10/18/2011Present:
Also Present:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING MINUTES
CITY OF CLEARWATER
October 18, 2011
Nicholas C. Fritsch
Thomas Coates
Doreen DiPolito
Richard Adelson
Frank L. Dame
Brian A. Barker
Kurt B. Hinrichs
Norma R. Carlough
Gina Grimes
Leslie Dougall-Sides
Michael Delk
Patricia O. Sullivan
Chair
Vice-Chair
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Alternate Board Member
Attorney for the Board
Assistant City Attorney
Planning & Development Director
Board Reporter
The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. at City Hall, followed by the Invocation
and Pledge of Allegiance.
To provide continuity for research, items are in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
C- APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: September 20, 2011
Member Coates moved to approve the minutes of the regular Community Development
Board meeting of September 20, 2011, as recorded and submitted in written summation to each
board member. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Alternate Member
Carlough did not vote.
D— CONSENT AGENDA: Followinq cases are not contested by applicant, staff, neiqhborinq property
owners, etc. and will be approved by a sinqle vote at the beqinninq of the meetinq: (Items 1— 4)
1. Case: FLD2011-07024 -21311 US Highway 19 North Level Two Application
Owners/ Applicant: Brown-19, LLC
Agent: Avid Group (9500 Curlew Road, Suite 201, Palm Harbor, FL 34683; phone: 727-
789- 9500 x181; fax: 727-784-6662; email: peterpensa@avidqrou .p com)
Location: The 16.99 acre site is located on the southwest corner of Drew Street and US
Highway 19N service road.
Atlas Page: 291A
Zoning: Commercial (C) District
Request: Flexible Development application to permit a 17,200 square-foot addition to an existing
74,241 square-foot retail sales and service building in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of
739,872 square-feet (16.99 acres), a lot width of 590 square-feet (along US Highway 19 N) and
1,445 square-feet (along Drew Street), front (west) setbacks of 10 feet (to pavement) and 15 feet
(to building), front (north) setbacks of 5 feet (to pavement) and 50.4 feet (to building), side (east)
setbacks of 32 feet (to pavement) and 111.8 feet (to building), side (south) setbacks of 36.8 feet (to
pavement) and 61 feet (to building), side (east) setbacks of 7.6 feet (to pavement) and 178.2 feet
Community Development 2011-10-18
(to building), and side (south) setbacks of zero feet (to pavement), 20 feet (to loading dock), and
34.8 feet (to building), a building height of 28.4 feet (to flat roof) and 39.3 feet (to top of cornice),
and 822 off-street parking spaces (4.04 spaces per 1000 square-feet of GFA) as a Comprehensive
Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of the Community Development Code Section 2-
704.C., as well as a reduction to the front (west) perimeter buffer from 15 feet to 10 feet, a
reduction to the front (north) perimeter buffer from 15 feet to 5 feet, a reduction to the side (east)
perimeter buffer from 10 feet to 7.6 feet, and a reduction to the side (south) perimeter buffer from
10 feet to zero feet as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of the
Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use: Retail Sales and Services
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhood Coalition
Presenter: Kevin W. Nurnberger, Planner III
See Agenda for Staff Report.
See page 3 for motion of approval.
2. Case: FLD2011-08027 — 551 North Saturn Avenue Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Church of Scientology/Flag Service Organization, Inc.
Agent: Cournoyer Construction (1476 Cleveland Street, Clearwater, FL 33755; phone:
727-447-5231)
Location: The 10.29 acre property is 338 feet north of the N. Saturn Avenue and Airport
Drive intersection
Atlas Page: 279B
Zoning: Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District
Request: Flexible Development application to permit an 82 square-foot gatehouse at the entrance to
an existing attached dwelling complex in the Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District with
a front (west) setback of zero feet (to proposed structure) where 10 feet is allowable, but may be
varied based upon compliance with established criteria; and no changes to lot size/area,
landscaping, parking spaces or height as a Residential Infill Development Project under the
provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-404.F.
Proposed Use: Gatehouse
Neighborhood Associations: Clearwater Neighborhood Association, North Saturn Avenue Residents
Association
Presenter: Kevin W. Nurnberger, Planner III
See Agenda for Staff Report.
See page 3 for motion of approval.
3. Case: FLD2011-07026 — 622 & 628 Bypass Drive Level Two Application
Owner/Applicant: Thomas W. Carey, Trustee of the T& L Land Trust
Agent: Michael Palmer, P.E., Synergy Civil Engineering, Inc. (3000 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard
Suite 201, Clearwater, FL 33759 phone: 727-796-1926; email:
mpalmer@synerqycivilenq.com)
Location: 1.52 acres located at the northwest corner of Druid Road and Bypass Drive
Atlas Page: 299B
Zoning: Office (0) District
Community Development 2011-10-18 2
Request: Flexible Development application to permit the addition of 20 off-street parking spaces for
an existing 15,247 square-foot office building in the Office (0) District with a lot area of 66,211
square-feet (1.52 acres), a lot width of 152 feet (along Druid Road) and 438 feet (along Bypass
Drive), a building height of 22 feet, a front (south) setback of 19 feet (to proposed pavement) and
90.2 feet (to existing building), a front (east) setback of 15 feet (to proposed pavement) and 88.3
feet (to existing building), a side (west) setback of 4.5 feet (to proposed pavement) and 9.9 feet (to
existing building), a side (north) setback of zero feet (to existing building and pavement), and 73
parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of
Community Development Code Section 2-1004.B.; as well as a reduction to the west landscape
buffer from five feet to 4.5 feet as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of
Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G.
Proposed Use: Office
Neighborhood Association(s): Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition
Presenter: A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III
See Agenda for Staff Report.
Member Coates moved to approve Cases FLD2011-07024, FLD2011-08027, and
FLD2011-07026 on today's Consent Agenda based on evidence in the record, including the
application and the Staff Report, and hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
stated in the Staff Report, with conditions of approval as listed. The motion was duly seconded
and carried unanimously. Alternate Member Carlough did not vote.
�
Pulled from Consent Agenda
Case: REZ2011-07005 — 1911 N. Old Coachman Road Level Three Application
Owner/Applicant: Print Place Inc. / City of Clearwater
Location: 0.07 acre located on the east side of N. Old Coachman Road, approximately
180 feet north of Sunset Point Road
Atlas Page: 254A
Request: Zoning Atlas amendment from Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) to Commercial
(C)
Proposed Use: Print Shop (current use)
Neighborhood Associations: Coachman Ridge Homeowners and Clearwater Neighborhoods
Coalition
Presenter: Catherine Lee, Planner III
See Agenda for Staff Report.
Planner III Cate Lee reviewed the Staff Report. Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides
said the parcel cannot be developed with LMDR (Low-Medium Density Residential), which is
inconsistent with the County FLUP (Future Land Use Plan) of Commercial.
Two residents opposed rezoning the parcel as it would allow commercial development of the
entire site, which would increase local traffic, create stormwater problems, and create an insufficient
buffer for the adjacent residential property.
Ms. Lee said the amendment is necessary due to a map error. The parcel could be zoned
office or commercial; the remaining portion of the property is zoned commercial. The City has not
received an application to develop the site.
Community Development 2011-10-18 3
Member Dame moved to recommend approval of Case REZ2011-07005 based on the
evidence and testimony presented in the application, the Staff Report and at today's hearing, and
hereby adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated in the Staff Report. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
E - DIRECTOR'S ITEM (Item 1):
1. Holidav Luncheon
Administrative Analyst Sherry Watkins reviewed a charity opportunity for the Holiday
Luncheon. Restaurant names were proposed. Consensus was for Ms. Watkins to further
investigate local charities that care for children removed from their homes.
F-ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m.
�
Chair
Community Development Board
Community Development 2011-10-18 4
�J
�
o �
� � ���� �
�
U
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for October 18, 2011
DATE: October 13, 2011
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Level Two Applications (Item 1-3)
1. Case: FLD 1 1-07026 — 622 & 628 Bypass Drive
Yes No
2. Case: FL 2011-07024 -21311 US Highway 19 North
Yes No
3. Case: FLD 011-08027 — 551 North Saturn Avenue
Yes No
LEVEL THItEE APPLICATIONS (Item 1):
Case: REZ 11-07005— 1911 N. Old Coachman Road
Yes No
PRINT NAME
S: IPlanning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDBI2011110 October 201111 Cover MEMO 2010.doc
�
�
4
} ���� ��
�
U
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for October 18, 2011
DATE: October 13, 2011
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Level Two Applications (Item 1-3)
1. Case: FLD201 1-07026 — 622 & 628 By,pass Drive
Yes No �
2. Case: FLD2011 07024 -21311 US Highway 19 North
Yes No
3. Case: FLD2011-08Q27 — 551 North Saturn Avenue
Yes ; / _ No
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS Qtem 1):
1. Case: REZ20 -07005— 191 N. Old Coachman Road
Yes No
I have
Signature:
� �
, r , ,� .�
PRINT N
the
Date: � f � I D �
S: IPlanning Departmentl C D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDBI2011 V O October 201111 Cover MEMO 2010.doc
0
LL
� �� ��
� ��
H
U
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for October 18, 2011
DATE: October 13, 2011
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Level Two Applications (Item 1-3)
1. Case: FLD201� 07026 — 622 & 628 Bypass Drive
Yes `� No
2. Case: FLD2011�7024 -21311 US Highway 19 North
Yes �� No
3. Case: FLD2011-08027 — 551 North Saturn Avenue
Yes �/ No
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Item 1):
1. Case: REZ2011-07005— 1911 N. Old Coachman Road
Yes / � No
� �/
Signature: � /�.., „� Date: � � ( � I
�C.�,�n-� 3 � �f � �c�� � K S
PRINT NAME
S: IPlanning Departmentl C D BlAgendas DRC & CDBI CDBI2011110 October 2011 V Cover MEMO 2010.doc
�
LL
O ��
} �ar�wa
�
U
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for October 18, 2011
DATE: October 13, 2011
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Level Two Applications (Item 1-3)
1. Case: FLD201 1-07026 — 622 & 628 Bypass Drive
Yes � No
Case: FLD2011-07024 -21311 US Highway 19 North
Yes x No
3. Case: FLDZQ_11-08027 — 551 North Saturn Avenue
Yes � No
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Item 1):
Case: REZ201 1-07005— 191 1 N. Old Coachman Road
Yes � No
I have
Signature:
Date: �� l� � 1
� ���ld� � LS�r1�
PRINT NAME
S. IPlanning DepartmentlCD BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDBI2011110 October 201111 Cover MEMO 2010.doc
�
LL
° r
�- ��r�a �
�
U
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for October 18, 2011
DATE: October 13, 2011
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Level Two Applications (Item 1-3)
1. Case: FLD -07026 — 622 & 628 Bypass Drive
Yes No
2. Case: FLD2011-07024 -21311 US H��,' i�� 19 North
Yes No
3. Case: FLD201`/ 1-�9i7 — 551 North Saturn Avenue
Yes � No
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Item 1):
1. Case: REZ201 5— 1911 N. Old Coachman Road
Yes No
Y1t11V'1' 1VAML�'
S:IPlanningDepartmentlCDBlAgendasDRC&CDBICDB12011110October2011V CoverMEMO201D.doc
�
LL
� ��
� � ���
H
U
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for October 18, 2011
DATE: October 13, 2011
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Level Two Applications (Item 1-3)
1. Case: FLD201 1-07026 — 622 & 628 Bypass Drive
Yes_� No
2. Case: FLD2011-07024 -21311 US Highway 19 North
Yes No
3. Case: FLD2011-08027 — 551 Nort�aturn Avenue
Yes No
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS (Item 1):
Case: REZ2011-07005— 1911 N.� Coachman Road
Yes No
I have conducted a ersonal investa ataon on the ersona[ sue vasaz ro cne oicowan ro
�
Signature: Date:
�r�`,��7 ���rk�'�"
PRINT NAME
S: IPlanning DepartmentlC D BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDB12011110 October 201111 Cover MEMO 2010.doc
�
� �
} � ��� �
�
U
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for October 18, 2011
DATE: October 13, 2011
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Level Two Applications (Item 1-3)
1. Case: FLD201 1-07026 — 622 & 628 B�pass Drive
Yes No ��
2. Case: FLD2011-07024 -21311 US Hi ay 19 North
Yes No
3. Case: FLD2011-08027 — 551 North S�turn Avenue
Yes No ✓
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIONS Qtem 1):
1. Case: REZ2011-07005— 1911 N. Old Coachman Road
Yes No I/
Signature:
� �! G�D lQ � �tr[ `�SG
PRINT NAME
Date:
S.•IPlanning DepartmentlCD BlAgendas DRC & CDBICDBI2011110 October 201111 Cover MEMO 2010.doc
�
LL
Q
� �ar�a �r
�
U
Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet
TO: Community Development Board Members
FROM: Robert Tefft, Development Review Manager
COPIES: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney; Susan Chase, City Clerk Specialist;
Sue Diana, Assistant City Clerk; /Pat Sullivan, Board Reporter
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for October 18, 2011
DATE: October 13, 2011
CDB packets being distributed on contain the following items:
Agenda
Site investigation form
Unapproved minutes of previous meeting
Level Two Applications (Item 1-3)
1. Case: FLD2011-07026 — 622 6 8 Bypass Drive
Yes NQ
.,�.
2. Case: FLD2011-07024 -2131 ��TS Highway 19 North
Yes No �
3. Case: FLD2011-08027 — 551 �prth Saturn Avenue
Yes No �
LEVEL THREE APPLICATIOl�TS (Item 1):
1. Case: REZ2011-07005— 1911 N`�Old Coachman Road
Yes No
PRINT N
S.•IP[anningDepartmentlCDBlAgendasDRC&CDBICDBI2011110October201111 CoverMEMO2010.doc
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-07024 2011-10-18
CDB Meeting Date
Case Number:
Agenda Item:
Owner/Applicant:
Agent:
Address:
October 18, 2011
FLD2011-07024
D. 2.
Brown-19 LLC
Avid Group
21311 US Hi'°�hway 19 North
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit a 17,200 square foot
addition to an existing 74,241 square foot retail sales and service
building in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 739,872
square feet (16.99 acres), a lot width of 590 square feet (along US
Highway 19 N) and 1,445 square feet (along Drew Street), front (west)
setbacks of 10 feet (to pavement) and 15 feet (to building), front (north)
setbacks of 5 feet (to pavement) and 50.4 feet (to building), side (east)
setbacks of 32 feet (to pavement) and 111.8 feet (to building), side
(south) setbacks of 36.8 feet (to pavement) and 61 feet (to building),
side (east) setbacks of 7.6 feet (to pavement) and 178.2 feet (to
building), and side (south) setbacks of zero feet (to pavement), 20 feet
(to loading dock), and 34.8 feet (to building), a building height of 28.4
feet (to flat roo� and 39.3 feet (to top of cornice), and 822 off-street
parking spaces (4.04 spaces per 1000 square feet of GFA) as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of
the Community Development Code Section 2-704.C., as well as a
reduction to the front (west) perimeter buffer from 15 feet to 10 feet, a
reduction to the front (north) perimeter buffer from 15 feet to 5 feet, a
reduction to the side (east) perimeter buffer from 10 feet to 7.6 feet, and
a reduction to the side (south) perimeter buffer from 10 feet to zero feet
as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of the
Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G.
ZONING DISTRICT: Commercial (C) District
FUTURE LAND USE
PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial General (CG)
PROPERTY USE: Current: Retail Sales and Services
Proposed: Retail Sales and Services
EXISTING North: C and Medium High Density Attached Dwellings,
SURROUNDING Residential (1V�IDR) Districts Retail Sales and Services
ZONING AND USES: South: 1V�IDR District Attached Dwellings
East: Office (0) and 1V�IDR Districts Attached Dwellings
West: C District Retail Sales and Services
Community Development Board — October 18, 2011
FLD2011- 07024 — Page 1
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-07024 2011-10-18
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 16.99 acre subject property is located at the southeast corner of US Highway 19 North and
Drew Street. It is a corner lot with ingress/egress onto Drew Street and US Highway 19 North
service road. The site consists of two, one-story, masonry block commercial buildings with one
building located along the east side of the property and the other is on the south side of the
property. The northeast building consists of approximately 133,657 square feet of retail and
storage space and has two primary tenants which are Best Buy and Rooms to Go. The building
sited to the southwest is currently 74,241 square feet of retail space and consists of three tenants
which are Guitar Center, Marshalls, and Babies R Us.
In 1994, as a part of the widening of US Highway 19 North service road, the subject property
lost significant land area along both Drew Street and US Highway 19 North service road
resulting in the elimination of 107 parking spaces. In 2002, the applicant received an approval
for a Flexible Standard Development (FLS 01-12-91) request to reduce the required front (west)
setback along US Highway 19 North service road from 15 feet to 10 feet (to pavement) and to
reduce the number of required parking spaces from 911 to 787 parking spaces (4.32 spaces per
1,000 square feet of gross floor area) to allow for a 7,899 addition to the subject building. This
redevelopment of the site resulted in the loss of 51 parking spaces to comply with required
landscaping standards. Following this redevelopment project, in 2005, a portion of the subject
building was expanded by 5,000 square foot to increase the tenant space that is currently
occupied by the Guitar Center.
To the north, across Drew Street are a few commercial properties consisting of a car wash,
automobile dealership, and a small shopping center. Further east along the north side of Drew
Street is a residential development consisting of attached dwellings. Abutting the subject
property to the south and east are residential developments consisting of attached dwellings.
Development Proposal:
The request proposes to expand the existing 74,241 building on the south side of the property by
adding 17,200 square feet of retail space. It will allow a Toys R Us to share retail space with the
existing Babies R Us now occupying a tenant space within the subject building. This addition
will be on the west side of the building adjacent to US Highway 19 N, and when constructed will
result in the loss of twenty-two parking spaces that currently exist within the project area. The
applicant will replace these parking spaces as well as add fifty-five additional parking spaces
resulting in increasing the number of parking spaces from 775 to 822 parking spaces. This will
be accomplished by reducing the size of existing interior islands, adding a number of spaces to
the ends of existing rows where opportunity allows, and by constructing new parking areas in the
northwest corner of the property. When built the new addition will be setback fifteen feet from
the front property line along US Highway 19 North Service Road. It will be 28.4 feet in height
to flat roof and 39.3 feet in height to the top of the cornice and will be architecturally identical to
the existing building. An ADA walkway will be built in front of the new addition and connected
to the walkways on site and those in the right-of-way. Other site improvements include,
restriping portions of the parking lot, constructing a new loading dock behind Babies R Us,
erecting a new retaining wall along a portion of the side property line near the project area,
expanding the retention pond adjacent to the east wall of the subject building, adding
Community Development Board — October 18, 2011
FLD2011- 07024 — Page 2
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-07024 2011-10-18
landscaping within allowable areas, and remodeling the interior space of Best Buy to create a
new 8,301 square foot retail sales and service space for a future tenant.
The proposal's compliance with the applicable 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 allowable FAR is 0.55. The overall proposed FAR is 0.30, which is consistent with
the Code provisions.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR� Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-
701.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.90. The overall proposed ISR is 0.87, which is
consistent with the Code provisions.
