Loading...
FLD2008-05014u 1p Yll � P y✓ FI�D2008 -05014 1001 S FT HARRISON,AVE .ARBOR OAKS PROFESSIONA ]PLANNER OF REC40RD: IT40T ENTERED ATLAS # 295B ZONING: C LAND USE: CG RECEIVED: 05/02/2008 INCOMPLETE: COMPLETE: / MAPS: J PHOTOS: STAFF REPORT: - DRC: CDB: -7 , ,5 j LDe5 Planning Department Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 0 Telephone: 727 - 562 -4567 Fax: 727 - 562 -4865 ❑ SUBMIT ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION ❑ SUBMIT 14 COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION -Plans and application are required to be collated, stapled, and folded into sets ❑ SUBMIT FIRE PRELIMARY SITE PLAN: $200.00 ❑ SUBMIT APPLICATION FEE CASE #: RECEIVED BY (staff initials): DATE RECEIVED: 1001 S FT HARRISO FLD2008 -05014 HARBOR OAKS PROFESSIONAL CTI• Zoning: C atlas# NOTE: 15 TOTAL SETS OF INFORMATION REQUIRED (APPLICATIONS PLUS SITE PLAN SETS) FLEXIBiJL D'E3TE11 -JOP MEl< T A P'LIC-AiiON Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project (Revised 04/24/2007) PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT— A. APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND AGENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4- 202.A) APPLICANT NAME: MAILING ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER: CELL NUMBER _ SNKR I, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company _ 181.5 Health Care Drive, Trinity, FL 33655 _ FAX NUMBER: EMAIL: PROPERTY OWNER(S): SNKR, I, LLC, a Florida Limited Liabili List ALL owners on the deed AGENT NAME: Northside Engineering Services, Inc. MAILING ADDRESS: 300 S. Belcher Road, Clearwater, FL 337.65 _ PHONE NUMBER: 727- 443 -2869 FAX NUMBER: 727- 446 -8036 CELL NUMBER: 727 -235 -8475 EMAIL: B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4- 202.A) PROJECT NAME: STREET ADDRESS PARCEL NUMBER(S): PARCEL SIZE (acres): LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PROPOSED USE(S): Harbor Oaks Professional Ctr. PROJECT VALUATION: $ 3, 000,000 1001 S. Ft Harrison Clearwater FL 15/29/15/54450/032 /0240; 15/29/15/54450/034 /0010; 0030; 0090 1.27 PARCEL SIZE (square feet): 55,295 See attached Medical Clinic /office and Bank i DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: See attached Specifically identify the request (include number of units or square footage of non - residential use and all requested code deviations; e.g. reduction in required number of parking spaces, specific use, etc.) C: \Documents and Settings\derek.ferguson\ Desktop \planningforms _0707 \Comprehensive n l <3f'r�ajcf(FL'h}d 2tOT?t Pagel of 8_ .. t C)(; DOES THIS APPLICATION INVOLVE THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR), A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, OR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED (CERTIFIED) SITE PLAN? YES _ NO X (if yes, attach a copy of the applicable documents) C. PROOF OF OWNERSHIP: (Code Section 4- 202.A.5) CK SUBMIT A COPY OF THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY, DEED TO THE PROPERTY OR SIGN AFFIDAVIT ATTESTING OWNERSHIP (see page 7) D. ❑ 1. WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 3- 913.A) Provide complete responses to the six (6) GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA— Explain how each criteria is achieved, in detail: The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. See attached 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. See attached 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. See attached 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. See attached 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. See attached 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. See attached ronrw , 6 2000 C: \Documents and Settings \derek.ferguson\ Desktop \pianningforms _0707 \Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 04- 24- 07.doc Page 2 of 8 WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria) ❑ Provide complete responses to the six (6) COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT CRITERIA — Explain how each criteria is achieved, in detail: 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use and /or development standards set forth in this zoning district. See attached 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district See attached 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. See attached 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development. See attached 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; C. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and /or preservation of a working waterfront use. See attached 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off - street parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; C. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: ❑ Changes in horizontal building planes; ❑ Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; ❑ Variety in materials, colors and textures; ❑ Distinctive fenestration patterns; ❑ Building stepbacks; and ❑ Distinctive roofs forms. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. See attached �_ +fit P►' nnnn,.. LVUU C: \Documents and Settings \derek.ferguson\ Desktop \planningforms_0707 \Comprehensive Infill Project'(FLD) 04- 24- 07.doc Page 3 of 8 RANII .° #E 0 "OF C-# t4V.i';i. -R 0 01 E. STORMWATER PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual and 4- 202.A.21) IX A STORMWATER NARRATIVE MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH ALL APPLICATIONS. All applications that involve addition or modification of impervious surface; including buildings, must include a stormwater plan that demonstrates compliance with the City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria manual. A reduction in impervious surface area does not qualify as an exemption to this requirement. C� If a plan is not required; the narrative shall provide an explanation as to why the site is exempt. CX At a minimum, the STORMWATER PLAN shall include the following; IX Existing topography extending 50 feet beyond all property lines; D[ Proposed grading including finished floor elevations of all structures; CR All adjacent streets and municipal storm systems; a Proposed stormwater detention /retention area including top of bank, toe of slope and outlet control structure; c:y A narrative describing the proposed stormwater control plan including all calculations and data necessary to demonstrate compliance with the City manual. IX Proposed stormwater detention /retention area including top of bank, toe of slope and outlet control structure; lY Signature and seal of Florida Registered Professional Engineer on all plans and calculations. ❑ COPY OF PERMIT INQUIRY LETTER OR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SWFWMD) PERMIT SUBMITTAL (SWFWMD approval is required prior to issuance of City Building Permit), if applicable 11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF STORMWATER PLAN REQUIREMENTS (Applicant must initial one of the following): RMR Stormwater plan as noted above is included Stormwater plan is not required and explanation narrative is attached. At a minimum, a grading plan and finished floor elevations shall be provided. CAUTION — IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A STORMWATER PLAN AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR. If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Public Works Administration Engineering Department at (727) 562 -4750. F. SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 4- 202.A) IX SIGNED AND SEALED SURVEY (including legal description of property) — One original and 14 copies; CZ TREE SURVEY (including existing trees on site and within 25' of the adjacent site; by species, size (DBH 4" or greater), and location, including drip lines and indicating trees to be removed) —please design around the existing trees; C TREE INVENTORY; prepared by a "certified arborist ", of all trees 4" DBH or greater, reflecting size, canopy (drip lines) and condition of such trees; EY LOCATION MAP OF THE PROPERTY; ❑ PARKING DEMAND STUDY in conjunction with a request to make deviations to the parking standards (ie. Reduce number of spaces). Prior to the submittal of this application, the methodology of such study shall be approved by the Community Development Coordinator and shall be in accordance with accepted traffic engineering principles. The findings of the study will be used in determining whether or not deviations to the parking standards are approved; EK GRADING PLAN, as applicable; ❑ PRELIMINARY PLAT, as required (Note: Building permits will not be issued until evidence of recording a final plat is provided); Cl COPY OF RECORDED PLAT, as applicable; OR:ellyt PECOVED E 2000 I' V,� , � t �„r ! f!T �L�i"i7Vib�:k�,:. ��fbe,o� �3tl C: \Documents and Settings \derek.ferguson\ Desktop \planningforms_ 0707 \C m�pre e sive4nfiil,Project (FLD) 04- 24- 07.doc Page 4 of 8 ..1 kJ1 G. SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4- 202.A) D W !3 0 SITE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24" x 36 "): X Index sheet referencing individual sheets included in package; X North arrow; _ X Engineering bar scale (minimum scale one inch equals 50 feet), and date prepared; X All dimensions; X Footprint and size of all EXISTING buildings and structures; X Footprint and size of all PROPOSED buildings and structures; X All required setbacks; _X_ All existing and proposed points of access; X All required sight triangles; Identification of environmentally unique areas, such as watercourses, wetlands, tree masses, and specimen trees, including X description and location of understory, ground cover vegetation and wildlife habitats, etc; Location of all public and private easements; __X_ Location of all street rights -of -way within and adjacent to the site; Location of existing public and private utilities, including fire hydrants, storm and sanitary sewer lines, manholes and lift stations, gas X and water lines; _X All parking spaces, driveways, loading areas and vehicular use areas; X Depiction by shading or crosshatching of all required parking lot interior landscaped areas; Location of all solid waste containers, recycling or trash handling areas and outside mechanical equipment and all required screening X {per Section 3- 201(D)(i) and Index #701 }; X Location of all landscape material; _X Location of all onsite and offsite storm -water management facilities; X Location of all outdoor lighting fixtures; and X Location of all existing and proposed sidewalks. SITE DATA TABLE for existing, required, and proposed development, in written /tabular form: X Land area in square feet and acres; X Number of EXISTING dwelling units; X Number of PROPOSED dwelling units; X Gross floor area devoted to each use; X Parking spaces: total number, presented in tabular form with the number of required spaces; Total paved area, including all paved parking spaces & driveways, X expressed in square feet & percentage of the paved vehicular area; Official records book and page numbers of all existing utility X easement; X Building and structure heights; X Impermeable surface ratio (I.S.R.); and X Floor area ratio (F.A.R.) for all nonresidential uses. REDUCED COLOR SITE PLAN to scale (8 %X 11); EXISTING REQUIRED PROPOSED See C1.1 _ FOR DEVELOPMENTS OVER ONE ACRE, provide the following additional information on site plan: X One -foot contours or spot elevations on site; X Offsite elevations if required to evaluate the proposed stormwater management for the parcel; X All open space areas; _ X Location of all earth or water retaining walls and earth berms; X_ Lot lines and building lines (dimensioned); X Streets and drives (dimensioned); X Building and structural setbacks (dimensioned); X Structural overhangs; . Q,,$I y4 6 2008 OF c !"'o e i!'7 : Ei% i a;:R C: \Documents and Settings \derek.ferguson \Desktop \planningforms_0707 \Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 04- 24- 07.doc Page 5 of 8 • • H. LANDSCAPING PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4- 1102.A) ❑ LANDSCAPE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24" x 36 "): X All existing and proposed structures; _ X Names of abutting streets; X Drainage and retention areas including swales, side slopes and bottom elevations; _.X_ Delineation and dimensions of all required perimeter landscape buffers; _ X Sight visibility triangles; X Delineation and dimensions of all parking.areas including landscaping islands and curbing; Existing trees on -site and immediately adjacent to the site, by species, size and locations, including driplines (as indicated on required X tree survey); Location, size, and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, indicated by a key relating to the plant —X schedule; Plant schedule with a key (symbol or label) indicating the size, description, specifications, quantities, and spacing requirements of all X existing and proposed landscape materials, including botanical and common names; Typical planting details for trees, palms, shrubs and ground cover plants including instructions, soil mixes, backfilling, mulching and X protective measures; Interior landscaping areas hatched and /or shaded and labeled and interior landscape coverage, expressing in both square feet and X percentage covered; X Conditions of a previous development approval (e.g. conditions imposed.by the Community Development Board); X Irrigation notes. Ll REDUCED COLOR LANDSCAPE PLAN to scale (8% X 11); tY COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM application, as applicable. Landscape associated with the Comprehensive Landscape Program shall exceed minimum Code requirements to offset the areas where minimum Code will not be met. I. BUILDING ELEVATION PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4- 202.A.23) IX BUILDING ELEVATION DRAWINGS —with the following information; X All sides of all buildings; X Dimensioned; X Colors (provide one full sized set of colored elevations); X Materials; X Sight visibility triangles; LIC REDUCED BUILDING ELEVATIONS —same as above to scale on 8% X 11. J. SIGNAGE: (Division 19. SIGNS / Section 3 -1806) UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT ❑ All EXISTING freestanding and attached signs; Provide photographs and dimensions (area, height, etc.), indicate whether they will be removed or to remain. ❑ All PROPOSED freestanding and attached signs; Provide details including location, size, height, colors, materials and drawing; freestanding signs shall include the street address (numerals) ❑ Comprehensive Sign Program application, as applicable (separate application and fee required). ❑ Reduced signage proposal (8% X 11) (color), if submitting Comprehensive Sign Program application. t° :J 16 2008 C: \Documents and Settings \d ere k.ferguson \Desktop \p Ian ningforms -0707 \Compre hens ive Infill ProjecQ{F�,DJ,G.4,2,4.0�,doc Page 6of8 rcf�►vt��.: irs6:se$n.La��tl C!7;OFOrte'a� «a 'i.wArr vAka 't,R • 0 K. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: (Section 4- 202.A.13 and 4- 801.C) EJ Include if required by the Traffic Operations Manager or his /her designee or if the proposed development: Will degrade the acceptable level of service for any roadway as adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. Will generate 100 or more new vehicle directional trips per hour and /or 1000 or more new vehicle trips per day. Will affect a nearby roadway segment and /or intersection with five (5) reportable accidents within the prior twelve (12) month period or that is on the City's annual list of most hazardous intersections. Trip generation shall be based on the most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Trip General Manual. The Traffic Impact Study must be prepared in accordance with a "Scoping Meeting" held with the Traffic Operations Manager and the Planning Department's Development Review Manager or their designee (727- 562 -4750) Refer to Section 4 -801 C of the Community Development Code for exceptions to this requirement. Acknowledgement of traffic impact study requirements (Applicant must initial one of the following): Traffic Impact Study is included. The study must include a summary table of pre- and post - development levels of service for all RMR roadway legs and each turning movement at all intersections identified in the Scoping Meeting.— N� Traffic Impact Study is not required. r` CAUTION - IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR. If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Public Works Administration Engineering Department at (727) 562- 4750. L. FIRE 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 developer due to the impact of this project. The water supply must be able to support the needs of any required fire sprinkler, standpipe and /or fire pump. If a fire pump is required the water supply must be able to supply 150% of its rated capacity: Compliance with the 2004 Florida Fire Prevention Code to include NFPA 13, MFPA 14, NFPA 20, NFPA 291, and MFPA 1142 (Annex H) is required. 0 Acknowledgement of fire flow calculations /water study requirements (Applicant must initial one of the following): Fire Flow Calculations/Water Study is included. RMR Fire Flow Calculations/Water Study is not required. CAUTION - IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A FIRE FLOW CALCULATIONS/ WATER STUDY AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR. If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Fire Prevention Department at (727) 562 -4334. M. SIGNATURE: I, the undersigned,, acknowledge that all representations made in 4s application are true and accurate to the best of my kn ' ledge and authorize City representatives to visit and ph tograph the property described in this application. Signature of property owner or representative STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELAS �xVrn to and subscribed before me this t day of A.D. 20�= to me and /or by tc�x/,Vaz E who is personally known has producedW ,cj., as ide 66fication. Not public, My commission exoires. —.- gq�� usr� r c)mEEN A. WILLIAMS JAL MY COMMISSION # DD 57"'r EXPIRES: October 14, 201 � 4fif1R�Pro�ect (FI Pa .Q�,b"7ndbwo co. i- 800.3 -NOTA Y PECSAO C:1Documents and Setti! gs l derek. ferguson \Desktoplplanningforms_i 1 + 6 2Q08 Page 7 of 8 �� I Mr, �.Z.r'�VT Apr I b 08 03:0bp Stylistic Uesign Uevelope U4/ A4/ 4rivu AV. A. i r t r 44uuuou • N. AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHOR= AGiEWT: t. provide names at all properly QWngrt an deed - PF U+i fWl names' sbW,Rx , LLC /1(4/9b2JJ p.2 11L""fy` LuG G11V .7VU.7 0 r-M�7G LI Lf uC 2- That 0 arrWue s-) the owrler(s) and record Utte rmider(s) of Ohs to 00ing described property (addres9 or geneMl location): 1001 S. Pt. Hurri®onw Clearwater 3. That this property constiDWec the property for wtkh a requa* bra: (desuibe reg4+eal) comprehensive in -fill Redevelopment Application bas been submitted to redeveicp the aite with Medical Clini2r office and tank uses- the undyed (►st>i►►+ave) appointed and (does/do) 8paolnt ' Noxt;ho: de Engineering $eicviCefi, Inc. as (hiartheir) agt:rd(s) to extaaule any petWuns or other doa:m" nacesseryto of ed such petltW: S. Thet th)s affidavit ties been esaeuMd to Indua►the My olC3eorwatw. Florida to atrsider and act an the above described property: 6. That site vWt5 to the prvpertq are rteoesesery by CIly represenlattves in Cale► to process thic'13POC tiort and the owner auutorizes City representafivam to visit and photogrepti the property deecnried In thfs sppfieattan: 7, That cedi that the foregoing Isifue and earned. Property OVUr10r (S- % S� [� 1` - - L L- < ^°P�ny vm Icl iparty ( Property tanner STATF- OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINEWA$ -t- Derare ma -lie a dmigned. an officer duty oammisaiorted by the [am of the $left 0( Florida. an This _ / _2� day of �--perw"Iy appeared N�- 1, 1 4 ! . l trJl J: _ who having been first duty awom Oaposes and. 38ye that halshe fvly, understands the ConterAC of ltta arlidaVit that hershe ai pwd. JEAN MARIE MCINTYRE-HAUSHALTER MY COMMISSION 4 DD 728840 J y•, a€ EXPIRES: November 7, 2011 �. Bonded ThrutJoWry Public tJndenvrhere _ ��POn1iIG.9t raWrC Notary sealfStemp cmoctmmim and SeMingslderek. fstgumortUJesfatoptptar ►ni�gWr.nn_O7d71COmpatsrtensive Wall Project (FL.D) G4-24- 17.dnc pop is or 8 ciI16. PE( EWED 61008 •I. Provide- names of all property owners on deed -- PRINT full names: ki6ltC,iT� :rliC 2. That (I arnAsre are) the ovfner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described prol'ir'rty (address or general localiori): 1001 S. 1r't. Har.'s-i.son, clea.ewater 3. Thal this property constifutes file properly for which a request fora: (describe request) - 1.,.0[)0 aquai --a foiat medical, office medical. Clinic with il-e 3.in�rcvem nt:r 1, That the undersigned (has have) appointed and (does /do) appoint: 8rr�[-thwidn L•'ncjir[e5r:i.;:g �erv.ices, T_lto. ars {i115 /fhaii`) egenf(.$) td execute clay I.�atiilnns arotherdaournerrts necessarytn effer,C siicli petitican; 15. That tills affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act on the above desrribed property; 6. That ;site visits to the property are necessary by (.,fly tepresen1atives in order to process tills applicaifan and the owner authorizes City rapreeentati'✓es t[) visit and Photograph the property described in Ibis dppliratlon; 7. 1114[1! (lAme), the undersigned rir.ilhority, hereby cerlify that Ilia foregoing Is true Land cnrrrryo , Ar ..... PruparPy C)wria G�c Prot�erty L�i'vner .. . Property Owner STATE, OF FLCIRWA, COUNTY (,)F I�INELLAS .Property ovmer Before rile the till derslgned, all officer dilly eonimissioned by file lavvs cf t1tia 3tatt, �f- t9lnride , on this lj clay of personally oppearecf ��0%�a 1C �/� c � vai c h wing been first eels sworn Deposes and says that helshe fully understands the conienis of fhe affidavit that he /sl r. 11II -w �� i`•I � �u � Signature Notary SeaPstamp My Com AA, 3 �a�. • Q�Mb S1)A �q/ • .. e. Co eta 9 p %� • #DD454 243 • 10 "q C Documents and Settf ngslderel,. fergusonl De,c lctoplilanningforns_0 % =l.D) 04- ?4- 07.doc Page 0 of 5 M)'W x , 6 2008 p r T llg'r,�ltsi;,��,�^i fU�4�d'+?ewa�:ti�aV[I ,. • 4 This letter will serve as authorization for Housh Chovaee (agent Name) with gorthside Engineering services, Inc. to act as an agent for SNRKI. I (Property Owner's Name) And to execute any and all documents related to securing permits and approvals for the construction on the property generally located at 1001 S. Ft. Harrison. Clearwater, Florida (Property Location) PINELLAS County, State of FLORIDA. Signature of Property Owner Address of Property Owner City /State /Zip Code Print Name of Property Owner s� Title ;7.17 —810 P i //Y' Telephone Number State of The foregoing instrument was acknowled before me this L day County of 20 Dom, b as who is personally known to me or who has produced \ \ \ \ \��1�iillllll111 / /// as identification and who did (did not) take an oath. N\ BUS / / .• •���SSIO/�F� . c, fiber 2g ON Notary Public 2• y #DD454243 ,F•�§i�Tnature) i y °-/ ranee / /�� � O STA���� \ \ \ \\ \\�mmissi # llllllllt6 (SEAL ABOVE) 3 2006 e q 07Y OF (Name of Notary Typed, Printed or Stamped) • • FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project FLD2008 -05014 1001 S. Fort Harrison Harbor Oaks Professional Center NES Project # 731 June 13, 2008 Description of Request: To construct a two story commercial development, containing a medical clinic and office uses with following the reductions or variances: Building Front (North) Reqd: 25' Regst: 17.50' Front (West) Reqd: 25' Reqst: 18.80' Pavement Height Front (North) Reqd: 25' Reqst: 7.5' (to Parking) Side (South) Reqd: 10' Reqst: 6.0' (to Sidewalk) Side (South) Reqd: 10' Reqst: 6.5' (to Parking) Side (East) Reqd: 1.0' Reqst: 7.0' (to Parking) Allowable - Office: 25' -50' Allowable - Medical Clinic: 25' Proposed: 32' 2 -1/2" (Top ofparapet) 41'6-1/2" (Mid -point of roof) 45' 4 -1/2" (Roof peak) Also, reductions to the required landscape buffers through a Comprehensive Landscape Application to allow the following: Landscape Buffers Front (North) Front.