so that the proposed storm pipe does not cross the adjacent property. 2. Show the sanitary lateral connection to the building. The lateral should not be under the pond unless it is ductile iron with I ft. of cover. Show invert of existing sanitary lateral at the property line. Response: Acknowledged, prior to issuance of building permit the plans shall show the existing sanitary lateral connection to the building. The lateral shall not be under the pond unless it is ductile iron with 1 ft. of cover and the plans will indicate the invert of existing sanitary lateral at the property line. 3. Payment in lieu of stormwater retention is due prior to issuance of a building permit. Response: Acknowledged General Note: 1. All resubmittals shall be accompanied with a response letter addressing how each department condition has been meet. Response: Comments addressed in written form. 2. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit. Response: Acknowledged. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING REVIEW: Prior to CDB: There shall be no objects in the sight triangle over the City's acceptable vertical height criteria. Remove parking space closest to the stop sign to provide acceptable sight visibility for exiting motorist(s). (Community Development Code, Section 3-904) Response: Asper our meeting on 212111 with Traffic Engineering Staff the following revisions to the plans have been made: The Stop Bar has been relocated adjacent to the property line, curbing adjacent to landscaping/apron has been corrected to provide a 24' Driveway which corrected the illusion of the parking stalls projecting into the 24' drive aisle (drafting error), a "Watch for Pedestrian Sign" has been added below the Stop Sign and the pavement associated with the first parking space along the eastern side of the driveway provides lettering to indicate "Compact" with the space meeting the dimensional requirements of 9' x 18' as per code. 2. All parking shall be on-site. Vehicles shall not park along the rights-of-way of Lakeview Road and Dempsey Street. Provide a letter acknowledging this requirement. Response: Acknowledged, all parking shall be on-site, letter of acknowledgement included within this resubmission. Prior to a Final Certificate of Occupancy: Applicant shall comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule and paid prior to a Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.). Response: Acknowledged, applicant shall comply with the current TIF Ordinance and fee schedule. Fee shall be paid prior to a C. 0. General Note DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Response: Acknowledged, additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Please contact me if you have questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Renee Ruggiero, Senior Project Planner 6 t s Planning Department e 100 South Myrtle Avenue rwater Clearwater, Florida 33756 Telephone: 727-562-4567 Fax: 727-562-4865 ? SUBMIT ORIGINP`L SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION ? SUBMIT 14 COPTS OF THE ORIGINAL. APPLICATION - Plans and application,are required to be collated, stapled, and folded into sets ? SUBMIT FIRE PRELIMARY SITE PLAN: $200.00 ? SUBMIT APPLICATION FEE $_ CA:->E #: _ F EG,EIVED BY (staff initials): DATE- RECEIVED: I` NOTE: 15 TOTAL SIfTS OF INFORMATION REQUIRED (APPLICATIONS PLUS SITE PLAN SETS) i LE ][B't,I; DEVri,LOII li ENT' A.PPT,ICATIOI Comprehensive I i ill Redevelopment Project - (Revised 07/11/2008) l .?._.._ ?. it -PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT- A. APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND AGENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A) - - APPLICANT NAME: Mark (Marc) and Dorothy B. LeBlanc MAILING ADDRESS ? _-.. _... 1418 Dexter Drive, Clear_waher, FL 33786 ...... _ PHONE NUMBER. 727-461-2122 FAX NUMBER: -- ----- CELL NUMBER 727-46:1-2122 ?- ----- EMAIL: PROPERTY OWNER(S): Dorothy B LeBlanc / Lots 13-16 - } -- List ALL owners on the deed Mark and Dorothy B LeBlanc / Lot 17 AGENT NAME Northside Engineering Services Inr ? Housh Ghovaee, CEO Renee Ruggiero, NAME: 3 ggiero, Senior Project Plannei- - MAILING ADDRESS: 3005 Belcher Road, Clearwater, FL 33165 Renee Ru9 gieio t ..- PHONE NUMBER ; 27-443-2869 • ' FAXNUMBER: 727-446-8036 CELL NUMBER: 727-235-8475 ? ---- --_-- -- '--- - -- `_ -- - -- 5-84 EMAIL: Renee@norLhs.ideenglneeiing.net B. PROPOSED PROJECT NAME STREET ADDRESS PARCEL NUMBER(S): PARCEL SIZE (acres): LEGAL DESCRIPTION:; LOPMENT INFORMATION: (Code Section q.-202.A) -??®-- t The Boiling Pot PROJECT VALUATION: $ 375 , 0 W) . 00 921 Lakeview Road, Clearwater, FL 33755 r.. .. ., 1-29-15-47466-OID40130 and 21-29-15-47466-00[0170 - - - -------- - Gres PARCL L SIZE (square feet): 11, 018 :4 ft Lots 13-17, Blk. 1, Lake Bellview Addition PROPOSED USE(S): 3 Re s t au r_ an t --- -- ---- - -----v---------- ------ ----- --_.-- - ---- - DESCRIPTION OF REgUEST: See Attached Narrative Specifically identify the request (include number of units! or square footage of non-residential use and all ? -? -- " --- requested code deviatiolts; e.g. ---"------- ------ --_- reduction in required number of parking spaces, specificiuse, etc.) -" C:\Documenks and Settings\derek.Ferguson\Desktop\planning dept forms 0708\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc Page 1 of 8 i i 'i DOES THIS APPLICATION INVOLVE THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTt;W (TDR), A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED UNI DEVELOPMENT, OR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED (CERTIFIED) SITE PLAN? YES _ NO X (if yes, attach a copy of the applicable (1ocuments) _ Y. C. PROOF OF OI VNERSHIP: (Code Section 4-202.A,,,5) L4 SUBMIT A COP dOF THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY, DEED TO THE PROPERTY OR SIGN AFFIDAVIT ATTESTI" G O Page 7) 1' N WNERSI-IIP (see D. WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 3-913,A) u 1 Ems` Provide complete responses to the six (6) GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA - Explain how each criteria is achievedifin detail: 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density arid character of adjacent properties In which is located. it. SEE ATTACHED NARRATIVE It --- --------- The proposed devPWpment will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildimis or significantly impair file value thQreof. SEE ATTACHED NARRATIVE 3., The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neigh SEE ATTACHED NARRATIVE 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. SEE ATTACHE]) NARRATIVE The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed fo SEE ATTACHED NARRATIVE of the proposed use. ment. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours o(operalion impacts, on adjacent properties; SEE ATTACHED NARRATIVE I' C:\Documen}'s and Settings\derek.ferguson\Desktop\planning dept forms 0708\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-1 I.doc Page 2 of 8 3 WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Comprehensive Infill Red,,evr?lopment Project Criteria) Provide. complete responses to the six (6) COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMEN F PROJECT CRITERIA- Explain how each crlleda is achieved, in detail; _ 1. The developmentlor redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. SEE ATTACHED NARRATIVE The development. or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as 411 as with the general purpose, intent anal basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district SEE ATTACHEb NARRATIVE . 1 The development pr redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding `properties. SEE ATTACHEp NARRATIVE ---- --- ---- ---- - ----- ------- 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as.a result of the proposed development, .SEE ATTACHEp NARRATIVE e The proposed us' shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter 'he essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall remonstrate compliance with one of more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy or,by creating jobs; i G. the development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; R d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; f e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar cle4lopment and where a land use planjamendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f. The proposed. use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. SEE! ATTACHEp NARRATIVE 6. Flexibility with reg the following desil a. The propose permitted in b. The propose c. The design, d. In order to fo the following ? Chan ? Use c Varie ? Distin ? Buildi ? Distin e. The proposer SEE ATTAC rd to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of 1 objectives: development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses is zoning district; development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; r ;ale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an aea; n a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates substantial number of esign elements: es in horizontal building planes; - architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; in materials, colors and textures; live fenestration patterns; g stepbacks; and ;ive roofs forms. development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances Between buildings. ED NARRATIVE C:1Documents and Setting s\derek.ferguson\Desktop\planning dept forms 0708\( omprehensive Infill Pr - ------------- oject (FLD) 2008 07-1Ldoc Page 3 of 8 1 3 E. STORMWATER PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual and 4i202.A.21) tX A STORMWATER NARRATIVE MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH ALL. APPLICATIONS, All applications that involve addition or modification ofimpervious surface, including buildings, must include a stormwater plan that demonstrates compliance with the City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria manual. A reduction in impervious surface area does not qualify as an exemption c 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; f L ? Existing topography extending 50 feet beyond all property lines; ? Proposed grading including finished floor elevations of all structures; ? All adjacent streets and municipal storm systems; ? Proposed stormwater detention/retention area including top of bank, toe of slope and outlet control structure; ` h ? A narrative describing the proposed stormwater control plan including all calculations and data necessary to demonstrate compliance with the City manual:.: ? Proposed stormwater detention/retention area including top of bank, toe of slope and outlet control structure; ? Signature and se l of Florida Registered Professional Engineer on all plans and calculations. 