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 requirement for retail sales and services is 10,000 square feet.
The subject property has a lot area of 739,872 square feet (16.99 acres). The minimum lot width
requirement for a retail sales and services is 100 feet. The width of the subject property is 590
square feet along US Highway 19 N and 1,445 square feet along Drew Street. The proposal is
consistent with these criteria.
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there are no minimum setback requirements
for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the
minimum front setback requirement for retail sales and services can range between 15 and 25
feet while side setbacks may range between zero and 10 feet. Specific to this project are the
setbacks to front (west) setbacks of 10 feet (to pavement) and 15 feet (to building), a front
(north) setback of 5 feet (to pavement), and side (south) setbacks of zero feet (to pavement) and
20 feet (to loading dock). The requested flexibility in front setbacks reflect the applicants'
proposal to provide the minimum fifteen foot front setback for the new addition while trying to
provide a sufficient number of parking spaces on site. Side setbacks will allow for an updated
loading dock and a new retaining wall. Each setback is within the range of flexibility allowed
by CDC Table 2-704. Due to the existing and proposed improvements on site, the requested
setbacks to pavement and structures are acceptable to Staff.
Maximum Building Hei� Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there is no maximum allowable
height for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison,
the maximum building height for retail sales and services can range between 25 and 50 feet. The
proposed height of the building addition is 28.4 feet (to flat roo� and 39.7 feet (to top of
cornice). The proposed building height is less than the Code provisions.
Minimum Off-Street Parkin�: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, the minimum required parking for a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project is determined by the Community Development
Coordinator based on the specific use and/or ITE Manual standards. The off-street parking
requirement for retail sales and service uses is between 4 and 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of
gross floor area. This property was granted a parking space reduction in 2002 from 911 to 787
Community Development Board — October 18, 2011
FLD2011- 07024 — Page 3
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-07024 2011-10-18
parking spaces at a parking ratio of 4.32 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. To off-
set for the increase in gross floor area, the applicant proposes to increase the number of parking
spaces by adding 77 spaces, bringing the total number of spaces to 822 parking spaces which
calculates to a parking ratio of 4.04 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Although
there is an increase in the number of parking spaces it is still less than the previously approved
parking ratio. For this reason, Staff required a parking demand study to justify the reduction to
the sites parking standards.
The parking demand study indicates that 814 parking spaces (4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet of
gross floor area) will be adequate for this shopping center after the building expansion. Based on
several site visits during the weekday and weekend, the applicants' consultants determined that
the existing parking demand is significantly lower than the available parking supply. The actual
study was carried out over a weekend period and found that the overall parking demand occurred
between 2:30 to 2:45 PM on Saturday and between 2:15 and 2:30 PM on Sunday. For the
purpose of conducting the parking lot survey, the parking areas were broken out into six parking
zones. Most customers parked in Zone 1 and Zone 2 which are the parking areas directly in front
of each building. The total number of parking spaces occupied during the peak time on Saturday
was 300 spaces; while 294 parking spaces were occupied during Sunday's peak period. Zone 6,
the parking area to be eliminated by the building expansion had only one automobile park within
its area throughout the time of study. Therefore, the parking demand study demonstrates that
814 parking spaces at a ratio of 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet will be adequate to meet the
parking demand at the proposed shopping center; thereby justifying the decrease from the
existing parking ratio of 4.32 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. Nevertheless, the
applicant prefers to provide 822 parking spaces at a parking ratio of 4.04 spaces per 1,000 rather
than 814 parking spaces at a ratio of 4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet as found in the parking
demand study. The applicant believes that retaining eight parking spaces will alleviate
unforeseen parking issues, if any. The number of proposed parking spaces (822) as well as a
reduction to the current parking ratio to 4.04 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area is
acceptable by staff at this location.
In addition, the applicant proposes to add twenty-one parking spaces at a 65 degree parking angle
to replicate existing conditions on site. This parking angle is foremost on this site; however,
CDC Section 3-1402 standards do not recognize this angle any longer. Most of the parking
spaces were constructed prior to the adoption of the Community Development Code. Since the
project valuation is less than 25 percent, the applicant is not required to bring the entire parking
area to code. However, in sections where parking spaces are to be added they will be designed
and dimensioned to match existing spaces at the 65 degree parking angle. Given that only a low
number of spaces are to be created at the 65 degree parking angle in comparison to the overall
number of existing spaces, it was found not necessary for the applicant to restripe the parking lot
to meet current code dimensions for parking spaces by Traffic Engineering.
Landscaping_ Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D.1, this site is required a 15 foot wide landscape
buffer along both Drew Street and US Highway 19 N., as well as a 10 foot wide landscape
buffers within each side yard. The application includes a request for a reduction to the front
landscape buffer along US Highway 19 North to 10 feet, a reduction in the front landscape buffer
along Drew Street to 5 feet, a reduction in the side (east) landscape buffer to 7.6 feet (to existing
Community Development Board — October 18, 2011
FLD2011- 07024 — Page 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-07024 2011-10-18
pavement), and a reduction in the side (south) landscape buffer to zero feet. As mentioned
earlier, the setback and landscape buffer flexibility request for this project mostly reflect existing
conditions on site. Where the applicant will be completing work directly related to this project is
mostly along US Highway 19 North service road, a portion of Drew Street, and the side (south)
landscape buffer. The reduction in the front landscape buffer will allow for additional parking.
Little space is available to increase the width of existing landscaping buffers; however, where
possible the applicant has proposed to add the required number of trees as well as provide
additional trees to exceed the minimum landscaping standard. The side (south) setback area
where the reduction request is to zero feet, will allow the applicant to build a new retaining wall
and expand the width of the pavement for delivery vehicles utilizing the new loading docks. The
requested reductions to the landscape perimeter buffers are acceptable to Staff.
In regards to landscaping along the front and side of the building addition, the landscape plan
shows that 100 percent the building fa�ade will planted as set forth in CDC Section 3-1202.E.
The foundation plantings along Drew Street and US Highway 19 North service road are within
an area that is a minimum of five feet wide and consist of at least three palm trees for every 40
linear feet of building fa�ade and one shrub for every 20 square feet of required landscape area.
A minimum of 50 percent of the area is shown to contain shrubs with the remainder to be ground
cover. However, as set forth in CDC Section 3-1202.D., one shade tree every 35 feet is required
within the front perimeter buffer (along US Highway 19 North service road). The length of this
buffer would require five shade trees. The applicant has chosen not to plant the required number
of shade trees; rather, to mitigate for the deviations to the landscape buffer requirements, they
intend to plant nine accent trees (crape myrtles) and four palm tree clusters to exceed required
landscape standards. These trees in combination with the foundation plantings should provide an
attractive vegetative buffer that enhances the visual appearance in this traffic corridor; yet, the
landscape plan does not show that any type of shrub will be added within this buffer. Staff
recommends that Indian Hawthorne or Jasmine groundcover be included to further enhance the
landscaping within this landscape buffer along US Highway 19 North service road. All proposed
plant material shall be Florida No. 1 grade or better. The planting of more trees than the required
number within the front (west) landscape perimeter buffer is an acceptable alternative to Staff.
As mentioned earlier, the applicant will slightly deviate from the parking demand study finding
and provide 822 parking spaces on site rather than 814 parking spaces recommended by the
parking demand study's findings. This decision elevates the parking demand ratio from 4.0
spaces per 1,000 square feet to 4.04 spaces per 1,000 square feet which is within the acceptable
range in CDC Table 2-704. Increasing the number of parking spaces requires the applicant to
modify an existing interior island and eliminate two islands. An interior island in the southwest
area of the parking lot will be divided into two islands that will meet the interior parking island
standards set forth in CDC Section 3-1202.E. Two islands will be removed due to the redesign
of the parking lot; however, they will be replaced further north then their current location to
allow for the e�tension of two parking rows to increase the number of parking spaces. In
addition, the applicant will add three new code compliant landscaped interior islands within the
parking area to increase green space in the parking area and to comply with Staff's requirement
that a reduction to the number of parking spaces found by the parking demand study will result
in converting existing parking spaces into additional parking lot interior islands. Pursuant to
Community Development Board — October 18, 2011
FLD2011- 07024 — Page 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-07024 2011-10-18
CDC Sections 3-1202.E.1, the final Vehicle Use Area green space percentage will be 18.04
percent which exceeds the ten percent of the gross vehicular use area provision.
In accordance with CDC Sections 3-1204 and 3-1205, the applicant intends to use this
redevelopment opportunity to upgrade all the existing parking lot interior landscape islands not
affected by the parking lot improvements. All these interior islands will be preserved with each
tree being thinned of dead or broken branches. While the existing shell or mulch within the
interior islands will be removed to be replaced with ground cover plants. In addition, within the
front perimeter buffers, all dead sod or grass areas will be re-graded and replaced with new sod.
Furthermore, four mature crepe myrtle trees will be preserved and relocated from an area where
new parking spaces will be constructed to an interior island near the Drew Street entrance. New
plant beds will be installed in this island to further visually enhance the landscaping at this
entrance.
Comprehensive Landscape Progr�am: Pursuant to Section 3-1202.G of the Community
Development Code, the landscaping requirements contained within the Code can be waived or
modified if the application contains a Comprehensive Landscape Program satisfying certain
criteria. The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with those
criteria:
Consistent I Inconsistent
1. Architectural theme:
a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall be designed as a N/A N/A
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/ar materials of the landscape treatment X
proposed in the comprehensive landscape program shall be demonstrably more
attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for
development under the minimum landscape standards.
2. Lighting: Any lighting proposed as a part of a comprehensive landscape program is 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 far the area in
which the parcel proposed for development is located.
Solid Waste: The placement of the new verti-pack dumpster on the south side of building
addition has been found to be acceptable by the City's Solid Waste Department.
Si�ht Visibility Trian.°�les: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the
driveways, 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. No structure or landscaping is proposed within the site triangles.
Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject
property.
Community Development Board — October 18, 2011
FLD2011- 07024 — Page 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-07024 2011-10-18
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards of
the Commercial General (CG) land use category and the Commercial (C) District as per CDC
Section 2-701.1 and Table 2-704:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
FAR 0.55 0.30 X
ISR 0.90 0.87 X
Minimum Lot Area N/A 739,872 sq. ft. (16.99 acres) X
Minimum Lot Width N/A US 19 N: 590 feet X
Drew: 1,445 feet X
Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A West: 10 feet (to pavement) X
15 feet (to building)
North: 5 feet (to pavement) X
50.4 feet (to building)
Side: N/A East: 7.6 feet (to pavement) X
32 feet (to pavement)
111.6 feet (to building)
178.2 feet (to building)
South: Zero feet (to pavement) X
36.8 feet (to pavement)
20 feet (to loading dock)
34.8 feet (to building)
61 feet (to building)
Maximum Height N/A 28.4 feet (to flat roo� X
39.3 feet (to cornice)
Minimum 4-5 spaces per 1,000 SF GFA 822 parking spaces (4.04 spaces per X
Off-Street Parking (Specific to this project 4.32 1,000 square feet of GFA)
spaces per 1,000 square feet
of GFA)
Community Development Board — October 18, 2011
FLD2011- 07024 — Page 7
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-07024 2011-10-18
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility
criteria as per CDC Section 2-703.0 (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 pernutted by the underlying future land use X
category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the
essential use characteristics of the neighbarhood; 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 ar flexible development use;
b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributar to the City's
economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs;
a The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an
existing economic contributor;
d. The proposed use provides far 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
£ The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a
warking waterfront.
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;
a 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 tea�tures;
❑ Distinctive fenestration patterns;
❑ Building step backs; and
❑ Distinctive roofs forms.
e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape
desian and appropriate distances between buildin�s.
Community Development Board — October 18, 2011
FLD2011- 07024 — Page 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-07024 2011-10-18
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 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 warking in the neighbarhood.
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X
immediate vicinity.
6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X
visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meeting of August 4, 2011, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient to
move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the following:
Findin�s 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 16.99 acre subject property is located at the southeast corner of US Highway 19 North
and Drew Street;
2. That the subject property is located within the Commercial (C) District and the Commercial
General (CG) Future Land Use Plan category;
3. The site is currently improved with two, one-story, masonry block commercial buildings with
207,898 square feet of gross floor area;
4. The subject property has a lot area of 739,872 square feet (16.99 acres), a lot width of 590
square feet (along US Highway 19 N) and 1,445 square feet (along Drew Street);
5. The maximum allowable FAR is 0.55, the proposed FAR is 0.30;
6. The maximum allowable ISR is 0.90, the proposed ISR is 0.87;
7. The application proposes to expand the southwest building by adding a 17,200 square foot
addition to accommodate a new retail sales and service space;
8. The request includes flexibility to front (west) setbacks of 10 feet (to pavement) and 15 feet
(to building), front (north) setbacks of 5 feet (to pavement) and 50.4 feet (to building), side
(east) setbacks of 32 feet (to pavement) and 111.6 feet (to building), side (south) setbacks of
36.8 feet (to pavement) and 61 feet (to building), side (east) setbacks of 7.6 feet (to
pavement) and 178.2 feet (to building), and side (south) setbacks of zero feet (to pavement),
20 feet (to loading dock), and 34.8 feet (to building);
9. The building addition will be 28.4 feet in height (to flat roo� and 39.3 feet (to top of
cornice);
Community Development Board — October 18, 2011
FLD2011- 07024 — Page 9
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-07024 2011-10-18
10. The development proposes to increase the number of off-street parking spaces from 785 to 822
spaces;
11. The submitted parking demand study demonstrates that 822 off-street parking spaces will be
adequate for a parking needs for the overall shopping center during all periods of hours of
operation;
12. The building addition with an increase in the number of off-street parking spaces will result in
a decrease in the parking area ratio from 4.32 spaces per ground floor area to 4.04 parking
spaces per ground floor area;
13. The application proposes to reduce the front (west) perimeter buffer from 15 feet to 10 feet
(along US Highway 19 North), to reduce the front (north) perimeter buffer from 15 feet to 5
feet (along Drew Street), to reduce the side (east) perimeter buffer from 10 feet to 7.6 feet,
and to reduce the side (south) perimeter buffer from 10 feet to zero feet through the
Comprehensive Landscape Program;
14. The proposed Comprehensive Landscape Program will provide additional landscaping within
green spaces and interior islands as well as retain a number of shade trees and accent trees; and
15. There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject property.
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 Section 2-701.1 and
Table 2-703 of the Community Development Code;
2. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-
704.0 of the Community Development Code;
3. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as per Section 3-914.A of the Community Development Code; and
4. That the development proposal is consistent with the criteria of the Comprehensive
Landscape Program as per Section 3-1202.G of the Community Development Code.
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends APPROVAL of
this Flexible Development application to permit a 17,200 square foot addition to an existing
74,241 square foot retail sales and service building in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area
of 739,872 square feet (16.99 acres), a lot width of 590 square feet (along US Highway 19 N)
and 1,445 square feet (along Drew Street), front (west) setbacks of 10 feet (to pavement) and 15
feet (to building), front (north) setbacks of 5 feet (to pavement) and 50.4 feet (to building), side
(east) setbacks of 32 feet (to pavement) and 111.8 feet (to building), side (south) setbacks of 36.8
feet (to pavement) and 61 feet (to building), side (east) setbacks of 7.6 feet (to pavement) and
178.2 feet (to building), and side (south) setbacks of zero feet (to pavement), 20 feet (to loading
dock), and 34.8 feet (to building), a building height of 28.4 feet (to flat roo� and 39.3 feet (to top
of cornice), and 822 off-street parking spaces (4.04 spaces per 1000 square feet of GFA) as a
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of the Community
Development Code Section 2-704.C., as well as a reduction to the front (west) perimeter buffer
from 15 feet to 10 feet, a reduction to the front (north) perimeter buffer from 15 feet to 5 feet, a
reduction to the side (east) perimeter buffer from 10 feet to 7.6 feet, and a reduction to the side
(south) perimeter buffer from 10 feet to zero feet as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under
Community Development Board — October 18, 2011
FLD2011- 07024 — Page 10
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-07024 2011-10-18
the provisions of the Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G., subject to the following
conditions:
Conditions of A�proval:
1. That a building permit be obtained for the parking lot improvements, landscaping and
building improvements;
2. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the landscape plan shall be revised to show
that either Indian Hawthorne or Jasmine groundcover added into the perimeter buffer
adjacent to the new addition along US Highway 19 North service Road;
3. That prior to the issuance of any permits, the applicant shall comply with all requirements of
the Engineering Department;
4. That all existing and any future signage must meet the requirements of Code and be
architecturally integrated with the design of the building with regard to proportion, color,
material and finish as part of a final sign package submitted to and approved by Staff;
5. That prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy all of the proposed landscaping shall
be installed.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Stafi
Kevin W. Nurnberger, Planner III
ATTACIIIVIENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Photographs
S: lPlanning DepartmentlC D BIFLEX (FLD) IPending casesl Up for the next CDBI USHighway 19 N 21311 - Drew 19 Shopping Center(C) -
2011.zx - KWNIDREW 19 StaffReport. docx
Community Development Board — October 18, 2011
FLD2011- 07024 — Page 11
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-08027 2011-10-18
CDB Meeting Date
Case Number:
Agenda Item:
Owner / Applicant:
Agent:
Address:
October 18, 2011
FLD2011-08027
D. 3.
Church of Scientology / Fla� Service Or�anization, Inc
Cournoyer Construction
551 North Saturn Avenue
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit an 82 square foot
gatehouse at the entrance to an existing attached dwelling complex in
the Medium High Density Residential (1V�IDR) District with a front
(west) setback of zero feet (to proposed structure) where 10 feet is
allowable, but may be varied based upon compliance with established
criteria; and no changes to lot size/area, landscaping, parking spaces or
height as a Residential Infill Development Project under the provisions
of Community Development Code Section 2-404F.
ZONING DISTRICT: Medium High Density Residential (1V�IDR) District
FUTURE LAND USE
PLAN CATEGORY: Residential High (RH)
PROPERTY USE
EXISTING
SURROUNDING
ZONING AND USES:
Current: Attached Dwellings
Proposed: Attached Dwellings
North: Institutional (I) District
Utility/Infrastructure Facility
South: Medium Density Residential (MDR) District
Detached dwellings
East: Medium Density Residential (MDR) District
Attached Dwelling
West: Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) District
Park and Recreational Facilities
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 10 acre property is bordered by North Saturn Avenue on its west, Airport Drive on the
south, and North Keene Road on the east. The main entrance is located 338 feet north of the N.
Saturn Avenue and Airport Drive intersection. Situated on this site is the Hacienda Gardens
Apartment Complex which consists of 190 attached dwellings and 290 parking spaces.
To the south, directly across Airport Drive are detached dwellings. Located to the east are
attached dwelling units. To the west is an open space recreational property which consists of
Community Development Board — October 18, 2011
FLD2011- 08027 — Page 1
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-08027 2011-10-18
ball fields. To the north, is a utility infrastructure facility that consists of the Skycrest Reclaimed
Water System and a nursery maintenance building operated by City of Clearwater.