(East) Reqd: 10' Reqst: 7.5' Reqd: 10' Reqst: 7' General Applicable Standards (Section 3- 913(A) : 1. The portion of the project which will contain the building and parking is zoned "C" and allows a F.A.R of 0.55, respectively the project is proposed in general conformance with these standards. The proposed development will be in harmony with the character of the adjacent developments and the surrounding area which hosts a mixture of similar commercial and medical offices. The building setbacks that we are proposing exceed the neighboring. building located to the North on Magnolia which has a zero front setback along S. Ft. Harrison Avenue and the newly approved Harbor Oaks townhome project with a front building setback off S. Ft. Harrison of only 10'. t_ �' ` 16 2008 ENT • The proposed two story development will be consistent with the adjacent properties in scale and bulk; the surrounding and adjacent properties are comprised of one and two story developments very similar in scale and bulk as the proposed development. 2. The proposed site design, height and building design will be compatible and consistent with the new developments in the area in addition to blending well with the older existing built environment. 3. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the values as redevelopment of this site will promote investment and encourage further redevelopment of the surrounding land and buildings. The current assessed value of the vacant land is $1,760,000 with a projected value of construction of over $4,000,000 providing improved land values to the surrounding sites, and increased assessment to the City of Clearwater. 4. No health or safety issues are anticipated with the proposed development; the proposed uses are compatible with the commercial corridor, comply with the existing zoning, are appropriate and similar with adjacent developments, and will not create any negative effects on the surrounding properties. The redevelopment plan includes responsible site drainage; fully landscaped yards and a new building which meets current building code and FEMA requirements to further improve the heath and safety of the surrounding community. 5. The development plan provides single vehicular access to the site and is located . along the secondary street, Magnolia Drive; the primary vehicular egress for the site is also located along Magnolia Drive. Negative affects are further mitigated by providing only the bank drive thru egress onto Ft. Harrison; a formal Traffic Impact Study has been provided and offers further- discussion related to vehicular mitigation, safety and traffic congestion. 6. The immediate vicinity is currently characterized by mixed land use patterns; the proposed mixture of medical clinic and office uses including a bank will be consistent with the community character and will provide additional commercial support to the surrounding area. The proposed development uses and urban design elements are consistent with the desires for the area; the design will blend beautifully with the community character and will provide further enhancement and support to the surrounding environment. 7. No adverse effects associated with visual, acoustic, olfactory and hours of operation . are anticipated as these items are addressed and minimized through appropriate and responsible design. The design, number and location of driveways; the proposed mixture of uses and the architectural design of the building together with the proposed hours of operation (Monday — Friday 8am -5pm) all play a part in accomplishing minimalization of any anticipated adverse effect. ORIVA11W .- 6 2008 2 • 1 0 Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria The following items make the site very difficult to develop without deviations: a. The irregular shape of the parcel, having narrow lot width at points makes the site more difficult to develop without deviations; with a truly rectangular parcel three of the requested deviations would not be necessary. b. Contributing to the difficulty of developing without deviations is the fact that the site has three yards that are considered "front" requiring a larger setback for the north, east and west yards. c. Provide an access point along Magnolia that is appropriately distanced from the intersection of Magnolia and Ft. Harrison, together with the objective to maintain appropriate access spacing from the Pinellas Trail, the location of the access drive and parking layout is somewhat predetermined for this site. 2 The uses proposed, the site and architectural design are in conformance with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan, as well as the purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of the code; the proposed uses, design and function are appropriate for the neighborhood and surrounding community. The project, as proposed will not impede the normal and orderly development of the improvement of surrounding the properties. The project is expected to improve, not impair value of the property and the adjacent properties. Further, the location of the development, uniquely situated adjacent to the Pinellas Trail, will result in the improvement of approximately 135 linear feet of the Pinellas Trail boundary with professionally designed landscaping, providing; rewards and benefit to the entire community. 4 Adjoining properties will not suffer detriment as a result of this development; the development of this vacant property will increase property values for the surrounding area. The projects location within a "hospital area" with such close proximity the hospital complex will only offer support the community and provide new additional employment opportunities. With the proposed mixture of uses, together with the site and architectural design, no negative impacts are anticipated. 5. The immediate vicinity is currently characterized by mixed land use pattern; the proposed mixture of office and medical clinic uses will be consistent with the community character and will provide the desired commercial support to the surrounding area. The proposed development uses and design elements are consistent with the desires for the area and will blend beautifully with the community character, providing further enhancement and support to the surrounding environment. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard and flexible development use. 6. Re- development of the subject property is in close accordance with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City of Clearwater and will continue to upgrade the area. 66 2000 I x �LMTTRS Mir ri t. r • • a. Practical development of this property requires deviations from development standards for setbacks and buffers primarily due to the irregular shaped lot. The proposed setbacks, design and use are consistent and compatible with the newly approved Harbor Oaks town home project in addition to many of the other surrounding developments. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties in anyway. This proposed development will further promote the positive redevelopment pattern of the area. b. There are no adopted applicable design guidelines for this area. C. The proposed development and design supports the established character of development (commercial, office, medical clinic uses) along this stretch of S. Ft. Harrison Avenue with many existing developments having reductions to building setbacks, and landscape buffers. d. In response to the desired design elements provided within the Development Code, we offer the following: Harbor' Oaks is a mixed -use development which is architecturally influenced by the designs of old Florida. This style of architecture provides many opportunities in building form as well as material selection. Horizontal building plans undulate as the standing seam metal roofs break up the parapets. Wooden trellises shade the first floor fagade creating dramatic shadows. Old Florida details and materials, such as long overhangs, brackets supporting the roof, Bahama style shutters, coral stone, and a standing seam metal .roof tie the building to the past. Fenestration patterns become tall and narrow in the corner towers adding elegance while drawing ones eyes up to the long brackets supporting the roof. Building setbacks fall within the requirements creating a public space around the building. The design and scale of the project integrates into the surrounding community and offers a unique influence of the past incorporating many of the design elements described within the Development Code. e. The proposed development plan provides appropriate buffers and distance between buildings, with professionally designed landscaped yards, featuring four tiers of plantings along much of Ft. Harrison and three tiers of planting along Magnolia Drive. Although minimal deviations for the setback to pavement and the dumpster are being requested along the Pinellas Trail much of this yard actually meets the requirement; the lot line is angled creating this additional variance request. Additional landscaping has been included in the design to provide the desired buffering. The proposed plan offers trees in excess of the minimum required by code with all available open space on the larger site being planted with a multitude of varieties, textures and colors of plantings. The proposed development will benefit the community character and property values, above and beyond the required development standards. NES 731 - 1001 —S. Ft. Harrison — RMR/rmr revised 6.13.08 °' 16 2008 4 tta,i � t tPf *•,.�. '"r} 1 ^.�- q Clearwater Planning Department 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 Telephone: 727 - 562 -4567 Fax: 727- 562 -4865 ❑ SUBMIT ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION ❑ SUBMIT 14 COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION -Plans and application are required to be collated, stapled and folded into sets • CASE NUMBER: RECEIVED BY (Staff Initials): DATE RECEIVED: * NOTE: A TOTAL OF 15 SETS OF THIS APPLICATION AND ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A COMPLETE LEVEL ONE OR LEVEL TWO APPLICATION. COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM (Revised 04/24/2007) PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT— APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND AGENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4- 202.A) APPLICANT NAME: SNKR I, LLC __.._...... ......_. .......... ..._.._...... .._ ....... _ ......... _ ..... ................. ......... ........_-__- ...._....._.._._. _....._..__.._....... -........_.....__....... .-- __._...._.....__..._....._.. MAILING ADDRESS: 1815 Health Care Drive, Trinity, FL 34655 PHONE NUMBER: (727 809 -114.6 _ ........� ._..___ FAX NUMBER: CELL NUMBER: 4 v EMAIL: �~ PROPERTY OWNER(S): SNKR, I , LLC a Florida Limited Liability Company t_ist ALL owners on the deed AGENT NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER: -CELL NUMBER: NOrthside Engineering Services, Inc. Renee Ruggiero, Project Planner 300 S. Belcher Road, Clearwater, FL _727- 443 -2869 FAX NUMBER: renee@northsideengineering.com 7277 -235 -8475' �_' EMAIL: �- - - 1. ARCHITECTURAL THEME: a. The landscaping in a Comprehensive Landscape Program shall be designed as a part of the architectural theme of the principal buildings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for the development. OR b. The design, character, location and /or materials of the landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program shall be demonstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for development under the minimum landscape standards. SEE COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE NARRATIVE - 1tiZC-.9 '^'t r YA'4S •r,,, C:IDocuments and Settingslderek. fergusonIDesktoplplanningforms _07071ComprehensCi�ve� an0scap ProgP2m�04 4- 07.doc Page 1 of 2 r' 2. COMMUNITY CHARACTER: The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater. SEE COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE NARRATIVE 3. PROPERTY VALUES: The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program will have a beneficial impact on the value of the property in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. SEE COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE NARRATIVE 4. SPECIAL AREA OR SCENIC CORRIDOR PLAN: The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program is consistent with any special area or scenic corridor plan which thN/�ity of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in which the parcel proposed for development is located. THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 3, DIVISION 12 MAY BE WAIVED OR MODIFIED AS A PART OF A LEVEL ONE OR LEVEL TWO APPLICATION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, IF THE APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL INCLUDES A COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM, WHICH SATISFIES THE ABOVE CRITERIA. THE USE OF LANDSCAPE PLANS, SECTIONS / ELEVATIONS, RENDERINGS AND PERSPECTIVES MAY BE NECESSARY TO SUPPLEMENT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WORKSHEET. SIGNATURE: I, th undersigned, acknowledge that all representations made in this a Acation are true and accurate to the best of my kno le ge and authorize City representatives to visit and P logfaph the property described in this application. ature of property owner or representative ORF,�9�a RECU�W A IN 6 2009 a�ENT STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINEL�AS Sw rn to and subscribed before me this day of A.D. 20 to me and /or by who is personally known has produced as identification. Kota public, My commission expires: E1.800-3-Noj-ARy [7C�REEN A. WILLIAMS MY COMMISSION# DD''576718 EXPIRES: October 14, 2010 'FL Notwy Dlsepupt Assoc. Co. C:IDocumenfs..and Settingslderek. fergusonlDe, sktoplplanningforms _07071Comprehensive Landscape Program 04- 24- 07.doc Page 2 of 2 9 COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM NARRATIVE Case Number: FLD2008 -05014 ONNNAL Project Address: 1001 S. Ft. Harrison fl"`-Cth W. Project Name: Harbor Oaks Medical Center °;� 6 ZQQ� NES Project: #0731 Date: June 10, 2008 PlANNI US CN 0FC#'fkZ111;A — Request: A reduction to the landscape buffer along Magnolia Drive and the Pinellas Trail from 10' to 7'. 1. Architectural Theme: A. N/A B: The plan provides plantings beyond the minimum code requirements with four tiers of plantings along; the majority of the Ft. Harrison frontage and three tiers along Magnolia Drive. The plan provides over 85 new trees, virtually all available green space has been utilized within the landscape design. 2. Community Character: The proposed landscape treatment is designed to provide years of benefits without the disruption of building function, drainage and utilities. The landscape design includes just over 1,800 new plantings, consisting of 28 different varieties and will offer the community immediate visual rewards. The design provides landscaping that is tolerant to the Florida environment and is pedestrian friendly. Once installed, the landscaping will greatly enhance and improve the streetscape and community character. Further, the location of the development, uniquely situated adjacent to the Pinellas Trail, will result in the improvement of approximately 135 linear feet of the Pinellas Trail boundary with professionally designed landscaping, providing additional rewards and benefit to the entire community. 3. Property Values: The quality of the proposed plantings, together with the professional landscape design will offer upgraded and positive value to the immediate vicinity. 4. Special Area or Scenic Corridor Plan: The development is not located within a Special Area or Scenic Corridor Plan 6.13.2008 Revised Harbor Oaks NES 731 rmr /RMR 0 �; —,, Pd, AFFIDAVIT "i O OUT HC3RIZE AGENT: t. Provide navies of all property owners on deed – PRINT full names: St:1KRIY ITC 2. That (I amiwe are) the owner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property (address or general location): 100.1 S. Ft. Harrison, Clearwater 3. That this property constitutes the property for which a request for a: (describe request) 21,000 square foot medical office / medical clinic with site improvements 4. That the undersigned (has /have) appointed and (does /do) appoint: alnrthside Engineering Services, Inc. as (hisltheir) ardent(s) to execute any petitions or other documents necessary to affect such petition; 5 Thal this affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act on the above described property; 6. That site vislts to the properly 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 (Ilwa), the undersigned authority, hereby certify that the foregoing is true and Corr c Property Owner Prc 0 Civvnet Property Owner STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PtNELL AS .Property Owner Before me the undersigned, an offloer duly commissioned by the laws of fife Stat f Florida, on this lj day of ,�JJ 9 / � W Personally appeared eJ�O/( who having been first duly sworn Deposes and says ihat het$110 fully understands the contents of fhe affidavit that hels" Notary Seai/Starnp My Comy�~Xtr - �". G�' per 2 '-Co • - v i . • co ap N o • o #DD454 ?_43 0 n8orance Boo' O GADocumentsand Settirigslderek. fergusonl t)esktopiptanningforms_074 � �Ft.G) 04- 24- 07.doc Page B of a / /V11M� 111m`�`\\\ ORNOM M, PE Q 2 2000 DWENT CITY OF CEf`ercr�iiEu:IC LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION This letter will serve as authorization for Housh Ghovaee (agent Name) with Northside Engineering Services, Inc. to act as an agent for SNRKI, Inc. (Property Owner's Name) And to execute any and all documents related to securing permits and approvals for the construction on the property generally located at 1001 S. Ft. Harrison Clearwater Florida (Property Location) PINELLAS County, State of FLORIDA. Signature of Property Owner Address of Property Owner mw "4q City /State /Zip Code Print Name of Property Owner Title ?17 •-8'0 P YZ4� Telephone Number State of The foregoing instrument was acknowled before me this day County of o , 20 Dom, b as �w who is personally known to me or who has produced `11111111111/C/ s identification and who did (did not) take an oath. BUS O. •c° fiber,29 Q =ylr • .. 0 ° • *= Notary Public y. o #DD454243,0 •Pc�$j- nature) /9'P/A'•�';° ; c; mmissi # / /// /ellll rii1 -1►RAI (SEAL ABOVE) (Name of Notary Typed, Pri K " J Q 2 2000 :% PLANK-34G CQ?,4M`v1ENT Cl Y 0 F C! E%`M'jX1ER Case Number: FLD2008 -05014 Project Address: 1001 S. Ft. Harrison Project Name: Harbor Oaks Professional Center NES Project: # 731 Date: June 16, 2008 Narrative for Stacking Length for Magnolia Dr. Driveway The purpose of this narrative is to provide information relating to the traffic pattern surrounding the proposed development, the proposed site design and the anticipated effect the proposed stacking length may have on the safe movement of vehicles along the local street: • The design offers onsite parking with a single ingress and egress point along Magnolia Drive and one egress point along S. Ft. Harrison for the bank drive -thru, improving the previous existing conditions of two curb cuts along S. Ft. Harrison and one curb cut along Magnolia Drive. • The site design provides a safe 160' distance between the street intersection and the driveway access along Magnolia Drive, improving the previous condition which provided a curb cut within 75' of the intersection. • Although the proposed stacking length does not meet the letter of the Code by providing a 40' stacking area from property line, the intent and spirit of the code is satisfied as the dimension from curb to the first parking space is 36' providing safe access to and from the site. • Magnolia Drive is a two lane, 30 MPH local type street which dead ends just east of the Pinellas Trail, due to the minimal traffic flow along Magnolia it is expected that the throat reduction from 40' to 17' will not create adverse traffic conditions along Magnolia Drive. Based upon the above factors, negative impact relating to function and safety are not anticipated as a result of the proposed stacking length. NOTE: Please also see Traffic Impact Study prepared by Robert Pergolizzi, previously submitted. b C= - Information prepared By c9° Northside Engineering Services, Inc. phi 0 is � 7 I 6.16..08 Harbor Oaks NES 731 rmr /RMR F`.r [1- I'R.EPARED BY AND I�2v \C'rURN TO: KrN'r' R.UNNELLS, P.A. 101 MAIN STRIJYT, SUITr A SArrTY ITARBOIt, FL 34695 PZI: (727)'726 -2728 ' 0 'KEN BURKE; CLERK OF COURT PINELLAS COUNTY FLORIDA INST# 2007276305 06/20/2007 at 01:57 PM OFF REC BK: 15942 PG: 1401 -1403 DoeType:DEED RECORDING: $27.00 D DOG STAMP: $9275.00 [SPACE ABOVE LINE Fort RECORDING DATA] W A.R.R A N T Y D F.E .I THIS INDENTURE, made this day of J v % , 2007, betweenFullvio DiVello, as Trustee of the Ft. Harrison Property Land Trust, datedDecemher 30, 2005, whose address is 400 Islandway, No. 703, Clearwater, Florida 33767, Grantor (herein called 'First Party "), and, SNKR I, LLC; a Florida limited liability company, whose address is 1815 Health Care Drive, Trinity, FL 34655, Grantee (herein called "Second Party "). WITNESSETH, that the said party of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of TEN DOLLARS and other good and valuable considerations, to it in hand paid, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold and transferred, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell and transfer unto the said party of the second part and his heirs and assigns forever, all that certain parcel of land lying and being in the County of Pinellas, and State of Florida, to wit: Legal Description: Exhibit "A" attached TOGETHER with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances, with everyprivilege, right, title, interest and estate, dower and right of dower, reversion, remainder and easement thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining: TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same in fee simple forever. And the said party of the first part covenants with the said party of the second part that it is lawfully seized of the said premises, that they are free from all encumbrances, save and except for all covenants and restrictions of record; that certain mortgage originally filed in Official Records Book 14143, Page 9230, of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, in favor of Fifth Third Bank, and subsequently assigned to Synovus Bank,of Tampa Bay in Official Records Book 15828,.Page 1305 of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, having a current..,principal balance of $780,000.00,, which mortgage and balance grantee herein, by acceptance of this deed, hereby a.s.sumes and expressly agrees to pay; and taxes for the current year, and that it has good right and lawful authority to sell the same; and that the said party of the first part does hereby fully warrant the title to the said land, and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. ^.1 - Ply \ \Wxpwks (it l \run tic) lspi0ormsLepI\ Clients\ DiVello, Fulvio - Fort Harrison Sale \DeedWarranty.SNKR ldoc.doc I Page 1. 