'j ? COPY OF PE?'MIT INQUIRY LETTER OR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGENIENT DISTRICT (SVVFWMD) PERMIT SUBMITTAL (SV?FWMD approval is required prior to issuance of City Building Permit), if applicable i a ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF STORMWATER PLAN REQUIREMENTS (Applicant must initial one of the following): tr 7 RMR Stonnwater plan as noted above is included R_ Stormwater plan is not required and explanation narrative is attached. At a minimum, a grading pl.aril and finished floor elevtions shall be provided. CAUTION - L'F APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQ1JIREMENT FOR A STORMWATER PLAN AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DkLAY MAY OCCUR, 5! 1- If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Public Works Administration Engineering Department at (127) 562-4750. F. SUPPLEMENTAL- SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 4-202.A) t SIGNED AND SALED SURVEY (including legal description of property) - One original and 14 copies; I 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 frees; TREE INVENTORY; prepared by a "certified arborist", of all trees 4" DBI-i or greater, reflecting size, canopy (drip lines) and condition of such trees, i r EX LOCATION MAPIOF THE PROPERTY; IX PARKING DEMAND STUDY in conjunction with a request to make deviations to the parking standards (ie. Reduce number of spaces). Prior to the subrrijttal of this application, the methodology of such study shall be approved by the Community Development Coordinator and shall be in accoreiance with accepted traffic engineering principles. The findings of the study will be used in determlOng whether or not deviations to the parking standards are approved; See Provided Parking Study LY GRADING PLAN as applicable; ?r PRELIMINARY PLAT, as required (Note: Building permits will not be issued until evidence of recording a final plat is provided); N/A COPY OF RECO?DED PLAT, as applicable; N/A i s 1 t C:\Documen.ts and Settings\derek.ferguson\Desktop\planning dept forms 0708\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-11.doc Page 4 of 8 f G. SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-202.A) _e I. L$ SITE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24" x 36"): Index sheedreferencing individual sheets included in package; 1 North arrow; Engineering; bar scale (minimum scale one inch equals 50 feet), and date prepared; All dimensions; Footprint and size of all EXISTING buildings and structures; Footprint and size of all PROPOSED buildings and structures; -- - All required 3,setbacks; is All existing and proposed points of access; All requiredsight triangles; E Identification of environmentally unique areas, such as watercourses, wetlands, tree masses, and specimQn trees, including description and location of understory, ground cover vegetation and wildlife habitats, etc; Location of all public and grivate easements; Location of all street rights-of-way within and adjacent to the: site; Location of'pAsting public and private utilities, including fire hydrants, storm and sanitary sewer lines, manholes a'nd lift stations, gas and water lives; All parking 4paces, 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 Sectioi 3-201(D)(i) and Index #701); Location of ill landscape material; Location of II onsite and offsite storm-water management facilities; s n/a Location of all outdoor lighting fixtures; Location of all existing and proposed sidewalks; and 3 _ Floor plan typicals of buildings for all Level Two approvals. A floor plan of each floor is required for any parkingigarage requiring a Level Two approval. cy SITE DATA TABLE for existing, required, and proposed development, in written/tabular form: i a Land area iq square feet and acres; Number of EXISTING dwelling'units; Number of PROPOSED dwelling runts; _ Gross floor 2rea devoted to each use; Parking spaces: total number, presented in tabular form with the number of required spaces; Total paved! area, including all paved parking spaces & driveways, expressed it square feet & percentage of the paved vehicular area; Official, records book and page numbers of all existing utility easement, i - Building anc{ structure heights; Impermeable surface ratio (I.S.R.); and Floor area iVio (F.A.R.) for all nonresidential uses. t-Y REDUCED COL9R SITE PLAN to scale (8'%X 11); EXISTING REQUIRED I€ PROPOSED .._ e .__e ;; ?r _.-t - - -e --- -- D -a--t-a - T----.._..abl..e on u _ - '-- C. a Civil i l l -- C--1 . 7 ? FOR DEVELOPI'dENTS OVER ONE ACRE, provide the following additional information on site plan: One-foot contours or spot elevations on site; Offsite elevations if required to evaluate the proposed stonrnwater management: for the parcel; All open space areas; Location of AII earth or water retaining walls and earth bermes; -- t Lot lines and building lines (dimensioned); E. Streets and:drives (dimensioned); Building andistructural setbacks (dimensioned); I Structural o\terhangs; C:\Documents and Settings\derel<.ferguson\Desktop\planning dept forms 0708\Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 2608 07-1 Ldoc Page 5 of 8 I-I. LANDSCAPING PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-1102.A) e CY LANDSCAPE Pt_ N with the following information (not to exceed 24" x 36"): rill existing and proposed structures; Names of abutting streets; a; Drainage a d retention areas including swales, side slopes and bottom elevations; Delineation Pnd dimensions of all required perimeter landscape buffers; i Sight visibility triangles; r Delineation bnd dimensions of all parking areas including landscaping islands and curbing; Existing trees on-site and immediately adjacent to the site, by species, size and locations, including driplines (as indicated on required tree survey)i Location, size, and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, indicated by a key relating to Elie plant schedule; Plant schedule with a key (symbol or label) indicating the size, description, specifications, quantities, and spacing,1equirements of all existing andlproposed landscape materials, including botanical and common names; Typical planting details for trees, palms, shrubs and ground cover plants Including instructions, soil mixes backf r i ' ;. protective measures; IIng, mulching and Interior landscaping areas hatched and/or shaded and labeled and interior landscape coverage, expressing in holh square feet and percentage 0overed; Conditions of a previous development approval (e.g. conditions imposed by the Community Development Board); Irrigation notes. 1?f REDUCED COLOR LANDSCAPE PLAN to scale (81%X 11), _ EX COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM application, as applicable. Landscape associated with the Compreh!Pnsiv(. Landscape Program shall exr eed minimum Code requirements to offset the areas where minimum Code will not be met. 1. BUILDING ELEVATION PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Suction 4-202.A.23) XX LT BUILDING ELEVATION DRAWINGS - with the following information: K ,p11_1 All sides of All buildings Dimensioneo Colors (provide one full sized set of colored elevations -- - I ) 5t?-)'•' ??vy"ice Materials ' C ILt? 'REDUCED BUILDING ELEVATIONS - same as above to scale on 8'/ X 11 J. SIGNAGE: (Division 19. SIGNS / Section 3-1806) No Signage Exists on Site - Any New Proposed Signage Shall Requite Permit ? All EXISTING freestanding and attached signs; Provide photographs and dimensions (area, height, etc.), indicate w1lether they.will be removed or to remain. is ? All PROPOSED, freestanding and attached signs; Provide details including location, size, height, colors, materials and drawing; freestanding signs shall include the street address (numerals) F t ? Comprehensive Sign Program application, as applicable (separate application and fee: required), E ? Reduced signag.!proposal (8 %X 11) (color), if submitting Comprehensive Sign Program application. :If Documents and Settings\derek.ferguson\Desktop\planning dept forms 070MComprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 26 08 07-1 tdoc Page 6 of 8 r.- I K. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: (Sec:tion 4-202.A.'13 and 4-801I.C) Include if required by the Traffic Operations Manager or his/her designee or if the proposed development: Will degrade the acceptable level of service for any roadway as adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. Will generate 100 or more new vehicle directional trips per hour and/or 1000 or, more new vehicle trips per day. Will affect ainearby roadway segment and/or intersection with five (5) reportable accidents within the prior twelve (1J2) month period or that is on the City's annual list of most hazardous intersections. I € Trip generation shall be based on the most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation Enginee;r's (ITE) Trip General, !Manual. The Traffic Impact Study must be prepared in accordance with a "Scoping Meeting" held with the Traffic OperationJI Manager and the Planning Departrpent's Development Review Manager or their designee (727-562-4750) G Refer to Section 4-801 C of the Community Development Code for exceptions to this requirement. i' Acknowledgement of traffic impact study requirements (Applicant must initial one of the followinc Traffic Impact Study is included. The study must include a summary table of pre- and post-cevelopment levels of service for all roa dway legs and each turning movement at all intersections identified in the Scoping Meeting. Traffic Impact Study is not required. _ VAP; I s CAUTION - ;IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN "THE REQUIREMENT FOR A TRA( FIC IMPACT STUDY AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR. 15 If you have quesFtions regarding these requirements, contact the City Public Works Administration Engineering Department at (727) 562- 4750. t L. FIRE FLOW CALCULATIONS/ WATER STUDY: Provide Fire Flow Caladations. Water Study by a FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEER to assure an adequate water supply is available and to determine if any upgrades are required by the developer clue to the impact of this project. The water supply must be able to support the needs of any required fire sprinkler, standpipe and/or fire pump; If a fire pump is required the water supply must be able to supply 150% of its rated capacity. Compliance with the 004 Florida Fire Prevention Code to include NFPA 13, MFPA 14, NFPA 20, NFPA 291, and MFPA 1,142 (Annex 1-1) is required. Acknowledgement of fire flow calculations/wafer study requirements (Applicant must: initial one of the following): 1K Fire JFlow Calculations/Water Study is included. Fire ;Flow Calculations/Water Study is not required. CAUTION - IF: APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A"" FIRE FLOW CALCULATIONS/ WATER STUDY AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR. If you have quest)ons regarding these requirements, contact the City Fire Prevention Department at (727) 562-4334. M. SIGNATURE: I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all representations made in this application, are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and authorize City representatives to visit and photogra?l the pfoperty described in this application. Si STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINE Swor to arj subscribed before me this f P _ D.2o [i ? ??