Development Proposal:
The request is to allow a gatehouse with a zero foot setback at the front (west) property line.
This gatehouse will be located at the main entrance to the Hacienda Gardens Apartment
Complex. An existing gatehouse currently stands approximately fifty feet back from the existing
gate; however the applicants state that over time there have been multiple breeches of security on
the property due to the distance between the gate and gatehouse. This gatehouse will be
removed. The applicant believes that locating the proposed gatehouse at the property line will
allow for easier vehicle identification and less queue time. Moving the gatehouse forward will
provide direct visual and voice contact which will minimize traffic congestion. They state that
the location will also provide increased security for residents by monitoring the street and
sidewalks. The gatehouse will be eighty-two square feet in floor area, eleven feet in height, and it
will be architecturally similar in design and color to the existing buildings on site. It will be of a
Spanish motif with a clay tile roof and stucco e�terior walls. This development will not result in
any changes to existing parking, landscaping, impervious surface ratio, and lot size/area.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR� Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-
401.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.85. The project will not result in any change to the
existing ISR. The current ISR is 0.66 which is consistent with the Code provisions.
Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-404, the minimum lot area
requirement for attached dwellings is 15,000 square feet. The subject property has a lot area of
435,600 square feet (10 acres). The minimum lot width requirement for attached dwellings is
150 feet. The subject property has a lot width of 856.28 feet (along Saturn Avenue), a lot width
of 595 feet (along Airport Drive), and a lot width of 726.76 feet (along Keene Road). The
proposal is consistent with these criteria.
Minimum Setbacks: As previously mentioned, the purpose of this request is to permit an 82
square foot gatehouse with a front (west) setback of zero feet where 10 feet is allowable as a
Residential Infill Project. Be that as it may, pursuant to CDC Table 2-404(3), the development
standards for residential infill projects are guidelines and may be varied based on the specific
criteria in Section 2-404F. Staff has reviewed the request against the criteria set forth in Section
2-404.F, and has determined the gatehouse warrants further flexibility to allow the structure to be
built at a zero foot setback from the front (west) property line. Staff agrees that the location of
the gatehouse will provide enhanced security for the residents of the apartment complex and that
this request will not cause any harm to or materially reduce the fair market value of abutting
properties. Its design is compatible with adjacent uses and is in keeping with the design of the
existing buildings on site. This request is also consistent with the remaining criteria of Section
2-404F as shown below in the compliance with flexibility criteria table.
Maximum Building Hei� Pursuant to CDC Table 2-404, the maximum building height for
Residential Infill Projects is 30 feet in height. The proposed height of the gatehouse is 11.0 feet
(to top of roo�. The proposed building height is less than the Code provisions.
Community Development Board — October 18, 2011
FLD2011- 08027 — Page 2
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-08027 2011-10-18
Minimum Off-Street Parkin�: No parking space is required for the gatehouse. However,
pursuant to CDC Section 3-1406.B, a minimum of 40 feet of clear stacking space shall be
provided in advance of a gatehouse or security gates to ensure that traffic may not back-up into
the public street system. As shown on the submitted partial site plan, an existing queuing lane
that is 60 feet in length runs parallel to the public street near the sites entrance. This distance
exceeds the required linear footage for stacking. Furthermore, it is believed that most of the
residents typically use the scheduled buses provided by the Church of Scientology to go to and
from the apartment complex. Such use of mass private transportation should reduce the
number of vehicles entering the site at any one time. The Traffic Engineering Division found
these existing conditions to be acceptable.
Landscaping_ The applicant is proposing no changes to the existing landscaping.
Solid Waste: The applicant has proposed no changes to the existing method of waste collection.
The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City's Solid Waste Department.
Si�ht Visibility Trian.°�les: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the
driveways, 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 gatehouse will be within the sight triangles; however, Traffic Engineering has
reviewed the proposal and has no issue with the location of the gatehouse.
Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject
property.
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards of
the Residential High (RH) land use category and the Medium High Density Residential (MHDR)
District per CDC Section 2-401.1 and Table 2-404:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
ISR 0.85 0.66 X
Minimum Lot Area 15,000 sq. ft. 435,600 sq. ft. (10.0 acres) X
Minimum Lot Width 150 feet N. Saturn Ave. 856.28 feet X
Airport Drive 595 feet X
N. Keene Road 726.76 feet X
Minimum Setbacks Front: 10-25 feet West: Zero feet (to structure) X*
South: 20 feet (to pavement) X
32 feet (to structure)
East 20 feet (to pavement) X
30 feet (to structure)
Side: 0-10 feet North: 8 feet (to building) X
Maximum Height 30 feet 11 feet (to top of gatehouse roo� X
Minimum 40 feet of clear 60 feet of clear stacking space X
Off-Street Parking stacking space
* CDC Table 2-404(3) states that the development standards for residenrial infill projects are guidelines and may be varied based on the
criteria specific in Secrion 2-404.F.
Community Development Board — October 18, 2011
FLD2011- 08027 — Page 3
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-08027 2011-10-18
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-404F
(Residential Infill Redevelopment Project):
1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from
one or more of the following: intensity; other development standards;
2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill
proj ect will not materially reduce the fair market value of abutting properkies;
3. The uses within the residential infill project are otherwise permitted in the district
4. The uses within the residential infill project are compatible with adjacent land uses;
5. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill
project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development
6. The design of the proposed residential infill project creates a form and function
which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel
proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole;
7. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height, off-street parking access
or other development standards are justified by the benefits to community character
and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of
Clearwater as a whole.
Consistent Inconsistent
X
i`/
/
/
/
►'/
�/
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:
1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk,
coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located.
2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of
adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons
residing or warking in the neighbarhood.
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion.
5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the
immediate vicinity.
6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including
visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties.
Consistent � Inconsistent
X
X
X
X
X
X
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meeting of September 1, 2011, and deemed the development proposal to be legally
sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the
following:
Community Development Board — October 18, 2011
FLD2011- 08027 — Page 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-08027 2011-10-18
Findin�s 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 10 acre property is bordered by North Saturn Avenue on its west, Airport Drive on the
south, and North Keene Road on the east.; the main entrance is 338 feet north of the N.
Saturn Avenue and Airport Drive intersection;
2. The subject property is located within the Medium High Density Residential (MHDR)
District and the Residential High (RH) Future Land Use Plan category;
3. The subject property is the location of the Hacienda Gardens Apartment Complex which
consists of a 190 attached dwelling units and 290 parking spaces;
4. The applicants request to be permitted to build an 82 square foot gatehouse with a front
(west) setback of zero feet where 10 feet is allowable;
5. CDC Section 2-404 allows for the development standards for residential infill projects to be
used as guidelines and be varied based on the criteria specific in Section 2-404F.;
6. In compliance with CDC Section 3-1406.B, the applicants will provide more than the
required 40 feet of clear stacking space in advance of a gatehouse or security gate;
7. The gatehouse will be of similar architectural design and character of existing buildings on
site and it will stand at 11 feet in height (to top of roo�;
8. This development will not result in any changes to existing parking, landscaping, impervious
surface ratio, and lot size/area;
9. Based on the existing character of the surrounding area, the proposed gatehouse is
compatible and consistent with the character of the immediate area; and
10. There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject property.
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 Flexible Development standards as per
Section 2-401.1 and Table 2-404 of the Community Development Code;
2. The proposal is consistent with the criteria of the Residential Infill Projects per CDC Section
2-404F of the Community Development Code; and
3. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as per Section 3-914.A of the Community Development Code
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends APPROVAL of
Flexible Development application to permit an 82 square foot gatehouse at the entrance to an
existing attached dwelling complex in the Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District
with a front (west) setback of zero feet (to proposed structure) where 10 feet is allowable, but
may be varied based upon compliance with established criteria; and no changes to lot size/area,
landscaping, parking spaces or height as a Residential Infill Development Project under the
provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-404F., subject to the following
conditions:
Community Development Board — October 18, 2011
FLD2011- 08027 — Page 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-08027 2011-10-18
Conditions of A�proval:
1. That a building permit be obtained for the building improvements; and
2. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, all outstanding comments from the
Engineering Department shall be addressed.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Stafi
Kevin W. Nurnberger, Planner III
ATTACIIIVIENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Photographs
S: lPlanning DepartmentlC D BIFLEX (FLD) IPending casesl Up for the next CDBI551 N. Saturn Church ofScientology - Gatehouse (MHDR) -
2011.zx-KWNIGatehouse StaffReport.docx
Community Development Board — October 18, 2011
FLD2011- 08027 — Page 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-07026 2011-10-18
CDB Meeting Date: October 18, 2011
Case Number: FLD2011-07026
Agenda Item: D. 1.
Owner/Applicant: Thomas W. Care�, Trustee of the T& L Land Trust
Address: 622 & 628 By�ass Drive
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit the addition of 20 off-street
parking spaces for an existing 15,247 square foot office building in the
Office (0) District with a lot area of 66,211 square feet (1.52 acres), a
lot width of 152 feet (along Druid Road) and 438 feet (along Bypass
Drive), a building height of 22 feet, a front (south) setback of 19 feet
(to proposed pavement) and 90.2 feet (to existing building), a front
(east) setback of 15 feet (to proposed pavement) and 88.3 feet (to
existing building), a side (west) setback of 4.5 feet (to proposed
pavement) and 9.9 feet (to existing building), a side (north) setback of
zero feet (to existing building and pavement), and 73 parking spaces as
a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of
Community Development Code Section 2-1004.B.; as well as a
reduction to the west landscape buffer from five feet to 4.5 feet as a
Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of
Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G.
ZONING DISTRICT: Office (0) District
FUTURE LAND USE
PLAN CATEGORY: Residential/Office General (R/OG)
PROPERTY USE:
EXISTING
SURROUNDING
ZONING AND USES:
Current: Office
Proposed: Office
North: Office (0) District
Offices
South: Medium Density Residential (MDR) District
Attached Dwellings
East: Office (0) District
Office
West: Unincorporated
Utility/Infrastructure
Community Development Board — October 18, 2011
FLD2011-07026 — Page 1
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-07026 2011-10-18
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 1.52 acre property is located at the northwest corner of Druid Road and Bypass Drive.
Bypass Drive is a commercial corridor that runs north to south between Gulf to Bay Boulevard
and Druid Road. Along the corridor are primarily retail, office and restaurant uses. The property
has 438 feet of frontage on Bypass Drive 152 feet along Druid Road and can be accessed from
Druid Road, Bypass Drive and a shared vehicular access area to the north. As the property is
located on a corner lot it has two front setbacks and two side setbacks.
The surrounding land use is mainly commercial with an office located to the north, Sam's Club
and vacant land to the east, attached dwellings to the south across Druid Road and a Progress
Energy transmission line easement to the west. The subject property contains a 15,247 square
foot office building housing Carey and Leisure Law offices which was approved through
FLS2002-12082.
Development Proposal:
The proposal is to permit the construction of an additional 20 parking spaces on the southern
portion of the parcel. No changes are proposed to the intensity, lot area or width, or setbacks to
existing building. The existing building has setbacks ranging from a maximum of 90.2 feet to a
minimum of zero feet. Regarding the site, the existing curbing along the southern drive aisle will
be removed for the additional parking. The proposed parking area will have setbacks to
pavement as follows: a front (east) setback of 15 feet, a front (south) setback of 19 feet and a
side (west) setback of 4.5 feet. The existing parking lot along the side (north) is a shared
vehicular access area and no changes are proposed there.
Pursuant to Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-1004, the minimum side setback
for an office use can range between 10 — 20 feet. The proposed side (west) setback is 4.5 feet;
thus the filing of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application. The development
proposal's compliance with the applicable development standards of the CDC is discussed
below.
Intensitv: Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-1001.1, the maximum
allowable intensity is a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.50. The proposal is in compliance with the
above as it has a FAR of 0.235.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR� Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-
1001.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.75 for R/OG. The overall proposed ISR is 0.452, which
is consistent with the above.
Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1004, 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 requirement for offices is 3,500 square feet. The subject
property is 66,211 square feet (1.52 acres). Also for comparative purposes, the minimum lot
width requirement for offices is 50 feet in width. The lot width along Bypass Drive 483 feet and
along Druid Road it is 152 feet. Both the lot size and lot width are consistent with the above.
Community Development Board — October 18, 2011
FLD2011-07026 — Page 2
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-07026 2011-10-18
Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1004, there are no minimum setback requirements
for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the
minimum front setback requirement for offices can range between 15 — 35 feet and the minimum
side setbacks can range between 10 — 20 feet.
With regard to the existing building, the minimum required setbacks are all being met with the
exception of the side (north) setback where the existing building and pavement are located on the
property line. As this is an existing building and no changes are proposed other than additional
parking it will not impede the development and improvement of surrounding properties.
Regarding setbacks to pavement, flexibility has been requested for the side (west) setback to 4.5
feet to proposed pavement. The other setbacks to proposed pavement include a front (south)
setback of 19 feet and a front (east) setback of 15 feet, both of which are within the minimum
setback requirements. Staff supports the request for the side (west) setback of 4.5 feet to
proposed pavement as the adjacent property is a Progress Energy transmission line easement and
as such, the setback to proposed pavement will not visually be apparent.
Maximum Building Hei� Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1004, there is no maximum allowable
building height for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of
comparison, the maximum building height for an office can range between 30 — 80 feet. The
existing building height is 22 feet, well within the range based upon the above Code provisions.
Minimum Off-Street Parkin�: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1004, the minimum required parking for
a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project is determined by the Community Development
Coordinator based on the specific use and/or ITE Manual standards. The off-street parking
requirement for offices is three spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. For 15,247
square feet of office floor area, this results in a requirement of 46 spaces. Currently there are 53
parking spaces and 73 are proposed. The applicant conducted a parking study which showed that
the office employs 51 employees, averages 10 to 15 walk in clients per day and conducts a
minimum of one to two depositions and mediations per month. The average number of people
attending depositions and mediations is between four and six. With this number of employees
and clients, the parking lot is full on a daily basis which causes clients to park on Bypass Drive
and Sam's Club parking lot. Staff supports the request for the increase in the number of parking
spaces based on the parking study.
Si�ht Visibility Trian.°�les: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the
driveways, 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. No structures or landscaping is proposed within the site triangles.
Solid Waste: The existing refuse area is located on the south side of the building with appropriate
screening. This has been found to be acceptable by the City's Solid Waste Department.
Landscaping_ Since the existing use will not be improved in excess of 25 percent of the value of
the principal structure, no landscape requirements must be met other than the requirements for
the areas in which the parking has been expanded. Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D.1, this site
is required a 10-foot wide landscape buffer along Druid Road and Bypass Drive and a five foot
Community Development Board — October 18, 2011
FLD2011-07026 — Page 3
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-07026 2011-10-18
wide landscape buffer along the west property line. The proposal includes a 15-foot wide
landscape buffer along both Druid Road and Bypass Drive. Due to the required drive aisle
widths, the proposed buffer along the west property line is proposed at 4.5 feet rather than the
required five feet.
Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E.1, 12 percent of the gross vehicular use area shall be provided
as landscape islands a minimum of eight feet wide and 150 square feet in size. The site proposes
15.1 percent of the vehicular use areas to be landscape islands.
To mitigate for the deviations to the buffer requirements along the west property line, the
applicant has provided additional buffer plantings along both Druid Road and Bypass Drive.
Comprehensive Landscape Progr�am: 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 I Inconsistent
1. Architectural theme:
a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall be designed as a part of N/A N/A
the architectural theme of the principle buildings proposed or developed on the parcel
proposed for development; or
b. The design, character, location and/ar materials of the landscape treatment proposed X
in the comprehensive landscape program shall be demonstrably more attractive than
landscaping otherwise pernutted on the parcel proposed for development under the
minimum landscape standards.
2. Lighting: Any lighting proposed as a part of a comprehensive landscape program is N/A N/A
automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is closed.
3. Community character: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive X
landscape program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater.
4. Property values: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape 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 far the area in which the
parcel proposed for development is located.
Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated
with the subject property.
Community Development Board — October 18, 2011
FLD2011-07026 — Page 4
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-07026 2011-10-18
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards and
criteria as per CDC Sections 2-1001.1 and 2-1004:
Standard Existing / Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
F.A.R 0.50 0.235 X
LS.R. 0.75 (R/OG) 0.452 X
Minimum Lot Area N/A 66,211 square feet (1.52 acres) Xi
Minimum Lot Width N/A Druid Road 152 feet Xl
Bypass Drive 438 feet Xi
Maximum Height N/A 22 feet Xi
Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A Druid Road: 88.3 feet (to building)
15 feet (to pavement) Xi
Bypass Dr.: 90.2 feet (to building)
19 feet (to pavement) Xi
Side: N/A West: 10 feet (to building) Xi
4.5 feet (to pavement)
North: 0 feet (to building) X'
0 feet (to pavement)
Minimum Off-Street Parking 3 spaces/1,OOOsf GFA 4.79 spaces/1,OOOsf GFA X
(46 parking spaces) (73 parking spaces)
1 See analysis in StaffReport.
Community Development Board — October 18, 2011
FLD2011-07026 — Page 5
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-07026 2011-10-18
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility
criteria as per CDC Section 2-1004.B. (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 neighbarhood; and shall demonstrate compliance
with one or more of the following objectives:
a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minnnum standard,
flexible standard ar flexible development use;
b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributar to the City's
economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs;
a The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an
existing economic contributor;
d. The proposed use provides far 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
£ The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a
warking 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;
a 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 tea�tures;
❑ Distinctive fenestration patterns;
❑ Building stepbacks; and
❑ Distinctive roofs forms.
e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape
desian and appropriate distances between buildin�s.
Community Development Board — October 18, 2011
FLD2011-07026 — Page 6
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-07026 2011-10-18
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 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 warking in the neighbarhood.
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 olfactorv and hours of oneration imnacts on adiacent nronerkies.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meeting of September 1, 2011, and deemed the development proposal to be legally
sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the
following:
Findin�s 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. That the 1.52 acre subject property is located at the northwest corner of Bypass Drive and
Druid Road;
2. That the subject property is located within the Office (0) District and the Residential/Office
General (R/OG) Future Land Use Plan category;
3. The site currently contains 15,247 square feet of office space;
4. The minimum required structural setbacks are all being met with the exception of the side
(north) setback where the existing building is located on the property;
5. The proposal includes a setback reduction to proposed pavement;
6. The proposal includes a reduction to the perimeter landscape buffer requirement along the
west property line from five feet to 4.5 feet;
7. The proposal includes 73 parking spaces;
8. The existing building height is 22 feet; and
9. There is no outstanding Code Enforcement issue associated with the subject property.
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 Tables 2-1001.1. and
2-1004 of the Community Development Code;
2. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2-
1004.B of the Community Development Code;
Community Development Board — October 18, 2011
FLD2011-07026 — Page 7
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT FLD2011-07026 2011-10-18
3. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as per Section 3-914.A of the Community Development Code; and
4. The development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 3-1202.G
of Community Development Code.