4a 'Y Ib Y 6" 1 6 2008 P1 IJNWA'�S IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Party of the first Part has hereunto set its hand and seal the clay and year above written. SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVEIZED IN OUR PIZESENCE: Ft. Harrison Property Land Trust, dated December 30, 2005 Print Name ArNTA IRIJNNEL1;s By: Fulvio DiVello, Trustee STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PINELLAS r The foregoing instrument was acknowledged Before me this day of , 2007, by Fulvio DiVello, as Trustee of the Ft. Harrison Property Land Trust dated ecember 30, 2005, who is personally, known to me or who has produced identification and. who did take an oath. (seal) Notary Public 'Tate of Florida My Commission Expires AMY v. '406=-Z Printed rime: MARY O.MANESTAR MY COMMISSION A DD 508212 EXPIRES: Fobnjwy 3, 2010 gl „rt . Baled Tr u Notary ft"Ic Undormftors 1 1'*A IL P. r ti C: "'E. 4. t D , 6 2000 e Srr� /;ti:IC EXTITBTT "A" a Lot 24, Block 32, and Lots 1, 2, 3, 9 and 10 and 50 foot strip of vacated Railroad Right of way on East, and Lot 11, Block 34, Magnolia Park, according to the neap or plat thereof as recorded in flat Book 3, Page(s) 43, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. O'�t! AL F.11'.( t 'VM a..,= , c 2008 rl"';'"VOFC-f-FEI MI�a,1. R f • Tree Inventory =-1001 South Fort flarrison Avenue Prepared by: Alan Mayberry, Consulting Arborist March 30, 2005 I.S.A. Certified Arborist #SO -0305 The following report is submitted by Alan. Mayberry and includes findings that I believe are accurate based on my education, experience and knowledge in the feld of Arboriculture. I have no interest personally or financially in this property and this report is factual and unbiased. This report is the property ofFuliicco Divello and will not be given to other entities unless so directed. Site Overview and Canopy Analysis The subject property includes a former commercial building and a single family, residential house. Historically, the property has been cleared of all native vegetation and even the larger native trees are second growth, The tree canopy is composed primarily,of the native live oak (Quercus virginiana) and laurel oak (Quercus laur folia) trees. Palm species including the native sabal palm (Sahal palmetto) are also present. In addition, the site contains an admixture of exotic trees that were planted by the previous occupants or invasive species such as the camphor tree (Cinnamomum camphora) that grew from seed. The mid -story vegetation is comprised of planted ornamental shrubs and various grasses make up the groundcover vegetation. The overall condition of the trees is below average as the site trees reflect neglect and improper maintenance. However, a small percentage of the trees warrant preservation and they have been identified in the inventory. In addition, several trees are border line for preservation and will be upgraded if remedial maintenance is performed. . Tree Inventory Data A tree inventory is a written record of a tree's condition at the time of inspection. It is a valuable tool to prioritize tree maintenance and remove trees with problems that could lead to failure and cause personal injury or property damage. The tree inventory lists four codes and also has a comment section. The following is an explanation of the inventory data: o° Tree# location - Each tree is assigned a number for reference in the inventory that corresponds with a number on the site plan that identifies the location of the tree in the field.. - ; Size — Tree size is a measure of the tree's trunk diameter measured at 11.5' above grade. If a fork exists in the trunk at that point: the diameter is measured a.t the narrowest area, below the fork, Palm species are measured by feet of clear fr-unk, Clear trunk (shown as s= �Z n • C.T.) is measured from the grade to the base of the bud. NOTE; If the crown spread is required to be shown on a plan use the following formula: The crown spread is equal to 1' radius for each inch of trunk diameter_ It is better to use this formula. than the actual location of the branch spread as a tree will develop roots in the opposite, direction of a lean or one -sided crown. The crown spread for palms is 6' radius from the trunk. Species — Each tree is listed by its coniinon and botanical name the :first time it is listed in the inventory. For simplicity the tree is listed by its common name thereafter. Condition Rating — The condition rating is an assessment of the tree's overall structural strength and systemic health. Elements of structure include: 1) the presence of cavities, decayed wood, split, cracked, rubbing branches etc,, 2) branch. arrangements and attachments, i,e,, well spaced vs. several. branches emanating.from the same area on the trunk, codominan.t stems vs. single leader trunk, presence of branch collars vs. included bark. Elements of systemic health relate to the tree's overall energy system measured by net photosynthesis (food made) vs, respiration (food used). A tree with good systemic' health will have a vascular system that moves water, nutrients and photosynthate around the tree as needed. Indicators of a healthy systemic system used in the overalt'condition rating include: 1) live crown ratio (the amount of live crown a. tree has relative to its mass), 2) crown density (density of the foliage), 3) tip growth (shoot elongation is a sign that the tree is making and storing energy. The overall condition rating also takes into consideration the species, appearance and any y unique features. The rating scale is 0 -6 with 0 being a dead tree and 6 a specimen. I.ncremerits of 0:5 are used to increase accuracy. Examples of the tree rating system are as follows: 0- A dead tree 1- A tree that is dying, severely declining, hazardous, harboring a communicable disease or a tree designated by the State of Florida's Exotic Pest Plant Council as a category #1 ecological nest i.e.; Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus ter.ehinthtfohys), A tree with a rating of 1 should be removed as it is beyond treatment and is a. threat to cause personal injury or property damage. 2 -- A tree exhibiting serious structural defects such as codominant stems with included bark at or near the base, large cavities, large areas of decayed wood, crown dieback cracked /split scaffold branches etc. In. addition, a tree with health issues such as 16:v, energy, low live crown ratio, ,serious disease or insect problems, nutritional deficien`ak,,s or soil pH problems, A tree with a rating of #2 should be removed unless the probl�i�?:(s) can be treated. A tree with a #2 condition rating will typically require a considerable amount of maintenance to qualify for an upgrade of the. condition rating. ` M LU .Y C= o CS C%.1 Gw cc's U • • 3- A tree with average structure and systemic health and with. problems that can be corrected with moderate maintenance. A. tree with a codominant stem not in the basal area that will be subordinated or called and braced. or a codominant stern that will soon have included barb can be included as a 43_ A tree with a rating of #3 has average appearance, crown. density and live crown. ratio and should be, preserved if possible, 4- A tree with a rating of 4 has good. sti °u.cfure and systemic health with minor problems that can be easily corrected with minor maintenance. The tree should have an attractive appearance and be essentially free of any debilitating disease or insect problem. The tree should also have above average crown density and live crown ratio. Mature trees exhibiting scars, old wounds, small cavities or other problems that are not debilitating can be. included in this group particularly if they possess unique form or other aesthetic amenities relating to their age: A tree with a. rating of 4 is valuable to the property and should be preserved. 5 — A tree with very high live crown ratio and exceptional structure and systemic health and. virtually free of insect or disease problems or nutritional deficiencies. A tree in this category should have a balanced crown with exceptional aesthetic amenities. A tree in this category should be of a species that possesses characteristics inherent to longevity and withstanding construction impacts. A tree with a #5 rating lends considerable value to the site and should be incorporated into the site design. A tree with a #5 rating is worthy of significant site plan modification to ensure its preservation. 6 — A specimen tree. A specimen tree is a tree that possesses a combination of superior qualities in regards to systemic health, structural strength, crown density, live crown ratio, form (balanced crown), overall aesthetic appeal, size, species, age and uniqueness. A great effort should be made to preserve a specimen tree including shifting structures that would adversely impact the tree. In addition, a specimen tree should have an undisturbed area equal to its dripline (equal to the branch spread) to grow in. Only an experienced and competent International Society. of Arboriculture (I.S.A.) Certified Arborist should be allowed work on a specimen tree. Comments: The comment section serves to note observations relative to the tree but not covered in the inventory data or expands on information in the inventory data. It may include maintenance recommendations to improve the tree's overall condition rating. It. may also have recommendation`s on whether to remove or preserve a tree. e cim C= NOTE: A tree inventory is typically valid for- 3-5 years. However, events such as drought, lightning, mechanical root damage, freeze, improper maintenance ari'd R severe storms can downgrade the rating value of a tree.- Conversely' remedial maintenance can upgrade the value. If you suspect that a tree has been adversely =a_ affected have the tree inspected by a qualified International Society of�J Arboriculture JSA) Certified Arborist. 0 • At the time of this inventory several trees were in a.total or semi- deciduous state. It is difficult to assess the live crown ratio and overall systemic health of a tree when the foliage is not present. However, most of the oaks are now producing catkins (flowers) consequently the density of flowers and /or leaf buds were used to calculate systemic issues. Irk0e Inventory Tree 9 Size Species Rating 1 10" laurel oak (Quercus lau), folia) 2.5 Comments: This tree was not identified. on the tree survey but has been added. The tree is growing in a planter and is located 3' from the rear wall of the commercial building fronting South Fort Harrison Avenue. The root collar and trunk are free of decay or cavities, The tree has three codominant stems located. approximately 9' above grade'that have severely included bark and that support most of the tree's canopy. The tree has average live crown ratio and below average form. The codominant stems could be mitigated by subordinate pruning but this procedure would be costly and take at least three years before structure was restored. Recommend removal of this tree, 2 7" deciduous PX1 'Note: The crown of this tree was totally bare at the time of the inventory and the branches are growing over the roof so an identification of species based oil morphological elements was not possible. The species will be provided as soon as foliage appears. . Comments: This tree was not identified on the tree survey. The tree is growing in the same raised planter as tree #1. It is located 5' south of tree #1 and 3' from the rear building wall. The trunk is situated against the edge of the planter. This tree has a tight v- shaped crown that is composed of two scaffold branches. The tree has average form and structure and good live crown ratio. Recommend removal. 3 8" live oak (Quem7& virginiana) 10 4 Comments: This tree is not identified on the survey, The tree is growing 5' from the rear.L of the commercial building. The crown of this tree is composed of three scaffold branches that are codominant with included bark present in the crotches. The overall form r� and stntcture is poor, The tree has above average live crown ratio and is systemically healthy, Recommend removal, 4 8" laurel oak 2.5 Comments: This tree is situated P fTorn a shed located in ,the rear of the commercial building. This tree has below average form with average,structure and live crown ratio. It has .6 surface roots which is unusual for a small tree (surface roots grow on top of the grade and can be attributed to site conditions or genetic characteristics). As this tree grows the, surface roots will increase in size and cause problems to structures and create a trip hazard. Recommend removal. 22" laurel oak 0.5 Comments: This tree Is not shown on the site plan and is actually growing in the right of way of S. Fort Harrison Avenue where it grows through an awning attached to the old produce stand. This tree is severally declining, It has basal wounds, trunk cankers, internal decay and a dysfunctional systemic system. It is in imminent danger of falling and should be removed immediately. Contact the City of Clearwater's Urban Forestry Division (562 -4950) as they are responsible for right of way trees. . NOTE: There is a palm growing in. the right of way and. also some on the property that were not inventoried because they had less than 10' of clear trunk and are not considered protected trees by City of Clearwater code. All palms having clear trunks breateT than 10' will be inventoried. 6 34" laurel oalc 0.5 Comments: This tree has massive internal decay indicated by the presence of heart rot sporophores colonized all over the trunk. The root collar and large root flares are suffering from. decay as a result of previous physical wounds. There is a large area of decay in the form of decaying stubs 6' above grade. This tree has no tipper crown structure as the only foliage is resulting from vigorous stickers growing from the decaying scaffold branches. This tree is hazardous and needs to be removed. 7 30" live oak 3.5 Comments: This tree was in full flower (catkins) at the time of inspection and appears to have above average live crown ratio based on the amount`of catkins. The trunk and root collar are healthy and free of any debilitating problems. This tree has two major scaffold branches that form the crown, They are codominant but have a wide u- shaped crotch with connective tissue present. There is an 8" dead stub that needs to be removed i:fthe tree is F.a _ preserved. The tree has good form with interesting serpentine branches. The crown is somewhat irregular in appearance but still has above average aesthetic qualities. This tree will. benefit from pruning to remove stubs and small deadwood in the crown. If preserved � � �, C11Q and maintained properly this tree will evolve into a very good tree. Recommend t_�. preservation. 7—! 34" live oak 3,0 Comments: This tree has a 4" diameter girdling root that wraps around approximately 30% of the tree's root collar. This root will injure the tree but has not caused damage yet and could easily be rernoved, The trunk is sound. The crown is composed of two scaffold branches that are codominant, The crotch has a tight u- shape that has connective tissue at this th-ne but could become included. in the future. The upper crown has above average overall structure, Part of the crown. grows to the west over the rear parking lot of the commercial building and has some damage in the form of torn branches and branch wounds likely caused from large trucks that drove beneath this tree. This portion of the crown will need to be raised if the tree is preserved. The crown of this tree is barely average in appearance. The form is irregular and there are gaps in the canopy and it has very little crown to the east. however, the tree is systemically healthy and could evolve into a good tree if preserved and maintained properly. The main crotch should be cabled and braced as it is codominant with a tight crotch that will become included. As live oaks are long -lived trees that adapt well. to construction, this tree could be preserved if it falls into a green area. However, it does not warrant site design modifications for preservation. 9 29" laurel oak 1 Comments: The trunk has a 12" x 12" area of decay on the lower east side close to the base. The decay is not causing structural problems at this time but will progress and cause problems to the root collar area in the future. This tree has an 12" and an 18" diameter codominant trunk that forms the base structure for the crown. The codominant is severally included and there is a large bulge on the west side of the inclusion indicating internal cracks /wounding. The upper crown has poor structure with small cavities, decay sporophores, suckers and large dead wood. The crown has low live crown ratio. This free is not salvageable and needs to be removed.. 10 9" Schefflera (Brassaia actinophylla) 1.0 Coininents: This tree was not shown on the site plan. It is growing 2' from the chimney located on the west side of the old house. The tree is not recommended for preservation as the schefflera is very cold sensitive and produces a large surface root system. 1.1 16" laurel oak 1.0 Comment: This tree was attached by connective tissue at the root: collar to a 24" diameter laurel oak that is now a 6' dead stump infected with Hypoxylon canker, The decay from Y the sttuxip will affect this tree's root collar area as the decay progresses into the basal area. There is also a. queen palm that is � p growing against the trunk of the laurel oak. The e= c,,• ` . free has an old flush cut wound on the northwest side of the trunk that is causing internal v } decay. 1'he tree has virtually no upper crown and stnreture is nonexistent. This tree needs; to be removed. 12 10' C.T. queen palm (Syagrus ro7nanzoffrana) 2.0 CorrincEts: This palm has below average crown and appearance.for-a. queen palm. The base is growing against tree # #11 and this condition will prevent the palm from being able to be transplanted. Recommend removal. 13 15" live oak 3.0 Comments: This tree is growing against the concrete wall of the front porch of the old house. In addition, it has an avocado tree growing against its trunk. The root flare is healthy but is somewhat asymmetrical where the avocado tree interferes with its growth. The trunk is sound and forks 8' above grade into three scaffold branches that form the upper crown. The tree has good upper crown structure with average overall form. The live crown ratio is above average. The appearance is only average but will improve if maintained properly and given room to grow. It is a borderline tree in regards to desirability for preservation and should only be preserved if it falls into a green space. 14 6" avocado (Per °.vea Americana) 1.0 Comments: This tree has poor form and structure and is an undesirable species due to its cold sensitivity, Recommend removal. 15 20" laurel oak 0.5 Comments: The trunk of tree #16 grows at an angle into the basal area of this tree. If they continue to grow in this manner they will wound each other and cause structural . problems at the critical root collar area. This tree has a very poor upper crown structure. One leader is dead with sporophores growing along the branches. The other two branches have been- previously topped and are dying. Recommend removal of this hazardous tree. 16 12" live oak 1.0 Comment: This tree grows at angle out from the base of tree #15. The tree has poor structure as it has virtually no crown. One branch grows on top of tree- #13 causing damage to a lateral branch. This tree will be damaged when tree # 15 is removed. Recommend. removal. 17 30" live oak 2,0 Comments: This tree is growing east of the old house and abuts the east side of the driveway. The root collar and lower trunk are sound. At 4.5' above there is a galvanized steel cable embedded into the trunk all the way around the trunk and again about a third of the way around and six inches higher on the trumk. The cable is totally embedded except for one area where the cable tip protrudes from the trunk. The girdling has caused . the trunk to grow callus tissue around the wound resulting in a pronounced bulging of the trunk tissues. I estimate that the girdling occurred approximately 20 years ago, Just above the girdled area the tree forks into .two 15" diameter codominant sterns that have an 8" bark inclusion. The upper crown has good st11►cture and appearance, however, there is t b` approximately 25% dieback probably due to the girdling activity that destroyed part of the tree's vascular system. The tree has apparently restored most of its vascular system as evidenced by its'growth. A major concern for this tree .however relates to the location of the decay resulting from. the girdling, It is located just beneath the bark inclusion and the chance of coalescing decay creating a structural ha-zard is probable. This tree has an overall attractive appearance but &ing,the potential for structural failure it is recommended for removal, The only ajtemative is to place rods in the crotch and cables in the upper crown to secure this tree. However, the procedure is expensive and impractical for a tree with the above described damage, 19 . 23 ", 29" live oalr 3.5 Comments: This tree was not shown on the site plan. This tree has a galvanized one quarter inch steel cable going horizontally through the 29" diameter trunk but it is not girdling the tree and is not causing a structural problem. This tree splits into two tmu *s 3' above grade. The thinks form a u- shaped crotch with connective tissue present and do not appear to have a structural weakness. The 23" diameter trunk grows to the north and develops an average crown in forum and above average in regards to live crown ratio and structure. This side of the tree is somewhat restricted due to competition from an adjacent tree to the west. The 29" trunk forks 65' above grade and develops a crown above and to the east, west and south, The overall crown of this trunk has above average foram with good live crown ratio. The fork has a slight inclusion that should he cabled and braced to ensure stability. The tree needs pruning to remove small deadwood and stubs. This is a good overall tree but should be cabled and braced in the southern trunk fork and have a rod installed between the two trunks for extra protection. If this work is performed the tree would be upgraded to a 4.0. Recommend preservation. 1.9 25" laurel oak 0.5 Comments: This tree has a wound on the south side of the trunk that starts 6" above grade and goes 3' high up the trunk causing internal decay, The tree forms a codominant 8' above grade, The trunk on the west side is completely dead with sporophores growing along the trunk. The trunk on the east side is dead at the top and only has sucker growth. This tree is hazardous and needs to be removed. 20 12' C. T. queen pall 2.5 Comlments: This palm is not shown on the plan. The palm has a below average crown and has been affected by competition from adjacent trees, Transplanting on site is not recommeruded for this palm as it would be more cost effective to plant a new palm. Recommend removal, 21 T" laurel oak 2.0 Comments: This tree has a good trunk that forks 5' above grade and forms a narrow vase shaped crown, The fork produces a codoiiiihant situation that will become included in the 01-1 c f : IL liiture. The live crown ratio is good but this tree has very poor form dire to overhead branches and is not recommended for preservation. 22 3" 3" 3" 2" 2" schefflera 1.5 Cornrnents: This tree is not shown on the surveybut is a protected tree by definition. of size for a cluster tree in the City of Clearwater code. The cluster has average aesthetic appeal but is not reconunended for preservation as it is an undesirable species. 