°.:]!?"' who is p produced as identification. ature of property owner or representative Notary My commission expire1rs:Lu?,???d?{{?????????????,??? _•?o•'•••e•m®,?• a'?-t3.iL y?la 1?t.1 ,1 G."JT13T.CT1? . Y i ? ?....? C:ADocumerts and Settings\derek.fergusonADesktop\planning dept forms 0708\r le J :`tjtlYf ,lhfl,(It;.Rloj?et1?Cli.)?2 Faye 7 of 8 . r.l 'rt.u, I 1(4f1.:.4, O ':on(d'1'.tn°u Arland(" ),tr?r?,clinf; 0),, fr day of to me and/ord y ally known has 4 ;o )8 07-11.doc N. AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHORIZE AI;?EiNT: 1. Provide names of _all property owners on deed - PRINT full names: r 1 ' lr i f? 2. That (I am/we are)! the: owner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property (address or general locatio 3. That this property constitutes the property for which a request for a: (describe request) ( 5 ..._._..?n?t....1..t?.?- .Irt.°_\_.?`l.._._?"ti 4 .?Y`??:.(.?"-•_4:3".1_ ?.{.?.t.,;>j..`,,,?? " C.f,i f"`C9 ,,.. ,? 4. That the undersigned (has/have) appointed and (does/do) appoint: as (his/their) agent(s) to execute any petitions or other documents necessary to affect such petition; - 3 5" That this affidavit tjas been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act on the above describedproperty; I f 6. That site visits to tl fli orizes City - .,?r?r-tjnpre necessary by City representatives in order to process this application and the owner an repre eptative to', fit a,d photograph the property described in this application; = 7. Th t I/yv) e ui ei rsd guthority, hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. E / / , 0 Owner Property Owner Property Owner Property Owner STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS Before me the undersigned, an officer duly commissioned by the laws of the State of Florida, on this ?,,?' ?7 p ay of personally appeared -- -_. who having bee f first duly sworn Deposes and says that he/she fully understands the contents of the affidavit that he/she signed. F 'I'? t •1..1, .tai ?Itl.tt.'•? tit Ul.' tl.t:ill.tDA ? 3 w t al ?? \ t.t?1? ,(?:e art)(l (,?lI1T111E`+1C111 # J,)1`r,3 1'?. ? 4"ni? nmr mw, i v 1 1'??71irf,: I/j.11Y 03, (,.1.(} --- --- -"- ------ Notary Seal/Stamp al f#t?a,kllpd c +t, Ir+e. Notary Public Signature My Commission Expires: tA ApY 0 Zen, I n V. is C:\Documenk and Seftings\derekrfergusonlDesktop\planning dept forms 0708\0omprehenslve Infill Project (FLD) 2008 07-1 Ldoc { Page 8 of 8 li= -?4b2 UU KEN BURKE, C.i? COUNTY,,,. FL BY DE'PUTY CLERK: CLKDU19 s r" I E , Prepared by Lydia Messina, a6 employee of First American Tide Insurance Company 14100 Walsingham Road, Suite 14 Largo, Florida 33174 (727)595-4527 l Return to; Gran File No.: 1046-1 WARTY DEED This indenture made on September 11, 20013 A.D., by I Sexton En whose add hereinafter Marl( whose addn hereinafter (Which terms % representatives, Witnessetl valuable cor remises, reli Pinellas Co Lot 17, Block Book 9, Page way, Parcel Idend Subject, tn, appliGble 21o Together wl appertaining. ?rprises, Inc., a Florida corporation is is:, , fled the "grantor", to ' is and Dorothy B, LeBlanc, as joint tghants Witi fil'li rights of survivorship t 3s is: 901 Lalteview (load, Lot 17;;1®annrater, P12,32- 756 filed the "grantee": rotor'" and "Grantee" shall Include singular or plural, corpora?ior or Individual, and either sex, and shall Include heirs„ hccessors and assigns of the same) . ^ that the grantor, for an'4jn consi*afllon of the sum of Ten Dollars, ($10.00) and othel Iderations, receipt whereof Is hereby acknowledged, hereby. grants, bargains, sells, alien ses, conveys and drnArrtis lento the grantee, all that certain land situate in ity, Florida, to-wit: 1 of LAKE BEL.LEVII7W ADDITION, according to the Map or Plat thereof as recorded In P? 141, of, the P? bilc`?egords of Pinellas County, Florida, less and except the road right-of a :atior? Nbrnber;;'21/29/16/47466/001/0170 1_6eserv6i;ions, covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements of record and to all ing oraihances and/or restrictions imposed by governmental authorities, If .any. t all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in any wa Page 1 of 2 1046- 1994959r To Have and to Hold, the same in fee simple forever And the grantor hereby covenants with said grantee that the grantor is lawfully seized of said and 0 fee simple; that the grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land; that the grantor ` hereby fully warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of ail persons whorlnsoever; and that said land Is free of all encumbrances except taxes accruin subs December 31st of 2007. 9 eggent to ; J,L In Witness Whereof, the grantor has hereunto set their hand(s) and seal(s) the day arlcj`yearflr4 above written, I In A. 1 7 , v ?;5 I Sexton Enterprises, Inc• , Florida corporation _ ? lr I \ 1 is Sexton, President r Witrr'ss SIghature presence; ? I 1 Print Name; ! h State of F County of P The ForeG Enterprisi produced a C -Print JVame: ' _1 nellas ng Instrumeht?i!(as Acknowledged before me on Septernbe 1, 2008, by Se Inc.,*-Plor'da coryZoration who is/are personally knq n to e or who has/have lid dr(Ver's Ifc?nse isAdentification. <?- I I , t i NOT ),AY PUBLIC Notaiy Prfnt Name My Commission Expires: ry L. MESSINA KY Public - Slate of Floiida My Comminbn Brow ion 5, ?M9 Commisslon # DD 35766'9 Bonded By Nailalal Notary Assn. Page 2 of 2 1046 - 1994959 .-,'1U.UU ll UUC STAMY CULLECTION alb/b.UU KEN BUR", CLERK UP' CUUR•J. Y1.NliLLAS COUNTY, E;-, BY DEPUTY CLERK: CLKPRI8 Pre?Trgd;hx: Title Clearinghouse 423 Mandalay Avenue Clearwater Beach, Florida 33767 File Number: 05-1123-03 General Warranty Deed Made this May 31, 2005 A.D. By Sadlon Properties, Inc., a Florida corporation, whose address is: 411 Cleveland Street fl 10, Clearwater, FL 33755, hereinafter called the grantor, to Dorothy B. LeBlanc a married woman, whose post office address is: 201 S. Fulton Beach Rd., Fulton, TX 78358, hereinafter called the grantee: .t t, tt - tt ?r i , (Whenever used herein the teen "grantor" and "grantee" include all the parties to this instrument and the heirs, legal representatives and assigns of,' Individuals, and the successors and assigns of corporations) r Witnesseth, that the grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars, ($.10.00) and other valuable cons ikeratioits, is receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, hereby grants, bargains, sells, aliens, remises, releases, conveys and confirms unto the grmtee, all that certain land situate in Pinellas County, Florida, viz: Lot 13,14, 15 AND 16 BLOCK 1, LAKE BELLEVIEW ADDITION, LESS THAT PART CONVEYED TO PINELLAS COUNTY FOR ROAD RIGHT OF WAY IN OR BOOK 1367. PAGE 279, PUBLIC RECORDS OF\FINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 9, PACE''1411QF THF.'PDBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA q Parcel ID Number: 21/29/15/47466/001/0130 € Together with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging pr` q anywise appertaining. i' To Have and to Hold, the same in fee simple forever. And the. grantor hereby covenants with said grantee that the grFqior is IawftAly seized of said land in fee simple; that the grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land; that th6 gratgoh ? ereliy'fully warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever,,and'that sale( lapd ts-free6f all encumbrances except taxes accruing subsequent to December 31, 2004. In Witness Whereof, the said grantor has siggdd ahd s6aled these presents the day and year first above written, l Signed, sealed and delivered in our presence.,' \ \ \ h Sadlo ra 5t eInc. (Seal) Witness Printed Neme -- r?l?t B . Ju y el and as P for Mark Nirokels -- v v It : V cc Pre dent Ad Tess: 411 Cleveland Street 11110, Clearwater, FL 33755 s !sb \ ` t Witness Printed Name State of F1oW\a ?j County of Pinellas The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 31th day of May, 2005, by Sadlon Properties, Inc., a Florida corporation, who is/are personally known to me or who has produced drivers license as identification. Notary Pub C I'rlnt Name: __?0?. f?Vih ?7 Gina Boivin My Commission Expires;_' / jpY a' , °. Commission MD217338 `k'j (,spires: May 29, 2007 nonded Thm Atlantic Bonding Co„ Inc. DEED Individual Warranty Deed • Legal on Pace Closers' Choice i! This letter will serve as authorization for HOU sh Ghovaee I^' (agent: Name) with Nnr> ISIlle lylloill Denny Srl'Vires, I11C I . to act as an agent for (Property Owner's Name) And to xecute any and all documents related to securing permits and approvls for the construction on the property generally located at Lakeview Road, Clearwater (Property Location) PI) Gory St to of FLORIDA. gnatQre'ff-f?'operfy Owner -lam t Address: of Property Owner City/Stofie/Zip C?de A State &Lj county'bqr ??I.RY PU`G n yCP`v?` MY( L Print 'Name of Property Owner Title --1t??-ECe/2 Telephone Number The foregoing instrument was acknowledge before me this day of, , 20al byj(1 1? N.-? as . who is personally (mown to me or who has produced as identification and who did (did not) take an oath. ?- (Signature) \ Notary Public EEN mission #!? ?? Z A• WILLIAMS MISSION #E DD 1551302 October 14, 2006 - (Name of Notary Typed, Printed or Stamped) la'y Se,vice & Bon?IM POWER 01P ATTOPNIN ? ALL MEN BY Tl SE, gnie(t, tlarI 11 .1.11)" c lrttttt' 1. and at L(?Llt,s-h rate iVId in Tstly fig, plwo, am] st""'ad" T, rrty tr'GTb u.ria3 1?V.E3111 attrrrney-1,11. bkr ,fix Irt, He'll, e exn.rrsy, :mt>ttgAgc, pledge or ek"Mthler' the rol?l!owln? cltrrJrrilvtrwl l?rttrvx':C,1094 Nmoliptlun ofPMP,6rty C?ert"A+ava a waraaw rwwu y r? uw l a*wr-? ??vaaw?rw aw w C??.??,??31?erlti??;?ktr"t,>'? 1"J'1???r,l??r ..? ?`? ? .-???y?/?? ??C..(?X r? "" And. It rlx? t,,t;r,cby gri.wc III (I gTo tt to :try Baia a torney A111 PUMV QAd aUtliorlt,,,? fay eit7 and jrx-If'r.Sirr a" nnrl tdvtry act and th.ing whAtsor,,v" rx? utL?S?ry?txi 1?? clone In tho rr erniw. a,,j fltl ly ty 411 {nirtt3 o orp)w As T might or uld +?ar if r'of ly pft6l, Ni't. y .