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends APPROVAL of
the Flexible Development application to permit the addition of 20 off-street parking spaces for an
existing 15,247 square foot office building in the Office (0) District with a lot area of 66,211
square feet (1.52 acres), a lot width of 152 feet (along Druid Road) and 438 feet (along Bypass
Drive), a building height of 22 feet, a front (south) setback of 19 feet (to proposed pavement) and
90.2 feet (to existing building), a front (east) setback of 15 feet (to proposed pavement) and 88.3
feet (to existing building), a side (west) setback of 4.5 feet (to proposed pavement) and 9.9 feet
(to existing building), a side (north) setback of zero feet (to existing building and pavement), and
73 parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of
Community Development Code Section 2-1004.B.; as well as a reduction to the west landscape
buffer from five feet to 4.5 feet as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of
Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G., subject to the following conditions:
Conditions of A�proval:
1. That a building permit be obtained for the parking lot improvements and landscaping;
2. That, all proposed landscape material be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of
completion; and
3. That the parking requirement in the site data table be corrected to reflect 46 required parking
spaces rather than 42.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Stafi
A. Scott Kurleman, Planner III
ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Photographs of Site and Vicinity
Community Development Board — October 18, 2011
FLD2011-07026 — Page 8
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT REZ2011-07005 2011-10-18
CDB Meetin�: October 18, 2011
Case Number: REZ2011-07005
Applicant: The City of Clearwater
Address: 1911 Old Coachman Road
A�enda Item: E.1
STAFF REPORT
ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT
L GENERAL INFORMATION
Request: To amend the Zoning Atlas designation from the Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR) District to the Commercial (C) District
Location: 1911 North Old Coachman Road, located on the east side of North Old
Coachman Road approximately 180 feet north of Sunset Point Road.
Site Area: 3,049 square feet or 0.07 acres MOL
IL BACKGROUND
This case involves the northern 0.07-acres of a 0.21-acre property owned by Print Place,
Incorporated. The property is comprised of one parcel and is currently used as a printing
business. During a July Building Plans Review Committee meeting, a weekly meeting
designed to provide feedback to applicants on projects prior to official plan submittal, it was
discovered that the zoning district of the northern portion of the property is inconsistent with
the underlying future land use of the subject property. Therefore, the City of Clearwater is
acting as the applicant in this rezoning request, in order to bring the required consistency
between the two maps.
The request is to change the north portion (0.07-acres) of the property's Zoning Atlas
designation of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) to Commercial (C). The
requested change will result in consistency with the underlying future land use
classification, Commercial General (CG). The current zoning district, Low Medium Density
Residential (L1VIDR), is incompatible with the Commercial General (CG) future land use
classification.
IIL SITE AND VICINITY CHARACTERISTICS
A. Site Characteristics
The subject property is currently a print shop. Adjacent to the property, to the north, is a
single family home, to the south are retail sales and services, and to the west is a grocery
store.
Community Development Board — October 18, 2011 - Case REZ2011-07005 -Page 1 of 4
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1O11D.docx
EXHIBIT: STAFF REPORT REZ2011-07005 2011-10-18
B. Surrounding Future Land Use and Zoning Designations
� � � �
Direction Land Use FLUM Designation Zoning Atlas
Designation
North: Single Family Home Residential Low (RL) Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR)
East: Vacant Commercial General Commercial (C)
(CG)
South: Retail Sales and Commercial General Commercial (C)
Services (CG)
West: Grocery Store Commercial General Commercial (C)
(CG)
IV. REVIEW CRITERIA
No amendment to the Zoning Atlas shall be recommended for approval or receive a final
action of approval unless it complies with the standards contained in Section 4-602.F,
Community Development Code.
A. Consistency
Community
602.F.2]
of Development with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and
Development Code and City Regulations [Section 4-602.F.1 and 4-
Recommended Findings of Fact:
Applicable goals, objectives and policies of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan which
support the proposed amendments include:
Policy A.2.2.1 Table
PLAN CLASSIFICATION PRIMARY USES PER MAX DENSITY/INTENSITY CONSISTENT
PLAN CATEGORY PER PLAN CATEGORY ZONING
DISTRICTS
Commercial General (CG) Office; Retail; Personal 24 Dwelling Units Per Acre; Commercial (C);
Service; Overnight FAR 0.55; ISR 0.90 Office (0)
Accommodations;
Wholesale; Warehouse
40 Overnight Accommodation
Units Per Acre; FAR 0.55; ISR
0.90
Recommended Conclusions of Law
Community Development Board — October 18, 2011 - Case REZ2011-07005 -Page 2 of 4
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1O11D.docx
The request does not conflict with the goals, objectives and policies of the Clearwater
Comprehensive Plan and furthers said plan as indicated in the following. The proposed
zoning district brings consistency with the future land use plan classification.
B. Compatibility with Surrounding Property/Character of the City & Neighborhood
[Sections 4-602.F.3 and 4-602.F.4]
Existing surrounding uses consist of a single family dwelling, a vacant commercial lot,
retail sales and services and a grocery store. The zoning designations of surrounding
properties include Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) and Commercial (C). The
subject property is compatible with the surrounding properties and neighborhood.
The proposed Commercial (C) District primarily permits offices, overnight
accommodations, restaurants and retail sales and services. Three of the adjacent parcels
have the same zoning district. The Commercial (C) zoning district requested is
consistent with the surrounding zoning districts that exist in the vicinity of the subject
property.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The proposed Zoning Atlas designation is in character with the overall Zoning Atlas
designations in the area and is consistent with the property's current use. Further, the
proposal is compatible with surrounding uses and consistent with the character of the
surrounding properties and neighborhood.
C. Sufficiency of Public Facilities [Section 4-602.F.5]
Recommended Findings of Fact:
To assess the sufficiency of public facilities needed to support potential development on
the property, the maximum development potential of the property under the present and
requested Future Land Use Map designations is typically analyzed. However, in this
case, there is not a request for a Future Land Use Map amendment in conjunction with
the request for rezoning.
Because both density and intensity are determined by the Future Land Use classification,
the only impact in this request is use, which is determined by the Zoning District. The
current Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district primarily permits detached
dwellings and community residential homes. The proposed Commercial (C) district
primarily permits offices, overnight accommodations, restaurants and retail sales and
services.
This rezoning request will make the zoning district consistent with the existing
underlying Future Land Use Map classification. There is no proposed change in the
current use of the property.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
Based upon the findings of fact, it its determined that public facilities will not be
negatively impacted by the proposed rezoning of 0.07-acres of the 0.21-acre property.
D. Location of District Boundaries [Section 4-602.F.6]
Community Development Board — October 18, 2011 - Case REZ2011-07005 -Page 3 of 4
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1O11D.docx
Recommended Findings of Fact:
The location of the proposed Commercial (C) District boundaries is consistent with the
boundaries of the subject property.
The proposed Commercial (C) District boundaries would consolidate the subject
property into a single zoning district. The proposed Commercial (C) District is
compatible with the commercial uses to the south, east and west.
Recommended Conclusions of Law
The district boundaries are appropriately drawn in regard to location and classifications
of streets, ownership lines, existing improvements and the natural environment.
V. REVIEW PROCEDURE
Approval of the Zoning Atlas amendment does not guarantee the right to develop the subject
property. The property owner must comply with all laws and ordinances in effect at the time
development permits are requested, including transportation concurrency provisions of the
Concurrency Management System in Division 9, Community Development Code.
VL RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, the Planning and Development Department recommends the
following action:
Recommend APPROVAL of the request for Zoning Atlas amendment from the Low
Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District to the Commercial (C) District.
Prepared by Planning & Development Department stafi
Catherine Lee
Planner III
Attachments:
Resume
Application for Zoning Atlas Amendment
Location Map
Aerial Photograph of Site and Vicinity
Future Land Use Map
Zoning Map
Existing Surrounding Use Map
Site Photographs
Community Development Board — October 18, 2011 - Case REZ2011-07005 -Page 4 of 4
S:\psulliva\CDB - Community Development\1O11D.docx
s
�
551 N SATURN AVE
Date Received: 8/1/2011 11:44:07 AM
Church of Scientology
ZONING DISTRICT: Medium High Density
Residential
LAND USE: Residential High (30 du/acre)
ATLAS PAGE: 279B
PLANNER OF RECORD:
PLANNER: Kevin Nurnberger, Planner III
CDB Meeting Date
Case Number:
Agenda Item:
Owner / Applicant:
Agent:
Address:
October 18, 2011
FLD2011-08027
D. 3.
Church of Scientolog,�la� Service Or�anization, Inc
Cournoyer Construction
551 North Saturn Avenue
CITY OF CLEARWATER
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
GENERAL INFORMATION:
REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit an 82 square foot
gatehouse at the entrance to an existing attached dwelling complex in
the Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District with a front
(west) setback of zero feet (to proposed structure) where 10 feet is
allowable, but may be varied based upon compliance with established
criteria; and no changes to lot size/area, landscaping, parking spaces or
height as a Residential Infill Development Project under the provisions
of Community Development Code Section 2-404.F.
ZONING DISTRICT: Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District
FUTURE LAND USE
PLAN CATEGORY: Residential High (RH)
PROPERTY USE:
EXISTING
SURROUNDING
ZONING AND USES:
Current: Attached Dwellings
Proposed: Attached Dwellings
North: Institutional (I) District
Utility/Infrastructure Faciliry
South: Medium Density Residential (MDR) District
Detached dwellings
East: Medium Density Residential (MDR) District
Attached Dwelling
West: Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) District
Park and Recreational Facilities
ANALYSIS:
Site Location and Existing Conditions:
The 10 acre property is bordered by North Saturn Avenue on its west, Airport Drive on the
south, and North Keene Road on the east. The main entrance is located 338 feet north of the N.
Saturn Avenue and Airport Drive intersection. Situated on this site is the Hacienda Gardens
Apartment Complex which consists of 190 attached dwellings and 290 parking spaces.
To the south, directly across Airport Drive are detached dwellings. Located to the east are
attached dwelling units. To the west is an open space recreational property which consists of
Community Development Board — October 18, 2011
FLD201 1- 08027 — Page 1
ball fields. To the north, is a utility infrastructure facility that consists of the Skycrest Reclaimed
Water System and a nursery maintenance building operated by City of Clearwater.
Development Proposal:
The request is to allow a gatehouse with a zero foot setback at the front (west) property line.
This gatehouse will be located at the main entrance to the Hacienda Gardens Apartment
Complex. An existing gatehouse currently stands approximately fifty feet back from the existing
gate; however the applicants state that over time there have been multiple breeches of security on
the property due to the distance between the gate and gatehouse. This gatehouse will be
removed. The applicant believes that locating the proposed gatehouse at the property line will
allow for easier vehicle identification and less queue time. Moving the gatehouse forward will
provide direct visual and voice contact which will minimize traffic congestion. They state that
the location will also provide increased security for residents by monitoring the street and
sidewalks. The gatehouse will be eighty-two square feet in floor area, eleven feet in height, and it
will be architecturally similar in design and color to the existing buildings on site. It will be of a
Spanish motif with a clay tile roof and stucco exterior walls. This development will not result in
any changes to existing parking, landscaping, impervious surface ratio, and lot size/area.
Impervious Surface Ratio (ISRZ Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-
401.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.85. The project will not result in any change to the
existing ISR. The current ISR is 0.66 which is consistent with the Code provisions.
Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-404, the minimum lot area
requirement for attached dwellings is 15,000 square feet. The subject property has a lot area of
435,600 square feet (10 acres). The minimum lot width requirement for attached dwellings is
150 feet. The subject property has a lot width of 856.28 feet (along Saturn Avenue), a lot width
of 595 feet (along Airport Drive), and a lot width of 726.76 feet (along Keene Road). The
proposal is consistent with these criteria.
Minimum Setbacks: As previously mentioned, the purpose of this request is to permit an 82
square foot gatehouse with a front (west) setback of zero feet where 10 feet is allowable as a
Residential Infill Project. Be that as it may, pursuant to CDC Table 2-404(3), the development
standards for residential infill projects are guidelines and may be varied based on the specific
criteria in Section 2-404.F. Staff has reviewed the request against the criteria set forth in Section
2-404.F, and has determined the gatehouse warrants further flexibility to allow the structure to be
built at a zero foot setback from the front (west) property line. Staff agrees that the location of
the gatehouse will provide enhanced security for the residents of the apartment complex and that
this request will not cause any harm to or materially reduce the fair market value of abutting
properties. Its design is compatible with adjacent uses and is in keeping with the design of the
existing buildings on site. This request is also consistent with the remaining criteria of Section
2-404.F as shown below in the compliance with flexibility criteria table.
Maximum Buildin�Hei� Pursuant to CDC Table 2-404, the maximum building height for
Residential Infill Projects is 30 feet in height. The proposed height of the gatehouse is 11.0 feet
(to top of roo�. The proposed building height is less than the Code provisions.
Community Development Board — October 18, 2011
FLD201 1- 08027 — Page 2
Minimum Off-Street Parkin�: No parking space is required for the gatehouse. However,
pursuant to CDC Section 3-1406.B, a minimum of 40 feet of clear stacking space shall be
provided in advance of a gatehouse or security gates to ensure that traffic may not back-up into
the public street system. As shown on the submitted partial site plan, an existing queuing lane
that is 60 feet in length runs parallel to the public street near the sites entrance. This distance
exceeds the required linear footage for stacking. Furthermore, it is believed that most of the
residents typically use the scheduled buses provided by the Church of Scientology to go to and
from the apartment complex. Such use of mass private transportation should reduce the
number of vehicles entering the site at any one time. The Traffic Engineering Division found
these existing conditions to be acceptable.
Landscapin�: The applicant is proposing no changes to the existing landscaping.
Solid Waste: The applicant has proposed no changes to the existing method of waste collection.
The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City's Solid Waste Department.
Si�ht Visibilitv Triangl, es: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the
driveways, 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 gatehouse will be within the sight triangles; however, Traffic Engineering has
reviewed the proposal and has no issue with the location of the gatehouse.
Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject
property.
COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards of
the Residential High (RH) land use category and the Medium High Density Residential (MHDR)
District per CDC Section 2-401.1 and Table 2-404:
Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent
ISR 0.85 0.66 X
Minimum Lot Area 15,000 sq. ft. 435,600 sq. ft. (10.0 acres) X
Minimum Lot Width 150 feet N. Saturn Ave. 856.28 feet X
Airport Drive 595 feet X
N. Keene Road 726.76 feet X
Minimum Setbacks Front: 10-25 feet West: Zero feet (to structure) X*
South: 20 feet (to pavement) X
32 feet (to structure)
East: 20 feet (to pavement) X
30 feet (to structure)
Side: 0-10 feet North: 8 feet (to building) X
Maximum Height 30 feet 11 feet (to top of gatehouse roofl X
Minimum 40 feet of clear 60 feet of clear stacking space X
Off-Street Parking stacking space
* CDC Table 2-404(3) states that the development standards for residential infill projects are guidelines and may be varied based on the
criteria specific in Section 2-404.F.
Community Development Board — October 18, 2011
FLD201 1- 08027 — Page 3
COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the
consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-404.F
(Residential Infill Redevelopment Project):
Consistent
1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractica] without deviations from X
one or more of the following: intensity; other development standards;
2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill X
project will not materially reduce the fair market value of abutting properties;
3. The uses within the residential infill project are otherwise permitted in the district; X
4. The uses within the residential infill project are compatible with adjacent land uses; X
5. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill X
project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parce] proposed for development;
6. The design of the proposed residentia] infill project creates a form and function X
which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel
proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole;
7. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height, off-street parking access X
or other development standards are justified by the benefits to community character
and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of
Clearwater as a whole.
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 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 chazacter of the X
immediate vicinity.
6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X
visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials
at its meeting of September 1, 2011, and deemed the development proposal to be legally
sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the
following:
Community Development Board — October 18, 2011
FLD201 1- 08027 — Page 4
Findin�s 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 10 acre property is bordered by North Saturn Avenue on its west, Airport Drive on the
south, and North Keene Road on the east.; the main entrance is 338 feet north of the N.
Saturn Avenue and Airport Drive intersection;
2. The subject property is located within the Medium High Density Residential (MHDR}
District and the Residential High (RH) Future Land Use Plan category;
3. The subject property is the location of the Hacienda Gardens Apartment Complex which
consists of a 190 attached dwelling units and 290 parking spaces;
4. The applicants request to be permitted to build an 82 square foot gatehouse with a front
(west) setback of zero feet where 10 feet is allowable;
5. CDC Section 2-404 allows for the development standards for residential infill projects to be
used as guidelines and be varied based on the criteria specific in Section 2-404.F.;
6. In compliance with CDC Section 3-1406.B, the applicants will provide more than the
required 40 feet of clear stacking space in advance of a gatehouse or security gate;
7. The gatehouse will be of similar architectural design and character of existing buildings on
site and it will stand at 11 feet in height (to top of roo�;
8. This development will not result in any changes to existing parking, landscaping, impervious
surface ratio, and lot size/area;
9. Based on the existing character of the surrounding area, the proposed gatehouse is
compatible and consistent with the character of the immediate area; and
10. There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject property.
Conclusions of Law. The Planning and Development Department, having made the above
findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law:
l. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexible Development standards as per
Section 2-401.1 and Table 2-404 of the Community Development Code;
2. The proposal is consistent with the criteria of the Residential Infill Projects per CDC Section
2-404.F of the Community Development Code; and
3. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two
Approvals as per Section 3-914.A of the Community Development Code
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends APPROVAL of
Flexible Development application to permit an 82 square foot gatehouse at the entrance to an
existing attached dwelling complex in the Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District
with a front (west) setback of zero feet (to proposed structure) where 10 feet is allowable, but
may be varied based upon compliance with established criteria; and no changes to lot size/area,
landscaping, parking spaces or height as a Residential Infill Development Project under the
provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-404.F., subject to the following
conditions:
Community Development Board — October 18, 2011
FLD201 1- 08027 — Page 5
Conditions of A�roval:
1. That a building permit be obtained for the building improvements; and
2. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, all outstanding comments from the
Engineering Department shall be addressed.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff:
evin W. Nurnber , Planner III
ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Photographs
S: IPlanning DepartmentlC D BIFLEX (FLD)IPending casesl Up for the next CDBI551 N. Saturn Church of Scientology - Gatehouse (MHDR) -
2011.xx-KWIJIGatehouse Staff Report.docx
Community Development Board — October 18, 2011
FLD201 1- 08027 — Page 6
Kevin W. Nurnberger
100 S Myrtle Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
727-562-4567
kevin.nurnber ernmyclea�l�ater.com
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Planner III March 2011 to present
Planner II October 2010 to March 2011
City of Clearwater, Clearwater, Florida
Duties include performing the technical review and preparation of staff reports for various land
development applications, the organization of data and its display in order to track information and
provide status reports, and making presentations to various City Boards and Committees.