23 1.0' C. T. sabal palm (,Yah zl pahnetto) 5.0 Comment: This is an exceptional palm that would be a specimen if it was taller. This palm has a near perfect trunk and crown. The boots (frond stubs) remain from. top to bottom but they serve to protect the trunk and can be pruned off to have a clean trunk. Recommend preservation or transplanting on site., 24 40' laurel oak 1.0 Comments: This tree is growing P from the sidewalk along Magnolia Drive. The sidewalk has been jogged to save this tree, The tree is also growing just east of a power pole into an area labeled vacated easement on the site plan. This tree has four codominant trunks that form the crown. The east codominant trunks are severely included. The north and west side iriink attachments are not included but have weak attachments. The root collar on the north side of the tuknk has had two flare roots severed and decay is present in the affected basal area. There is also a large trunk canker (sunken tissue) on the north side. A large scaffold branch growing to the southwest that is dead is cracked and ready to fail. The tree has cavities on the scaffold branches on the east side that are affecting the tree's stability. The upper crown structure is very poor as the crown has large deadwood, old stubs and major dieba.ck. This tree is hazardous and needs to be removed as soon as possible. 25 10' C.T. sabal palm 3.5 Comments: This palm is growing 15' due south of tree #24 and is also located in the vacated easement. This palm is healthy and has a good crown. The condition has been downgraded slightly because the crown has been impacted by branches from tree #24 that have affected the symmetry of the crown. This palm will evolve into an attractive palm. Recommend preservation or transplanting on site. Note; There is a small five stem cluster Senegal date palm (Phoenix rechnata) located just east of tree #25 that is not large enough to be protected by City code so it is not inventoried. However, it has value and can be preserved in place or moved on site. 26 511. Citrus 0.5 Comments: This tree is 90% dead. Recommend removal. • 27 9" laurel. oak 2.0 Comments; This tree is growing beneath the crown of adjacent trees and has very poor overall form. The crowd is mostly one -sided growing toward the northeast and the live crown ratio is. average. The structure downgrades the overall condition rating as the main fork is a codominant stem with included bark. The inclusion will worsen over time and could lead to structural failure in the main crotch. if this tree had a balanced crown the codgminant situation could be corrected through subordinate pruning, however, it is not practical for this tree. Recommend removal. 28 S" laurel oak l.S' Comments: This tree was not shown on the survey but is inventoried as if is a protected tree according to City Code, This tree is growing 1' from the base of tree #29. protecte has virtually no crown as it is suppressed by tree #29. The canopy is small and grows to the east. The tree has poor structure.and essentially no aesthetic value. Recommend removal. 29 14" laurel oak 3.0 Comments; The trunk and root flare are structurally sound but this tree has a girdling root on the south. side that has caused very minor damage to the root flare. The girdling root can be removed. This tree has good overall structure and above average live crown ratio. This tree is a healthy and structurally sound tree with the only downgrading factor being the form. The tree has very little crown to the south. due to competition from tree #30, a large live oak tree. This tree could be preserved or removed to reduce tine competition to the more desirable live oak tree ( #30), 30 .33" live oak 4.0 Comments: The tnrnk of this tree is sound and forks into two large codo.nninant sterns 6' above grade. The crotch of the fork is slightly pinched on one side and will become included in the future. The crown spreads to the north and east but is somewhat restricted . due to competition on the north and south. The crown is slightly thinning on the west side but overall has very good live crown ratio. This tree is a good tree overall and the crown will develop synunetry if the adjacent trees are removed. Potentially thus could be the best tree on the site. In the Aitu.re the main crotch should be cabled and braced if the bark becomes included. This tree is worthy of moderate site plan modifications for preservation. If this tree is preserved the site design should alloi� an undisturbed rooting area equal to three fourths the tree's dripline. Paved surfaces can count towards undisturbed rooting area if the paved surface is built on grade and aerated. 31 25" . live oak 2.5 �TR a- �,1 Comments- This tree has a sound'trunk and root flare all d the upper crown. structure is - average.. The south side has a few sucker branches that grow upward forming a mass of foliage. These'branches should be removed as they will not form a. canopy arid are not attached with a. branch collar. There is an 8" diameter lateral branch that grows to the northeast that has a badly decayed area and this branch should be removed. There is a. 6" diameter brancli -that has suffered storm damage and needs to be removed, In addition, the tree has a large dead stub and minor deadwood that needs removal. The overall form is poor as the crown is mostly one - sided and lacks aesthetic appeal. The tree is systemically healthy with above average structure and could be preserved if it falls into a green area. 32 47" laurel oak ' 0,5 Comments: This tree is very old with large trunk flutes and cankers (sunken tissue areas). The trunk has sporophores present indicating internal decay and there are many old stub cuts on the trun1c. The tree has two very large codominant trunks about 25" in diameter that have a.pocket cavity in the crotch. The upper canopy has seven scaffold branches that form the crown and each one is broken at the top with major dieback and deadwood present. The only growth is from suckers. This tree has poor structure, form and live crown ratio and is a hazard. Recommend removal. 33 >10 C.T, Senegal date palm (Phoenlx reelinata) 4,5 Comments: This palm is not shown on the site plan but is a protected palm as it has stems with over 10' of clear trunk, This palm actually has 5 stems with over 10' of clear trunk. In addition, it has several other. stems of various sizes. The palm cluster has not been pruned for a very long time and presents a wholly appearance. However; the palm cluster is healthy. and once.pnmed would be extremely valuable. This palm cluster should be pruned and preserved in place or moved on site, A second alternative would be to contact a palm broker about buying this cluster. 34 22" laurel oak 2.0 Comments: This tree has .minor basal decay on the southeastern side that should not debilitate the tree's structural integrity, The major downgrading factor of this tree is two severely included codominant scaffold branches forking 5' above grade. The bark is deeply included and the. condition will predispose the crotch to fail. The scaffold p p � r � ^ (.n, branches support a vase shaped crown witli below average live crown ratio, stricture and form. The crown is restricted and grows to the north and south. The upper crown is in �5 ;6 decline indicated by tip dieback. Recommend removal. 35 32" live oak 2.0 Com.rnents: This tree is growing 6' from a retaining wall for a retention pond located just south Of the, south property .line. The tree suffered root loss when the grade was cut for the retention pond as reflected by branch dieback in the tipper crown. The trunk and root flare are soured. The tn.ink forks into an equal codominant stein 5' above grade and the crotch is u- shaped -with connective tissue present. The west codorninatlt has a 4" diameter cavity from a previous stub cut that is causing minor decay. The form and associated aesthetic appeal .is low and th.e crown has a heavy vine infestation. The live crown ratio is above average on the south side but low elsewhere in the canopy. This tree is not recommended for preservation. however, if it falls into a green space buffer it could be preserved but will require remedial maintenance to improve the structure. In addition, it should be inspected every two years for the presence of included bark and the need for cabling and bracing. 36 . 4" camphor (Cinnamomum eamphora) 0.5 Comments: This tree is not shown on the site plan but is protected per City code. This tree is actually a cluster of sucker stems (one was 4" diameter at 4.5' above grade) grooving from an old stump. The tree has no structure or form. Recommend removal.. 37 10 C.T. Senegal date palm 3.0 Comments: This palm cluster was not shown on the plan but has two stems with over 10' ofclear trunlc and several others stems of various sizes. This cluster has not been pruned in a very long time and if cleaned up could be preserved in'place or f1-ansplanted. on site. 38 10" citnts (calamondin) 2,0 Comments: This.citrus has a basal decay caused by a fungus that is progressively deadly. The fungus destroys vascular tissue which is reflected by diebacic in this tree's crown. Recommend removal, 39 citrus (grapefrtti.t) 1.5 Comments: This tree has major diebacic in the crown and is declining. Recomme -n.d removal, 40 12" citrus (calarnondin) 2.0 Comments: This citrus is in poor condition and is not recommended for preservation. 41 10 C.T, Senegal date palm 4.0 Comments: This palm has four trunks that have at least 10' of clear trunk This cluster has not been pruned in a long time but would be valuable if cleaned tip. This palm cluster is located 3' from the west wall of the house and may not be able to be successfully transplanted. As this palm cluster is valuable, preservation is recommended in place. However, if the palm does not fall into a green area, a palm moving company could be contacted to determine if transplanting is feasible, Recommend preservation. 42 29" live oa.lc 3.0 0 L,J C= 4 Cho +• 4s 7 "t Comments: The root flare and trunk are sound. The lower and Lipper: crown has good structure. The Live crown ratio is above average. The form is below average as the crown is irregular and branching is minimal with foliage often tufted at the ends. The tree is systemically healthy and has good structure and will improve with remedial pruning. Preservation is not recommended unless the tree falls into a green area, 43 21" laurel. oak 0.5 1. - Comments:-This tree-has :a very -large cavity "dii "the- southeast side of th.e trunk that is causing major structural`problems'. The tree has very poor upper crown structure with codominant stems with included bark in the crown. The live crown ratio is below average and the form is very poor. This tree is a .hazard tree and should be removed. L.4 38" laurel oak 0.5 Comments: This tree has an open cavity on the south side 6" above grade that reveals a hollow trunk. This tree is very hazardous and needs to be removed as soon as possible, 4 5 15" camphor 2.0 Comments: This tree has a straight trunk but very poor upper crown form and structure. The crown resembles a stalk of celery, The live crown ratio is average. The camphor tree is identified as a category one ecological pest plant by the State of Florida Pest Plant Council. Recommend removal. 46 18" live oak 2.0 Comments: This tree has a good trunk that divides into three scaffold branches that support a crown with very poor .form. The majority of the tree's crown grows to the southwest. The tree offers very little aesthetic appeal. The live crown ratio and upper crown structure is average. The downgrading factor of this tree is its appearance. Recommend removal. 47 24" camphor J 0.5 Comments: This'tree is covered top to bottom with vines. The tree has essentially no crown structure or form. The tree consists of a trunk with only a few lateral branches that have foliage tufted at the ends. The live crown ratio, structure and form are extremely poor. Recommend removal. rp-1,0-4, NoRTHSIDE Eitziueerbu, Services laic. 11 — STORMWATER REPORT FOR Civil Land Planning DUe Diligence Reports Re-Zoning, Land Use, Annexation Stormwater Management Utility Design Traffic Construmon Administration HARBOR OAKS PROFESSIONAL CENTER PROJECT RAM A. oil C) eo (n GOEL, W.431 June 12, 2008 PROJECT No. 0731 P.O. Box 4948 Clearwater, FL 33758-4948 tech @northsidnengineering.com 727 443 2869 Fax 727 446 8036 orzt4NAL me-ev m- " "' 16 2008 MIENT • DRAINAGE NARRATIVE \J The proposed construction activities consist of the following: • Construction of 35,077 S.F. of open impervious vehicular use, building and sidewalk area. • Construction of a stormwater pond to provide attenuation and water quality treatment for a volume equal to V2" of runoff over the entire site. • Treatment of stormwater will be achieved through an effluent underdrain system. The overflow will be piped to an existing stormwater system on Magnolia Drive. • The more stringent of SWFWMD's 25yr / 24hr post- development flow not exceeding the 25yr / 24hr pre- development flow vs. Clearwater's weighted coefficient of runoff of stormwater detention was used to determine the storage volume requirement. It was found that the City of Clearwater's stormwater requirement (7,075 cf) was more strict than SWFWMD's requirement and therefore was used in the design of the pond. • The Drainage Calculations have been prepared in accordance with the City of Clearwater Drainage Manual. • The project is located in an open basin. Construction of this project will not increase the existing peak discharge rate or volume. • No wetlands are located in or adjacent to the project area. No wetland impacts will result from construction of this project. 0MOL RECE 1 A ;p, ST.-I -, a 1 p6., 2008 ry ENT CJ TV of OF PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NO.: EXISTING CONDITIONS TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA= IMP. AREA= POND AREA= PERV.AREA= C CALCULATIONS TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA= IMP. AREA= POND AREA= PERV.AREA= 0 • Harbor Oaks Professional Center 731 55,295 SF = 1.27 ACRES 19,967 SF = 0.46 ACRES 0 SF = 0.00 ACRES 35,328 SF = 0.81 ACRES 55,295 SF 19,967 SF OF IMP. AREA @ C = 0 SF OF POND AREA @ C = 35,328 SF OF PERV. AREA @ C = C = 0.30 T.O.C. = 60 MINUTES PROPOSED CONDITIONS TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA= IMP. AREA= POND AREA= PERV.AREA= C CALCULATIONS TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA= IMP. AREA= POND AREA= PERV.AREA= 55,295 SF = 35,077 SF = 3,703 SF = 16,515 SF = 1.27 ACRES 0.81 ACRES 0.08 ACRES 0.38 ACRES 55,295 SF 35,077 SF OF IMP. AREA @ C = 3,703 SF OF POND AREA @ C = 16,515 SF OF PERV. AREA @ C = C = 0.73 T.O.C. = 60 MINUTES �;�i� J 4 0.475 -1 0.2 0.95 1 0.2 PROJECT NAME: Harbor Oaks Professional Center PROJECT NO.: 731 5 POND STAGE STORAGE DATA: T.O.B. EL.= D.H.W. 25 EL. W.Q. EL.= BOTTOM EL.= STAGE ft -NGVD AREA SF AREA AC STORAGE CF 34.50 4,096 0.094 9,517 34.25 3,899 0.090 8,517 34.00 3,703 0.085 7,567 33.50 3,309 0.076 5,814 33.00 2,916 0.067 4,258 32.00 2,129 0.049 1,735 31.00 1,342 0.031 0 TOTAL WATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS: DRAINAGE AREA = REQUIRED WATER QUALITY DEPTH = REQUIRED WATER QUALITY VOLUME _ PROPOSED OUTFALL ELEVATION = 55,295 SF 0.50 IN 2,304 CF 33.00 FT AVAILABLE WATER QUALITY VOLUME = 4,258 CF " " ;,ct'L ;mil 0Y 0 NORTHSIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES 25 YEAR STORM EVENT PROJECT: Harbor Oaks Professional Center PROJECT NO. 731 RUN -OFF COEFFICIENTS • PRE - CONSTRUCTION I (IN /HR ) DRAINAGE AREA = TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA= 55,295 SF 1.27 AC 60 MIN IMP. AREA= 19,967 SF OF IMP. AREA @ C = 0.475 POND AREA= 0 SF OF POND AREA @ C = 1 PERV. AREA= 35,328 SF OF PERV. AREA @ C = 0.2 C= 0.30 POST - CONSTRUCTION TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA= 55,295 SF 1.27 AC IMP. AREA= 35,077 SF OF IMP. AREA @ C = 0.95 POND AREA= 3,703 SF OF POND AREA @ C = 1 PERV. AREA= 16,515 SF OF PERV. AREA @ C = 0.2 C= 0.73 STORAGE CALCULATION PRE - CONSTRUCTION I (IN /HR ) DRAINAGE AREA = 1.27 AC TIME OF CONC. Tc = 60 MIN I @ Tc =60 (25 YEAR EVENT)= 3.60 IN /HR Q(out) = C x I x A= 1.37 CFS POST - CONSTRUCTION 7,075 WEIR DESIGN WATER QUALITY DEPTH = TOTAL VOLUME REQUIRED = TOTAL VOLUME PROVIDED = TIME MIN.) I (IN /HR ) Q(in) (CFS) INFLOW (CF) OUTFLOW (CF) STORAGE (CF) 60.00 3.60 3.33 11,999 4,924 7,075 MAX. STORAGE = TOP. OF WEIR ELEV.= BOT. OF WEIR ELEV.= H= Q= L= Q/3.3 *H ^1.5 = 0.5 in. MAX. STORAGE REQUIRED = MAX. STORAGE PROVIDED = 7,075 CF 34.00 FT 33.00 FT 1.00 FT or 12" 1.37 CFS 0.42 FT or 5" 7,075 CF 7,567 CF " !hw OF • • NORTHSIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES POND DRAWDOWN ANALYSIS PROJECT: Harbor Oaks Professional Center PROJECT NO.: 731 VOLUME PROVIDED = 4,258 C.F. BOTTOM OF SLOT ELEV. = 33.00 BOTTOM OF POND ELEV. = 31.00 UNDERDRAIN INVERT ELEV. = 30.00 COEFFICIENT OF PERMEABILITY (K) = 0.09 FT /MIN LENGTH OF UNDERDRAIN = 36 FT SIZE OF UNDERDRAIN = 6 INCH POND AREA (SF) = 2,916 S.F. POND AREA (SF) = 1,342 S.F. ELEV. AVG. HEAD [NCR HEAD L (AVG) HYD. GRAD. FILTER AREA FLOW POND AREA INCR VOL. INCR TIME FT FT FT FT FT /FT S.F. CFM S.F. C.F. MIN. 33.00 2,916 2.50 0.50 2.75 0.91 57 4.62 1,358 294 32.50 2,522 2.00 0.50 2.75 0.73 57 3.70 1,161 314 32.00 2,129 1.50 0.50 2.75 0.55 57 2.77 964 348 31.50 1,735 1.00 0.50 2.75 0.36 57 1.85 767 415 31.00 1,342 TOTAL DRAWDOWN VOLUME _ TOTAL DRAWDOWN TIME = 4,251 C.F. 22.8 HOURS q� aakf x Tata'R' "'— • 0 April 22, 2008 SNKR, I, LLC 1815 Health care Drive Trinity, Florida 33655 Dr. Shodan Patel, Owner Reference: HARBOR OAKS PROFESSIONAL CENTER Subject: Maintenance and Operation of the Retention Pond Dear Dr. Patel: Per the rules and regulations of the Southwest Florida Water Management District, we are required to furnish you with a set of instructions for maintenance and operation of the retention pond. The retention pond is designed to maintain certain volumes of rainfall runoff corresponding to specific water elevations. The control structure regulates the level of the water in the pond. The volume above the weir should be discharged under a skimmer and over the weir within a few hours following a storm event. The volume below the weir should take less than 24 hours to be discharged through natural soil infiltration. The water level in the pond should drop approximately 24" below the weir, and the pond should be dry within 24 hours following a storm event, assuming there is no interceding rainfall. Z re. Here are some suggested procedures to keep the pond system �- functional: N • The bottom of the pond should be inspected regularly ` V CC " ` `y to assure that excess siltation or erosion has not occurred. Siltation and erosion in the pond shall be VA controlled to assure that the storage volume is not t ; affected. Periodic scarification of the pond bottom and removal of silts may be required to rejuvenate the percolation rate. It is required that scarification be done every six (6) months. • Grass clippings and other vegetative debris should be removed from the area surrounding the pond. • The area immediately in front of the control structure should be cleared of aquatic growth • Limit fertilizer use around the pond area to prevent nutrient loading of the facility. • The control structure should be checked monthly and all debris cleared. • Your Management of Surface Water Permit should contain a number of conditions which must be met. If you have any questions or concerns about this project please do not hesitate to call our office. Sincerely, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. CO y 6J L w + 4 A� r 0 0 Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. Land Development Consulting • Engineering • Planning • Transportation • Permitting ICOT Center 13825 ICOT Boulevard, Suite 605 Clearwater, FL 33760 F,,!-7 I ED Phone: (727) 524 -1818 `'` Fax: (727) 524 -6090 2 8 April 18, 2008 Ms. Renee Ruggiero, Project Planner Northside Engineering Services, Inc. 300 South Belcher Road Clearwater, Fl 33765 Re: Harbor Oaks Medical Center — Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Ms. Ruggiero: '.O.:'TPE":C e,IFEN1 APR 2 1 2008 Per our discussion enclosed are three (3) copies of the Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed Harbor Oaks Medical Center. This analysis was conducted in accordance with a methodology established with Himanshu Patni at the City of Clearwater and concludes no off -site improvements are required to maintain acceptable levels of service. Please submit two (2) copies and the CD containing analysis files to the City of Clearwater with your application package. Please, contact me if you have any questions. Si ely, ✓ff� Robert Pergolizzi, Al Principal Cc: Robert Covington, Stylistic Design Developers (w /encl) 08 -024 , 08/30/2007 09:31 72756249 PUBLIC UTZLITI w PAGE 02 FLOW TEST Cl CITY OF CLEARWATER WATER DEPARTMENT LOCATION FT 56A) A Vf-j IDATEOFTEST S/a7/07 ISTATIC, PSI 37 IRE SIDUAL p 191' Hvb _3_7 INTOT PSI IFLOW /J-5V GPM IHYDRANT# 36- LGRID # imisc; CDE FF/c-/F-LZ: ICUSTOMER REQUESTING TEST OREMNAL Pi kNli � OREMNAL Pi kNli � ty e5 0 73/ 00 L C!D C!D kn CL) Cil CTI LO P;z liP, ly Legend LXX P."IFER 'rm"F 414-A 74 -- Ii1dIVS�ItY$ 7- , - ri_2�VF F m F-i cn WaterAtlas J-P 74 � 295E: m 4 cD S�ptu 5/2/2008 Receipt #: 1200800000600003665 _ 12:07:03PM r Date: 05/02/2008 Line Items: Case No Tran Code Description Revenue Account No Amount Paid FLD2008 -05014 04 Flexible Commercial 001000000341262000 1,205.00 FLD2008 -05014 Fire - Prelim Site Plan 001000000342501000 200.00 Line Item Total: $1,405.00 Payments: e Method Payer Initials Check No Confirm No How Received Amount Paid Check SUNTRUST CHECK STYLISTIC R_D 9723334 In Person 1,405.00 DESIGN Payment Total: $1,405.00 K] THIS IS NOT A PERMIT. This is a receipt for an application for a permit. This application will be reviewed and you will be notified as to the outcome of the application. Page 1 of 1 cReceipt.rpt C I T Y OF C L E A R W A T E R POST OFFICE BOX 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758 -4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562 -4567 FAX (727) 562 -4865 - PLANNING DEPARTMENT July 15, 2008 Ms. Renee Ruggiero Northside Engineering Services, Inc. 300 S. Belcher Road Clearwater, Florida 33765 Re: FLD2008 -05014 1 1001 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue Dear Ms. Ruggiero: This letter constitutes a Development Order pursuant to Community Development Code (CDC) Section 4- 206.D.6. On July 15, 2008, the Community Development Board (CDB) reviewed your Flexible Development approval for Office and Medical Clinic uses in the Commercial (C) and Office (0) Districts with a reduction to the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 17.5 feet (to building) and 7.5 feet (to off - street parking), a reduction to the front (west) setback from 25 feet to 18.8 feet (to building), a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 7 feet (to off - street parking) and a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to 6.5 feet (to off - street parking); and an increase in building height from 25 feet to 45.16 feet as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project pursuant to Community Development Code Sections 2 -704.0 and 2- 1004.C, and reductions to the perimeter buffers along Magnolia Drive and the Pinellas Trail from 10 feet to 7.5 and 7 feet, respectively (to proposed pavement), as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3- 1202.G. The CDB APPROVED the application with conditions based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. Findings of Fact: 1. That the 1.27 acre subject property is located at the southeast corner of South Fort Harrison Avenue and Magnolia Drive (1.13 acres), and on the north side of Magnolia Drive approximately 350 east of South Fort Harrison Avenue and adjacent to the west side of the Pinellas Trail (0.14 acres); 2. That the north portion of the subject property is located within the Office (0) District and the Residential /Office General (R /OG) Future Land Use Plan category and will consist only of a stormwater retention area and landscaping; and 3. That the south portion of the subject property is located within the Commercial (C) District and the Commercial General (CG) Future Land Use Plan category and will consist of 18,423 square feet of medical clinic and office uses. Conclusions of Law: 1. That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the Maximum Development Potential standards as per CDC Sections 2 -701.1 and 2- 1001.1; 2. That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the applicable Standards and Criteria as per CDC Sections 2 -704 and 2 -1004; 3. That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the Flexibility criteria for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project as per CDC Sections 2 -704.0 and 2- 1004.C; and "EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER" July 15, 2008 0 0 FLD2008 -05014 1 1001 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue Page 2 of 3 4. That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3- 913.A. Conditions of Approval: 1. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, evidence of filing a Unity of Title with Pinellas County between all parcels involved in the application must be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department; 2. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, any outstanding comments of the Engineering Department shall be addressed; 3. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, any outstanding comments of the Fire Department shall be addressed; 4. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, any outstanding Land Resource comments shall be addressed; S. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the plans are revised to clearly depict the locations of and the means by which all mechanical equipment will be screened from view from public streets and abutting properties; 6. That prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, all on -site utility facilities, whether they be existing or proposed, are to be placed underground as part of the redevelopment of the site; 7. That any /all wireless communication facilities to be installed concurrent with or subsequent to the construction of the subject development must be screened from view and /or painted to match the building to which they are attached, as applicable; 8. That any /all future signage must meet the requirements of Code and be architecturally integrated with the design of the building with regard to proportion, color, material and finish as part of a final sign package submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any permits which includes: (a) All signs fully dimensioned and coordinated in terms of including the same color and font style and size; and . (b) All signs be constructed of the highest quality materials which are coordinated with the colors, materials and architectural style of the building; and 9. That the final design and color of the building shall be consistent with the architectural elevations submitted to (or as modified by) the CDB, and be approved by Staff. - Pursuant to Community Development Code Section 4 -407, an application for a building permit shall be made within one year of Flexible Development approval Ouly 15, 2009). All required certificates of occupancy shall be obtained within two years of the date of issuance of the initial building permit. The building permit must be obtained within six months of the initial permit application. This timeframe to obtain the initial building permit may be extended for an additional six months for cause by the Community Development Coordinator. Time frames do not change with successive owners. The Community Development Coordinator may grant an extension of time for the Flexible Development approval for a period not to exceed one year and only within the original period of validity. The Community Development Board may approve one additional extension of time for the Flexible Development approval after the Community Development Coordinator's extension to initiate a building permit application. The issuance of this Development Order does not relieve you of the necessity to obtain any building permits or pay any impact fees that may be required. In order to facilitate the issuance of any permit or license affected by this approval, please bring a copy of this letter with you when applying for any permits or licenses that require this prior development approval. Additionally, an appeal of a Level Two approval (Flexible Development) may be initiated pursuant to Community Development Code Section 4 -502.6 by the applicant or by any person granted party status within 14 days of the date of the CDB meeting. The filing of an application/ notice of appeal shall stay July 15, 2008 0 0 FLD2OO8 -05014 1 1001 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue Page 3 of 3 the effect of the decision pending the final determination of the case. The appeal period for your case expires on July 29, 2008 (14 days from the date of the CDB meeting). Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Robert G. Tefft, Planner III at (727) 562 -4539 or via e-mail at.robert.tefft@myclearwater.com. Sincerely, Michael Delk, AIC Planning Director S I Planning Departmentl C D B I FLEX (FLO) I Inactive or Finished Applications I Ft Harrison Ave S 1007 - Harbor Oaks Professional Ctr 2008 07- I S APPROVED I Ft Harrison Ave 5 7001 -Development Order 2008 07- 75.doc Civil Land Planning Norths1de Due Diligence Reports Re- Zoning, Land Use, Annexation Stormwater Management Utility Design June 10, 2008 Traffic Construction Administration Mr. Robert Tefft Planner III City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S. Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 RE: FLD2008 -05014 1001 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue DRC Response NES #731 Dear Mr. Tefft: Listed below are our responses to the Development Review meeting held on June 5, 2008. General Engineering (Prior to Issuance of Building Permit) 1. — 13. All items acknowledged; all required revisions will be provided on plans prior to submitting for building permit. Fire 1. A yard FDC has been located a minimum of 15' from the building, please see revised C4.1. 2. Hydrant has been located along Magnolia, just west of the driveway, please see revised C4.1. 3. Please see revised C4.1; 2'/2" Siamese connection provided. 4. After meeting with Inspector James Keller on 6.10.08 it was determined additional hydrant not required; please see additional existing FHA located approx. 115' south of site.. 5. See revised plans 30' turning radius provided at all entrances and exits. Land Resources 1. East /West and North/South section provided on revised sheet C4.1 for Tree #30 which is being preserved not Tree #31. PO. Box 4948 Clearwater, FL 33758 -4948 tech @nor•thsideengineering.com 727 443 2869 Fax 727 446 8036 OROW FIFG�$ z, 2000 Pl.ANNI"N' Dh RAZ:M1rN t""'TE OF Ct F:Arz'vVA1ER Landscaping 0 • 1. Please see revised landscape plan with the bald cypress relocated. 2. Please see revised landscape plan providing Ilex Vomitoria within island. 3. Please see revised Comprehensive Landscape Application to include a deviation to the buffer along the Pinellas Trail. 4. Landscape plan has been revised to provide the correct number of trees; please see revised plan. 5. Palms will remain where not in conflict with the new 4' wide sidewalk. 6. Please see revised plan for improved spacing of trees and note below. Note: Per Ron Belko (ISA Certified Arborist) All trees shown are spaced appropriately for their growth habits, Oaks which have a decurrent growth habit are spaced at 35' o.c. The Bald Cypress are spaced closer but the growth habits for the cypress are excurrent and more appropriate for the locations selected. The Cassia, Iles, Crepe Myrtle, and Ligustrum are accent trees and have been located due to their close proximity to existing trees or pavement. If the remains questions to the growth habits of the trees selected or the design please contact Ron Belko at 727 - 409 -8532. Parks and Recreation 1. Site Data Table has been revised to include 6,659 sq ft of building area previously on site. We also hereby acknowledge, open space impact fees are due prior to issuance of building permit or final plat (if applicable), whichever occurs first for sites over an acre of land. Stormwater (Prior to Issuance of Building Permit) 1. Approved SWFWMD permit will be provided upon receipt. 2. — 9. All items acknowledged; all required revisions will be provided on plans prior to submitting for building permit. Solid Waste 1. Arborist has directed clear trunk to 14' in height; Tree Preservation Plan reflects this information; please see revised Sheet C5.2 for dumpsier detail. Traffic Engineering 1. Please see revised stacking distance; as per your direction, dimensions changed from 18' to 19'. 2. Additional sight visibility triangle provided at the Pinellas Trail, in addition to revisions to the landscape plan to address this triangle. 3. Please see revised drive through lanes, as per your direction, dimensions revised to 10' from edge of curb to edge of curb. 4. Scaled passenger vehicle revised to 7' as per your direction. 5. The by -pass lane will allow by -pass activity at a certain point; it is not intended to allow all cars access at all times. ESA nu 0 " 0 p FA ` 2° 0 • 1. Please see revised landscape plan with the bald cypress relocated. 2. Please see revised landscape plan providing Ilex Vomitoria within island. 3. Please see revised Comprehensive Landscape Application to include a deviation to the buffer along the Pinellas Trail. 4. Landscape plan has been revised to provide the correct number of trees; please see revised plan. 5. Palms will remain where not in conflict with the new 4' wide sidewalk. 6. Please see revised plan for improved spacing of trees and note below. Note: Per Ron Belko (ISA Certified Arborist) All trees shown are spaced appropriately for their growth habits, Oaks which have a decurrent growth habit are spaced at 35' o.c. The Bald Cypress are spaced closer but the growth habits for the cypress are excurrent and more appropriate for the locations selected. The Cassia, Iles, Crepe Myrtle, and Ligustrum are accent trees and have been located due to their close proximity to existing trees or pavement. If the remains questions to the growth habits of the trees selected or the design please contact Ron Belko at 727 - 409 -8532. Parks and Recreation 1. Site Data Table has been revised to include 6,659 sq ft of building area previously on site. We also hereby acknowledge, open space impact fees are due prior to issuance of building permit or final plat (if applicable), whichever occurs first for sites over an acre of land. Stormwater (Prior to Issuance of Building Permit) 1. Approved SWFWMD permit will be provided upon receipt. 2. — 9. All items acknowledged; all required revisions will be provided on plans prior to submitting for building permit. Solid Waste 1. Arborist has directed clear trunk to 14' in height; Tree Preservation Plan reflects this information; please see revised Sheet C5.2 for dumpsier detail. Traffic Engineering 1. Please see revised stacking distance; as per your direction, dimensions changed from 18' to 19'. 2. Additional sight visibility triangle provided at the Pinellas Trail, in addition to revisions to the landscape plan to address this triangle. 3. Please see revised drive through lanes, as per your direction, dimensions revised to 10' from edge of curb to edge of curb. 4. Scaled passenger vehicle revised to 7' as per your direction. 5. The by -pass lane will allow by -pass activity at a certain point; it is not intended to allow all cars access at all times. 0 • 6. Vertical "clear" height of the ceiling over drive thru area provided on civil sheet C3.1 and architects plan, providing 12'6" clear heights as per discussions at DRC (no fire access required). 7. Meeting held with Himanshu Patina and Robert Pergolizzi on June 5, 2008; all items related to this item address in meeting. 8. As per discussion and suggestion at DRC, handicap spaces intended to service the medical clinic have been relocated to allow improved accessibility, revision resolved conflict with the loading zone. General Notes: Items 1. and 2. Acknowledged. Planning 1. Please see revised narrative. 2. Please see revised narrative and Comprehensive Landscape narrative to address the deviations along the Pinellas Trail. 3. The irregular shape of the property was actually pointed out by a fellow Planning Dept. staff member in a previous review of the project; I assumed acknowledgement of a hardship associated with the shape of the land would not change based upon the Planner assigned to the project. If the parcel were truly rectangular, three of the requested setback deviations would not be require; we believe the irregular shape of the land provides additional justifiable hardship. 4. See revised Architectural sheet A2.2 providing a rated tenant separation. 5. As per your request the tree wells have been deleted from the design, please see revised civil and landscape plans. 6. Please see revised civil plans which now correctly depict the east property line abutting the Pinellas Trail as a "front" yard. 7. Please see the revised civil plans providing a reduced sidewalk dimension along Magnolia and Ft. Harrison as per your request. 8. A/C Units roof mounted and shielded as per Code, please see revised Architectural plans. 9. Please see revised plans for corrected height of bldg to peak of roof, midpoint and parapet. 10. Please see lighting plan provided by Architect. 11. Please see revised civil plans which provide the proposed setback of dumpster from the northeast corner to the east property line as per your request. 12. As per our discussions at DRC the handicap spaces intended. to service the medical clinic have been relocated and the conflict has been resolved, please see revised plans. Additionally, as per our conversation, the loading zone has been reduced to 28' in length, creating a zone large enough to allow box truck size ® rig, m ae delivery vehicles which are the typical size of delivery vehicles for the proposed cv uses on site. , 13. The ATM machine location has not yet been determined, the final financial o vA LL, f-L. institution taking occupancy will have specific requirements associated with the ®= " ATM machine, the business plan of the occupying bank will dictate the location �"t of the ATM machine; it is our intent to meet any code requirements in association with the ATM location. s 0 14. Acknowledged, prior to issuance of any building permits the required Unity of Title will be provided to and approved by the Planning Dept. 15. Acknowledged, all available utilities will be installed underground. 16. Please see revised landscape plan which provides a more intense buffer to better and more effectively shield dumpster enclosure as per your request, additional planting proposed to accomplish adequate shielding. I trust you will find this information sufficient to allow placement on the Community Development Board Agenda. However, should you require additional information or clarification, please feel free to contact me and I will respond immediately to any additional information required. Thank you for your kind and professional assistance. Sincerely, (5.g:,-7- Renee Ruggiero, Project Planner NES #731 DRC response 6.11.08 RMR /rmr cc: NES File 731 piy Ord C= o- LM 0 C-4 7 r;1' 9:50 am4 Case Number: FLD2008 -0500- 1001 S FT HARRISON AVE Owner(s): S N K R I Llc 1815 Health Care Dr Trinity, Fl 34655 TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E -MAIL: No Email Representative: Housh Ghovaee 300 S. Belcher Road Clearwater, Fl 33765 TELEPHONE: 727 - 443 -2869, FAX: 727 - 446 -8036, E -MAIL: renee @northsideengineering.com , Location: 1.27 total acres located at the southeast corner of South Ft. Harrison Avenue and Magnolia Drive and on the north side of Magnolia Drive approximately 350 east of South Ft. Harrison Avenue adjacent to the west side of the Pinellas Trail Atlas Page: 295B Zoning District: C, Commercial Request: Flexible Development approval for Office and Medical Clinic uses in the Commercial (C) and Office (0) Districts with a reduction to the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 17.5 feet.(to,building) and 7.5 feet (to off - street parking), a reduction to the front (west) setback from 25 feet to 18.8 feet (to building), a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 7 feet (to off - street parking) and a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to 6.5 feet (to off - street parking); and an increase in building height from 25 feet to 45.16 feet as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project pursuant to Community Development Code Sections 2 -704.0 and 2- 1004.C. Proposed Use: Medical clinic Neighborhood Harbor Oaks Neighborhood Assoc Association(s): Clearwater, Fl 33756 320 Magnolia Drive TELEPHONE: 461 -9657, FAX: No Fax, E -MAIL: No Email Neighborhood Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Association(s): Clearwater, Fl 33763 1821 Springwood Cir S TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E -MAIL: No Email Presenter: Robert Tefft, Planner III Attendees Included: The DRC reviewed this application with the following comments: General Engineering: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 5, 2008 - Page 7 DRC Action Agenda L 1 I . Prior to the issuanclea building permit: • 1. The City of Clearwater will provide water tap, and a B.F.P.D. (back flow prevention device) if applicable.. Applicant is responsible for all applicable impact and installation fees. Payment for the backflow prevention device is paid to Utilities Customer Service in the Municipal Services Building located at 100 South Myrtle Avenue. 2. This project proposes a fire supply connection, a potable water service and a fire hydrant extension. Each of these connections shall be made separately to the City's water main. 3. Provide a note or dimension on the plan indicating that the Fire Department Connection (FDC) shall be located a minimum of 15 -feet from the front of the building. 4. Provide a note or dimension on the plan indicating the Fire Department Connection (FDC) is located 25 to 50 -feet from the Fire Hydrant Assembly (FHA). 5. Because the occupancy of the proposed building is medical office, the applicant/owner will be responsible for all associated fees for a required reduced pressure B.F.P.D. (back flow prevention device). 6. Verify the Medical Office and Bank will connect to sanitary sewer utilizing a single Tnnection. ote that the contractor will be required to field verify through coordination with City Public > Utilities personnel the location of a sanitary sewer lateral to serve this property. If a sewer lateral does not exist, the contactor will be required to pay applicable fees for a new lateral. 8. Show on the plan a double sweep clean out for the sanitary sewer lateral and include Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards Detail #305, pg. 1/3 on the plans. 9. The plans include City of Pinellas Park details; please utilize City of Clearwater standards and details for this project. 10. Revise plans to delete references to thrust blocks. Applicant shall utilize mechanical restraints n "y. A 10 -foot wide sidewalk is proposed to be constructed along Magnolia Drive. The City requires a minimum 4 -foot wide sidewalk along this street and suggests reduction in sidewalk width to reduce possibility of tree -root uplift that will result if a 10 -foot wide sidewalk is constructed. 12. Turning radii at all driveways shall be a minimum of 30 feet per City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards index #108. 13. Reclaimed water is not presently available for irrigation on this site. Environmental: 1 . No issues. Fire: I . The FDC shall be a yard FDC and shall be located a minimum of 15 ft from the building towards Magnolia. Show on utility plan PRIOR TO CDB. 2. Move new fire hydrant to the north towards Magnolia. Show on plan PRIOR TO CDB. 3 . Fire Department Connection shall be a 2 1/2" Siamese connection listed for such use. Show on plan PRIOR TO CDB. .4. Show location of additional fire hydrant for fire fighting use. Must be within 300' of building as hose lays and on same side of street as .building. PRIOR TO CDB 5 . Provide and show on the plan minimum 30' turning radius for emergency vehicle ingress and egress at all entrance and exits. PRIOR TO CDB. Harbor Master: No Comments Legal: No Comments Land Resources: I . Show a E/W and N/S section throught the concrete parking at tree #31 prior to CDB. Insure that the concrete is "on grade ". Landscaping: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 5, 2008 - Page 8 DRC Action Agenda 1.1 1 , Pursuant to Comn& Development Code (CDC) Section 3- 1202.0 shade trees must be planted a minimum of five feet from any impervious area. The bald cypress proposed along the east side of the driveway at Magnolia Drive does not meet this requirement. 2 . Pursuant to Community Development Code (CDC) Section 3- 1202.E.1., one shade tree is required with each landscape island. The islands bordering the proposed loading zone do not contain the required tree. Revise. 3 Pursuant to Community Development Code (CDC) Section 3- 1202.D.1, a ten -foot landscape / buffer is required where the property is adjacent to the Pinellas Trail. Revise the proposed and/or the Comprehensive Landscape request accordingly. 4. Pursuant to Community Development Code (CDC) Section 3- 1202.E.1, one shade tree is required for every 150 square feet of required green space. Based upon a requirement of 2,565 square feet, 17 interior trees are required. The landscape plan proposed only includes 14 interior trees. 5. There are 3 palms in the adjacent rights -of -way that area not noted as being removed or relocated but are in conflict with the proposed improvements. Revise the landscape plan. 6. Many of the proposed shade trees around the perimeter of the site are spaced very close to one another. Typically, trees should be spaced every 35 feet on center. Revise the landscape plan to provide for more adequate spacing. Parks and Recreation: 1, . Site data table needs to be corrected to reflect the square footage of any previous buildings on the property. Once that information is provided, P &R will be able to determine if P &R impact fees are due and payable on this project. Stormwater: I . The following shall be addressed prior to building permit. 1. Provide an approved SWFWMD permit or letter of exemption. 2. Show gutter system routing roof runoff to the storm system. 3. City of Clearwater has requested LA Engineering, the engineering company for the 907 S Fort Harrison, to change 12" HDPE to 12" Contech 2000 pipe. The change in pipe material and/or design may impact applicant's proposed stormwater design. Applicant shall contact LA Engineering to obtain the revised plan to incorporate in the design. 4. Top of control structure shall be at elevation 34.0' to allow 6" of freeboard. 5. Provide a detail of the proposed manhole on the right -of -way showing all pipe invert elevations. 6. It is not permitted that the metered end section is set at elevation lower than the pond bottom. The use of ductile iron pipe instead of reinforced concrete pipe may help this problem. 7. Side swale does not have sufficient grades. 8. Please revise plans to show proposed inlets located along the flow line and in open areas to be utilized their full capacity. 9. Please show on sheet C4.1 an alternate design of the outfall pipe in the event of the Magnolia Park Office & Townhomes project (case BCP2006- 12232) does not take place or takes place after this project. General note: 1. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Soliaste: Trucks need 13' 9" will they clear tree at Dumpster " show Dumpster detail in plans Traffic Engineering: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 5, 2008 - Page 9 DRC Action Agenda I.l 1 . The stacking distaoor both a vehicle and the space /gap between Oehicles shall be 19' not 18' as shown in the drive through lanes. 2. Depict on the plans an additional sight triangle where subject property abuts the Pinellas Trail. There shall be no object(s) in the sight triangles, which do not meet the City's acceptable vertical height criteria at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade. (City's Community Development Code, Section 3 -904). 3. Widen the drive through lanes to 10' wide from edge of curb to edge of curb. 4. Revise the width of the scaled passenger vehicle to T wide. 5 How will bypass lane function if vehicles are stacked in the drive through lanes as shown? "Tte bypass lane seems narrow and hard for a vehicle to maneuver into. 6. The vertical "clear" height of the ceiling over the drive through & bypass lanes shall be at a nimum of lei -Cp�� 7.. t this point o time Traffic Operations Division has some concerns regarding the Traffic pact Analysis specifically the Level of Service (LOS) at some key point intersections along Fort Harrison Avenue. Please contact Bennett Elbo or Himanshu Patni at (727) 562 -4775. 8. The loading zone interferes with ADA access from the handicapped parking space to an accessible entrance into the building. Revise plan to correct this problem. Planning: The above to be addressed prior to a Community Development Board (CDB) hearing. General Note(s): 1) Applicant shall comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule and paid prior to a Certificate of Occupancy (C.O ). 2) DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 5, 2008 - Page 10 DRC Action Agatda I.1 till And 1 . Pursuant to CDC S&n 3- 913.A.1, the proposed development of shall be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of the adjacent properties. The written response does not address how the proposal is consistent with the scale and bulk of the adjacent properties. Provide a revised response. 2 . Pursuant to CDC Section 2- 704.C.6.e, flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off - street parking shall be justified based on demonstrated compliance in the provision of appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. The response provided should be revised to address the reductions fo the east setback along the Pinellas Trail as well as its associated landscape buffer. 3 . Pursuant to Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2- 704.C.1, the development shall be otherwise impractical without deviations from the use and/or development standards set forth in the zoning district. The response provided indicates the property has an irregular shape and narrow width at points; however the property is generally rectangular in shape and at its narrowest is 135' in width. Consider revising this response. 4. Clarify on the floor plans where/how the medical clinic use is seperated from the office use on the second floor. 5. The tree wells proposed within the Fort Harrison Avenue and Magnolia Drive rights -of -way are inconsistent with the surrounding blocks. Revise the plans to remove the: tree wells and the associated palms. 6. The plans and the description of request both identify the majority of the east property line as being a "side" for setback purposes; however as this portion of the property abuts the Pinellas Trail right -of -way this is actually a "front ", and the plan should be designed as such. 7. The ten -foot sidewalk proposed along Fort Harrison Avenue and Magnolia Drive is excessive. Reduce the width to four feet or five feet consistent with the City standards as established by the City Engineer. 8 . Depict the locations of all mechanical equipment and the means by which they will be screeded from view of adjacent properties and rights -of -way as per CDC Section 3- 201.D. Revise the architectural elevations to depict the proposed height as measured from the existing grade, not finished floor. 10. How will the drive -thm lands be illuminated? Are lights to be fully recessed? Provide photometric calculations for the drive -thru. 11 . Provide a dimension from the northeast corner of the dumpster enclosure to the east property line. 12. The proposed loading zone conflicts with a walkway provided ADA accessibility. Revise the location of the loading zone. 13 . Is an ATM intended for the bank? If so, then depict the location of the ATM on the plans (site, landscape and architectural elevations). 14. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, evidence of filing a Unity of Title with Pinellas County between all parcels involved in the application must be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department. 15. Pursuant to CDC Section 3 -911, all utilities, including individual distribution lines, shall be installed underground. In addition, those utilities within the Magnolia Drive right -of -way must be brought underground. 16. Pursuant to CDC Section 3- 913.A.6, the design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic, olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. Given the location of the dumpster enclosure to the Pinellas Trail and the reduction to the required landscape buffer width, a more intense buffer may be necessary. Other: No Comments Notes: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 5, 2008 - Page 11 DRC Action Agenda 1.1 ,f I �r„E PLANNING DEPARTMENT May 5, 2008 Ms. Renee Ruggerio Northside Engineering Services, Inc. 300 S. Belcher Road Clearwater, Florida 33765 C ITY OF C LEARWarE R POST OFFICE BOX 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758 -4748 MUNICIPAL. SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562 -4567 FAx (727) 562 -4865 Re: FLD2008 -05014 11001 S. Fort Harrison Avenue I Letter of Completeness Dear Ms. Ruggerio: The Planning Department staff has entered your application into the Department's filing system and assigned the case number FLD2008- 05014. After a preliminary review of the submitted documents, staff has determined that the application is complete. The Development Review Committee (DRC) will review the application for sufficiency on Thursday, June 5, 2008, in the Planning Department Conference Room (Room 216), which is located on the second floor of the Municipal Services Building at 100 South Myrtle Avenue. You will be contacted by the Planning Department's Administrative Analyst within one week prior to the meeting date for the approximate time that your case will be reviewed. You or your representative (as applicable) must be present to answer any questions that the DRC may have regarding your application. Additional comments may be generated by the DRC at the time of the meeting. Sincerely, Robert-G. Tefft; Planner iIl_ - Tel:. (727) 562 -4539 Fax: (727) 562 -4865 E -Mail: robert.tefft Amycleamater. coin "EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER" CITY OF. CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TEL: (727) 562 -4567 FAX: (727) 562 -4865 O U • FACSIMILE. COVER SHEET Date: May 5, 2008 To: Renee Ruggerio, (727) 446 -8036 From: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III Re: FLD2008 -05014 11001 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue Number of Pages Including Cover Sheet: 2 Comments: ** Please confirm receipt via e-mail at: robert .tef(a),mvclearx,ater.con: ** ** Visit the Planning Department online at www.myclearivater.com ** *A < • CITY OF CLEARWATER NOTICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD PUBLIC HEARINGS The Community Development Board of the City of Clearwater, Florida, will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, July 15, 2008, beginning at 1:00 PM, in the City Council Chambers, in City Hall, 3rd floor, 112 South Osceola Ave, Clearwater, Florida, to consider the following request: NOTE: All persons wishing to address an item need to be present at the BEGINNING of the meeting. Those cases that are not contested by the applicant, staff, neighboring property owners, etc. will be placed on a consent agenda and approved by a single vote at the beginning of the meeting. 1. SKNR, I, LLC (Northside Engineering Services, Inc) are requesting Flexible Development approval for Office and Medical Clinic uses in the Commercial (C) and Office (0) Districts with a reduction to the front (north) setback from 25 ft to 17.5 ft (to building) and 7.5 ft (to off - street parking), a reduction to the front (west) setback from 25 ft to 18.8 ft (to building), a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 ft to 7 ft (to off - street parking) and a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 ft to 6.5 ft (to off - street parking); and an increase in building height from 25 ft to 45.16 ft as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project pursuant to Community Development Code Sections 2 -704.0 and 2- 1004.C, and reductions to the perimeter buffers along Magnolia Dr. and the Pinellas Trail from 10 ft to 7.5 and 7 ft, respectively (to proposed pavement), as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3- 1202.G. (Proposed Use: Medical Clinic and Office.) at 1001 -1009 S Ft Harrison Ave. and 507 -600 Magnolia Ave, Magnolia Park Blk 32, Lot 34, Blk 34 Lots 1 -3, 9 —10, 50 ft Strip Vac RR R/W on E. Assigned Planner: Robert Tefft, Planner III. FLD2008 -05014 Interested parties may appear and be heard at the hearing or file written notice of approval or objection with the Planning Director or City Clerk prior to the hearing. Any person who decides to appeal any decision made by the Board or Council, with respect to any matter considered at such hearings, will need to request a record of the proceedings and, for such purpose, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based per Florida Statute 286.0105. Community Development Code Sec 4 -206 states that party status shall be granted by the Board in quasi-judicial cases if the person requesting such status demonstrates that s/he is substantially affected. Party status entitles parties to personally testify, present evidence, argument and witnesses, cross - examine witnesses, appeal the decision and speak on reconsideration requests, and needs to be requested and obtained during the case discussion before the CDB. An oath will be administered swearing in all persons giving testimony in quasi-judicial public hearing cases. If you wish to speak at the meeting, please wait to be recognized, then state and spell your name and provide your address. Persons without party status speaking before the CDB shall be limited to three minutes unless an individual is representing a group in which case the Chairperson may authorize a reasonable amount of time up to 10 minutes. Five days prior to the meeting, staff reports and recommendations on the above requests will be available for review by interested parties between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., weekdays, at the City of Clearwater, Planning Department, 100 S. Myrtle Ave., Clearwater, FL 33756. Please contact the case presenter, at 562 -4567 to discuss any questions or concerns about the project and/or to better understand the proposal and review the site plan. • • Michael Delk Cynthia E. Goudeau, MMC Planning Director City Clerk City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748, Clearwater, FL 33758 -4748 NOTE: Applicant or representative must be present at the hearing. A COPY OF THIS AD IN LARGE PRINT IS AVAILABLE IN OFFICIAL RECORDS AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES. ANY PERSON WITH A DISABILITY REQUIRING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING SHOULD CALL (727) 562 -4093 WITH THEIR REQUEST. To learn more about presenting to Clearwater boards and City Council, go to http:// clearwater .granicus.comNiewPublisher.php ?view id =11 and click on 'Resident Engagement Video." You can also check the informational video out from any Clearwater public library. Ad: 07/03/08 FLD 08- 05014:121 1100 FT HARRISON LAND TRUST 02 JEFFORDS STREET LTD 407 ST ANDREWS RD 402 JEFFORDS ST BELLEAIR FL 33756 - 1935 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3828 ASHRAF, BESSADA DMP PA 3184 CRESCENT OAKS BLVD TARPON SPRINGS FL 34688 - 7610 BACH, MICHAEL BACH, PATTI 4176 MYSTIC CT SAN JOSE CA 95124 - 3327 BAY REAL ESTATE INVESTORS WEISS, MARY L THE 1744 N BELCHER RD STE 200 CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 1305 BOTANICAL & HERBAL RESOURCES 805 S FT HARRISON AVE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3901 BROWN, KENNETH P BROWN, BRENDA 423 MAGNOLIA DR CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3837 C S M PROPERTIES PTNSHP 508 JEFFORDS ST # C CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3839 CASTAGNA LAW FIRM 611 DRUID RD E STE 710 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3947 CONKLIN, LESLIE M CONKLIN, DEBRA S 430 LOTUS PATH CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3832 AUSTIN MEDICAL CTR INC 3389 CLARINE WAY E DUNEDIN FL 34698 - 9439 BAIR, DAVID M 17389 US HIGHWAY 19 N CLEARWATER FL 33764 - BEKIRI, REIS BEKIRI, MAZES 539 JASMINE WAY CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3917 BRIDGETON INVESTMENTS LLC 611 DRUID RD E # 201 & 202 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3959 BURWELL, ROBERT A SR BURWELL, MERRY JUNE 680 ISLAND WAY # 410 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - CALVARIO, ALBERTO CALVARIO, DEBORA 20140 EAGLE GLEN WAY ESTERO FL 33928 - 3051 41NDRIOLA, MICHAEL J ANDRIOLA, JOANNA M 416 LOTUS PATH CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3832 B K B PROPERTIES INC 800 ISLAND WAY CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1825 BATT, HOWARD C 611 DRUID RD E # 712 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3931 BOLLANO, PIRO MICI, ELENI 857 HARBOR OAK LN CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3933 BROWN, ELLEN RAYNA LLC 2973 CIELO CIR S CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 1411 BURWELL, ROBERT A SR BURWELL, MERRY JUNE 680 ISLAND WAY # 410 1983 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1983 CEKA BUILDING LLC 1105 S FT HARRISON AVE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3907 CONTI, DIANA 525 JASMINE WAY CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3917 CARPENTER, JANA Q THE 612 HARBOR IS CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1801 CLAY, CHRISTINE 424 LOTUS PATH CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3832 CREDITIQ INC 611 DRUID RD E # 405 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3935 CRISTINO, LENNY CRITCHLEY, JOSEPH E CSX TRANSPORTATION INC 115 8TH ST 423 LOTUS PATH 500 WATER ST BELLEAIR BEACH FL 33786 - 3220 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3831 JACKSONVILLE FL 32202 - 4423 1 • • DELP, MICHAEL DESAI, ANUP DRUHILL PROF CTR CONDO ASSN DELP, SUSAN C DESAI, CHHAYA DRUID RD 516 JASMINE WAY 908 S FORT HARRISON AVE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3940 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3904 DRUID ROAD DUNN, THOMAS DWORKIN, GARY H 611 DRUID RD E STE 105 COMIANO, RONALD F DWORKIN, MARY L CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3948 843 S FT HARRISON AVE 415 MAGNOLIA DR CANADA CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3901 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3837 EQUITY TRUST CO FARRIS, STEVEN FBO ROBERT A BURWELL JR IRA FARRIS, LAUREN FERRARA TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS 815 S FORT HARRISON AVE 472 HARBOR DR S 611 DRUID RD E # 704 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3901 INDIAN ROCK BEACH FL 33785 - CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3939 3156 FETTIG, ALBERT G FL DEPT OF TRANS FORT HARRISON PROPERTY LAND 524 JASMINE WAY 315 COURT ST TR CLEARWATER FL 33756 - CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5165 445 HAMDEN DR CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2537 FOTIOU, ZACHARIAS FOTIOU, ZACHARIAS GENDUSA, SAMUEL J FOTIOU, MERCEDES FOTIOU, MERCEDES GENDUSA, JOY 428 MAGNOLIA DR 517 JASMINE WAY 414 MAGNOLIA DR CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3838 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3917 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3838 GIOTAKIS, BOB GOODMAN, SHERRY GOULD, RICHARD TREVOR 2401 VIRGINIA ST 420 LOTUS PATH GOULD; DIANE CHRISTINE PARK RIDGE IL 60068 - 2252 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3832 513 JASMINE WAY CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3917 HAKSAR, MANJULA HANGHOFER, ADELHEID G HARRITY, MICHELLE HAKSAR, ELIZABETH 500 JASMINE WAY 803 S FORT HARRISON AVE 424 MAGNOLIA DR CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3940 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3901 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3838 HARTLAGE, NANCY L HEMERICK, F DAVID HENDRIX, SCOTT D HARTLAGE, STEPHEN M 902 S FORT HARRISON AVE HENDRIX, RANNIE D 418 JEFFORDS ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3904 221 GREENWOOD DR CLEARWATER FL 33756 - WEST PALM FL 33405 - HEYE, HANS F HOLMES, JENNIFER JANNELLI, GILBERT G 611 DRUID RD E STE 200 PO BOX 592 909 S FORT HARRISON AVE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3946 PARK RIDGE IL 60068 - 0592 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3903 JOSEPH, THOMAS A KEDAN, ELITE KEDAN, ELLA THE JOSEPH, DUNIA E 2354 HADDON HALL PL 2354 HADDON HALL PL 612 WOODLAKE DR CLEARWATER FL 33764 - 7510 CLEARWATER FL 33764 - 7510 LOUISVILLE KY 40245 - CANADA 0 0 KERR, RUTH THEL KERR, RUTH THEL KILGORE, CAROLE W 501 JASMINE WAY 501 JASMINE WAY 105 WILLADEL DR CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3917 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3917 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 1941 LAY, JERRY 106 W 5TH ST # 3 COVINGTON KY 41011 - 1404 LOTUS LAND 1055 S FORT HARRISON AVE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3905 MAGNOLIA PARK REALTY 907 S FT HARRISON AVE # 102 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3903 MARTENS, DAVID C MARTENS, CANDACE S 425 LOTUS PATH CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3831 MINES, JONATHAN MINES, CARLEN 505 DRUID RD E CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3909 NICHOLS, DEAN E NICHOLS, ANN C 119 POINCIANA LN LARGO FL 33770 - 2662 PANTELIDES, GUS K 611 DRUID RD # 703 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3939 PENNY, KENNETH E JR GOSCIN- PENNY, LEE 4598 CLEARWATER HARBOR DR LARGO FL 33770 - LEWIS, CATHERINE 553 JASMINE WAY CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3917 MADDALUNA, JOHN J 813 HARBOR OAK LN CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3933 MAGURNO, ELSIE A EST RR 2 BOX 280B ATHEN PA 18810 - 9646 MC QUIGG, MICHAEL C MC QUIGG, EUGENIA F 429 MAGNOLIA DR CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3837 MOORES, REBECCA J 201 HOWARD DR BELLEAIR BEACH FL 33786- 3533 OHANA ENTERPRISES INC 201 S LINCOLN AVE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - PATCH, JAMES M PATCH, SHARON E 825 HARBOR OAK LN CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3933 LINETSKY, LIDIA LINETSKY, FELIX S 611 DRUID RD E # 302 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3919 MAGNOLIA MEDICAL CENTER LLC PO BOX 2893 CLEARWATER FL 33757 - 2893 MARION, BRANDON L MARION, ANGELA M 849 HARBOR OAK LN CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3933 CANADA MIHOPOULOS, ALEXANDER MIHOPOULOS, ELEONORA 545 JASMINE WAY CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3917 MORTON PLANT HOSP ASSN INC PO BOX 210 CLEARWATER FL 33757 - 0210 PAITSEL, RICHARD - PAITSEL, PATRICIA 853 HARBOR OAK LN CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3933 PAUL, JASON 845 HARBOR OAK LN CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3933 PERFECTLY BALANCED BOOKS INC PHILLIPS, CRAIG 611 DRUID RD E # 401 PHILLIPS, PEGGY CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3920 611 DRUID RD E #707 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3947 RODRIGUEZ, ROSALIA C RUIZ, MIGUEL SAAD, FATHY Z 418 LEEWARD IS 811 S FORT HARRISON AVE SHENODA, SAMIRA S CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2309 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3901 528 JASMINE WAY CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3940 r� • SCHAEFER, JAMES O SHAMSAH, H SHIDI TRUST SHEHU, FATBARDH SCHAEFER, NANCY E 611 DRUID RD E STE 301 809 HARBOR OAK LN 430 JASMINE WAY CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3919 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3933 CLEARWATER FL 33756.- 3822 SHOHAM, ILANA 815 HARBOR OAK LN CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3933 SOTOS, ELAINE 8507 W NORMAL NILES IL 60714 - STEWART, BRUCE STEWART, DONNA 841 HARBOR OAK LN CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3933 TAM PARTNERS LLC 1 RED MILL LN DARIEN CT 06820 - 3612 TOLBA, ALAN TOLBA, MICHAEL A 837 HARBOR OAK LN CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3933 TRAPOZZANO, RUBY H 901 SEMINOLE BLVD # 102 LARGO FL 33770 - 7456 URBANEK, ANTHONY P URBANEK, ANN 537 JASMINE WAY CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3917 YOUSSEF, AIDA N REVOCABLE TRUS PO BOX 6062 CHESTERFIELD MO 63006 - 6062 YOUSSEF, TAWFIK, REVOCABLE TRU PO BOX 6062 CHESTERFIELD MO 63006 - 6062 SILVER, LESLIE SILVER, GILDA 816 HARBOR OAK LN CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3936 CANADA SPIRIDELLIS, NIKOLAOS T 170 SAND KEY ESTATES DR CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2981 SUBRAMANIAN, ARUNACHALAM SUBRAMANIAN, VALLI 8777 LAUREL DR PINELLAS PARK FL 33782 - 4345 TEMME, R WAYNE 421 JASMINE WAY CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3821 TOMAK, TYRONE J 7870 DANA POINT RD LAS VEGAS NV 89117 - 1927 TULLY, JOE TULLY, CYNTHIA 611 DRUID RD # 407 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3935 WAYLAND, ROBERT E CHALACHE, NAJEH F 905 S FT HARRISON AVE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3903 YOUSSEF, NANCY S TRUST 536 JASMINE WAY CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3940 SKOU, JAN ERIK KNUDSGAARD TYRIVEGEN 19 JESSHEIM 2050 00000 - NORWAY STEVENS,KAREN 424 JASMINE WAY CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3822 SZABO,BRUCE 611 DRUID RD E STE 717 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3947 TOLAN, DONALD J TOLAN, MAUREEN 417 JASMINE WAY CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3821 TOWN HOMES OF HARBOR OAKS HOME 4131 GUNN HIGHWAY TAMPA FL 33618 - TURNER, GERALDINE C 801 S FORT HARRISON AVE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3901 WICKERSHAM, HERBERT F WICKERSHAM, M ANN 428 LOTUS PATH CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3832 YOUSSEF, TAMER S 2001 TRUST PO BOX 508 INDIAN ROCKS BEACH FL 33785 - 0508 CDB Meeting Date: July 15, 2008 Case Number: FLD2008 -05014 Agenda Item: E. 1. Owner /Applicant: SNKR I, LLC Representative: Northside Engineering Services, Inc. Addresses: 1001 -1009 S. Fort Harrison Avenue and 507 -600 Magnolia Avenue CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING. DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. GENERAL INFORMATION:. REQUEST:. Flexible Development approval for Office and Medical Clinic uses in the Commercial (C) and Office (0) Districts with a reduction to the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 17.5 feet (to building) and 7.5 feet (to off - ,street parking), a reduction to the front (west) setback from 25 feet to 18.8 feet (to building), a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 7 feet (to off - street parking) and a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to 6.5 feet (to off - street parking); and an increase in building height from 25 feet to 45.16 feet as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project .pursuant to Community Development Code Sections 2 -704.0 and 2- 1004.C, and reductions to the perimeter buffers along Magnolia Drive and the Pinellas Trail from 10 feet to 7.5 and 7 feet, respectively (to proposed pavement), as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3- 1202.G. CURRENT ZONING:. Commercial (C) District: south side of Magnolia Drive; and Office (0) District: north side of Magnolia Drive CURRENT FUTURE LAND. Commercial General (CG): south side of Magnolia Drive; and USE .CATEGORY: Residential /Office General (R/OG): north side of Magnolia Drive PROPERTY USE: Former Use: Retail Sales and Detached Dwelling Proposed Use: Medical Clinic and Offices EXISTING North: Commercial (C) and Office (0) Districts Offices SURROUNDING ZONING South: Commercial (C) District Medical Clinic AND USES: East: Institutional (I) District Off - Street Parking West: Commercial (C) District Medical Clinic Community Development Board — July 15, 2008 FLD2008 -05014 — Page 1 0 ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions:. The 1.27 acre subject properties are located at the southeast corner of South Fort Harrison Avenue and Magnolia Drive (1.13 acres), and on the north side of Magnolia Drive approximately 350 east of South Fort Harrison Avenue and adjacent to the west side of the Pinellas Trail (0.14 acres). The north parcel is zoned Office (0) District with an underlying Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential /Office General (R/OG), while the south parcel is zoned Commercial (C) District with an underlying Future Land Use Plan designation of Commercial General (CG). The subject properties are presently vacant, but had previously consisted of a retail sales and services use and a detached dwelling. Development Proposal:. On May 2, 2008, a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application was submitted for the subject property. Under the development proposal 13,323 square feet of Medical Clinic and 5,100 square feet of Office (18,423 square feet total) with associated off - street parking will be constructed on the south portion of the 'subject property. An associated stormwater retention area with landscaping will be constructed on the north portion of the subject property. The request had been made as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project as the proposed Medical Clinic use is only specifically authorized within the Commercial (C) District as a Flexible Standard Development (FLS) use with no flexibility in required setbacks or height and reduced setbacks to the building and pavement have been requested, as well as additional building height. The development proposal's compliance with the various development standards of the Community Development Code (CDC) is discussed below. Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.): Pursuant to CDC Section 2- 701.1, within the CG Future Land Use Plan category, the maximum allowable F.A.R. is 0.55; therefore the 1.13 acres is permitted a maximum of 27,072 square feet of gross floor area. The development proposal is for only 18,423 square feet (0.37 FAR); thus the proposal is in compliance with the above requirement. Impervious Surface Ratio (I.S.R.): Pursuant to CDC Section 2- 701.1, within the CG Future Land Use Plan category, the maximum allowable I.S.R. is 0.95. As proposed, the development (south parcel) will have an I.S.R. of 0.71 and therefore meets the above requirement. There are no impervious surfaces on the north parcel. Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Section 2 -704, within the C District, there is no applicable maximum building height for Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects. However, as a Flexible Standard Development (FLS) use, medical clinics are permitted a height of 25 feet; and as a Flexible Development (FLD) use, offices may be permitted a height of 50 feet. The development proposes a building height of 45.16 feet from the average existing grade, which is consistent with the established parameters for an office use, but not for a medical clinic. However, there will be no difference in the outward appearance of the building based upon the use occupying that portion of the building. As such, there should be no adverse affects in allowing the proposed building height of 45.16 feet for both the office and medical clinic portions of the building. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Section 2 -704, within the C District, there are no applicable minimum setbacks for Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects. However, the medical clinic and office uses both have a minimum required front setback of 25 feet and side setback of 10 feet. The development proposal includes the following reduced setback requests: • Reduce the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 17.5 feet (to building); • Reduce the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 7.5 feet (to off - street parking); Community Development Board — July 15, 2008 FLD2008 -05014 — Page 2 • u ❑ Reduce the front (west) setback from 25 feet to 18.8 feet (to building); ❑ Reduce the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 7 feet (to off - street parking); and ❑ Reduce the side (south) setback from 10 feet to 6.5 feet (to off - street parking). The applicant has requested the reduced building setbacks, based upon the location of the ingress /egress driveway at Magnolia Drive, which is dictated by its proximity to both South Fort Harrison Avenue and the Pinellas Trail. In order to accommodate a building of sufficient size and provide for an adequate vehicle stacking distance, the requested building setbacks are necessary. With regard to the reduced off - street parking setbacks, these setbacks are necessary in order to provide for the construction of an adequate parking lot. As the parking lot has two frontages, development meeting those minimum setbacks would reduce the parking lot by approximately 30 spaces. While the reduced setbacks also impact the required perimeter landscape buffer, sufficient area will still remain for a buffer meeting minimum planting requirements to be established. Minimum Off - Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Sections 2 -703 and 2 -704, within the C District, medical clinics and offices are required to provide three and four off - street parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, respectively. Therefore, the proposed 13,323 square feet of medical clinic (40) and the 5,100 square feet of office floor area (20) requires a total of 60 off - street parking spaces. As proposed, a total of 63 off - street parking spaces will be provided; thus the development proposal exceeds its parking requirement. Solid Waste Containers and Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3- 201.13.1, all solid waste containers, recycling or trash handling areas and outside mechanical equipment shall be completely screened from view from public streets and abutting properties by a fence, gate, wall, mounds of earth, or vegetation. The proposed architectural elevations denote that all of the mechanical equipment is to be located on the roof and screened from view. However, no plans have been provided with this submittal that depict the locations of the mechanical equipment on the roof and the means by which they would be screened from view. It is therefore attached as a condition of approval that prior to the issuance of any building permits, the plans are revised to clearly depict the locations of and the means by which all mechanical equipment will be screened from view from public streets and abutting properties. Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3 -911, all utilities, including individual distribution lines, shall be installed underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. It is attached as a condition of approval that prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy all on -site utility facilities, whether they be existing or proposed, are to be placed underground as part of the redevelopment of the site. Landscaping_ Pursuant to CDC Section 3- 1202.D.1, where non - residential uses are adjacent to a local street right -of -way, a ten -foot wide perimeter landscape buffer is required. The development proposal is adjacent to Magnolia Drive (north) and the Pinellas Trail (east); however buffer widths of only 7.5 and 7 feet, respectively have been proposed. Based upon the above, the applicant has requested the approval of a Comprehensive Landscape Program with the above referenced reductions to the perimeter landscape buffers. Comprehensive Landscape Program: Pursuant to CDC Section 3- 1202.G, the landscaping requirements contained within the Code can be waived or modified if the application contains a Comprehensive Landscape Program satisfying certain criteria. The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with those criteria: Community Development Board — July 15, 2008 FLD2008 -05014 — Page 3 • Consistent I Inconsistent 1. Architectural theme: Standard Proposed 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 0.37 X on the parcel proposed for development; or Maximum 50 feet b. The design, character, location and/or 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 Minimum Setbacks development under the minimum landscape standards. 17.5 feet (to building) X1 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 7 feet (to pavement) landscape program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater. 4. Property values: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape X X' program will have a beneficial impact on the value of property in the immediate Side (south): 10 feet vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. X1 5. Special area or scenic corridor plan: The landscape treatment proposed in the X 63 parking spaces comprehensive landscape program is consistent with any special area or scenic Off - Street Parking corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in (3.41/1,000 GFA) which the parcel proposed for development is located. Total: 60.36 The reduced widths of the northern and eastern perimeter landscape buffers from 10 feet to 7.5 and 7 feet, respectively, will not be to the detriment of the site, nor will it negatively impact the adjacent right - of -way. The buffer will contain the trees and hedge material required by the Code, as well as additional groundcovers and shrubs far in excess of minimum requirements; thus resulting in a demonstrably more attractive landscape plan. Further, the proposed landscape will have a beneficial impact on surrounding property and will enhance the community character. Code Enforcement Analysis: There is no outstanding Code Enforcement issue associated with the any of the individual subject properties. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards and criteria as per CDC Section 2 -704: 1. See above discussion with regard to Minimum Setbacks. Community Development Board — July 15, 2008 FLD2008 -05014 — Page 4 Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent F.A.R. 0.55 0.37 X Maximum 50 feet 45.16 feet X Building Height Minimum Setbacks Front (north): 25 feet 17.5 feet (to building) X1 7.5 (to pavement) Front (east): 25 feet 7 feet (to pavement) X1 Front (west): '25 feet 18.8 feet (to building) X' Side (south): 10 feet 6.5 feet (to pavement) X1 Minimum Medical Clinic (3/1,000 SF GFA): 39.96 63 parking spaces X Off - Street Parking Office (4/1,000 SF GFA) 20.4 (3.41/1,000 GFA) Total: 60.36 1. See above discussion with regard to Minimum Setbacks. Community Development Board — July 15, 2008 FLD2008 -05014 — Page 4 COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2 -704.0 (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project): Consistent I Inconsistent 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X development and improvement of surrounding properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X development 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or L The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off - street X parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: ❑ Changes in horizontal building planes; ❑ Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; ❑ Variety in materials, colors and textures; • Distinctive fenestration patterns; • Building stepbacks; and ❑ Distinctive roofs forms. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. Community Development Board —July 15,-2008 FLD2008 -05014 — Page 5 0 • 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- 913.A: Consistent I Inconsistent 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:. The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of June 5, 2008, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB). Findings of Fact. The Planning 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 1.27 acre subject property is located at the southeast corner of South Fort Harrison Avenue and Magnolia Drive (1.13 acres), and on the north side of Magnolia Drive approximately 350 east of South Fort Harrison Avenue and adjacent to the west side of the Pinellas Trail (0.14 acres); 2. That the north portion of the subject property is located within the Office (0) District and the Residential /Office General (R/OG) Future Land Use Plan category and will consist only of a stormwater retention area and landscaping; and 3. That the south portion of the subject property is located within the Commercial (C) District and the Commercial General (CG) Future Land Use Plan category and will consist of 18,423 square feet of medical clinic and office uses. Conclusions of Law. The Planning Department, having made the above findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law: 1. That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the Maximum Development Potential standards as per CDC Sections 2 -701.1 and 2- 1001,.1; 2. That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the applicable Standards and Criteria as per CDC Sections 2 -704 and 2 -1004; 3. That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the Flexibility criteria for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project as per CDC Sections 2 -704.0 and 2- 1004.C; and 4. That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3- 913.A. Based upon the above and subject to the attached conditions, the Planning Department recommends APPROVAL of the Flexible Development approval for Office and Medical Clinic uses in the Commercial (C) and Office (0) Districts with a reduction to the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 17.5 feet (to Community Development Board — July 15, 2008 FLD2008 -05014 — Page 6 building) and 7.5 feet (to off - street parking), a reduction to the front (west) setback from 25 feet to 18.8 feet (to building), a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 7 feet (to off - street parking) and a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to 6.5 feet (to off - street parking); and an increase in building height from 25 feet to 45.16 feet as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project pursuant to Community Development Code Sections 2 -704.0 and 2- 1004.C, and reductions to the perimeter buffers along Magnolia Drive and the Pinellas Trail from 10 feet to 7.5 and 7 feet, respectively (to proposed pavement), as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3- 1202.G. Conditions of Approval: 1. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, evidence of filing a Unity of Title with Pinellas County between all parcels involved in the application must be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department; 2. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, any outstanding comments of the Engineering Department shall be addressed; 3. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, any outstanding comments of the Fire Department shall be addressed; 4. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, any outstanding Land Resource comments shall be addressed; 5. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the plans are revised to clearly depict the locations of and the means by which all mechanical equipment will be screened from view from public streets and abutting properties; 6. That prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, all on -site utility facilities, whether they be existing or proposed, are to be placed underground as part of the redevelopment of the site; 7. That any /all wireless communication facilities to be installed concurrent with or subsequent to the construction of the subject development must be screened from view and/or painted to match the building to which they are attached, as applicable; 8. That any /all future signage must meet the requirements of Code and be architecturally integrated with the design of the building with regard to proportion, color, material and finish as part of a final sign package submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any permits which includes: (a) All signs fully dimensioned and coordinated in terms of including the same color and font style and size; and (b) All signs be constructed of the highest quality materials which are coordinated with the. colors, materials and architectural style of the building; and 9. That the final design and color of the building shall be consistent with the architectural elevations submitted to (or as modified by) the CD�B, and be approved by Staff. Prepared by Planning Department Staff: 1/ Robert G. Tefft, Planner IIA ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Photographs S: (Planning Departmen4C D BIFLEX (FLD)IPending cases)Up for the next CDBIFt Harrison Ave S 1001 - Harbor Oaks Professional Or 2008 07 -15 R71Ft Harrison Ave S 1001 - Staff Report 2008 07- 15.doc Community Development Board — July 15, 2008 FLD2008 -05014 — Page 7 0 0 Robert G. Tefft 100. South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 (727) 562 -4539 robert.tefftnmyclearwater.co m PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Planner III City. of Clearwater,. Clearwater,. Florida June 2005 to Present. Duties include performing technical review of and preparation of staff reports for various land development applications, the organization of data and its display in order to track information and provide status reports, and making presentations to various City Boards and Committees. • Planner II City. of Clearwater, Clearwater, Florida May 2005 to June 2005 Duties include performing technical review of and preparation of staff reports for various land development applications, the organization of data and its display in order to track information and provide status reports. • Senior. Planner. City of Delray Beach, Delray Beach, Florida . . October 2003 to May 2005 Performed technical review of and prepared staff reports for land development applications such as, but not limited to: site plans, conditional uses, rezonings, land use amendments, and text amendments. Organized data and its display in order to track information and provide status reports. Make presentations to various City Boards. Planner. City of Delray Beach, Delray Beach,. Florida March 2001. to October 2003. Performed technical review of and prepared staff reports for land development applications such as, but not limited to: site plans, conditional use and text amendments. Organization of data and its display in order to track information and provide status reports. Provided in -depth training to the Assistant Planner position with respect to essential job functions and continuous guidance. Assistant Planner City. of Delray Beach, Delray Beach, Florida October 1999 to March 2001. Performed technical review of and prepared staff reports for site plan development applications. Performed reviews of building permit applications. Provided information on land use applications, ordinances, land development regulations, codes, and related planning programs /services to other professionals and the public. EDUCATION • Bachelor of Arts, Geography (Urban Studies), University of South Florida, 1999 LICENSES & CERTIFICATES • American Planning Association Community Development Board — July 15, 2008 FLD2008 -05014 — Page 8 • • Uj 0 Q@ ]� a =Iii h Z 0 PINE PIN E ST z Cr escent LU 0 a DRUID RD = W DRUID RD PROJECT SITE WAY JAG r O MAGNt)L1A D U PATH = LO t-- U- El JEFFORDS ST c�. 0. GRAND CENTRAL FPINFIl I A LOCATION MAP Owner: SNKR I, LLC Case: FLD2008 -05014 Site: 1001 -1009 S. Fort Harrison Avenue Property Size: 1.27 acres 507 -600 Magnolia Drive PIN: 15- 29 -15- 54450 - 034 -0010 Atlas Page: 2958 15- 29 -15- 54450 - 034 -0030 15- 29 -15- 54450- 034 -0090 15-29-15-54450-034-0110 15- 29 -15- 54450 - 032 -0240 0 0 Owner: SNKR I, LLC AERIAL MAP Case IJ� X11 'M Afl i F- D200& -D5014 Site: 1001 -1009 S. N)rt Harriso-i Avenue Property � ize: 1 27 acEEs 507 -600 Magnolic Drive PIN: 15- 29 -15- 5445 -D -054 -001 C Atlas Pao,.-: 295B 15- 29- 15- 54451- 02:4 -003C 15 -29 -15 -5445 0-4 -009C 15 -29 -15 -5445 = -0---4-0110 15 -29 -15 -5445 : -0M -0240 5 4150' 83729 — — — �114 8391 42 513 900 Y 841 I v z 54 �9 84 43 517 I o � 845 31 Z z 54�8 �' 44 521 36 m I 84932 I 5437 8511 525 45 5336 24 Q 85333 1 ' 2 — — — 902 = I sos 53]18 0 85734 I 906 3 3 ' 907 6 24 2 69 67 4 N 906 � 23 909 W MAGNOLIA DR L r (° Q o co HD Z I � 1 0 I I 1 ' I ,000 Q 1001 I $ I C I 1002 507 I I 70 I 68 2 I 1 ' 10 i 9 1 2 1 I 0) 7 ' 1040 I 1009 3 I - — — — I I 10 I 103 22 I 21 4 I 6 ' 7 I 8 1055 507 °Q I 1046 5 LOTUS ATH IRT ZONING MAP Owner: SNKR I, LLC Case: FLD2008 -05014 Site: 1001 -1009 S. Fort Harrison Avenue Property Size: 1.27 acres 507 -600 Magnolia Drive PIN: 15- 29 -15- 54450 - 034 -0010 Atlas Page: 295B 15- 29 -15- 54450- 034 -0030 15- 29 -15- 54450 - 034 -0090 15-29-15-54450-034-0110 15- 29 -15- 54450 - 032 -0240 0 0 CU 5 h q X09 5% J 83729 I RETAIL 900 439 42513 AIFTACHE Q 84130 I e 844 SAES & 4351 ELLING 54§8 o I 44531 I z 36 SERYIW 521 ``� 5W W2 1 8511 24 45525 5, Q Ct 85333 1 I 2 — — — 902 T I 905 5 q 85734 906 1 3 - - - 907 1 6 i 8 24 2 69 i 67 `OFFICE I I N I sos - - - - - - -- I ° 23 4 L909a I I I .0 I IM 2 MAGNOLIA DR O I y I I R _"AI L a = 1001 1 h 2 I ^ � 1 1000 I SALES &1002 Cr I 507 70SE �I� 0 2 11 I I 1 ti 1 10 1 9 I 1 2 I I I 07 1 1 1040 1009 3 I -- EF= STR.EET- 1 I I I PARKING 10 A*i ARIED I I 4 i 6 I 7 1 8 I 22 21 I 1055 1 DWELLINGS - - - _MEDIC I 507 I 1046 CkI N I 34 I 1 I I I ' I - - I I - - - - - -1 - - - - - I - - - ' I -- - - - —J - - LOTUS PATH LO EXISTING SURROUNDING USES MAP Owner: SNKR I, LLC Case: FLD2008 -05014 Site: 1001 -1009 S. Fort Harrison Avenue Property Size: 1.27 acres 507 -600 Magnolia Drive PIN: 15- 29 -15- 54450 - 034 -0010 Atlas Page: 2956 15- 29 -15- 54450 - 034 -0030 15- 29 -15- 54450 - 034 -0090 15-29-15-54450-034-0110 15- 29 -15- 54450 - 032 -0240 0 0 Looking ! outh from Magnolia Drive at subject property (near Ft. iarrison Avenue intersection) Looking r orthwest across Magnolia Drive at adjacent property Looking south from Magnolia Dri\.e at sLbje__ property Looking southeast from Magnolia Drive 1t ad-acen property (off- street parking) to the east Looking north across Magnolia Dive at iorif parcel and nearby development 1001 and 1009 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue 1 507 and 600 Magnolia Drive FLD2008 -05014 ORr DIW:: -Vj BIT QTY OF QC-AZAA ISR Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. J-% V L- HARBOR OAKS PROFESSIONAL CTR Zoning: C. atlas# 295B 0 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR HARBOR OAKS MEDICAL CENTER CLEARWATER, FLORIDA PREPARED FOR: SNKR I, LLC ml PREPARED BY: GULF COAST CONSULTING, INC. APRIL 2008 PROJECT # 08 -024 Robert Pergoliz ' A f' AICP #9023 II. 0 INTRODUCTION 0 The applicant is proposing to develop a mixed use project on the southeast corner of the S. Fort Harrison Avenue / Magnolia Drive intersection which is the subject of a site plan review application. According to the site plan the project is expected to contain a 3,600 s.f bank with drive- through lanes and up to 14,823 s.f medical office space. This application requires an assessment of the traffic impacts of the development. Prior to completing this analysis a methodology was established with the City of Clearwater staff. EXISTING BASE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS The property has frontage on S. Fort Harrison Avenue and Magnolia Drive. (See Figure 1) Full access is proposed to Magnolia Drive and access to S. Fort Harrison Avenue will be limited to exiting traffic only. The adjacent segment of S. Fort Harrison Avenue is a two -lane roadway with a center turn lane. Magnolia Drive is a two -lane local road which terminates at the Pinellas Trail and Myrtle Avenue is a four -lane roadway. Existing base conditions were established by obtaining PM peak period traffic counts at several nearby intersections. The traffic counts were adjusted to annual averages using FDOT seasonal adjustment factors. Existing traffic volumes are shown in Figure 2. The intersections were analyzed using the HCS software. The HCS printouts are included in Appendix A and the existing conditions are shown in Table 1. Roadway segment existing conditions are shown in Table 2. TABLE 1 EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Ft. Harrison Ave. / Jeffords Street A 8.5 Ft. Harrison Ave. / Magnolia Drive A/C 9.2/19.1 Ft. Harrison Ave. / Druid Road A 6.9 Ft. Harrison Ave. / Turner Street A 7.8 Myrtle Ave. / Jeffords Street B 10.1 Myrtle Ave. / Druid Road A 8.2 Myrtle Ave. / Turner Street B 10.8 Note: For unsignalized intersections A/C = LOS of major street left turn/minor street approach. All intersections presently operate at LOS B or better under base PM peak hour traffic conditions. Operating conditions on roadway segments in the area were analyzed using HCS software and Pinellas County MPO 2007 LOS Report capacities and are shown below in Table 2. 