#irll po minor ubohtiot'r. on(I ro oflrion, h r F y.?ai1' virtg trtrl asrr lrrrti>n all t rytt riy Arid attt?rrt?? rr?a?r rlr? ?tt?iari? r? tlaPa ?r??v?r. IN (?'T? 141Y ?Kw kvT-1"pid._wl", I have hon-tun'to t my fwnd and wtal this ?'S day of - . r 20 - r- Dn ?? c o N o?N C. i t t?rJ., d} l cl ! deli ertd in ilto, ltx ar?m ev[L i I? oq r? ;tl?KyNU, ANIIA V. TRYON Notary Publio, State of Texas My Commission Expires Jaiwory 2Cr, 2[la8 7r t of! (.:,cYl.m1 11M I` r q in, irtntnt>in?ttt ?kr?i19 h rata ier riat?tod g (I ty t fok tlxit9 c, Cll'3i:;i S.7Ry4 1.1„ ofr???ry:szT'?"xJ>rv?rcrsTUnc, W.4 Z, t^: r_ 07/07/201 Nort,hsl?de NARRATIVE TO FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT 921 Lakeview Road Section B. Description of Request Civil Land Planning Due Diligence Reports Re-Zoning, Land Use, Annexation Stormwater Management Utility Design Traffic Construction Administration The Applicant, Mr. Marc LeBlanc proposes to convert the existing vacant building into a neighborhood restaurant use. The subject property is a 0.25 acre site bounded Lakeview Road to the north and Dempsey Street to the South. A cemetery is located across Lakeview Road to the north; residences are located across Dempsey Street to the South, with w _o ice/community service use located to the east of the site and an automotive parts re-manufacturer to t.. z? west. Specifically, the Applicant requests flexible development approval to allow conversion of the site and existing building into a restaurant use with: a. a Lot Area of 11,018 square feet; b. a Lot Width of 146.79 feet on Lakeview Road and 89.77 feet on Dempsey Street; c. an existing Height (above BFE) of 25' 5" to mid-point of roof, d. a Front (north) Setback along Lakeview Road of 18.1' to existing building, 4' to a portion of the parking lot pavement and 13.8' to the sidewalk; e. a Front (South) Setback along Dempsey Street of 30' to the existing building, and 1' to a portion of the parking lot pavement; f. a Side (east) setback of 3' to existing building; g. a Side (west) setback of 54.92' to the existing building and 5' to the parking lot pavement; h. an Impervious Surface Ratio of.70; i. F.A.R. of 0.18; j. Providing 16 On-Site Parking Spaces; as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-704.C, with a reduction to perimeter landscape buffer along Lakeview Road from 15 feet to 13.8 feet (to sidewalk) and four feet (to pavement), a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along Dempsey Street from 10 feet to one-foot (to pavement), a redurxi??:,,to the east perimeter landscape buffer from five feet to three feet (to existing building), a reduction to the in?erior landscape requirement from 10 percent to 6.5 percent of the vehicular use area and reductions to the width of the foundation landscape area on both the north and south sides of the building from five feet to zero feet (at walkways and pavement), as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of CDC Section 3-1202.G. 300 SOL10i Belcher Road Clearwater, Floridia 33765 tech?northsitaeengirrer?i°in?services.con? 727 443 2869 Fax 727 446 8036 History The structure built in the 1920's historically housed a Coca Cola distribution facility; although not on the Florida or National Register of History Places, the 1920's structure provides historic value and flavor to the community. The Applicant purchased the site in 2006 with the goal of opening a "little neighborhood restaurant" similar to those found nestled within the neighborhoods of his family hometown in Texas. Mr. LeBlanc immediately fell for the historic charm of the building and the eclectic vibe of the neighborhood with the various surrounding uses. The building has been vacant for the past 5 years and last contained four attached dwelling units. While working his way through the development review process over the last five years, the Applicant has maintained the property in good condition and thru the permitting process has demolished a large unsafe portion of the structure including removal of the four dwelling units. Comments received from City Staff, the Community Development Board and Neighbors during the previous submittals and hearings have resulted in the final adaptation of the site plan. As outlined in the following discussion and supporting documentation, the Owner has taken every available measure to mitigate any anticipated negative effects including_but not limited to: • The proposed second floor office has been deleted from the proposal and as such lowered the range of required parking spaces by two (Previous range 16 - 35 Spaces - Current range 14 - 30 Spaces) • The provided Parking Study determined 10 parking spaces are necessary to support the business, the site plan provides 16 spaces on-site. The proposed 16 spaces will meet the demand of patrons as well as the demand for the 5 proposed employees, leaving 1 additional space for overflow. Typically Parking Studies do not require or include the number of employees associated with a project. However, to more clearly demonstrate the appropriate number of spaces is provided we have included the proposed employees within the demand. (Please see provided Parking Study for more detailed information). • The required dumpster is now located internal to the site and the location no longer requires the Sanitation vehicle to pick up via Dempsey Road. The design now utilizes the commercially designated Lakeview corridor for pick up and has been approved by the Sanitation Department. The new dumpster location allows for an additional 165 square foot of landscape area along the southern property line as well as the deletion of the 180 square foot concrete approach to the dumpster within the ROW. (Please see revised Site Plan). • To provide additional buffering for the residential properties to the south, the Applicant is offering to provide additional landscaping beyond the southern property line, within the ROW of Dempsey Road. This additional area of landscaping will fulfill the intent of the landscape code by providing the desired landscape buffer where not possible on site. (Please see Landscape Narrative and Landscape Plan for additional information). 2 Proposed Use The Applicant/Developer is seeking development approval to allow a small specialty neighborhood restaurant. The proposed neighborhood restaurant will offer Cajun fair in a charmingly rustic building located in a unique, underutilized and historically enriched area of our City. The proposed small scale nature of this specialty restaurant is the appropriate size, scale and intensity for this commercially designated site and its su.4bd ding mixture of uses. The Owner anticipates serving patrons from the surrounding businesses and residential properties. The restaurant will be owned and operated by the Applicant/Property Owner which will help to insure responsible operation and preservation of investment through maintenance and improvements. The Owner will continue to have a dedicated ownership stake in the community. The entire project area is under complete ownership of the Applicant, no longer requiring a long term lease for some of the land area. With or without the proposed restaurant, the area offers an eclectic array of uses including but not limited to: the Candy Factory, an office for the Community Service Foundation, a Local Fire Fighters Association, a cemetery, with a large warehouse facility to the west and until August of 2010 the main facility for Incredible Edibles (office, sales, and food preparation). Residences and other various offices and medical clinics make up the remaining surrounding uses. We believe the neighborhood will be enhanced by the proposed small scale specialty neighborhood restaurant. Section D. Written Submittal Requirements General Standards Criteria: 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 existing building built in 1920, predates many of the surrounding structures and as such will not create nor be in disharmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of the surrounding properties. The proposed small scale neighborhood restaurant is the appropriate size, scale and intensity for this commercially designated site; the Owner anticipates serving patrons from the surrounding businesses and residential properties. The proposed development is in harmony w- tb the adjacent properties with the density/intensity and is well within the allowable limits associated with Lot Area, Floor Area Ratio, Impervious Surface Ratio and Open Space requirements. The proposed parking is within the allowable flexible limits permissible by Code and the proposed use is a permissible use within the Commercial "C" District. As the adjacent properties offer an array of various building types and uses it provides no particular emerging character; the character of each site is quite unique and is the true charm of the area. Many of the surrounding commercial sites provide similar setbacks of building and pavement as well as landscape buffers (5' or less) adjacent to parking areas. The area with or without this restaurant, offers an eclectic array of uses including: the Candy Factory, an office for the Community Service Foundation, a large warehouse facility, the Local Fire Fighters Association, a cemetery and until recently (August 2010) the main facility for Incredible Edibles (office, sales, and food preparation), residential uses and other various office uses. 3 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 re-occupancy of the building and site will help to encourage new development and re- development of adjacent land, providing a positive effect on the property values of the surrounding land. The restaurant will be owned and operated by the Applicant/Property Owner which will help to insure responsible operation and preservation of investment through maintenance and improvements along with a dedicated ownership stake in the community. Some of the substantial improvements proposed to the building and site include: Installation of professionally designed landscaping along all yards, approximately 95' linear feet of the Lakeview Road frontage will receive three or more tiers of plantings including multiple plantings of decorative and shade trees. The east and west side yards will receive landscape treatment to the fullest extent possible taking into consideration the location of the existing building and the remaining area available for required parking and drive aisle. The proposed landscape buffers are similar or larger than the buffers offered by many of the surrounding commercial sites. • Further the Applicant proposes to provide additional landscaping beyond his property line, within the ROW of Dempsey Road to provide additional buffering for the residential properties to the south and will provide written assurances of replacement should the City require access to the area for repair work. This additional area of landscaping will fulfill the intent of the landscape code providing the desired landscape buffer. ?'. • Historically the site offered primarily non-paved/dirt parking surfaces, the new proposed paved surfaces will decrease dirt and dust to the surrounding sites. The proposed design offers responsible site drainage which is not currently present on site. • The rehabilitation and restoration of a historically significant structure together with the addition of a use which allows the community to step inside and share a meal with your neighbor will certainly enhance the vicinity and strengthen the sense of community. The items outlined above only touch on the more than $300,000.00 worth of improvements proposed for this site; the proposed improvements will increase and benefit the values of the adjacent land and buildings. The proposed re-development will help to encourage further commercial development along this commercially zoned corridor. 