Planner
Counry of York, Yorktown, Virginia 2007 to 2009
Reviewed residential, commercial and mixed use development site plans to ensure compliance with
planning, zoning, subdivision, historic preservation, and environmental standards as well as design
criteria, specifications, regulations, codes and ordinances. Led pre-application meetings with residents,
neighborhood organizations, contractors, and developers regarding future projects which included state
and local government agencies.
Site Assistant
Gahan and Long Ltd, Belfast, Northern Ireland 2006 to 2007
Enforced Article 3 of the Planning Order (NI) with land owners, developers and district councils on
procedures relating to archaeological and built heritage remains on proposed development sites. On site
assistant to project manager during the archeological process throughout the pre-development stage.
Development Planner
Versar Inc, Fort Story/Fort Eustis, Virginia 2005 to 2006
Developed survey strategies for the Cultural Resource Manager by reviewing local and state planning
documents, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Preservation Planning on Federal installations,
the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, the Virginia Department of Transportation plan, and
Virginia Power's public utility plan in the predevelopment stages of new development and building
expansion projects to ensure protection of historic properties.
City Planner
City Planning Commission, New Orleans, Louisiana 2000 to 2005
Primary subdivision planner assisting applicants throughout the subdivision process in accordance with
the zoning and subdivision regulations of the City of New Orleans. Reviewed various zoning and
conditional use applications. Prepared and presented staff reports to the City Planning Commission and
Board of Zoning Adjustments.
EDUCATION
University of New Orleans, LA
MA Urban and Regional Planning (2004)
State University of New York at Buffalo, NY
BA Anthropology (1999)
�T '�-i.` �� Ua�JUL�J U¢uQ LEO LN
•SHER1,�l,Q . ST �
� �:`�� �
GENYRY �` �S.T`� Z }
�� . ., O ¢ z
4 ' � i J � � Z
� a J
€"° . 1 T-�sti R Z � �
p•," "` �s� ST
�F F� '€a •�1NEB6 �DR
, � ` o
a �
v� ��� �_ � ¢ � m
L� ��.9 :[E : m � vai �
'a E S� � � �C
.d s...�.,.,��•
°. "'•."`"`°°`�Q� � ppIMETTO ST
ST
�W
a
sr ;
� a
� �
DR
�ichards �t
CASLER
� � P�� �
w
SF tJ �
� U
RIDGEWOOD ST
U
° °�
� �
ST
O� I 4
�
U
0
�
... _ .. _ _�,,.=l°
iF,ERW�Ob`� . ;, �,
� � �:F . . . � I� z ��
� • -
U
�
a
PROJECT
SITE
. I AIRPORT DR
L-I Z
KENNETH W s tree p ��
w .- a � a
� � .ir � GILBERT m
RIDGEWOOD
MCKINLEY
-' IiARDING
W
Q
SR-590
Owner: Church of Scientology
Flag Service Organization, Inc.
Site
551 North Saturn Ave.
w
Q
LOCATION
Case:
ST
ST
.�
���.
GRAND AVE
C
n �
��
ZZ
Y�
HAROING
y6 PLAZA
ST � �
� { OREW U
PI AZA
DREW
FLD201 1-08027
Property Size: 10.29 acres
PIN: 11-29-15-00000-410-0300 � Atlas Page: 279B
�`, � �, • � -� -� . , � � ,� _ "°ii
� � ��b � � `� iR �i�'4 � . i`� � `,;,. '� €?
��j- II ` w ti �� �F ;.,� �i � *^ %�.+W� , �
��� ���, � � � �; .� �' . � � : �� x ,i} � /' � N
� a � a , '� /' �l, *' j� o i
,
.�,� + 9 0 " � "fil' �'' ,r '+�p, *� 4 _
� _\. . �F , .; , f � � R� �� �'. .
04�� � \t, t+t � � k' � �,. � 1
�. � -..� _
� � � �.' � � _ ���+�'� �1r� . � � � � �
'' 1 P r ���-'"'"�k i ' } `� � �, ��
. . �� Ay �, �� , y���s
� �4. � J \ � �_� J i y .� � �u ' _
�'�i ,K � } t .� 1k , � �i. y @. � �
w x t ��� , �ry' ;�r�
T �,r,"� ..�: � ����'� ����# �s��.��1;�E1 ' ,� '� . �'�
' `�= � ►�r15 �. R1�
. 'M��� � ,� 4. ,���`, .. r.. �, � . '.� �z
� ..i� 4�� . .��E�a - .� a '�, 1+:;NL �H� �.Fi � ��i4[ i� k it i; � C.fR,�� � �
�`t� �,: � �'.. " c. . V'R �., y*t:.: �` �
$ t �
�, � rt.a.. �!c �� Y'. i � , k�, •
,�-�;- 's-�u� � t n ; � . . x
��. u �� ���.
� �F� `, , • , �� �� ,�' ..� � �
,
�c
� �
�' p � ' � �
� � .. � ! `� .' � r y'� �.. r % � , - � �
...'t � '('�n, �: I 1 .
> � �.�h �1 dgfi � �a� �. '�J ��� � �-,
� ; � ...� R � �!�; �` ,�* ' � '� �a
i ,� � •u :.m..�a � h
� � �. � ° '?+ � y
4 r\ � � ,p * � � _ .....-el« i. � '� I
f
� ti� �\ � � �� " � � w � �
t���� �\. �.�� ' `J.� �� �� � � � " y� , , j � '• � . q;+'a
� �'�,"�^ �1� � ��c • ��► � F Q n +d „�� e� tAFj�- +.'�
't�r ����.1����, P ti i �' ��
�r �� � � ' �..�. ..` �... • . . �� — i.� A 1 ti+.
� � . f'���` � .; � �y 8
i � 1 . �
"` � ♦� aJ,i i f • a h
'�� n „� � ,�x• -, ..,,� � � �'i ` �� �����'�"'
i� ` -� � «,,�" •t � �. $ y`* � � � � J �'
� � 'L'7,�' ,, , ��' ► �'-� � i 'J
�. - -
�
.
Jfl� + ' � . \ ` 1 � ' � ��
� "' `
` .
v
o-. >.
,. , : . , . r , �J � �
�.
. �
� � ` � �'
_ .
�
't t . , , �.,�. , p � J ; J �k � � �
�� �
T f � � �� 1 �* � � f a � { . .� �„ � '�
' � t � , '� i' �„ �,��'c . , �.
`� � �' . ,� ' r � �� , -�J :t
�...J-�', �1� , � � � � �, � � ip� xy� .
� ; T � , � - - _J ` �!#� �< = �,'f � '" ��� ��. r�, ��ti ;J ;�t� �
Owner: Church of Scientology
Flag Service Organization, Inc.
Site: 551 North Saturn Ave.
P I N: 11-29-15-00000-410-0300
AERIAL
Case: FLD2011-08027
Property Size: 10.29 acres
Atlas Page: 279B
c
:�.'�, , 'y�° . ., `'. ��,.:,'� . �
�� a at �
f u.:i�. afi � a,.d�S,^�+»a,;ttr[.
� _ �j "'�`sk ���` 'T $xT.. •< V, 'i«� ;i$f #3 ���` ux4W ..
i'Y y � .'"f , � iL� � . � r ',�, y . .. ., `�
.. _ . _:.... e . . �3"`�" �.. .
Looking E at subject property. Looking E at subject property
���_ ,�� �� ( ��,
�... � Y ,
Looking NE at subject property queuing lane
Looking N along Saturn Ave.
_ . r� ��
. _� .� -{� _
Looking S along Saturn Ave. at subject propertics entrance.
,� �` :TY' . ' ��
{.% . . " ' �1'
�
...p�t �° _'j, . � ,` -,�,'�"'.
� ,�,�yr ._ ,:yyr,w a.a,Mp4nkYP y.
-"''`°vr ° :''i7�`��.`� ,z ....u: ° .
�; yt'�,. . ,�*�..^.'
�� j .. � �� 4 . � ���� ..,
Looking Eat subject property.
551 Saturn Avenue
FLD2011-08027
��i7€�Gh �� ��I��t7�?L��l'
Mr. Robert Tefft
Planning Department
City of Clearwater
100 South Myrtle Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
PViCE fl�GA�l3ZfaT(C1h 1��.
8 September, 2011
Re: Hacienda Gardens Main Entrance Guard Booth Development
Application FLD201 1-08027 - 551 N. Saturn Ave
Dear Mr. Tefft,
Please accept our application for reduced set-back for the main
entrance guard booth at Hacienda Gardens.
This application consists of:
(15)
(15)
(15)
(15)
(15)
(15)
(15)
(15)
Application with Written Submittal Requirements attached
Property deed
Stormwater narrative with photo of existing conditions
Boundary survey
1 lxl7 Area plan, Existing plan and Proposed plan
Colored elevations
8 1/2 x 11 reduced plans and elevations
Landscape narrative with p�o of existing conditions
If you have any questi s need additional information please
do not hesitate to email o cal 38-9088.
Sincerely
e�% _
James Bond
Church of Scientology
503 CLEVELAND STREET • CLEARWATER • FLORIDA • 33755
727-638-9088 • FAX 727-445-7277
� � ��J�.������
�.
>
Planning 8� Development
Department
10.� South Myrtte Avenue
Clearwater, rtorida 33756
T e l e p h a n e:.727 -562-4567
Fax:727-562-486�
] BUBMIT ORIGI�JALSIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION
] SUBMIT 14 COPIES OF THE ORIGINALAPPLICATION - Plans and
application are required to be coilated, stapled, and folded into sets
� UBMIT FIRE PRE�IMARY SITE PLAN: $20D:00
9 SUBMITARPLIGATION FEE � ���
CASE #:
RECElVED BY (staff initials):
DATE RECEIVED; _
` NOTE: 15fiOTAL SETS QF INFORMATION REQUIRED (APPLICATIONS PWS SITE PLAN SETS)
�L�X�BLE DEVEL�PMENT ,��P��CA'�'�QI�
Residential I�11 Project
(Revised 05.04.2010)
PLEASE TYPE OR PRIIVT�
�. ARP..LfCANT,;RRORER7Y OWNER AND AGENT INFORMATIOl�: (Code Section �4-202.A)
�PPLIGANTN;Ah11E: �LCyCtt� (.t' �!_lTJV IIJLVL.F1` t—L.tf'�.t� �V�t-� ���-t'�eV�L.f�f L� �L4V�
AAILING ADDRESS: SQ;3 C��N� c�"j" �.(,� � 3 7
'HONE NUMBER: (� 3g `�D�j F NUMBER: �_� �� 7?
;cLL NIJMBER r L/ EMAIL: , a,�t,{Q,SOC�VI- C' . CAS, tl-Il.� ��
'ROPERN OWNERiS)= � Gti(d12f..1� 6� SC..��.) l�� y���i �i� GL C�KE#GCl'�.1 ZGL'C'1lll�l , 1"�l L.
/
.isiALL owners on:the.deed j
1GENT NAME:
AAILING ADDRESS:
�HONE NUMBER:
',ELL NUMBER:
��C�Y�.I�Y�`I� C���C �Ct.iC�iC.b�D
4,�i . �-j_a� ' FP,X NUMBER:
L�.�(�� � � EMAIL:
3. •PROPOSED:DEVELOPMENT INFORMATIOt�: (Cod.e Section 4-202.A}
�ROJECT NAME: ��� � �� ��(u (� PROJECT VALUATION: $
3TREET ADDRESS
�ARC�L NUMBER(S):
?ARCEL SIZE (acres):
_EGAL DESCRIP'flOt�:
_ _ __. ._ __. _. _ . __
h
�_� ��js PARCEL SIZE (sguare feet):
�ROPOSED USE(S): �� � ��51 N[�-; �Sl/JE�()� k'L4{L,�'-E. 7��GuL!
�ESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: �;Q;,�C{'"((� (� 5���[,� �C> Q,S /�_ �j'(%��n}(� �(�1(� ��-
5pecificaily identif�� the request � T � �~+
'include number of units or square ---
=ootage of non-residential use and ali
-equested code deviations; e.p.
•eduction in required number of — ---
�arking spaces, specificuse, etc.)
5:\Planning DepartmentWpplication Forms\Development Review1201D Forms updaied with new Departmen? name\Residenlial �Infill Project jFLD) 520'IO.doc
Page ] of 8
)OES TMlS APPLICATION INVOLVE THc TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS.(TDR), A P �VIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED UNIT
)EVELOPMENT, OR A PREVI�USLY APPROVED (CERTIFtED) SITE PLAN? YES HD _(if yes, attach a copy of the applicable documents)
_ _. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _
� ROOF lJF fJWNERSHIP: (Gode Section 4=20.2.A.5)
.
S.UBMIT A COPY OF THETITLE INSIJRANCE POLICY, QEED TO THE PROPERTY UR SIGN AFFIDAVIT ATTESTING OWNERSHIP
(see page 7) k�r�n Shj�;�,(�,�
__ _ — _.._- - -- ---- ----
___ ___._ . __ _ _ _
�. - RIT7'�I� SU.BMtTT-ALREQ.UIRE'MENTS,..(Go_de.Secfi�n 3-91�.A)
Provide complete responses to the six (6) GFNERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA — Explain how each criteria is achieved, in detail:
I. 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. �
s�;Pfl���'rT�LY
?. The.proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly
impair the va�ue therepf.
3. The proposed development will not adversely afrect the heatth or safety or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use.
4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion.
5. The proposed deuelopment is consistent with the community charecter of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for devefopment.
6. The design of #he proposed development minimizes adverse effects, inciuding visual, acoustic and oliactory and hours of operation impacts, '
on adjacent properties.
_ . _.. _
_ _ _ _ _ __ . ___ . _ _ _ _ _ .
S:\Ptanning Departmenri4pplication Fortns\Development Review12010 Fortns upda�ed with new Department name\Residential Infill Projed (FLD) 5.2010.doc
Paee 2 of S
WRi EN SUBtVI1TTA� RFQEJIREMENTS: (FResidential infi[I Pcaject Griteria:}
__
Provide complete responses to theseven (7) RESIDENTIAL INFICC"PRQJECT CRITERIA = Explain how each criteria is achieved, in detail:
1. The devefopment or tedevelopment ofthe pareel-Proposed for development is otherwise-impractical-without-deviations from the intensity and
development standards. .�
2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project will not materiaily reduce the fait market value of abutting
propeities: (Include'fhe existing value of the site and the proPosed value of the site with• the improvements.)
3. The uses within the residential infill project are otherwise permitted in the City of Clearvrater.
4. The uses or mix of use within the residential infill project are compatible with adjacent land uses.
5. The development ofthe parcei Proposed':for development as a residential infili project wiil upgrade#he immediatevicinity �fthe parcel proposed
fordevelonment:
6: The design of.the-proposed residential-infill project.creates.a form.and function that enhances the_community_character of the.immediate vicinity of I _
the paroel :proposed for:deuelopment:and�the City of;Clearwater as a whole.
_ _ _ . --- ---
_ _ . ---- -- __ _ _.__ _ _ _
_ —
— _
7. Flexibility in regard to lot width„ required setbacks, height and off-street parkiqg are justified .by the benefts to community character and the
immediate vicinity of the par�el,proposed for:development and the .City of Cleanvater as a whole.
S:1Planning DepartmentlApplication Fortnsl�evelopmeni RevieW�2D10 Fortns updateC wilh new Deparimenl name\Residential Infilt Proiect (FLD) 520'IO.doc
Pa�e 3 of S '
E. STORMWATER PLAN SUBMITTAL REQl11REMEt�TS: (Gity of Ctearwater StQrm Drainage Design Criieria
Manuat and 4-202.A.21)
� A STORMWATER'NARR/�TIVE MUST BE S.UBMITTED WITH ALL i4PPLIGATIONS. All appiications that involve addition
or modification of impervious surface, induding buildings,-must include-a stormwater -plan-:that-.demonstrates .compliance -with_.the-_City .of
earwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria manual. A reduction in impervious surface area does not qualify as an exemption to this requirement.
If a plan is not required, the narrative shall provide an explanation as to why the site is exempt.
� At a minimum, the STORMWATER PLAN shall include the following;
� Existing topography extending 50 feet beyond all property lines;
� ProPosed grading-inelucling-finished floor-elevations of-all-structu�es; -
� Ali adjacent streets and municipal storm systems;
� Proposed stormwater detention/retention area including.top of bank, toe of slope and outlet control steucture;
� A narrative describing the proposed stormwater control pfan including all calculations and data necessary to demonstrate eompliance with
the City manual.
� Proposed storrnwater detention/retention area including top of bank, toe of slope and outlet control structure;
� Signature and seal of Florida Registered Professional Engineer on all plans and caiculations.
� COPY OF PERMIT INQUIRY LE"i fER OR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SWFWMD) PERMIT
SUBMITfAL (SWFVVMD approval is required prior to issuance of City Building PeRnit), if applicable
� ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF STORMWATER PLAN REQUIREMENTS (Applicantmust initial ons of the folfowing}:
Stormwater plan as noted above is included
Stormwater plan is not required and expianation narrative is attached. At a minimum, a grading plan and finished floor
elevations shail be provided.
CAUTION - IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A ST�RM\NATER PLAN
AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMiTTED, APPLICATION Ml1ST BE RESEIBMITTED AND StGNtFICANT D�ELAY
MAY OCCUR.
If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Public Works Administration �ngineering Department at {727) 562-4750.
F. SIJPPLEMENTAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS.: (C�de Section 4-202.A)
yt" SIGNED.AND SEALED SURVEY (including legal description of property) - �ne original and 14:copies;
❑ TREE SURVEY {inciuding existing trees on site and within 25' of the adjacent site, .by species, size.(DBH 4" or greater), and focation,
including drip lines and indicating trees to be removed) - please design around the existing irees;
❑ TREE INVENTORY; prepared by a"certified arborisY', of all trees 4" DBH or greate4 .reflecting size, canopy (drip lines) and
condifion ofsuch trees; �� � � �.� -� 'j--�f )
/
� LOCATI�N.MAP OF THE PROPERTY;
PARKING DEMAND STUDY in conjunetion with a request to make deviations to the parking standards ,(ie. Red.uce number of spaces).
__ .Prior t� the submittal of this application, the methodology of such study shall be approved by the Community Development Coordinator and
- -- - - _- -
shall be in acaordance with accepted 4raffic engineering principles. The findings of the study will be used in determirtin,g whether or not
deviations to the parking standards are approved;
��(2� (S P�0 C�Eftlu�,� LN �R.�fi1�!a�
GRADING PLA�I, as appficable;
� PRELIMINARY PLAT, as required (Note: Buifding,permits will not be issued unfil evidence of recording a final plat is provided;;
.. ;
D __ ._ _._ _ _ ___ .
COPY OF R�CORDED PLAT, as appiicable;
5:\Planning DepartmentlApplicalion FormslDevelopment Review12010 Forms updated with new Department name\Residential1n51i Project (FLD) 5.20'ID.doc
Page 4 of S
G. SITE PLAN SUBMITT,4L REQt11REME�TS: (Section 4-2Q2.A)
�SITE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 2�'" x 36"):
Index sheet reterencing individual sheets included in package;
North arrow;
Engineering bar scale (minimum scale one inch-equals 50 feet),.and date prepared;
All dimensions,
�.
Footprint and size of all EXISTING buildings and structures;
Footprint and size of all PROPOSED buildings antl structure5;
All required setbacks;
All existing and proposed points of access;
All required sight triangles;
� Identification of environmentally unique areas, such as watercourses, wetlands, tree masse5, and specimen tcees, including
description and location of understory, ground cover vegetation and wildlife habitats, etc; Location of alt pubiic and private easements;
Location of all street rights-of-way within and adjacenfto the site;
L�cation �f existing public and private utilities, including fire hydrants, storm and sanitary sewer lines, manholes and lift stations, gas
and water fines;
^ All parking spaces, driveways, loading areas and vehicular use areas;
� Depiction by shading or crosshatching of all required parking lot interior landscaped areas;
Location ofall solid waste containers, recycling or trash handling areas and outside mechanical equipment and aU reqaired screening
{per Section 3-201(D)(i) and Index #701};
Location of all tandscape materiat;
Location of all onsite and offsite storm-water management facilities;
Location of all outdoor lighting fixtures,
Location of all existing and proposed sidewalks; and
Floor plan typicals of buildings for all Level One (flexible standard development) and Level Two approvals. A floor plan ofi each floor is
required for any parking garage requiring a Levei One (minimum standard and flexi6le standard) or Level Two apProval.
� SfTE DATA TABLE for existing, required, and proposed development, in written/tabular form: I
EXlSTING f REQUIRED
�I LdIIU $ICH i�i �yi.idiE icEi'aiiu cGicS; `�K �'� �
� Number of EXISTING dwelling units; �'`'L�
�/ Number of PROPOSED dweliing units; L°t�
_,C Gross floor area devoted to each use; 9_(�� �
Parking spaces: total number, presented in tabular form with the
� number of required spaces, 2-� �
_ Total_paved_area, including ail paved parking spaces 8 driveways,
expressed in square feet & percentage of the paved �ehicular area;
Official records book and page numbers of all existing u.tility
easement; �� 7—
✓ Building and structure heights; �Z-`t�''r}�
� Impermeablesurface catio (I.S.R.); and � 6 (C�
Floor area ratio (F.A.R.) for all nonresidential uses.
REDUCED COLOR SfTE-PLAN to scale (8 "/z X 11); -- - - -- - ---" --- —
� FOR DEVELOPMENTS OVER ONE ACRE, provide the #ollowing additional infiormation on site plan: �.1/ j�
�
RR�ED '
�
_____—�F — .
�
_ �
One-foot contours or spot elevations on site;
Offsite elevations if required #o evaluate the proposed stormwater management for the parcel;
All open space areas;
__--,� _ __ _ ---
_. _ _ _. _ _ __. .. .. .... _ _ _ _. _
_. _ .
Location of all earth or water rstaining walls and earth berms,
Lot lines and building lines (dimensioned);
Streets and drives (dimensioned);
Building and structural setbacks (dimensioned);
Structurai overhangs;
S:\Planning Depanmen6Application Fortns\Developmenl Review12070 Forms updaled with new Department name\Residential Infill Project (FLD) 5.2D10.doc
Pase 5 of S
I_
■n�
�
LANDSCAPING PLAN S[1BMtTrAL REQUI:RENfENTS: ESectinn 411�2:A)
__ __ . -n,/�,,yy ,��-/� e�v
�,'/�, . ���..
LANDSCAPE PLAN with theiollowing information (notto exceed 2S" x 3.0"): �(� r �4lFU�'_t.1 L�C�TfY�� ��� �`'�r�
Ail existing and proposed structures,
Names of abutting streets;
Drainage-and retention-areas induding.swales,.sideslopes.and_bottom elevations;
Delineation and dimensions of all required perimeter landscape buffers;
��..
Sight visibility triangles;
Delineation and dimension"s"ofall pa�king areas including landscaping istands and-curbing;
� Existing trees on-site-and-immediatefy adjacent-to-the site, by species; size and locations, including driPlines {as indicated on required
tree. survey);
� Location, size, and quantities of ail existing and proposed fandscape materials, indicated by a key relating to the plant
schedule;
Plant schedule with a-key (symboi or tabel) indicating the size, description, specifications, quantities, and spacing rsquirements of all
existing and proposed {andscape materials, including botanical and common names
^ Typicai pkanting details for trees, palms, shrutas and ground cover plants including instructions, soil mixes, backfilling, mulchin.g and
protective measures,
Interior landscaping areas hatched and/or shaded and labeied and interior landscape coverage, expressing in both square Teet and
peraentage covered;
^ Conditions of a previous development approval (e.g. conditions imposed by the Community Development Board);
irrigation notes.
� REDUCED COLOR LANDSCAPE PLAN to scale (8'/� X 11);
❑ GOMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM application, as app(icable. Landscape assowiated with the Gomprehensive
Landscape Program shail exceed minimum Code requirements to ofFset the areas where minimum Code will not be met.
L BUILDWG ELEVATION-PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Secii.on 4-202.A.23}
+� BUILDING ELEVfiT10N DRAWINGS —with the following information;
� All sides of ail buildings;
�-----777��� Dimensioned;
�Colors (provide one fuii sized set ofi colored elevations);
Materials;
REDUCED BUILDING ELEVATIO)>!S— same as above to scale on 8'/z X 11.
J. S)GNAGE: (Division 1'9. SiGt�S l Section 3-1806) ,� ����� s���� ������
– ------ _ _ __.—, - - -
O Ail EXlSTING freestanding and attached stgns; Provide photographs and-dimensions Zarea, height, etc:); indicate Whether they w.ill-be --
removed or to remain.
O All Pr�OP05ED frees.anding :and attached signs; Provide details including io�ation, size, height, colors, materials and drawing;
treestanding signs shall inclutlethe street addrsss (numerals)
� C�mprehensive Sign Pro,gram application, as-applicable (separate appfication and fee required).
;
� Reduced signage proposal (8 Yz X 11) (color), if submitting Comprehensive Sign Program appfication.
S:1Planning DepartmentlAppiication Fortns\Development Review12010 Forms updated with new Department name\Residentiai Infill Project (FLD) 52D10.doc
Page 6 of 8
.:..n.--. . ,
K. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: (Section 4-2Q2.A.43 and 4-80't.G}
_ _ . _ _ _ __
� 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 Pfan.
• Will genera[e 100 or more new vehicle directional trips per hour and/or 1000 or more, new vehicle trips per day.
• UVill affect a nearby roadway segment and/or intersection with five (5) reportable accidents within theprior tweive (12) month period or
that is on the City's annual list of most hazardous intersections.
Trip generation shall be based on the most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Trip General Manual.
The Traffic.lmpact Study must 6e prepared in accordance with a"$coping Meeting" held with the Traffc Operations Manager and _the
Planning DepartmenYs Deveiopment Review Manager or their designee (727-562-4750)
Refer to Section 4-801 C of the Community Development Code for exceptions to this requirement.
� Acknowledgement of traffic impact study requirements (Appiicant must initial one of the following):
Traffic Impact Study is included. The study must include a summary table of pre- and-post-deveiopment levels of service for all
roadway legs and each turning movement at all intersections identified in the Scoping Meeting.
7raffc Impact Study is not required.
AUTION — IF APPLICATION REVIEIN RESULTS ' FN THE REQUIRE'MENT FOR A TRAFFIC
JMPACT STUQY .AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MLlS'f BE RESUBMfTTED
AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR.
If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Public Works Administration Engineering Department at (727) 562-
475D.
L. FIRE FLOW CALCULATIONS/ WATER STUDY:
Provide Fire Flow Calculations. Water Study by a FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEER to assure an adequate water supply is,available and to determine if .
any �upgrades are required by the deueloper due to the impaci of this project. The water suppiy must be able to s4Pport the needs of any required f re ;
sprinkler, standpipe and/or.fire pump. If a fire pump is required the water suPpfy must be able to sUpply 150°io of its rated capacity. Compiiance with
�„ �„ . �.:-
l'ft2 �uv4 �iDFI(ic �Ii'� rfBVE�iiuii CGuc iu iiiCitiuc ivFrn i3, ivi��r. i•"t, iv��r, ��, ivr=i=n �$i, ai�u iv�r=rn i i=r� �i=�TliBx i'�l IJ ICI.fUIlEt1.
� Acknowledgement of fire flow calcutations/water study requirements (Applicant must initial one of the folfowing):
Fire Flow Calculatiors/Water Study is included.
Fire Flow Caiculations/Water Study is not required.
AUTION —:IF APPLICATION REVIEIN RESULTS iN THE REQUIREMENT FOR ;A ;F.IRE �.FLOW
CALGULATIONS/ 1NATER STt1DY AND 'N�NE H;4S `BEEN 'SUgMITTED, :APP.LI.CATION"MUST 'BE
--- RESUBMITTED-AND SIGNIF�CANT DELAY-1ttIAY O'GCUR.
If you have questions regarding these requirements, conta¢t the City Fire Prevention Department at (727) 562-4334.
M. SIGNATURE:
I, #he undersigned, acknowiedge that all representations made
in this applicafion aretrue and accurate to the best ofimy
know.ledge and authorize City representatives to visit and
photograph the property describe i ap Gc tion,, F
�u�f�Y I:L�rLf4ti :n'i� 0_ �1AP��
_::�_ _ __..� _ �,� .,,,� .
��iar:..?,.� Asal� _.
'� �ommission ��D824859
•:,,�,,,�. , �x�ues: OCT. D4, 2u12
a�re of proberty owner or representative
��Eh�i E. �T'�C�, ���C�c.��'��'
STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY C1F PINFLL�
Sworn to and su ri6etl before me'this 9 day of
�;�, A:D. 2D 4/ to me=and/orby
who is personally known ha$
. .
�prv�l �_.._ . :Fra , . �
.�;�,�;,;�m,n.
Notary pub ,., ,
My commission expires:
��3R.� �� ��E?�''�'��C)�-�'
.��*��n1.3 �i$�Va'4infia���¢�N�a`�op���av�op�l-Revi�.4J�.�b�Forms updated with new Deparlment namelResidenlial Infill Project (FLD)�520'1D.doc
Page 7 of S
� r, '
�
t�. AFFIaAVITTO AUTHORIZE AGENT:
_
_ . _ _
�. Provide names of all property owners on deed —PRINT tull names:
/
_.___��.}���"�� ._��__— ��„�L-��1:��- - ' _ �---- -
__ �"�-.���r�. c�,��tz.��if'� -�"�
- _ _ � - -. _
2. That (I am/we are) ihe owner(s) and recortl title tiolde�(s} of the following aescnbed p�opeity (adcJress or general location):
____�� t V ��f�f-lL�.��'i�� ��/._�__.._.l t-�� t � ____.�
T �
3. That this property constitutes the property for which a request for a: (describe request)
.. � �'�L , ..-
4. That the undersigned (has/have) appointed and (does/do) appoint
����7� �_��%�-��(;(/1�
as (his/their) agent(s) to execute any petitions or other documents neeessary to affect such petition;
5. That this affdavit has been executed to induee the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act on the above described property;
6. That site visits to the property are necessary by City representatives in order to process this application and the owner authorizes City
representatives to visit and photograph the property described in this application;
��+
7. That (Uwe), the under � ned authority, hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct.
---__.....:_..._.............__ ._.4—_ —. _...._.__.__..._...--�----------__......___.._.....__._...._....._.._..._......_.._ ................._..---....._......_..
pe Owner Property Owner
�.i�� `�! �''. ��.,�� �'�''.���`����
—��'��p�jr_p�������� Property Owner
��� 5������ �������'�5��.�� FLORIDA,
— --: _ _ _ ------ ----- ----COU'NTY'OF �PINELLAS. --- ----- ---__- --- - - -
�
Before ms the .undersigned, an officer duly commissioned by the laws of the State:of Florida, on this �/ day of
J�� , � 1 1 personally,appeared G�,'E�S�%�o� �� ����� who having been first duly swom
�,.�,�i-rc��-Y.�--
Deposes and says that helshe #ully understands fhe contents ofthe a�davit that heishe signed.
_ . . . -- -- -- -- -- _
----___.. ____...__ ___
- — ..—.__.. - — -----
_ _--- hC31�,R�'PtJ�,:ue•�%�T.EOFFLf)RID�i
,,,-s Brian 14. Asay
�=Commission #DD824869
'� ' Ek�u'es; OCT. 04, 201� Nota .ry`Public Signature
�UTIAEU THRL� AT',.ANTJC BONDING CO., INC,
Notary SeaUStamp My Commission Expires:
S:1Planning DeparlmentlApplication Forzns\Development Review12010 Forms updated with new Department�namelResidentiai Infill Prqect (FLD) 5.201D.doc
Page S of S
D. V«2IT�'EN SUBNIITTAL REQUIREMLNTS: (Code Section 3-913.A) (RESI�ENTIAL}
The proposed development of the land will be in hannony with the scale, bu1�:, coverage,
density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located.
The existing guard booth-on the prope��t�� -has existed for 1 S years and this proposal
is simply to move it fonvard to the gates such that identification of entering vehicles
is fasteY. The scale, bulk, coverage and density is the same, and is the minimum
necessaiy for the function. The chat-acteY is in harmony with the public ball fields
which is the only function adjacent to the main entrance and the entire west side of
the property.
2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and
use of adjacent land and buildings or si�iricantly impair fne value thereof.
The proposed develo�ment will have no effect on the development and use of
adjacent properties, except possibly to encourage use by providing improved
security and traffic flow at this section of the street and the opposite public parking
Zot.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing
or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use.
The proposed development will provide increased security at this section of the st�•eet
by having the manned guard booth closer to the street and sidewalks.
4. The proposed development is designed to riinimize traffic congestion.
The primary pu�Pose of the proposed development is to reduce any standing time of
vehicles entering the property, by providing direct visual and voice contact, which
will minimize any tra�c congestion.
�. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate
��icinity of the parcel proposed for development.
The proposed development is consistent with the community character as the gates
and hedge have existed for man�� years, and the guard booth is a normal and
consistent structure at this 10 acre, 200 apartment complex
6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, incluc3ing visual,
acoustic and olfactory and haurs of operation impacts, on adjacent properties.
The pro�osed development will have no acoustic, olfactor�� or hours of operation
impacts on adjacent properties. It will improve the visual impact by providing a
stucco and clay tile roof guard booth which is integrated with the existing buildings
of Spanish detailed Haeienda Ga��dens apariments.
VGTRITTEl\T SLTBMITTAL REQUII2EMEN'I'S: (Resideniial Infill Project Criteria).
1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise
impractical without deviations from the intensity and development standards.
No deviation from the intensity standards is r-equested.
The intended purpose of close visual and verbal contact with ente��ing drivers, to
expedite traffic flow off the street, is not possible without reduction of the setbac�:
standard for the guard booth st��ucture.
2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill proj ect will
not materially reduce the fair market value of abutting properties. (Include the e�isting value
of the site and the proposed value of the site with the improvements.}
The only request in this development proposal is for reduction of setback
requirement so the gate guard booth can be moved up to the p��operty line. This will
have no effect on. the fair market value of the abutting properties, ezcept to possibly
increase the value due to a) a proper "gated community " look, and b) improved
tr�affic flow on the street, and c) improved security due to a manned gate booth.
3. The uses within the residentia.l infill proj ect are otherwise permitted in the City of
Clearwater.
The existing uses of inedium-density residential and accessory uses are permitted in
the City and on this property, and these are not proposed to change.
4. The uses or mix of use within the residential infill project are compatible with adjacent land
uses.
The uses on this property have existed for over 40 years, ar•e compaiible with the
adjacent Zand uses of inedium-density residential to the east, public/semi public to
the north and west, and residential (no street access from Ai�Port Rd) to the south.
The existing uses a�•e not proposed to change.
5. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project u�ill
upgrade the unmediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development.
The proposed development will upo ade the immediate vicinity by a) expediting
traffic off the street, and b) improving security by providing a manned booth
adjacent to the st�-eet and obser-ving the public pai°kzng lot directly across the street.
6. The design of the proposed residential infill project creates a form and function that
enhances the community character of the immediate vicuuty of the parcel proposed for
development and the-City of Clearwater as a whole.
The proposed development enhances community character by adding a manned
booth at the property entrance where citizens can ask directions or seek assistance
when necessaly.
7. Fle�bility with regard to Iot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parl:ing are
justified by the benefits to community character and the immediate vicinity of the parcel
proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole.
The onl�� flexibility reguested is the required setbackfor the 6foot wide guard booth
at the-main-entrance gates. Lot �width, seibacks in all -other areas, height and off-
street parking are not necessary or requested to change.
. ' .—s.� �'� - . • . � � ~ ' �. . . ' � .
T.: " _ . " • . � . . . ` O.R.���PAGE�?! . '
?�, � ,
11_�9 ` _ , , - . - �-8 � 1 L�7. t7,� � r7 : ` ,�iia.u:., '�, u �':xl •
�-
Rec �• : _ . .,', .
` �1". D,. ; '' � � _— - . _ _ 'PrvFx °is'r: ._•..,+, in7 �,
. �. Int. � - . .� • .d::.�� . .
�.
_ - . _.
'-�.;�'��ttS' },ro,•1;�� ' x;8"�SCIAI, WRRRANTx. D�3D O.. �llL:�� � t� ��I �Gb
TSIS'��BC� wARB�lNT� D88D, _saasi'� �ia� Z� da of -�u7.y. ' _ `_
� , -.,--
;�986., `�b+j and bet�ecn �DA9i HG ��lSSOCT.�TSS,• LTD„ -a Flocida Lim _
itad'; •'Far.tnershi�; , (heraiaaftrr . calle3 th�e -'GRA�IR`OR� ) . and
C9iiRG8. .OP �CZB2ITQLOGX i!7�i�G S��ICB= ;DRG i:; I�IC ;� a� Flo�rida Cor �
po�e���c�c� �l�ose addreas, is Z7,0 Sautb 49rt Har.r�aon., :•Cle�r,�a ,
E�r, Elorid�t 335i 5.. (irereina�ftar called the "GR•�S3' ).: , : - ;'�,-�„ ; •
7�en,+R+f,eY naed.� hecai°n� ,-the .t��me '9�Pi'QR`.; and 'GRANTSB' ' 'Sr ��
� inc3 e. � 1;��e� gartiea:..3a this, instrume�t�-�'nd the tiei.rs, Se .� •
, �a}+� ,�
' S; g�t1 re�c�e�tai.artives ..ana�� aasiqiis-,•of iad3.viduals, � and the auc- �` ���
cassoX� aad �s�iz�tis. o.£ carpci�atioas: - , r o -�� -
� - . , " , ,. . .. � . �:'� s .