3) The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. Through responsible business management and operation, the health and safety of persons residing and/or working in the neighborhood will not be adversely affected. The proposed restaurant, located within a commercially designated site, will offer reasonable hours of operation, appropriate location and enclosure for the dumpster, and access to the site for vehicles from Lakeview Road. 4 The proposed re-use of the site and building will have positive effects on the health and safety of area residents and workers, vacant sites often promote unsafe and undesired activities. Active and utilized commercial properties reflect positively on the health and safety of residents and workers in the neighborhood. 4) The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. This small scale restaurant containing approximately 14 tables will not create traffic congestion; the site design provides access along the commercially designated Lakeview Road. This portion of Lakeview is not constrained and can easily accept the low number of trips generated by this small commercial development. All vehicular access to the site has been designed to take place along Lakeview Road further minimizing the impacts of the proposed restaurant on the properties to the south. The site is within a 1/4 mile walk from many businesses, residences, the Pinellas Trail and Ross Norton Complex. This small scale restaurant is intended to offer commercial support to the surrounding neighborhood and business community. Please also see discussion within Item 46. 5) The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. With the wide variety of structures and uses the area offers no particular community character to find consistency with, however the proposed neighborhood restaurant will fit in nicely with the array of various uses (commercial and residential) in the vicinity. The small scale restaurant is intended to support and serve the immediate vicinity and neighborhoods. The proposed development plan, landscape buffers and setbacks are similar to the setbacks and buffers offered by the Community Center to the east and the office complex to the northeast. 6) The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. Adverse effects on adjacent properties are minimized through sound site design which includes: • Access along the commercially designated Lakeview corridor; • Dumpster and enclosure located internal to the site with pick up three times per week from Lakeview; • Responsible site drainage; • In addition to the proposed small scale of the restaurant and the proposed hours of operation. The proposed development offers many ac;tiohs to successfully minimize adverse effects on the adjacent properties. Please also see discussion within Item 42. 5 Flexibility Criteria: 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. The development proposal requires minimum deviations necessary to accomplish the proposed and permissible use and re-development would be impractical without the deviations. Most any use would require some of the same deviations proposed as the same challenges would be present when designing the require parking lot, driveway, required drainage, solid waste access and location in addition to the placement of the existing building. The site design for most any use would look much the same as this proposal with the exception of the deletion of four parking spaces. This small distinction should not be grounds to deny this development proposal as pavement at grade will not have a substantive impact on neighboring sites. The proposed deviations from Code are the minimum necessary to make practical re-use of this existing site and historic building. Certain deviations are necessary due to circumstances associated with the land and/or were not self created by the Applicant; the double frontage lot, the location of the existing building and the irregular shape of the site all play a part in the hardships associated with the site. The proposed rehabilitation of this unique structure and site meets the City's vision of encouraging the adaptive re-use of underutilized buildings in the event redevelopment is not feasible. The building is structurally sound and has been a part of this community's character for 80 years. Additionally, allowing the re-use of this existing building and site will provide positive momentum in a very poor economic time and in an area that is currently struggling with vacant buildings and deferred maintenance of property. . Setbacks: The relief sought from the building setback is the minimum necessary to accommodate the re-use of the existing building; the remaining setback deviations are to pavement. The designation of two legal front yards, the irregular shape of the property and the location of the existing building presents a hardship in the re-development of this site. Height: The existing height of the building is 25'-5" to the mid-point of the roof and is within the lower limits of the flexible height allowance of between 25 and 50 feet. The building has existed since the 1920's and will continue to cohesively blend into block face. Parking: The provided Parking Study determined 10 parking spaces are necessary to support the business, 16 spaces are provided for on-site. The proposed 16 spaces meet the demand of patrons and the proposed employees, leaving 1 additional space for overflow. Typically Parking Studies do not require or include the number of employees associated with a project; however, to more clearly demonstrate the appropriate number of spaces is provided we have included the proposed employees within the demand. (Please see provided Parking Study for more detailed information). 6 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. The subject site with the requested approval as a Comprehensive In-Fill Project is consistent with many of the goals and policies within the Comprehensive Plan associated with urban conservation and renewal. Restaurant uses are permissible uses within the "Commercial" zoning district and within the "Commercial General" land use category. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. The proposed redevelopment project is compatible with the neighborhood, as is more particularly discussed in General Applicability Criteria I and Comprehensive Infill Criteria 4 below, and will not impede other development. The proposed re-use of building and the proposed upgrades to the site may help to encourage renovation and redevelopment of other vacant sites in the vicinity. The proposed improvements will offer many benefits the community and specifically this district. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment, the proposed buffers and setbacks are appropriate and similar to the surrounding commercial sites. The proposed upgrades will enhance the area and provide improved values. The proposed hours of operation, scale of the business, site design and improvements will not cause substantial detriment to the adjoining properties. The proposed re- development may encourage upgrades and improved maintenance to the surrounding properties many which appear to be experiencing deferred maintenance. Please see General Applicability Criteria 2 for additional discussion regarding this item. 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; C. The development propos-al accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; 7 d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new, and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. Restaurant uses are permitted by the "Commercial General" land use category and in the "Commercial" zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard and flexible use. New jobs will be generated by the proposed neighborhood restaurant and as previously discussed in General Applicability Criteria 1 the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding uses. b. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district. The proposed restaurant use is permitted in the Commercial zoning district. As previously discussed in detail in General Applicability Criteria 1, the proposed re-occupation of the site will not impede the surrounding properties which are of varying sizes and uses. The proposed project may stimulate additional business activity in this area and may encourage redevelopment and/or improvements to other sites in the surrounding properties. The requested flexibility is similar to the design of many of the surrounding commercial sites and the proposed parking is more than sufficient to meet the needs of the business. b. The proposed development- complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City. The area is not controlled by specific design guidelines; however, the Applicant believes the design meets the intent and spirit of the code. Although the area of the vehicular landscape within the parking lot is proposed at 340 square feet where 525 square feet is required, the smaller scale of the proposed development does not provide expansive areas of pavement that will be noticeably void of landscaping. Further, the overall open space proposed for the site is 3,331 square foot (30% of the site) where only 551 square foot (5% of the site) is required. Although we propose a small deficit of landscaping (185 square foot) within the parking lot, there is an overage of 2,780 square foot of overall open/green space on site. The site clearly meets the intent and spirit of the code. The area is burdened with a declining business base, an increasing number of vacant buildings and a lack of identity. This proposed re-development plan will encourage the business base, provide occupancy to a currently vacant site and will provide desired commercial support to the surrounding low to medium residential neighborhood. This proposal addresses the concerns and visions stated above. The re-establishment of occupancy to the site will create neighborhood employment opportunities; encourage adaptive re-use of underutilized buildings. C. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; The area does not provide and emerging character, however, the proposed development offers similar or improved setbacks, buffers, scale and intensity of the surrounding commercial developments. Please see Comp. Infill Criteria 4 for additional discussion of compatibility with the neighborhood. d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: • Changes in horizontal building planes; • Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc; • Variety in materials, colors and textures; • Distinctive fenestration patterns; • Building stepbacks; and • Distinctive roofs forms. The existing building built in the 1920's is attractive, unique and blends into the neighborhood landscape, offering an interesting and distinctive building appearance especially from the northwest. The building also provides the desired changes in height and building lines. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. The proposed development offers an enhanced landscape plan which includes installation of professionally designed landscaping along all yards including approximately 95' linear feet of the Lakeview Road frontage receiving three or more tiers of plantings including multiple plantings of decorative and shade trees. The east and west side yards will receive landscape treatment to the fullest extent possible taking into consideration the location of the existing building and required parking and drive aisles. The proposed buffers side yard buffers are similar to those found on the surrounding and adjacent commercial sites and to provide additional buffering/landscaping, the Applicant has voluntarily proposed to in-fill the southern area along Dempsey Street with landscaping to achieve additional buffers and landscape design. The proposed buffers on site, together with the proposed improvements to the ROW provide appropriate buffering and appropriate distances between buildings. 2/10/20112:14 PM 9 February 8, 2011 City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S. Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Fl 33756 RE: 921 Lakeview Road The Boiling Pot To whom it may concern: 1, Mark LeBlanc, developer for the proposed Boiling Pot Restaurant. located at 921 Lakeview Road acknowledge that all parking shall be on-site. Vehicles are not permitted to park within the rights-of-way of Lakeview and Dempsey Street; 1 will make every effort to insure patrons of the restaurant park on site. Sia rel -- CA" ice. 1 Mark 1,cA anc -???- PARKING STUDY FOR BOILING POT RESTAURANT 921 LAKEVIEW ROAD CLEARWATER , FLORIDA PREPARED FOR: Mark LeBlanc PREPARED BY: GULF COAST CONSULTING, INC. REVISED DECEMBER 2010 PROJECT # 10-002 ?& e" &'?/ f?/jv Robert Pergoli i CP/PTP AICP #9023/PTP #133 I. INTRODUCTION The applicant is seeking approval to utilize the building located at #921 Lakeview Road as a small neighborhood specialty restaurant. The 0.253 acre property is located on the south side of Lakeview Road between Myrtle Avenue and Prospect Avenue. (See Figure 1) The redevelopment of the property is the subject of a Flexible Development Application. This application requires an assessment of the parking adequacy for the operation and it was determined a parking study should be completed. Since previous review by the City of Clearwater, the applicant has revised the site plan to relocate the dumpster and delete the second floor. This has been determined a significant change requiring a new application process, and the previously prepared parking study was revised accordingly. As part of the redevelopment a parking lot will be constructed to include a total of 16 parking spaces. The building currently has 1,996 square feet of floor space on the ground floor and 320 square feet in a second floor office, this area is being deleted and is not considered for the purposes of this report. The proposed Boiling Pot restaurant will specialize in Cajun seafood in a casual neighborhood setting. The restaurant would employ 5 staff and would serve dinner only on weeknights (4:30 - 10 PM) and lunch and dinner on Fridays and weekends (11 AM - 10 PM). II. METHODOLOGY Prior to conducting this analysis a methodology was established with the City of Clearwater staff. It was agreed GCC would conduct a parking accumulation study of a similar neighborhood specialty restaurant on a normal weekday between 11 AM and 8 PM, and on a Saturday between 11 AM and 8 PM. The agreed to comparable restaurant is the Lakeview Grill which is a Mexican specialty restaurant located at 1510 Lakeview Road, just east of Highland Avenue. The Lakeview Grill is open for breakfast, lunch and dinner, is located on a 0.21 acre site with 2,352 square feet of gross building area, and contains 10 code-compliant parking spaces. The Lakeview Grill restaurant contains 15 tables and is open from 9 AM-9 PM with 3 to 4 total employees. The study area included the existing parking lot only since public parking lots and on-street spaces are not in close proximity to the Lakeview Grill site, if any restaurant parking occurred an a nearby vacant lot it was recorded as an occupied space. Both the existing Lakeview Grill and the proposed Boiling Pot are similar in size, similar in lot size, and are both specialty neighborhood restaurants. Both are located in mixed-use areas containing some commercial, offices, moderate density residential with some institutional uses nearby. Aerial photographs of both restaurant areas are shown in the Appendix. Per the Community Development Code there is a minimum parking requirement of 7-15 spaces per 1,000 square feet of restaurant space. According to strict interpretation of the code, the 1,996 square foot Boiling Pot restaurant would 1 N I I PROJECT LOCATION - BOILING POT IPROJECTNO: I 10-002 Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. DATE: FIGURE: X20 o Land Development Consulting DRAWN BY: G.J.S. require between 14 and 30 parking spaces. The code provides for reducing the required number of parking spaces to recognize the special situations that exist. The Community Development Code allows a reduction in parking if the property will require fewer parking spaces per floor area than otherwise required due to unique operations and a significant portion of the building is used for storage or non-parking demand-generating purposes. The applicant believes the specialty neighborhood restaurant being located in a mixed-use area containing residential, recreational, and office/industrial uses will encourage walk-up patrons and a specialized clientele such that parking needs will be reduced. Additionally the Pinellas Trail is located nearby which may reduce the need for vehicle parking during certain times of day during daylight and early evening hours. Also PSTA route #61 stops at the Lakeview Road/Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue intersection which is only 2-blocks to the east of the site. III. EXISTING PARKING CONDITIONS OF LAKEVIEW GRILL Existing conditions were established by conducting parking lot counts between the hours of 11:00 AM and 8:00 PM on Friday January 29, 2010 and Saturday January 30, 2010. The existing Lakeview Grill parking lot was checked on the hour for the number of spaces that were occupied. The number of occupied spaces was noted and an hourly accumulated total was obtained. Friday January 29, 2010 On Friday (high weekday) parking demand varied significantly throughout the day from a low of 0 occupied spaces (0 %) at 2 PM to a peak demand of 5 occupied spaces (50%) at 7 PM. Table 1 provides an hourly tabulation and Figure 2 provides a graph of hourly parking space occupancy. Saturday January 30, 2010 On Saturday (weekend) parking demand varied significantly throughout the day from a low of 2 occupied spaces (20 %) at 8 PM to a peak demand of 6 occupied spaces (60%) at 11 AM and again at 7 PM. Table 2 provides an hourly tabulation and Figure 3 provides a graph of hourly parking space occupancy. Based on the data collected the Lakeview Grill has an actual parking demand of 2.55 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area. This ratio (6 spaces / 2,352 sf) may be transferred to similar specialty restaurants in neighborhood areas. As such, the customer parking demand for Boiling Pot was calculated at 5 parking spaces. To be conservative it was assumed these would serve customers only. It should be noted, the Boiling Pot will have 5 employees, and assuming a worst- case of all driving separately, an additional 5 spaces may be required for employee parking. This would raise the maximum total demand to 10 spaces. 2 TABLE 1 FRIDAY JANUARY 29, 2010 TIME 11:00 AM 12:00 NOON 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM LAKEVIEW GRILL PARKING LOT OCC. TOTAL % OCCUPIED 2 10 20% 2 10 20% 2 10 20% 0 10 0% 2 10 20% 2 10 20% 3 10 30% 3 10 30% 5 10 50% 3 10 30% FIGURE 2 - FRIDAY JANUARY 29, 2010 15 14 13 12 11 10 U) w 9 U a U) 8 a w 7 a 0 6 L) O 5 4 3 2 1 0 11:00 AM 12:001100N 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM TIME OF DAY TABLE 2 SATURDAY JANUARY 30, 2010 TIME 11:00 AM 12:00 NOON 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM LAKEVIEW GRILL PARKING LOT OCC. TOTAL % OCCUPIED 6 10 60% 5 10 50% 3 10 30% 3 10 30% 3 10 30% 3 10 30% 3 10 30% 2 10 20% 6 10 60% 2 10 20% FIGURE 3 - SATURDAY JANUARY 30 , 2010 15 14 13 12 11 10 w t) 9 IL co 8 0 w 7 a D L 6 O 5 4 3 2 1 0 --+Series1 1:00 AM 12:00 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM NOON TIME OF DAY IV. FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH REDEVELOPMENT The proposed modifications would result in 16 on-site parking spaces. The site would require between 14-30 parking spaces according to strict interpretation of the code. Using the data obtained from a comparable neighborhood restaurant the maximum demand for the Boiling Pot would be 10 spaces, and 6 additional spaces would be available for overflow if needed. Therefore, the construction of the parking lot to contain 16 spaces will still provide adequate parking for the proposed operation at this site. Additionally bus stops located within 2-blocks of the site may provide transportation options for employees without the need for parking. An attached aerial photograph and PSTA Route Map demonstrates the 1/4-mile walking distance from the site which includes bus stops, and a variety of land uses including moderate density residential, offices, commercial and warehouses, and the bus route. V. CONCLUSION This analysis was conducted in accordance with a specific methodology established with City of Clearwater staff. After several reviews the Site Plan was modified and the restaurant size reduced. This analysis demonstrates a maximum of 6 parking spaces were occupied during any hour of the study period at a comparable restaurant, and that equates to 5 customer spaces for the proposed Boiling Pot. Counting spaces for employees separately would create demand for another 5 spaces at the Boiling Pot. As such, the parking demands for a specialty neighborhood restaurant (10 total spaces) are easily satisfied with the proposed parking supply. With the redevelopment of site providing a parking supply to 16 spaces, the parking demands of the Boiling Pot can be accommodated. The proposed 16 spaces falls within the range allowed by the Community Development Code and the flexibility may be granted by the Community Development Board. 3 APPEINDIEKA I \ J Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. Land Development Consulting BOILING POT RESTAURANT 13825 ICOT Blvd., Suite 605 Clearwater, Florida 33760 Phone: (727) 524-1818 Fax: (727) 524-6090 A r Clearnater Planning Department 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 Telephone: 727-562-4567 Fax: 727-5624865 CASE NUMBER: RECEIVED BY (Staff Initials): DATE RECEIVED: ? SUBMIT ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION ? SUBMIT 14 COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION -Plans and application are required to be collated, stapled and folded into sets * NOTE: A TOTAL OF 15 SETS OF THIS APPLICATION AND ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A COMPLETE LEVEL ONE OR LEVEL TWO APPLICATION. COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM (Revised 03/29/2006) PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT- APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND AGENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4-202.A) APPLICANT NAME: Mark and Dorothy B. LeBlanc MAILING ADDRESS: 1418 Dexter Drive., Clearwater, FL 33786 PHONE NUMBER: 727-461-2122 or 361-729-4143 CELL NUMBER: 727-461-2122 PROPERTY OWNER(S): Dorothy B. LeBlanc / Lots 13-16 _ ---------- ..._.._.._ - . -------- ----- ------...