'` WiT:9BS8BTH: . b �.�:� . ',c .'`
y . � � ' ; + � � �- � , - �- ,-�—.��--.. .. u y .. ' . - , ' , („'��,� ' f : _ '�''1�"
« ,� . . , . . � 4 � Si9��,"-�
�ri r . � . t 'i'hat,.G�T;3R� f�r� �ind ia .cvnsideration of . tiie "sum o� . Ten - � ,. � Y�� �
F' � :. a�}d, bio;(100:: �o3iara :. (:�1-0 0�3 :and ot?ier.; valnable. conaidera- r ; � � ��
F -_ � ��ti.oas, :racz.i�it .rheteof is hereby• ac.knoaledged, .by ��hese pres- . - . _ �'' ��'U�
� ' � •_-�.�
w ent�: does-;;erant„ �hargain, ..selly. ali,en, �semise.�:,'release, con- _ t�- {
� `'� y. .T x
�48�r 'C=a31Sf8X and'� canfi,r-m .unto: GItANT88 all. that certain land � • �.,�, 4�,
>a��n�sta� ii�; Fi�ell�as Caunty; Florida, to wit: . ' . ' �:;:� �" `�
� ��w�
. . , � .i�_ } �
_ • —r"_' ��T- Re�_�ROPSRS�`�-desri.ibed�: on SXSIBT.^_` 'A" . at- - . - - r�' '�
� � �d� ..
� � ,.tac,3�ed hereto and._ incncparatad h�z'eYn by this • ref- . �
�.. ese�s;ca� and �eraonal ..prnper.ty thereon' (hereinaftes - 1�-��''�
_ _ . r�fers�ed ta as fhe- 'P�tD�P$RT°' ) . �wYiich_�s : Suhject i� , ��',,. k;;�
' ,, SX3IBIT� 'B' •attached hereta and°.incorporated-hersin" ' >>�
. ; il-'
-- - --- -�iy r-+ef�reac�•- - .� - • _ . " • . , '�-�-�, ���--s
- - • - �- _ . _ . u�.� ,� z"``�
'. 3"flG�T9SR WITS all taflements, , heredi�aments and all, "
4.f�
� �.
:_ . a��artenaacsa theseto bel�stnqinq• or in •anY�ise ap= - • x `�-�
_ - • . pur�ai-n3:ng. .. , , �: �r �...-�:_
. • ^ . , .. . _ . , . ��, .�,;.... =,; �
- � . � Tfl. HA'VS AND. TO HOI,B the same-. in �ee_: simple :,f.ocev-. �; ;,;; r,�
_ - . � -_ , . o er. - - • . , e _ . - . that at , , ,v - 7� �' . � �'
'"�' 1►�ii� : 6&ABi�R does heretry cavenant with GRANTSB = F-. _ =
� .� t}te. �i�e... pf de3:iver� of'' this -SPSCiAL WAR'�ANTY DSBD, the , : f� ;
�' = :
at�ave=deac'ribed�zeal;�"property �+as .f e.`�iiom, all, encumbrnncea • {: ! :
• �iade,_ by�> �"CR, esc�plt �thqse, matt�e�r9 described on $XHIBIT # ., � :
- '.:'B• ' aitac3ied ,_heceta:`. atnd incorporated. heseYn by. this refer- f;
erice;: and�- tha�` 6RANTbR will warraat and .defand the same `" `
�'. � aga�nat, t,he l:aaful . ciaime and demanda of al. geraons claiming. �. , �;_ `:
_ by, thrvugh, or under .sa' _.GB&DiTflR, but-'agains� none othar. •_,
- � - �----
, ZN �, WI2NSSS• WHSR�OF, G$ANTORS have caused these .�yresents . �€'; %r^,��, =
tc_. be `�aecutad .in theiz nane, tiia dag and jeas , fi�rat ahove •� ,. .,';'.�+---
�� . � rrittxn. _ ,. �,. u . • � ` ;
'" �' � ( �
� : , .sicx�o. � s�aa ana Dsi�vsztsD ° . . : - � �� �--�-=; -
� �� `
�. in � er• resenc�. of z - _
a., . 1 GRA�iITOR: ' . _ �a.' � .: �
�" -- " ° " — DRW. HG^ ASSOCIATB3, LTB. �-_ "�
F„ _ � �
Hy: Gene;al� Partner �."`'�
g
. . � p ". o' . . . . . . ��� / '�f .. . .'�. ' — -
. — . . . 'l �1 J %— f yn . . , �
� �l �� ' Q �.
- .. - . . - PAtH, F.r?l��ILBY, ', ce-ciires � '�
• ' � P,31. PROPSRTISS..IP1C. � .:ti
.�� _ ,.. , . , ,
. ,,
-_ -<
' , . � _ • � . . . . � , ' ' . . • ' T ''a'..:.�+T^j,
����� � . �' �5810732 4D 1. 2�.1L8d ° , ;
_ . �aeumen+ary Tai, �aei7...� • - �0 21.00 r_':
; � ' •-r••••••:.:••••... •Intsnglble. 7u Pd, .
fl ' ,�3s�35.04. � ��,'
"� - � F e o�aker. Cierk � , : TOTAL . 2�rQ36.4U C:iK , ,"a '�`
Pinell�s. Counly � � � � T .
�� ' ... c : . . DeP�h CterY t . . � � . , � . , � . - . Kj.r ,:. t
�-,ii . - . , . . . • . . - . - �" '•�" � .'�'
' ' : . ' RETURH T�hie Ihafrumsm wes AroPa�ad �y � � ►^-' "'
— . t•, .
• ,' :20HN'E. CICF.FID. ll, AttameY - �t - law � � � y-�". '
—•---•--... _ Elphth�Floor. _ . '�i� �
i - — - . — — — • - Tsmpa-ii�eaue 8ulldh�p '
�. :
" . , 70T Frsnkllo Streei Matl ��
,.� ,.
. . . ; . ' Tem W. Florlda 9°S02 . — , ti=; ._ '.
. ,. _ . . .'' . , � � ' .. � . � .J,� • ' � , � . -
. � .._.. ' ,..�._ . ... __ s.a. � .. ..._. . . i
�,,.—..,: ,.....,:,r-:..._.:y.� ^_"' ,.s..._,.._,... -a . ' `c . . --- . _ .
. < . _ �.x� �-y: �
�'. . .-.. . ' . . .. - - - ' . ; _ . .. . . • . � � ¢ .. "_ . :
�roper�y Appra�ser Cienerallntorrnation
ra�c 1 vl �
Interactive �Ian of this narcel Sales Quzrv Back to Que.ti� Results Ne�N Search Tax Coilector Horne Pa�e Question/Couunent about this pase
� �.-29-�.5-fl���4�-41�-0��0�
Portabilit�r Data Cur?'ent as of Ju1y 28, 2011 pru�t Radius SSearch
Calculator [1:04 pm Sunday Julv 31]
Ownership/1Ylaiiin6 �ddress I, Site Address (First Buildina)
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLt�G SVC i�� 1 N SATURN AVE CLE�IRWATER �375�-
ORG ?NC J� to buildin�:
503 CLEVELAi�TD ST
CLEARWATER FL �375J-�007 (1) 5�1 N SATURN AVE CLEARWATER 33755- ='F
Im�rovement Value
per F.S. 5�3.844
Property T1se: 0310 (Apar�ments (50 units or more)) Living Units: 0
[click here to hide] 2fl11 Legal Description
FROM SE COR OF N�E 1/4 OF SE 1/4 TH N 60FT TH N89DW 85.9�FT FOR POB TH N89DW 521.08FT TH
NOlDW 856.28FT TH E 520FT TH SO1DE 726.76 FT TH S89DE 12.74FT TH SOlDE 68.86FT TH CL� RT RAD
2750FT ARC 55.9FT CB S 55.39FT TH S46DW 14.15FT TO POB CONT 10.29AC(C) _
ZOl1 EYem�tions `'� File for Homestead Exemption
Homestead: No Save-Our-Homes Cap Percentage: 0.00°% Non-Homestead 10% Cap: Yes
Government: No Institutional: Yes Agricultural: �0 Historic: $0
Zfl11 Parcel Information ZD10 OriQinal Trim Notice
lylost Recent Convevanc� Sales Com��arison Census Tract Evacuation Zo e Plat BooWPage ,
06279/2067 � � Sales Quei-v � 1210�026602 NON EVAC � I
20ll Pr�liminarv Va1ue Information
Year Save-Our- Just/Nlarl{et �ssessed Value/ Countv TaYable School TaYable Nlunici�al TaYable
Homes cap Value SOH Cap Value Vahie Vahie
2011 No �9,6�14,947 �9,544,947 �96,�49 $96,449 �96,449
[ciick here to hide] Value History as Certified {yellow indicates correction on file)
Year Save-Our- Just/Marlcet :Assessed Vahie/ Countv Taxable School Taxable Nlunic�al TaYable
Hoines Cav Value SOH Cap Value Value Value
2010 No �9,593,202 �9,�93,202 $95,932 �95,932 �95,932
2009 No $10,942,342 � 10,942,342 $109,�23 $109,4�3 $109,423
200�g No $ll,565,900 $11,565,900 �115,659 $115,659 �115,659
2007 No $11,568,600 $11,568,600 �2,822,7�8 N/A �2,822,733
2006 No �10,959,600 $10,959;600 $2,674,142 N/A $2,674,142
2005 No $10,219,200 $10,219,200 �2,493,500 N/A $2,493,500
2004 No $9,469,900 $9,469,900 $2,310,700 N/A $2,310,700
2003 No $7,525,000 $7,525,000 $1,836,100 N/A $1,836,100
2002 No �7,526,800 �7,526,800 �1,8�6,540 N/A $1;836,540
2001 No $6,963,400 $6,96�,400 $1,699,070 N/A $1,699,070
2000 No $0,680,400 $6,680,�00 $1;630,020 N/A �1,6�0,020
1999 No �6,2i7,100 $6,277,100 $1,531,610 N/A $1,531,610
1998 No $5,619,500 $5,619;500 $1,371,160 N/A $1,�71,160
1997 No $4,848,800 $4,848,800 $1,183,110 N/A $1,183,110
1996 No $4,�48,500 $4,8�8,800 $1,115,220 N/A $1,115,220
http://www.pcpao.or�/aeneral.php?strap=152911000004100� 00 7/31/2011
Stormwater
This proposal includes only the request to move the existing gate guard booth
(rebuild) from approximately 50 ft back from the gates, to a position between the
entrance and exit gates, such that incoming vehicle drivers can be identified and directed
to the correct building, when necessary (service personnel, visitors, etc) and also answer
any questions from exiting vehicle drivers, all for the purpose of expediting the traffic
flow on and off the property resulting in the least amount of queing on the roadside.
The attached photograph shows the existing conditions of gates, guard booth,
driveway and landscape areas, and the central stormwater drain grate in the center of the
area. The amount of impervious surface area does not change as the area proposed to
locate it is akeady impervious surface. The new guard booth is not located over the
existing storm drain, or even close to it.
There are no proposed changes in any e�sting grades, so it is assumed that a grading
plan will not be required. All existing grades slope to the existing drain grate and drain
properly in this area.
W��� � _:� ``.
� , ,. � r �� �� _.�
� ';��� � `�" "�
� �=yY � - :�
, :, ,., ,.
��,- ,
-����.�, � :
\ � � � i�\ \ � i �
�; F', :j �.�] x {
� � iT ti �
-�� If� :, ��11
! F ' d�. p
�: ���' 1 . �.
/ �r � /,�' '
. i,5.'�� lli 1�1.��,�ti '�i1'�,.
�,. ii.y . '� � ,';v� m,':�y,�,f�ya �
" ,'� _ ' �� � i #'iE�`�
� I "�' ���F
- X � � .�w�����•�.:
= - ;;�- � :�w������
-� �. .
. : �.�����
_ ���
�aRM� 4 ?.Yr.�iY ,:
����� �����������i�ii
���i �����ill���il
� 11l�IHlli1111�
.?st §'.
5`,3
��
a.;ii:c
F '
�' �„ �
� Y�IA!
i'�',. � : ;,
���� !, ::.
:�, .° '
,�,a
�. � � .
�� ��� ��� � �� � � � � �
a
�
P--
Y
Q
�
1iJ
�
�
W
F--
W
�'
U
Z
0
U
FCM
l.�L
0
�
0
Y
�
�
CITY OF CLEARWATER
OR 888 - PG 460
DUE EAST 520.00 FEET
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
T'��� �.f_ni� :��he, �t�c�xe Foi�►t _�of Beginni�q._ cr�mmence at t�� "#ioutb$ast cornex �af
the N�arthe�;�tt .�,�� of the 8out�teast. .1/� . yf Se��ian i 1, 'Y'ownehip 29 South,
l�nn.g� �.1� �as�t� ��.�y. Q�. �lea�r�a��k; ��'�nella� �aan�y,� t��,oi�ida, and ���nni.�g
`,thenae �Nortl�: 0°.12'2�1" 88i�� �.��.,00� fe�t �� .thc North Right--of-w�y 3 ine af
�.. �,�.'��i�� Q�i��� :. r�nping thes�c+� . Nt�rth . 89',��' �2" W�eet 18:01 fa�t alonq tii�
..- �Io'�rtt�.:I�igh��-!�i���ay ���.ine •af. ���iirpoct,�.:Driv�e �to .a� r�atl and fiap anc� t�� .Poin�t
.. of .-.Beg i rin �ng �: f�r�m.. �i�e P�v in� ' of ' Beg3niiing... �running thence .. No r�h 89' 24' ��"
'.� Weat 595. Da: £eet'- to �a coti�r�te, : iaanumenC: ].�C�ted o� the � Baat �R�c�itt-�f-'Way
� ' ,1-itie-_�' of �Saturn. Av€�n�ie � .��tnt�ing � thenee . '�o��h 0'' Si'-d9" � .Weat 85�6.28 feet
- '"al.��g,;the�:8a$� ���tigh��af-�Tay'l.i.ae �o� Satu�n �AVert�e t�. a���oneret� m��tum�rrt;
�� icuanii�c�- �hence �[?�e ,. 8aet.: 52�.8q. � feet to� nn ` i con ro+d � �`iiiriti��g `thence 8outth
�t � .+�'�'i�'�9"-_. �ae+�'' ?��,�7�6 �ee�. t.4 a Pa�n���: xurining: the�ice �o���� 89'���'��" �aist
T.4::8°...:ta�t ��o a nail: � arid ..cag� ��a�in�€:ty �3t�n�� 9c�uth .�°.5�f"��" $ast 135e00
�..�� ���t� to►- �� r��i�. .�nd Cap �ocateci on the North itigh��-of-��tay line a� �Af �rpaXt
�r1�ve �ar�d. �be�ng the .Poin� a� He4�.nning. �!`o�ethex with C#x's�►1t��rs r�ghts,
-',-:iF`. a�iy, _�i�h � icespe�t ta Util�ty Managem�rit Agre�ment reca�cded . in [�� R. Baak
� 4447; page_ 185'� �. and am�i�ded , by ins�xu�t�n� i� O. R. eook 4504, pa�ge . 95Z.
�. �i�±d 8aae�nen�- xec�rdec'i in t?.R. Hook 4075, page 799� amenaed ta� ins�rumeni�
-. ��.n; 0�.�t.,_ .Bao�C., ��4080, pa�� 1�?4� ana. Basemet�t de��ribec� in Q�it-�l��ai�a Deed
���ca��ed :i� ,O.R. Baok 54�6�� P�ge f 4�3, curxent pubii� r�coxda c�f �in�llas
.Cou�l�yr. -FloXida.
I"
l�i
O
c7
Y
Q
'S
W
z W �
0
�
� � m
'Q � �
� }
z � � Z ¢
m d' w �
�
� � o u�i >
> �
Q m Z � ° ° ENTRANCE
(n Q U
� Z
� �
Q 1--
O Z
� W
�
�
Ltl
a
�
�
�
Z
O
U
�
0
0
O
�
0
w
U
Z
�
i--
Z
W
LL
�
�
W
�-
z
w
U
O
H
H
w
w
�
0
M
M
L1.�
�
x
�
a
a
¢
WALK 5.1' ON
LgSS AND �RC�FT� HQW�3VER, th� fallawfng descxibed propert�, to-wits
�To_ �find th� l�oint, Qf - l�ginnfng �ammence at ��re �out�ieaet corner of t�e
� Nc�r�h�e,$�at 1,�9 a�' the sa�xthe�ast 3�`�4 af se�tian � 1, Tawriahip 29 3a�th, Rang�
.iS�Bast, �ity af Clearwater, P�in�llas County, �larias, anc] running then�c�
Nar�h 0�.°. i 2' � 1" .�a+�� 5�.0� f�e� �� a�aint la��c���d t�n the Na�r�h Right-af-
�Way..lfne of Airport �ri�e� running tltence Nvrth 89''24'42'� W�st i2.�1 fee�
el.ong -th� I�orth Ri+ght-af-Way lf�e af Airport D�rive tQ � rrail anc3 cag� and
the Point . af Begit�ning f from the Pain� of Bec�fnning ruc�ning then�e North
�89'�4i42". Wes� 21.�� fee�. �.Q a pQin�� xun�ing tihen�e Nartri Q°40'S1"` �a�st.
135.p4`ieet ta a Paint= run�ing thence South B9°24'4Z" 8ast i8.35 feet to
� n�►31 and �a�, rut��f ng th�rir:�e Sau�h 0' 51' 49►�' Ba�t 135. a4 feet to a n�i1
an8 eap lo�cated �n the t�c��th Ri4h!t-�ot--Way line af Afrport arive and b�ir�g
� the Eoir��. �rf eeg�nnin�.
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
FCM BLQCK CORNER
DREW TERRACE SUBDIVISION
PB 48, PAGE 20
SIR = SET IRON ROD AND CRP #LB 6912
FCM = FOUND CONCRETE MARKER 4" X 4"
A�DITIONAL BOUNDARY MARKERS WILL BE
PIACED ONCE THE UNDERSIGNED SURVEY�R
HAS BEfN PROVIDED INFORMATION ABOUT
POSSIBLE RIGHT-OF WAY LESS OUTS AT THE
SOUTHWEST, SOUTHEAST AND EASTERLY
BOUNDARIES OF SUBJECT PARCEL
CONCRETE SIDEWALK
N89°24'42"W 595.Q0'
IJI�Z�I:� � '�
�
�
�
N
ti
W
�
d'
ll'>
0
O
�
SiR
FIR 1.01 S
�.70 W
�
�
�
0
�
W
�-
�
U
Z
0
U
SiR
Y
J
9
W
0
tA
ttl
t—
liJ
Q.'
U
Z
O
U
SCALE =1" = 40 FEET
CITY OF CLEARWATER
OR 888 - PG 460
�
�
��/
1.i�
Z
W
�
CITY OF CLEARWATER
OR 888 - PG 460
S89°24'42"E 74.898
z
0
�V
M
O
M
ENTRANCE w
�
�
�
0
O
Z
WALK O.T ON
PART OF �
THIS AREA NOW IN
USE AS PUBUC
R4ADWAY
BDUNDARY SURVEY OF 551 NORTH SATURN AVENUE, CLEARWATERa FLOF�IDA 33755
FILE NAME:
�RhWN � � � � � � 1 7 � � • � 1. a � •
JL � 1. a OJ
!
CHECI(ED (OFf7CE 2011 HEIDELBERG AVE.) MAIL = 1497 MAIN ST. #32� LB 6912
DUNEDiN, FLORiDA, USA 34698
°0� VOICE 727-415-8305 fAX 727-736-2455 INTERNET KNOWITNOW.COM
tJJ
z
�
�
�
tu
a
0
a
�
n
w
w
0
�
ul
�
Z
O
H
�
0
a
H
�
O
�
�
w
J
F����
POINT OF
BEGINNING
°o
�
M
�
LJ!
�
�'
T
�
0
cn
CITY OF CLEARWATER
OR 888 - PG 460
Nss°2a�a2°w �z.o1�
N�RTH RNV LINE AIRPORT DRNE
b
0
°m
w
�
N
(V
0
z
SE CORNER
NE 114
SE 1/4
SECTION 11
i HEREB`f CERTIFY THAT THIS SKEfCH OP SURVEY WAS MADE UNDER
MY RESPONSiBLf CIWRCE AND TO iHE BEST OF MY KNOWlEOGE AND
BELIEF SND SURVEY A�EE�S iHE MIN�MUM TECNNICAL S'FANDARDS SEf
FOR1H BY THE fLORtDd1 BOARD OF PROFESSIONRL UWD SUF2VkY0RS
IN CHAPTER 81C17-6 FIAPoDA ADMINISTPATNE CODE FURTHER , THIS
DOCUMENT IS ELECTRONICALLY SIGNED AND SEAlED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 472.027. OF iHE FLORIDA STATUTES AND CW�PTER
61G-17-7.0025 OF THE FLORI�A ADMIhIISTRATtON CODE.
Surveyor & Mapper Number 1636
DATE OF FIELD WORK: 7-29-17
DATE SIGNED 8-1-11 „„,,,'
.I , � �•�
�
FLORIDASURVEYOR@AOL.COM BILL
�„'',1 H. N�r9
�� ��Ti �v
�y�srqr� �
�z U�.°Ri orr
"�.,,RVEY��
HYATT
0
w
�
z
A
a
�
aa
ca
�
z
c�
a
�
a
m
� '
1 �
: �
In/Out Gate
for Buses Only
Keene Road
�
BUILDING H
BUILDING I
❑
W �
�
z
ca
.�
a
o�
BUILDING J
BUILDING C BUILDING B
Emergency
Exit Only
S�te Key P�a�
Saturn Avenue
7
I
Main gate
A Proposed Guard Booth for the
���iend�
��.����s
551 N. Saturn Ave., Clearwater, Florida
August 31, 2011
Emergency
Exit ,Only
BUILDING N
BUILDING M
BUILDING L
BUILDING A
Area of Wo�k
0
�
z
a
5
�
v
�
..,
s,
ca
�
�.
0
a
�.
.�
¢
Owner:
Service Organization
319 South Garden Avenue
Clear�rater, FL 33756-5423
tel 727-467-6588
Sheet I�dex
1 Site Plan, Showing
All existing buildings
and site access points
2 Existing Plan at Main
Gate
3 Proposed Plan ai M ain
Entrance, showing
addition of new
Guard Booth
4 Elevations of Proposed
Guard Booth
5 Partial Site Plan
showing vehicle access
to proposed G uard
Booth
�
�
O
�
a�
�o
c�
a
0 25 100 250
Scale in Feet
Vehicle Exit
� � �
Existing Gate Motor
Existing Fence
Existing Column
J. � J. " � y �
W ` W 1 W � W .��
,. .l. a J. ,, y. �
. y,. I ,. y,.I y,. I ,. y
V/ V/ V/
�+ y W y y W` y
+ y �_ +�L _•�� ` y .
�` y W a y�` y W�.
� y,.I � y,. I � y. I �
V/ V/ W
� y � y �
, y � ,. y ,� � y
�L � '�I� '
� � y
� y. I � y, I
v. v.
W ` y �1/
� y,I �
�i/
�L `
Already—Permittel
Concrete Sidewalk
Already—Permitted
Sliding Entry Gates
Already—Permitted
Metal Fence
Property Line
Existing Ground
Cover
isting Sidewalk
Existing Ground
Cover
Edge of Pavement
�x�s�i�g �'1��� ��a� �� S�i� E�try �a�es
�— SATURN ROAD
A Proposed Guard Booth for the
��������
��.����s
551 N. Saturn Ave., Clearwaier, Florida
August 31, 20i1
Vehicie Entrance
Street Right—of—way
Existing Gate Moto
Existing Fence
Existing Column
Existing Grou
Cover
Existing.
Sidewalk
Owner:
Servi�p Organization
319 South Garden Avenue
Clearwater, EL 33756-5423
tel 727-467-6588
O O
�l-1 I ` .I I, �
:t--�-�'� ` ,.
y y y
y• V/ .`y. J/ . 1y. �,, y..
.. ay, �1/ . +y � J/ ,. Ly„ �/ ,.
y1�+ yy+W a ayaW L`ya�
. yya�. �y.�. yy.��
yLW+ +y+Wl yy�W� 1yy�
.�, + .�, + ��..
�. ay.�,. +y.�� ay�
+y,, � ,. yy. �/ � ay,. �/ a
,..W� ly•W• Y •J/,. yy...
ay. J/ �+ J/ . ay,. �/ �
.�� a�.. . ay.�j. ay�
a a �ya� a ayy I a
V/
.. � ,. � . I ,. � a �/ . i
V/
u J
��1
O
C�I
G�
�
C�
�
0 1 5 10
V � �
Scale in Feet
0
/- �Existing Gate Motor
Existing Fence
0
Exisiing Column
� y.� � y� � y.� �
�/ `� y V/ L y � ` y � � :
, y� � y,. I y�
V/
aI ,I `' ,
W 1 y W a� W i y
y LI —y�T� _ y .
�it
� a y W�y W y y�.
� y � a�y � . y .� ,.
; ;-;: :: ;-: .
,1:.' : �: : �:' �:�: �:::� �: : :;�.:',-: ;. ; :� �:: .•:: �: ::•�:
� y � y �
� y�,. y,, I , y
�li
�, ` �L �
� � y
, y ,� . y ,, i
v�
� L y �
+ � .
y .
� `
Vehicle Exit
Site Triangle Remains
Clear (not affected by
Proposed Guard Booth)
Alread -Permitted�
y
Concrete Sidewalk
Proposed Guard Booth
Already-Permitted
Sliding Entry Gates
Proposed Plant
-- --� —�— �-- -- -- -- -- -- —
Property Line��
Existing Ground
Cover
isting Sidewalk
Existing Ground
Cover
Edge of Pavement
7'-2„
:; � ■ ■ �::. ;>:.; ::.:: : : : : : :.::;:>: : : :
��:��r>:=>:::
�
������ <°�«�
, � i � 't
':.::`: � � � ;..::::� /
s••
,■ ::;I..
I
I
i'_`<.:
-�— SATURN R�AD
�'�o�� �'��� at Siie ����� Ga�es, S���ing ��o��sed ����� Boot�
d'
�
�
�
�
i
C'�
.�
A Proposed G uard Booth for the
�[�.�cie�lc��.
�a�°����
551 N. Saturn Ave., Clearwater, Florida
August 31, 2011
Vehicle Enirance
--� —�— —^'�—
Site Triangle Remains
Clear (not affected by
Proposed Guard Booth)
Strest Right-of-Way
Existing Gate Mot
Existing Fence
Existing Column
Existing Groun
Cover
Existing.
Sidewalk
Owner:
Servica Organization
319 South Garden Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756-5423
tel 727-467—fi588
O O
._� ..
1 y y y
y• J/ • yy� �, ay� W• y�.
i,. yy� �. yy.. �/ +�y,. J/ �
yy�+ ay+w� +yLWa yyi`
i �. 1y� � . 1y. � . `y. � ,.
yl W 1 Lyy � L 1y1 W a 1ya `
� a.'�V' `. ��Y` y.`� `
�,. y� W� y• W• y••
` y� J/ y+yy � y �y� � �
; ay.�. L .�. ay.
,.y+� � I y.ya i 1
V/ V/
+.�� y. L �yi�/� ay�.
y a y y� yy W a
.�� .�� .
;-..�::-..
:�:��
u J
���
O
C�'�
�
�0
cd
G-�
0 1 5 10
� � �
I
Scale in Feet
. ��
- -��
Proposed
Guard
Booth
21'-0„
-�-- SATURN ROAD
�'a��ia� S��e �'�a� at E�t�y Ga�e
A Proposed Guard Booth for the
��.��eiic��.
�a��er�s
551 N. Saturn �ve., Clearwater, Florida
August 31, 2011
C�'�
�_ - - -
;: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `�.� . . . . . . . .
Owner:
Service Organization
319 South Garden Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756-5423
tel 727-467-fi588
} : i :,�... y .� . _ ; ,�. _
�
�
39'-6"
�
�
0
�
c�
�
�
a
0 5 10 20
Scale in Feet
.............. �..�
■�■���■■��■■�� ...�
� _�
�..� � .............
�.
�... ����■■���■���■
■���� �■���■��■■����■�����■■�����■■■���■���■��■■���■■�� ����
■t�il �R�!l�i���l������������i����■��l�■�����l������■■� ■.■�
•
�
i�■� ����������■�����i������■�■���������■�■�i/i�l����i
(
��
��
� ��� ���i���/������■��■��/�■��f■���f��������:��1Mi������
II
�I77
■
i,
0
_
�
�
�
�
�
� ..
�
In/Out Gate
for Buaes Only
Keene Road
�I� � ���������
�
HUILDING I
w � � ❑
cti �
z
O
.i
L1.
w
J
BUILDING J
BUILDING C HUILDING H
Saturn Avenue
A Propoaed Guard Booth for the Owher:
Hacienda
Ga r d e n s Service Organization
551 N. Saturn Ave., Clearwater, Florida 31B South Gerden Avehue
Au ll9i 31� 2011 �7earwater, FL 33758-5423
g tel 727-467-8588
Emergency
Eait Only
BUILDING N
BUILDING M
0
cs
z
a
�
�
D
F
ca
w
0
a
d
HUILDING L
HUILDING A
\
Emergency ' �Area of Work
Ezit Only Main gate
Site Key Plan
N
Sheet Index
1 Site Plan, Showing
All ezisting buildinga
and site acceas points
2 Eziating Plan at Main
Gate
3 Proposed Plan at Main
Entrance,showing
addition of new
Guard Booth
4 Elevationa of Propoaed
Guard Booth
5 Partial Site Plan
ahowing vehicle accesa
to propoaed Guard
Hooth
►f�
�
O
.-i
a�
av
c�
a
0 25 100 250
u � �
Scale in Feet
�
O / O
Eziating Gate Motor
Esiating Fence
Eziating Column
� � y � � y W ' y �
� � W � � W W � 1
� 1 � 1 � 1 ,
J•1:-=.1s-'�`. =.-zI-'�:- '•z'�
W� y W� y W� y W
� � � y� ��,�/ '
. 1 . 1 .
. y � . y � , y
� . 1
. I1 �, 1 �.
W y �
1 �
�'
Vehicle Esit
Sidewalk
Already—Permitted
Sliding &ntry Gates
Metal
Property Line�
�Esisting Ground
� Cover
Sidewalk
Eziating Ground
Cover
of Pavement
Existing Floor Plan at Site Entrv Gates
r.. .
r
� = -- -- --
E SATURN ROAD -
A Propoeed Guard Booth for the owner:
Hacienda
Ga r d e n s Service Organization
551 N. Saturn Ave., Clearwater, Florida 319 South Garden Aveaue
Au ust 31, 2011 ��rnater, FL 337563423
B tel 727-487-8588
Szieting Gate
Eziating Fenc
S8i9LiIIg Colu;
�
\
Vehicle Entrance
Eaiating Grou
Cover
Eziating
Sidewalk�
Street Right—of—Way
• •
��
�Y � I1 � I1 �
.�, y.�y. y.�y. y.�
. y.�. y.�, y.�.
.�, y.�y. y.y. y..
. y.W. y.W, y,W,
.�• y.�. y.�y. y..
+W. .�y. .�y.
y.�. y.�. y..
. y.y. y.�. y.�y.
.�, y,�. .�. y..
. y. ,i, . � ,�, . �y..j, .
-W .-y. - y� W y,.
. .y i .y i
.y�. .�y.W .�.W
�:
4 ✓
�1
O
�
t�.0
cd
a
0 1 5 10
� i �
Scale in Feet
Vehicle Eait
Already-Permittec
Concrete Sidewalk
Proposed Guard Bc
�Eziating Gate Motor
Eziating Fence
O O Already-Permitted
fizieting Column �-Sliding Entry Gates
� � y � � y � � y �i
,J�'y� �
� � y W � y W /',y
T�k'_�k���l.. _ "
� y �,y � y � ''
� � ,�y y . y � .
/
. 1 . i .
. y � . y � , y
W �
. . 1
• 11 �. , I�L� �,
W y W
1 �
�'
Site Triangle Remains
Clear (not affected by
Propoaed Guard Booth)
Proposed Plante
____'_____"_'_______ ..
Property Line�
Eziating Ground
Cover
Eziatin¢ Sidewalk
Esiating Ground
Cover
of Pavement
'7'-2��
�s �:�
� � «`���° .,;�;
:4
A Propoaed Guard Booth for the owner:
Hacienda
Ga r d e n s Service Organization
551 N. Saturn Ave., Clearwater, Florida 919 Soulh Gerdea Avenue
Clesrneter, F� 93758-5423
August 31, 2011 Le� 727-467-6598
Proposed ` �,
Guard �
BOOttl
Vehicle Entrance
� O
I
--------- --- `� ----------- �
Site Triangle Remaina
Clear (not affected by
Proposed Guard Booth)
ro
I
.�-�
Street Right-of-Way
-E SATURN ROAD - -
Floor Plan at Site Entry Gates, Showing Proposed Guard Booth
N
Eaiating Gate
Eaisting Fence
Existing Colum
Eziating
Cover
Eaisting,
Sidewalk
0 0
y. y. y. �y . y. �y . y..
. . y, �y , y, �y , y, �y ,
y,y. y.�y. y.�. y..
.. y,�. y.�y. y.�.
y.�y, y.�y. y.�. y..
..�.'.�,.'.j,.
y.�y. y,�. y..
�L,�• 1�W� 1•W•
y.�. .�. y.
y`� �. y.�.
,�, y, - y.�i. y..
. y� y W
. W . . W .
�: \
�
Y �
�
O
M
W
�.0
c�
a
u 5 io
�
Scale In Feet
19' w 11'-4"
South Elevation
�A i►�i
��A!A ��AjMjAj�jAj� � .� •��.
iwil�Ai�i��A��i�i�����!►.
�i
��u n�uunnn■
€
�
�������������■
— �.�..
East Elevation
A Propoaed Guard Haoth fer the owner:
Hacienda
Ga r d e n s ��i� or`a��tlan
551 N. Setnrn Ave., Clearwater, Plorida 31a sovth ca�u aveaue
Clnrw�ter, F'L 93758-5429
Augnet 91� 2�11 tel 727-487-05B8
j�� ;
l / � i .',
❑ ,
i..
� ..
/�
/�
� ll'-4° 19" �
M—'I
North Elevation
1'PeS� L',�leV8L10II �r�acing �LreeLJ
�
w
O
d�
�
�1t1
�
pr
0 ! 5 10
Seate in Peel
�
�
��
��
A Propoaed Guard Hooth for the owner:
Hacienda
Ga r d e n s Service Organizatian
551 N. Saturn Ave., Cleareater, Florida 3t9 south carden A.enue
Clearwateq FL 33758-5423
Auguet 31, 2011 c�i 727-487-B5B8
Pro
Guar�d�
Booth
:.:::
� . .._..
. .. . .
°----�—• ----- -- - ---------- — --- ..�..w.:
I� - . .. . . . .- . . .. .. . . . _ . .. _. . . . . .. _. . . . .. _. . . . .. .
21'-0"
�-- SATURN ROAD —�
/ , �v,
��I, _,,
io _�
39'-6"
Partial Site Plan at Entry Gate
N
�
�
0
�
a�
an
c�
a
0 5 10 20
�J �
Scale in Feet
�
Landsc�.pe
This proposal includes only the request to move the existing gate guard booih
(rebuild) from appro�imately 50 ft back from the gates, to a position between the
en�ance and e�it gates, such that incoming vehicle drivers can be identined and directed
to the correct building, when necessary (se�-vice personnel, visitors, etc) and also answer
any questions from exiting vehicle drivers, aIl for the purpose of e�pediting the traffic
flow on and offthe property resulting in the least amount of queing an the roadside.
The e�isting landscape consists of a hed�e and palm trees on the property Iine, and
b ass in the right-of-way, and is not proposed to be changed. Grass areas are shown on
the �lan view drawing submitted.
Please accept the attached photo�aph which shows what the e�isting conditions.
�F
c��
'R���� «
_ � aC
i � �
� � .; ��
� �„
'��:3" A � �K
x.+ �
� l
ti �_ �
e-�� *r , • _..r.,. r �y
' � �::; * � � �
�ks� � e < •wr%� � 4 �'t�w 3c
�.y�.. � � � .. h � � i � R� i
; r'. � � � �:,� `�
` 4 '���. , w / �� `yay�'�=�`
t
� ��,�.��,.�-�x�{� .� �� ,��,_�..
. � ` � . ' �[l� ��' ;,`T i �
,, ,
:�.� � ;�� � ��,� � y
� x - � . .� � .,
� k',
x� :
� �, '
� r r� ' � _
� t �` �,
� s � "��� � * � ` �
#� , 6 ^- .
� 3�����a � �1 . . �✓
x � "'� �r �. - ",^.�`
.t` T��'.-,�� y�y r
�� ?�"� ���^���� �-� . �;: �� i�:. �� :� '��.f „r � ..-:.+ �., .. - <.
p�,�n" � �' �G� `'� - • � ,. ��,,' .. �; � � . . ,r
. �
� '��� 1�- a i.�"d��i �� � -�. � . � ...
� � i.IC Ref� � , e, ��� ��. . ,
� aA,�.:, �,Fr± . e.e i� ;���l�i a3��i���g�
� ,
�
���T � a , . 11 �f� �; �R�� ��� � ������!�'';
������}, ������������ �t�Il��I�� �a �� �i-��������� � .F -
111I11 �l\u�u��u��� :..;f,7t? ��..r��..' .
s�:
� �
}'_: i r �"%r t n s.
fii a
�.,'� .;, .? "„
�
. . � _ �, c � � � � t � e k� � �:.'.
. ' � 't a , a i� hS � � � � Y.` -� '' x �,"� e �i
. . � � 1 � fa�i3"w��'�'3�4i�t ����.� A,� ,. � ��.4�''�� � i
� ��
� . . . ,..> �,�.t.... ��.�':.�,:'.`rr.�L.,.f?�a,'r„e�,�..�1'',"�',�'���.L�:int�??i�'�"���.;�
' �+`°,-s:: - .... �
.: � s �.�+r,.... `