__._.. _ _.. - List ALL owners on the deed Mark and Dorothy B LeBlanc /Lot 17 Northside Engineering Services, Inc. AGENT NAME: HOUsh Ghovaee CEO - Renee Ruggiero, Senior Project Planner MAILING ADDRESS: 300 S. Belcher Road, Clearwater, FL 33765 PHONE NUMBER: 727-443-2869 FAX NUMBER: 727-446-8036 727-235-8475 E-MAIL Renee@northsideengineering.net CELL NUMBER: ADDRESS: REQUEST: Reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer along Lakeview Rd. from 15' to 13.8' (to sidewalk) and 4' (to pavement), a reductions to the perimeter landscape buffer along Dempsey St. from 10' to 1' (to pavement), a reduction to the east perimeter landscape buffer from 5' to 3' (to existing bldg), a reduction to the interior landscape requirem6ntfrom 10% to 6.5% of the vehicular use area and reductions to the width of the foundation landscape area on both the north and south side of the building from 5' to 0', as a Comprehensive Landscape Program. 2. ARCHITECTURAL THEME: a. The landscaping in a Comprehensive Landscape Program shall be designed as a part of the architectural theme of the principal buildings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for the development. A Mediterranean theme has been incorporated into the landscape design, offering a rich color pallet of brilliant reds and greens. The proposed landscape theme will nicely compliment and accent the unique architectural style of the building. OR Z:12010 AutoCAD Projects11002 - Boiling PotlLetters & Documents12011 Letters & DocumentslComp. landscape App w Narrative.2.26.10.doc Page 1 of 2 .4 b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program shall be demonstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for development under the minimum landscape standards. 3. LIGHTING: Any lighting proposed as a part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program is automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is closed. Acknowledged, any proposed lighting will be turned off when the business is closed. 4. COMMUNITY CHARACTER: The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater. The character of the community, surrounding neighborhood and streetscape will be greatly enhanced with the installation of over 20 new trees consisting of 5 different varieties in addition to over 450 other new plantings. 100% of all available open sace will be planted to the fullest extent possible: the Developer also intends to provide new plantings along the Dempsey Street ROW to provide additional buffering and an improved streetscape for the residential properties to the south. 5. PROPERTY VALUES: The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program will have a beneficial impact on the value of the property in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The proposed improvements will have a positive impact on the value of the surrounding properties and the immediate vicinity. To insure sustainability of the investment, draught tolerant native plantings make up the majority of this design. Through sound landscape design, the improvements will be enjoyed by the community for many years to come. 6. SPECIAL AREA OR SCENIC CORRIDOR PLAN: The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program is consistent with any special area or scenic corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in which the parcel proposed for development is located. N/A THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 3, DIVISION 12 MAY BE WAIVED OR MODIFIED AS A PART OF A LEVEL ONE OR LEVEL TWO APPLICATION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, IF THE APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL INCLUDES A COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM, WHICH SATISFIES THE ABOVE CRITERIA. THE USE OF LANDSCAPE PLANS, SECTIONS / ELEVATIONS, RENDERINGS AND PERSPECTIVES MAY BE NECESSARY TO SUPPLEMENT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WORKSHEET. 'PAY P&, SIGNATURE: I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all representations made in this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and authorize City representatives to visit and photggbph the property described in this application. re of property owner or EXPIRES: May 3, 2014 sgrF? "0§°° Bonded %u Badget Notary Services STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS Sworn o and subscribed before me this /074 day of A.D. 20_ LL_ to me and/or by who is personally known has produced as identification. Notary public, My commission expires: 'Zp jy WCOMMISS N Pi 2:12010 AutoCAD Projects11002 -Boiling PotlLefters & Documents12011 Letters & Documen an?p w N" Pr"A?ve.2.26.10.doc Page 2 of 2 e Ile ' .,_ F? Bonded ItKU Budget geF)iCP§ Morthsi"de STORMWATER REPORT FOR: BOILING POT PROJECT Civil Land Planning Due Diligence Reports Re-Zoning, Land Use, Annexation Stormwater Managernent Utility Design 'traffic Construction Administration dril. t.yi.. , t ? 4 G f 4 4 a * ti'y ti, t Y ;Z d!P" r i!1 Ram A. Go61,°F4. D., P,`#47431 Feb`r'uary; 08, 2011 Project No. 1002 300 South Belcher Road Clearwater, Florida 33765 tech@rror-thsideengineering.corn 727 443 2869 Fax 727 446 8036 DRAINAGE NARRATIVE The proposed construction activities consist of the following: • Construction of 5,349 S.F. of open impervious vehicular use and sidewalk area. • Construction of stormwater ponds to provide water quality treatment for a volume equal to %" of runoff over the construction area. • Water quantity attenuation for the 25-year design storm will be provided by payment in lieu of. • Treatment of stormwater will be achieved through natural percolation. The overflow will be piped to an existing inlet near the southeast corner of the site. • Clearwater's weighted coefficient of runoff of stormwater detention for the 25-year event was used to determine the storage volume requirement. The City of Clearwater's stormwater requirement of 1,282 cf. was used in the payment in lieu of calculation. • The Drainage Calculations have been prepared in accordance with the City of Clearwater Drainage Manual and The Southwest Florida Water Management District. • The project is located in an open basin. Construction of this project will not increase the existing peak discharge rate or volume. • No wetlands are located in or adjacent to the project area. No wetland impacts will result from construction of this project. PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NO.: EXISTING CONDITIONS TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA= IMP. AREA= POND AREA= PERV.AREA= C CALCULATIONS TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA= IMP. AREA= POND AREA= PERV.AREA= C = 0.24 THE BOILING POT 1002 8,577 SF = 1,213 SF = .0 SF = 7,364 SF = 0.20 ACRES 0.03 ACRES 0.00 ACRES 0.17 ACRES 8,577 SF 1,213 SF OF IMP. AREA @ C = 0 SF OF POND AREA @ C = 7,364 SF OF PERV. AREA @ C = 0.475 1 0.2 T.O.C. = 60 MINUTES PROPOSED CONDITIONS 8,57T SF = 5,417 SF' = 728 SF = 2,432 SF = 0.20 ACRES 0.12 ACRES 0.02 ACRES 0.06 ACRES TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA= IMP. AREA= POND AREA= PERV.AREA= C CALCULATIONS TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA= IMP. AREA= POND AREA= PERV.AREA= C = 0.74 8,577 SF 5,417 SF OF IMP. AREA @ C = 728 SF OF POND AREA @ C = 2,432 SF OF PERV. AREA @ C = 0.95 1 0.2 T.O.C. = 60 MINUTES PROJECT NAME : PROJECT NO.: THE BOILING POT 1002 POND No. 1 STAGE STORAGE DATA : T.O.B. EL.= D.H.W. 25 EL.= W.Q. EL.= BOTTOM EL.= STAGE ft-NGVD AREA SF AREA AC STORAGE CF 9.25 368 0.008 344 9.00 322 0.007 257 8.75 275 0.006 183 8.50 229 0.005 120 8.25 183 0.004 68 8.00 136 0.003 28 7.75 90 0.002 0 POND No. 2 STAGE STORAGE DATA : T.O.B. EL.= D.H.W. 25 EL.= W.Q. EL.= BOTTOM EL.= STAGE ft-NGVD AREA SF AREA AC STORAGE CF 9.25 461 0.011 446 9.00 406 0.009 337 8.75 352 0.008 242 8.50 297 0.007 161 8.25 242 0.006 94 8.00 188 0.004 40 7.75 133 0.003 0 TOTAL WATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS: DRAINAGE AREA = REQUIRED WATER QUALITY DEPTH = REQUIRED WATER QUALITY VOLUME = PROPOSED OUTFALL ELEVATION = AVAILABLE WATER QUALITY = 8,577 SF 0.50 IN 357 CF 8.75 FT 425 CF NORTHSIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES 25 YEAR STORM EVENT PROJECT: THE BOILING POT PROJECT NO. 1002 RUN-OFF COEFFICIENTS PRE-CONSTRUCTION POST-CONSTRUCTION STORAGE CALCULATION PRE-CONSTRUCTION POST-CONSTRUCTION TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA= 8,577 SF 0.20 AC IMP. AREA= 1,213 SF OF IMP. AREA @ C = 0.475 POND AREA= 0 SF OF POND AREA @ C = 1 PERV. AREA= 7,364 SF OF PERV. AREA @ C = 0.2 C= 0.24 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA= 8,577 SF 0.20 AC IMP. AREA= 5,417 SF OF IMP. AREA @ C = 0.95 POND AREA= 728 SF OF POND AREA @ C = 1 PERV. AREA= 2,432 SF OF PERV. AREA @ C = 0.2 C = 0.74 DRAINAGE AREA = TIME OF CONC. Tc = I @ Tc =60 (25 YEAR EVENT= Q(out) = C x I x A = TIME MIN. I IN/HR Q(in) CFS INFLOW CF OUTFLOW CF STORAGE (CF) I 60.00 3.60 0.53 1,892 610 1,283 0.20 AC 60 MIN 3.60 IN/HR 0.17 CFS MAX. STORAGE = 1,283 CF TOTAL VOLUME REQUIRED = TOTAL VOLUME PROVIDED = OVERFLOW DESIGN MAX. STORAGE REQUIRED = MAX. STORAGE PROVIDED = 1,283 CF 594 CF TOP. OF WEIR ELEV.= 9.00 FT BOT. OF WEIR ELEV.= 8.75 FT H = 0.25 FT or 3" Q = 0.17 CFS L=Q/3.2"H^1.5 = 0.42 FT or 5" PAYMENT IN LIEU OF CALCULATION ATTENUATION VOLUME FOR PAYMENT IN LIEU OF = 1,283 CF - 594 CF = 689 CF MODRET SUMMARY OF UNSATURATED & SATURATED INPUT PARAMETERS PROJECT NAME : POLLUTION ABATEMENT VOLUME POLLUTION VOLUME RUNOFF DATA USED UNSATURATED ANALYSIS EXCLUDED Pond Bottom Area Pond Volume between Bottom & DHWL Pond Length to Width Ratio (L/W) Elevation of Effective Aquifer Base Elevation of Seasonal High Groundwater Table Elevation of Starting Water Level Elevation of Pond Bottom Design High Water Level Elevation Avg. Effective Storage Coefficient of Soil for Unsaturated Analysis Unsaturated Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Factor of Safety Saturated Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity Al. r Avg. Effective Storage Coefficient of Soil for Saturated Analysis Avg. Effective Storage Coefficient of Pond/Exfiltration Trench Hydraulic Control Features: Groundwater Control Features - Y/N Distance to Edge of Pond Elevation of Water Level Impervious Barrier - Y/N Elevation of Barrier Bottom 223.00 ftz 594.00 ft3 8.00 3.00 ft 7.25 ft 7.75 ft 7.75 ft 9.00 ft 0.04 29.60 ft/d 2.00 44.40 ft/d 0.08 1.00 Top Bottom Left Right N N N N 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N N N N 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MODRET TIME - RUNOFF INPUT DATA PROJECT NAME: POLLUTION ABATEMENT VOLUME STRESS PERIOD NUMBER INCREMENT OF TIME (hrs) VOLUME OF RUNOFF (ft3) Unsat 0.00 0.00 1 1.00 357.00 2 24.88 0.00 3 24.88 0.00 4 24.88 0.00 5 24.88 0.00 6 24.88 0.00 7 24.88 0.00 8 24.88 0.00 9 24.88 0.00 MODRET SUMMARY OF RESULTS PROJECT NAME : POLLUTION ABATEMENT VOLUME CUMULATIVE TIME (hrs) WATER ELEVATION (feet) INSTANTANEOUS INFILTRATION RATE (cfs) AVERAGE INFILTRATION RATE (cfs) CUMULATIVE OVERFLOW (ft3) 00.00-0.00 7.250 0.000 0.00000 0.00 7.250 0.03305 0.03193 1.00 8.259 0.03082 0.00 0.00318 22.13 7.750 0;00207 0.00 0.00096 50.75 7.478 0.00070 0.00 0.00043 75.63 7.398 0.00033 0.00 0.00023 100.50 7.355 0.00018 0.00 0.00013 125.38 7.330 0.00011 0.00 0.00009 150.25 7.312 0.00008 0.00 0.00006 175.13 7.301 0.00005 0.00 0.00004 200.00 7.292 0.00 Maximum Water Elevation: 8.259 feet @ 1.00 hours Recovery @ 22.132 hours * Time increment when there is no runoff Maximum Infiltration Rate: 5.806 ft/day INFILTRATION : POLLUTION ABATEMENT VOLUME M a? ca L 4-- ;_ 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Time (hrs) Total Volume Infiltrated = 357 ft' BOUNDARY SV rJ VE Y ADDRESS: 9, .. LAKEVIEW ROAD -4-. CLEARWA TER, FLORIDA. ****NOTE**** SURVEY DRAWN BY OCCUPATION SCALE.- 1 20' LAKEVIEW ROAD(P) DEMPSEY STREET(F) i J60'RW OAK TREE z5 31,?M? ? cx, g.51 N 65.81' ?W8 FCM 4x4 W/ N&D B frACM 3x3 6 S. 89 58'20 "E. 39.40'(M) 9?1 2 o g 1'? FCM 3x3 `X? 000 9' CONCRETE 9.5 1010 c? 49.9' 6.6 0 lx/fix' g TWO STORY C?, 10 Z? 1 Cx, 10' 26 r9 CBS 5 Q - BUILDING ° #92.1 0 l l?l 0 0 (LLF. =10.0') ° p ,5 ' 1 ?k 55 ?Pl ° 0 1k50 10 a 20 ?? ?? ?,P GOI E2 8 5) 49.9' q OF 6.5 g d ?x FGP 08,0 89 ro ?? (Y-, o 4) l FCM 4>(?# N 88 36 "16 "W 86 ' 7 5/g" 5 50 . . ,29 (M) W/ N&D , W8 5'CSW 2 CVG 5 56 ?k EVIEW ROAO(F) 6? LAK g6 TY HIGHWAYT) COUN 30'PARTIAL RW (ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN IN PARENTHESIS AND ARE ASSUMED.) ?9U M CD TE': This survey was conducted without the benefit of an abstract of title, therefore there moy be..other easeTnents, right of-way _ , setback lines, agreements, reservations, restrictions, or other similar matters o/ public record, not','deplcted on this survey. A - ARCC CH s CHORD P7P FOUND IRON PIPE BY BENCH MARK EOP =EDGE OF PAVEMENT BRG - BEARING C!F ' CHAIN LINK FENCE EOW -EDGE OF WATER FIR FOUND IRON ROD M - MEASUREMENT PP - POWER POLE......:. -.!! MH MANHOLE RADIUS GHP a OVERHEAD POWER LINE - ' SI IZ CBS= CONCRETE BLOCK/STUCCO C CONCRETE DEWALK FCM - FOUND CONCRETEr FPP " FOUNDNPINCH PIPE C7 CALC - CALCULATED D R DEED ' P - SET IRON PIPE P PLAT ' SET CAP 6.W7 PC POINT OF CURVATURE UE UE - UTTUT UIY EASEMENT MONUMENT LLF =LOWEST UNNC FZOOR C/C = COVERED CONCRETE N = CHORD EARN OE - DRAINAGE EASEMENT FH - FIRE HYDRANT I/E- INGRESS/EGRESS POP m PERMANENT CCWTROL POINT WB s WATER BOX PI - POINT OF INTERSECTION WF - WOOD FENCE FLOOD INFORMATION.' LEGAL: sECRON: TOWNSHIP: S RANGE.- E CERTIFIED TO ZONE: LOT 13, 14, 15 AND 16, BLOCK 1, LAKE BELLEVIEW ADDITION DOROTHY LEBLANC NUMBER: , LESS ROAD-RIGHT-OF-WAY, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 9 x OA ?, , PAGE 141, ACCORDING TO THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS X COUNTY, FLORIDA. X FLORIDA BENCHMARK I NC-' CER T/ F/ CA TI ON: , , I HEREBY CER77FY THAT THIS SURVEY WAS MADE UNDER 7 - _-_ PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR Pt MY RESPONSIBLE CHARGE AND MEETS 771F MINIMUM TECHNICAL STANDARDS AS SET FORTH BY THE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYORS IN CHAPTER PG17-5 OF 1298 LAKEVIEW ROAD PH. (727) 298-0286 THE FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, PURSUANT TO SEG1101 ? G'LEARWATER, FL. 33756 FAXj (727) 461-0696 472.027 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES. NOT VALID WITHOUT SIGNATURE AND EMBOSSED W17H SURVEYOR SEAL. AUTHORIZATION NO. LB 6947 --- - FIELD WORK BY: SS REVISION DATE: i ?' ` ~? RF DATE: 4-26-06 PAGE # DRAWN BY., CH OA TE- 5-08 M, G. MAYER PLS 4495 DATE 30UNDAR Y SUR 'EY ; SCALE: I " = 30' STREET(F) DEMPSEY LAKEWEW ORIVE((P)) ADDRESS: 901 ' 4KEVIEW DRIVE CLEARWA Z, FLORIDA. 60 RW 145.00'(L) S. 89 24 X46"W. 145,47'(U) --•_ _____- 2"CVG -- 19 5) FCM 4x4 FIR 5/8" LOT 16 LOT 17 LOT 18 LOT 19 LOT 20 LOT 2 1 LOT 22 BLOCK 1 I I I BLOCK 1 I 2 ' 4 7 108.8 °- 3210" 9.9) (K g•7I) ? ? I I I ' ?' o g I CONCRE -? o a TO'2) (x' ?D o TORY o w 0 0 ONE C S w W oa M I I I ASPHAL T 8y') PARKING AL Q MO COM 9 o # 01 o f 10.67 (x 10.?') I I I l 0. 12) Q (LLF= x? I10 1" 3 D' . .1 I I I I o FIP3/4" 2 ) 1 . FCM 04 ( 25.00" (P) ' 5 CSW 2'CVG LAKEWEW ROAD(F) EAS145. T 004) (M COUNTY HIGHWAY(P) SSUMED BASIS OF BEARINGS A 30 PARTIAL RW MAR i) ?i ?I s ' ---ELEVi9 ROM5 SHOWN HEREON ARE IN PARENT/-IESIS AhfD AS'-000 IV O TE: This survey was conducted without the benefit of on abstract of title, therefore there may be other easements, right-of--way, icted on this survey not de bli rd > tt il . p c reco , ers o pu ar ma setback lines, agreements, reservations, restrictions, or other sim Al F/P -FOUND IRAN PIPE I ,qq CH = CHORD EDP - EDGE OF PAVEMENT :FOUND M - MEASUREMENT PP - POKER POLE MH = MANHOLE R - RADIUS BM = B IRON ROD CH MARK CLF = CHAIN LINK FENCE EOW - EDGE OF WATER FIR BRG = BEARING CONC - CONCRETE FCC - FOUND CROSS CUT FN - FOUND NAIL. CAS= CONCRETE BLOCK/STUCCO PINCH POPE UN q{p = OVERHEAD POKER LINE SIP = SET IRON PIPE P - PLAT 57 - SET M ROD W171 CAP / 6947 D l.u CSW = CONCRETE SIDEWALK FCM - FOUND CONCRETE FPP - FO C7 CALG =CALCULATED D = DEED MONUMENT LLF - LOKEST LIVING FLOOR PC - POINT OF CURVATURE UE - UALITY EASEMENT PCP = PERMANENT CONTROL POINT K9 - WATER BOX W &S - = CCHOVERED CONCRETE -- J N8 ORD BEARING DE =DRAINAGE EASEMENT FH =FIRE HITJRANT !/E- INC6ESS11EGRE5S P! =POINT OF 1NTERSEC770N W = HOOD FENCE FLOOD INFORMATION: LEGAL: SECTION: 21 TOWNSHIP: S29 RANGE 15E CERTIFIED TO: ZONE X LOTS 17-22, BLOCK 1, LAKE BELLEVIEW ADDITION, AS EBS x NUMBER: 1210JC0108H RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 9, PAGE 141, ACCORDING TO x DATE 05-17-05 THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA. x CER TI FI CA TI ON: FL DRI DA BEN / l V CHM/? / I RK I N C , I HEREBY CERTIFY,4HAT THIS `SURVEY WAS MADE UNDER MY RESPONSIBLFd'GHARGE AND MEETS THE MINIMUM D _ PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR TECHNICAL-STANDAROS.AS SET FORTH BY.:THE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL" LAND SURVEYORS /N CHAPTER OG17-6 OF D (727) 298-0286 ROAD PH TWE FLURIIPA-'ADMINI5TRATIVE GODS, PUtT5u,1fYT ro 5ECTTo mour . 1298 LAKEVIEW 472.027?OF:TPE FLORIDA STATUTES. .NOT VALID tu CLEARWATER, FL. 33756 FA X# (727) 451-0695 stGNA RE AND EMBOSSED KITH SURVEYOR SEAL. AUTHORIZATION NO. LB 6947 ? REVISION DA TE. t ?J FIELD WORK BY. S S-19-06 DATE. O 1; PAGE # S - 2: - 5- lQ -un DRAWN BY.• CH DATE; 05-20-05 3: J08# 0l5-1 132 M. G. MAYER PLS 4495 DATE 40 ?t .I I J? 4p TI. ?`Y' 1000, I.El ? ? I f I M M r NAME m t :o o? o = : ?4Qaoac? ?04? pdcaa _ € Morthsigle CJ THE BOILING POT RESTAURANT F,.grrq Saeateea,9we. o ' ?g 4 " ?a M LAKEVIEW RD. CLEARWATER, FLORIDA LAKEU? W RO(D(F) 30_ _PARifAL RW .__._......_-- -- -- x ror.c. WALK NEW H.C. RAMP PER CITY OF CLEARWA TER K SPECS INDEX / 109 ( ) vy N.8 836'16"W 85 gig, ii `ti?? _ .6 ?- - C C, SEW 5' CONC WALK wa_rc N NEW STOP' P ? I a9.9' ? ?.. 43 S.F. INTERIOR f t ^? O ??a O T LANDSCAPE I 6 " b \ ?5. to.,' ?ffE HC SIGN 4 I A % J,?S h', 6k¢ \ p<? Cf Iqq ° 5 \ \c 5. Ty 1 r, el H EX. 2-STORY I ?e B16B CBS BUILDING I 'r 00 #921 1' (LLF.=10.0) 1, 996 S. F. I o UNOSF INTERIOR 1 2 V, - CURB a 1 '1--- SLIDING 00-R -- -- '? AC ON r p ROOF j• 1 \ ?- _ Al EW 6X4.6" DUMPSTER WHEEL STOP \ & ENCLOSURE PER NEW RETENTION i (T1P.) Lfl CITY OF CL W. SPECS. (EMPLO E) '&A"??jrxry. / POND #2 OUTDOOR PARKIS G LY SITE LIGHTING \J H Oil 0 77 \ :.. \ ' P(ERRK/NC_ 131.. . / -mil 'DEAD GEND' S. Eg 40'(M) E a C a o is 1 r(l ',? Ea%p 65 337 ? x ? '. ?' :5 w", 41 (EXiST) ° ? DEMPSEYSTREET(F) 60 RW% O L? SW 6324 Mellow Coral 4 Y `F 'f..y p s 4 y "s'-6 n; ? . } g w It Lll?- 14 1:y t - P B?g y, ..% lid i?- ??I ITj ??I. u ?. 61f? r o ?A n ? Ka,taoVfi Flaw _.J ', ? / ? I V15 -1?1 Leiq ? 'i ! r ?- i= I \.? .. \- pew L 119 CGipV ?HEju ?kl/iI.H' - 2) tLG'f W*fAr4~5 ?? red. Temp - - - 1. ® LWA,L-r- Rili'u-[Y?nl T anti- -- 1-4 O siNF ?MP?INK `- OCT 2 8 2005 SIGN GeIT?R.IA ?SCr?. I6gG?Fl3[ boo l ?? j _- Q ' S 10/aG .---, Z?bIL WIN051!F•EG,12'J MPN?3xl GU41'?03 HAI hKiFJ-y'NI ' - ?? - ?'+?'^ Wily IMPO1cTnItiL6?a c{aR : I i .?.?? ?...o„®..r ow,.w,,. - -- --- - -- - wiNa-rte RE; - 1 , ,Fpautn?sl.E-µ?icuetrArcurbEF. ?+18 .. aAHC.2 11 4.4.0..'"1. !=-? 1 -^%`A sue'?i. x . E ; 12,4 M. 1 i. ZONE 3 25.4 t9 } _ ? .. 2-996 ;i ?z?`o. _ . BUTTE OEISIUN r4rJUF-, INIM butler Desigr? Group, Ir?c Ron Belko 420346 1h Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33714 Ph (727) 521-1684 Fax (727) 527-7422 E-mail: bdgl &tarnpabay.rr eom ronsnlans n tamoabav rr com O7NGL N L A tsfts?alui1iit Tree Inventory 921 Lakeview Rd Clearwater, Fl April 10, 2010 I have completed an assessment of all trees (4" dbh or greater) on the subject site and within 25' of the property boundaries. My opinion is set forth below as to the viability (rating of 1-5) and any potential hazards of these trees. # offsite TRr,F DRH & cPrrTFC n.T, - l_n1%/rA/FVXT9r L1 1 off site 18" Live Oak 2 Poor Structure, Poor Pruning, Co-Dominate, Inclusions, Decay, Girdling Roots, Poor Trunk Flare, Compacted Soil, Large Dead Limbs, Cross branching, In wires 2 off site 8"A" Twin Laurel Oak 2 Leader snapped out, In wires, Very poor structure, Poor Pruning, Compacted soil, Decay, Epicormic growth. 3 25" Laurel Oak 2 Large dead branch, Hazardous tree, Large open cavaties, Debris piled on root plate, Evidence of Ganoderma 4 43" Laurel Oak 3 Large open cavaties, Debris on root plate, compacted soil, Co-dominate, Inclusions, Weeping trunk wound, Cross branching, Dead limbs (Hazardous condition), Extremely mature tree with good strong spring flush, Evidence of decay in upper canopy, Mistletoe, Tree should be further evaluated for extent of the internal decay 5 26" Laurel Oak 0 Removed 6 Off site 9" Cherry Laurel 1 Hazard, Almost dead, Girdled, Competing with 47 7 Off site 10 " Laurel Oak 2 Leaning, Twisted trunk, Decay, Large girdling root, Cross branching with open wounding, Extremely one sided, Leaning, Hazardous tree 8 off 12" Saba] Palm 3 site 9 off site 13" Laurel Oak 2 Declining, Extreme epicormic growth, Leaning, Large amount of decay Lower-mid-upper canopy, One sided, In wires, Compacted soil, Potential hazard 10 off site 9",6",6",6",5",5",4",4",4" 3 Decay, Poor Pruning, Poor structure, Competing, Cherry Laurel Cluster Leaning, Dead limbs, Inclusions, Epicormic growth, Compacted soil I affirm that my opinions have been made in good faith, with no coercion from others. I further affirm that I have no interest with the parties or people involved with neither this issue nor any interest with regard to the outcome. Sincerely, Ron Belko FNGLA Certified Landscape Designer: #D31-66 FNGLA Certified Horticulture Professional: #H31-6445 ISA Certified Arborist: #FL-5802A ISA Certified Municipal Specialist. FL-5802M