1 PROJECT LOCATION PROJECT 08 -024 4 Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. DATE: FIGURE: I ,,,�,, Land Development Consulting 42008 DRAWN BY: AEL 1 a 0 0 N 0 v m c n N Op 0 v v O� o a m = u �N 0 s w� Zv 33 L 45 N M N to M L �— 52 r�i r%) 40 TURNER ST. l L� 72 9 ,4J rfr 7,--- rfr 72 43 o,t 75� M 44 C14 '0 L � 1 Ln �i 00 LO �i of L32 M i 35 N -t "1 j57 N � -3G N M t0 DRUID RD. I 1 135 —92 15J rf r 94J rf r 51 10 m orn 167 n 0) � :21 N N n !D °1 M i M L 0 ^�N L _ M �1 6 co ci I MAGNOLIA DR �l f r 4 J Q N O M 9� � (01 Cni �i L14 O L14 . N I0 N n M ID — 1 L f— 42 N M Lo r 36 I JEFFORDS ST. -- 17 3 r FI �J 55 J �j� r 88 J r f r 71 � 19 d DLO 69 —� I 25 �r, n to d n i = TRAFFIC SIGNAL W • a a i t0 ( M F CIO w pp 0 EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME (2008) PROJECT NO: 08 -024 Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. DATE: FIGURE: 42008 Land Development Consulting 2 DRAWN BY: AEL r 0 ,0 TABLE 2 EXISTING ROADWAY SEGMENT OPERATIONS (2008) All roadway segments analyzed presently operate at LOS C or better. III. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS As requested by the City of Clearwater background traffic in the build -out year of 2010 was estimated using a 2% annual growth rate. Using Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 7t' Edition rates, the amount of traffic generated by the project was calculated. Trip generation estimates are shown below in Table 3: TABLE 3 TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES � I NI 11ti P " ,k rllwwl %1z� 1.. 0%th + .. .: 44 (25 in 19 out) k „P J,I� t ,(k,�. . 7j61111"r :.._� 164 (82 in 82 out) Drive-in bank Medical office i •' � e me� f •q • ' � � � , � �� 4 � I I / ci. ; ^. Ft. Harrison Ave (Pinellas — Jeffords ) 2 -lane w /Lt lane 1157 HCS C Ft. Harrison Ave Jeffords — Magnolia 2 -lane w /Lt lane 1190 HCS C Ft. Harrison Ave Magnolia - Druid 2 -lane w /Lt lane 1183 HCS C Ft. Harrison Ave Druid — Turner 2 -lane w /Lt lane 1170 HCS C Myrtle Ave. (Pinellas — Jeffords ) 4 lanes 741 HCS B Myrtle Ave. (Jeffords — Druid) 4 lanes 849 HCS B Myrtle Ave (Druid — Turner) 4 lanes 972 HCS B All roadway segments analyzed presently operate at LOS C or better. III. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS As requested by the City of Clearwater background traffic in the build -out year of 2010 was estimated using a 2% annual growth rate. Using Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 7t' Edition rates, the amount of traffic generated by the project was calculated. Trip generation estimates are shown below in Table 3: TABLE 3 TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES � I NI 11ti P " ,k rllwwl %1z� 1.. 0%th + .. .: 44 (25 in 19 out) k „P J,I� t ,(k,�. . 7j61111"r :.._� 164 (82 in 82 out) Drive-in bank Medical office • i • • ' S_ , / I I / The project would generate 1,422 daily trips and 219 PM peak hour trips which is the critical time period. As requested by the City of Clearwater, pass -by capture for the bank was limited to 30 %, and as a result there are 50 pass -by trips which is only 4% of the adjacent street traffic on Fort Harrison Avenue. As such the net project impact would be 169 PM peak hour rip marX trips (72 in / 97 out). The expected distribution is shown in Figure 3, and adjacent street impact of primary trips is shown in Table 4. 2 0 0 DATE: 4/2008 DRAWN BY: AEL Ml I coi L34 4 J f F 102 L47 nmao 0 54 47 5% Ln o0N a M M 5% —80 _ 9 1 to TURNER ST. 1 X44 5% 37 JEFFORDS ST. 15 f F 5% J 74 71 F 75 ^ z:;: co C0 84— ono M. N 45 � U-) 08 -024 46 `N Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. Land Development Consulting � 1 C, d � I N N L33 N � � in � i N CD �v1a —31 15% OD M Of NMID 36 10% -106 �-- 74 DRUID RD. I I I F 36 16 7 f F 104 � �1 f F 53 -- 10 LO n N 184 — n v � � 0 i �� 5— 97 0 7 6 > M o LO O r I to M 1 L 16 2 I 90 L + L 1 16 C� DRNE B EXIT ONLY coo ID In 45 -- 1 ` 97 f 219 PM Trips (97 in/ 122 out) DATE: 4/2008 DRAWN BY: AEL Ml I coi MAGNOLIA DR. 4 J f F 102 0— Na n 9--- f 72 --- ° o M O to � � ro N to L20 to C11 ! L X44 5% 37 JEFFORDS ST. a 5% J f r 62 74— Q na N 20 co C0 a PROJECT NO: a, i • = TRAFFIC SIGNAL 08 -024 M w 'n vF i FUTURE PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME (2010) Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. Land Development Consulting DATE: 4/2008 DRAWN BY: AEL Ml I coi 3 f— 15 1 ID N M IF-3 - L18 1 92 J f 72 --- fO Ln 32 N a o � In a PROJECT NO: 08 -024 FIGURE: 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TABLE 4 PROJECT IMPACT CALCULATIONS Ft. Harrison Ave (Pinellas — Jeffords) 2 -lane 68 2360 2.88% 9.3/25.1 w /Lt lane A 7.1 Ft. Harrison Ave. / Turner Street Ft. Harrison Ave (Jeffords — Magnolia) 2 -lane 85 2360 3.60% Myrtle Ave. / Druid road w /Lt lane 8.6 Myrtle Ave. / Turner Street B Ft. Harrison Ave (Magnolia - Druid) 2 -lane 84 2360 3.56% C* w /Lt lane Ft. Harrison Ave (Druid — Turner) 2 -lane 51 2360. 2.16% w /Lt lane The roadway segments primarily impacted by the project are shown above. Traffic impact will occur on portions of Ft. Harrison Avenue and the intersections, as well as Magnolia Drive which is a local road. Project traffic was added to background traffic to show future traffic conditions and the intersections were reanalyzed using HCS. The HCS printouts are included in Appendix B and the expected future intersection operations are shown below in Table 5. TABLE 5 FUTURE INTERSECTION OPERATIONS (2010) Ft. Harrison Ave. / Jeffords Street A 8.7 Ft. Harrison Ave. / Magnolia Drive A/D* 9.3/25.1 Ft. Harrison Ave. / Druid Road A 7.1 Ft. Harrison Ave. / Turner Street A 7.9 Myrtle Ave. / Jeffords Street B 10.7 Myrtle Ave. / Druid road A 8.6 Myrtle Ave. / Turner Street B 11.7 Magnolia Drive / Drive A A/A* 7.4/9.3 Ft. Harrison Ave. / Drive B (exit) C* 24.9 Note: For unsignalized intersections A/B = LOS of major street left turn/minor street approach. As shown, all intersections would continue to operate at LOS C or better. Expected roadway segment operations are shown in Table 6. k] FA TABLE 6 FUTURE ROADWAY SEGMENT OPERATIONS (2010) As shown in Table 6, all roadways are expected to operate at LOS C or better with the project impact. The HCS printouts show Ft. Harrison will operate at LOS C with average travel speeds of 28 MPH northbound and 26.6 MPH southbound, and Myrtle Avenue would operate at LOS B with average travel speeds of 28.5 MPH northbound and 28.8 MPH southbound. Due to low volume on Magnolia Drive, left or right turn lanes at the project driveway are not warranted. The turn lane warrant sheet from NCHRP Report #279 Intersection Channelization and Design Guide are included in Appendix B. Based on the HCS intersection analysis the queue length for exiting vehicles is less than 1 vehicle at each driveway, therefore a throat depth of 25 feet would be adequate. The "exit only" driveway to Ft. Harrison Avenue is located approximately 100 feet south of Magnolia Drive. Magnolia Drive is unsignalized and northbound traffic would not be stopped at this location, therefore vehicles exiting this driveway would not be blocked. The driveway would need to be limited to exiting movements only, to reduce conflicts, and this access to Ft. Harrison Avenue will help eliminate undesired movements. Proximity to the Pinellas Trail should reduce parking and traffic demand as the site can be reached through walking or bicycling. 1 IV. CONCLUSION The existing conditions analysis demonstrates acceptable intersection and roadway segment operations. Traffic impacts to downtown roadways will be primarily on Ft. Harrison Avenue and Magnolia Drive. Future intersection and roadway operations would be at LOS C or better for all intersections and LOS C or better on roadways. No off -site improvements are required and turn lanes are not warranted at the project driveway to Magnolia Drive. 1 aY i Ft. Harrison Ave Pinellas — Jeffords 2 -lane w /Lt lane 1292 HCS C Ft. Harrison Ave Jeffords — Magnolia 2 -lane w /Lt lane 1347 HCS C Ft. Harrison Ave (Magnolia - Druid) 2 -lane w /Lt lane 1339 HCS C Ft. Harrison Ave Druid — Turner 2 -lane w/Lt lane 1283 HCS C Myrtle Ave. Pinellas — Jeffords 4 lanes 781 HCS B Myrtle Ave. (Jeffords — Druid) 4 lanes 881 HCS B Myrtle Ave (Druid — Turner) 4 lanes 1016 HCS B As shown in Table 6, all roadways are expected to operate at LOS C or better with the project impact. The HCS printouts show Ft. Harrison will operate at LOS C with average travel speeds of 28 MPH northbound and 26.6 MPH southbound, and Myrtle Avenue would operate at LOS B with average travel speeds of 28.5 MPH northbound and 28.8 MPH southbound. Due to low volume on Magnolia Drive, left or right turn lanes at the project driveway are not warranted. The turn lane warrant sheet from NCHRP Report #279 Intersection Channelization and Design Guide are included in Appendix B. Based on the HCS intersection analysis the queue length for exiting vehicles is less than 1 vehicle at each driveway, therefore a throat depth of 25 feet would be adequate. The "exit only" driveway to Ft. Harrison Avenue is located approximately 100 feet south of Magnolia Drive. Magnolia Drive is unsignalized and northbound traffic would not be stopped at this location, therefore vehicles exiting this driveway would not be blocked. The driveway would need to be limited to exiting movements only, to reduce conflicts, and this access to Ft. Harrison Avenue will help eliminate undesired movements. Proximity to the Pinellas Trail should reduce parking and traffic demand as the site can be reached through walking or bicycling. 1 IV. CONCLUSION The existing conditions analysis demonstrates acceptable intersection and roadway segment operations. Traffic impacts to downtown roadways will be primarily on Ft. Harrison Avenue and Magnolia Drive. Future intersection and roadway operations would be at LOS C or better for all intersections and LOS C or better on roadways. No off -site improvements are required and turn lanes are not warranted at the project driveway to Magnolia Drive. 1 APPENDIX b 0 7- 1500 - PKSEASON 2006 Peak Season Factor Category Report - Report Type: ALL Category: 1500 PINELLAS COUNTYWIDE Week Dates SF MOCF: 0.94 PSCF • -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 01/01/2006 - 01/07/2006 1.06 1.12 2 01/08/2006 - 01/14/2006 1.03 1.09 3 01/15/2006 - 01/21/2006 1.00 1.06 4 01/22/2006 - 01/28/2006 0.99 1.05 5 01/29/2006 - 02/04/2006 0.98 1.04 * 6 02/05/2006 - 02/11/2006 0.97 1.03 * 7 02/12/2006 - 02/18/2006 0.96 1.02 * 8 02/19/2006 - 02/25/2006 0.95 1.01 * 9 02/26/2006 - 03/04/2006 0.94 1.00 *10 03/05/2006 - 03/11/2006 0.93 0.98 *11 03/12/2006 - 03/18/2006 0.92 0.97 *12 03/19/2006 - 03/25/2006 0.92 0.97 *13 03/26/2006 - 04/01/2006 0.98 *14 04/02/2006 - 04/08/2006 -9,93- 1.00 *15 04/09/2006 - 04/15/2006 1.00 *16 04/16/2006 - 04/22/2006 0.95 1.01 *17 04/23/2006 - 04/29/2006 0.96 1.02 *18 04/30/2006 - 05/06/2006 0.97 1.03 19 05/07/2006 - 05/13/2006 0.98 1.04 20 05/14/2006 - 05/20/2006 0.99 1.05 21 05/21/2006 - 05/27/2006 1.00 1.06 22 05/28/2006 - 06/03/2006 1.00 1.06 23 06/04/2006 - 06/10/2006 1.00 1.06 24 06/11/2006 - 06/17/2006 1.01 1.07 25 06/18/2006 - 06/24/2006 1.01 1.07 26 06/25/2006 - 07/01/2006 1.01 1.07 27 07/02/2006 - 07/08/2006 1.01 1.07 28 07/09/2006 - 07/15/2006 1.02 1.08 29 07/16/2006 - 07/22/2006 1.02 1.08 30 07/23/2006 - 07/29/2006 1.02 1.08 31 07/30/2006 - 08/05/2006 1.02 1.08 32 08/06/2006 - 08/12/2006 1.02 1.08 33 08/13/2006 - 08/19/2006 1.02 1.08 34 08/20/2006 - 08/26/2006 1.03 1.09 35 08/27/2006 - 09/02/2006 1.03 1.09 36 09/03/2006 - 09/09/2006 1.04 1.10 37 09/10/2006 - 09/16/2006 1.04 1.10 38 09/17/2006 - 09/23/2006 1.04 1.10 39 09/24/2006 - 09/30/2006 1.03 1.09 40 10/01/2006 - 10/07/2006 1.03 1.09 41 10/08/2006 - 10/14/2006 1.03 1.09 42 10/15/2006 - 10/21/2006 1.02 1.08 43 10/22/2006 - 10/28/2006 1.04 1.10 44 10/29/2006 - 11/04/2006 1.05 1.11 45 11/05/2006 - 11/11/2006 1.06 1.12 46 11/12/2006 - 11/18/2006 1.08 1.14 47 11/19/2006 - 11/25/2006 1.07 1.13 48 11/26/2006 - 12/02/2006 1.07 1.13 49 12/03/2006 - 12/09/2006 1.06 1.12 50 12/10/2006 - 12/16/2006 1.06 1.12 51 12/17/2006 - 12/23/2006 1.04 1.10 52 12/24/2006 - 12/30/2006 1.02 1.08 53 12/31/2006 - 12/31/2006 1.00 1.06 * Peak season 10- Apr -2007 14:07:42 830UPD [1,0,0,1] 7- 1500- PKSEASON.tXt Page 1 Detailed Report Page 1 of 2 HCS2000 DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RP Agency or Co. GCC Date Performed 411012008 Time Period PM PEAK Intersection FT. HARRISONI JEFFORDS Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Analysis Year 2008 EXISTING Project ID Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, Ni 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group LTR LTR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 55 71 19 36 42 14 14 445 21 17 622 37 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 13 13 13 7 7 7 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 10.92 0.92 10.92 0.92 10.92 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start -up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 4 3 4 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 4 0 6 0 1 0 3 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N, 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 27.0 G= G= G= G= 85.0 G= G= I G= Y= 4 IY= Y= Y= IY= 4 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 153 1334 94 15 506 18 713 Lane group capacity, c 322 510 1311 630 1309 v/c ratio, X 0.48 0.28 1 0.03 0.39 1 0.03 0.54 file: / /C: \Documents and Settings\rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \s2k47.tmp 4/10/2008 Detailed Report Page 2 of 2 Total green ratio, g/C 0.22 0.22 0.71 0.71 1 0.71 0.71 Uniform delay, di 40.4 38.5 5.2 7.0 5.2 8.3 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.219 1.000 0.219 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 10.11 0.11 0.14 Incremental delay, d2 1.1 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.5 Initial queue delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control delay 41.5 38.9 5.2 1.7 5.2 2.3 Lane group LOS D D A A A A Approach delay 41.5 38.9 1.8 2.4 Approach LOS D D A A Intersection delay 8.5 Xc = 0.53 Intersection LOS A HCS2000TM Copyright m 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1f file: //CADocuments and Settings\rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \s2k47.tmp 4/10/2008 Two -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 Rights Reserved file://C: \Documents and Settings\rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \u2k29.tmp 4/11/2008 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period RP GCC 411112008 PM PEAK Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year FT. HARRISONI MAGNOLIA CLEARWATER 2008 EXISTING Project Description East/West Street: MAGNOLIA DRIVE North /South Street: FT. HARRISON AVENUE Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 2 509 3 2 661 7 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 565 3 2 734 7 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- 2 -- — Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 6 1 0 4 0 9 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 6 1 1 1 0 4 1 0 10 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Len at and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR (vph) 2 2 7 14 C (m) (vph) 866 1004 263 359 lc 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.04 95% queue length 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.12 Control Delay 9.2 8.6 19.1 15.4 LOS A A C C ,Approach Delay -- -- 19.1 15.4 pproach LOS -- -- C C Rights Reserved file://C: \Documents and Settings\rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \u2k29.tmp 4/11/2008 Detailed Report i • Page 1 of 2 HCS2000 DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RP Agency or Co. GCC Date Performed 411012008 Time Period PM PEAK Intersection FT. HARRISON /DRUID Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Analysis Year 2008 EXISTING Project ID Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group LTR LT R L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 15 51 10 57 30 32 9 419 98 40 546 12 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 3 0 21 0 3 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking I Grade I Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM' Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, GP 3.2 3.2 3.2 I 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 24.0 G= G= G= IY= G= 88.0 G= G= G= Y= 4 IY= Y= Y= 4 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 77 92 12 9 541 42 588 Lane group capacity, c 350 297 317 605 1328 638 1375 v/c ratio, X 0.22 0.31 0.04 10.73 0.01 0.41 0.07 0.43 0.20 0.20 0.20 10.73 0.73 0.73 file: //C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \s2k53.tmp 4/10/2008 Detailed Report 9 • Page 2 of 2 Total green ratio, g/C Uniform delay, di 40.2 40.9 38.7 4.3 6.1 4.5 6.2 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.216 1.000 0.216 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, dz 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 Initial queue delay, d3 0.0 10.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 Control delay 40.5 41.5 38.7 4.3 1.5 4.5 1.6 Lane group LOS D D D A A A A Approach delay 40.5 41.2 1.6 1.8 Approach LOS D D A A Intersection delay 6.9 X = 0.40 Intersection LOS A HCS2000TM Copyright m 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved 0 Version 4.1f file: //CADocuments and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \s2k53.tmp 4/10/2008 Detailed Report Page 1 of 2 HCS2000 DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RP Agency or Co. GCC Date Performed 411012008 Time Period PM PEAK Intersection FT. HARRISON /TURNER Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Analysis Year 2008 EXISTING Project ID Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, Ni 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group LT R LT R L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 14 72 43 40 52 33 17 499 34 37 537 22 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start -up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR olumes 0 30 0 24 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade I Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G r 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 22.0 G= G= G= G= 90.0 G= G= G= Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= IY= 4 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH I RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 100 1 15 107 10 20 620 43 650 Lane group capacity, c 328 293 287 293 590 1397 606 1403 v/c ratio, X 0.30 0.05 0.37 0.03 0.03 0.44 10.75 0.07 0.46 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 10.75 0.75 0.75 file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \s2k5E.tmp 4/10/2008 Detailed Report is 1 0 Page 2 of 2 Total green ratio, g/C Uniform delay, di 42.4 40.4 43.0 40.3 3.8 5.6 4.0 5.7 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.230 1.000 0.230 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 0.5 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 Initial queue delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control delay 42.9 40.5 43.8 40.3 3.9 1.5 4.0 1.6 Lane group LOS D D D D A A A A Approach delay 42.6 43.5 1.6 1.7 Approach LOS D D A A Intersection delay 7,8 X� = 0.45 Intersection LOS A HCS2000TM Copyright m 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1f file://CADocuments and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \s2k5E.tmp 4/10/2008 Detailed Report Page 1 of 2 HCS2000- DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RP Agency or Co. GCC Date Performed 411012008 Time Period PM PEAK Intersection MYRTLE /JEFFORDS Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Analysis Year 2008 EXISTING Project ID Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, Ni 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 Lane group LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume, V (vph) 88 69 25 3 17 14 11 367 5 5 330 25 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 4 4 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial.unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 12 0 12 0 0 0 3 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 25.0 G= G= G JG= 86.0 G= G= G= Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 189 24 426 397 Lane group capacity, c 320 377 2411 2392 v/c ratio, X 0.59 0.06 1 0.18 0.17 Total green ratio, g/C 0.21 0.21 1 1 0.72 0.72 file: //C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \s2k69.tmp 4/10/2008 Detailed Report 0 0 Page 2 of 2 Uniform delay, di 42.9 38.1 1 1 5.5 5.5 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 0.203 0.203 Delay calibration, k 0.18 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 2.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 Initial queue delay, d3 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 Control delay 45.8 38.2 1.2 1.1 Lane group LOS D D A A Approach delay 45.8 38.2 1.2 1.1 Approach LOS D D A A Intersection delay 10.1 X = 0.27 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1f file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \s2k69.tmp 4/10/2008 Detailed Report 0 0 Page 1 of 2 HCS2000' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RP Agency or Co. GCC Date Performed 411012008 Time Period PM PEAK Intersection MYRTLE /DRUID Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Analysis Year 2008 EXISTING Project ID Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, Ni 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 Lane group L TR L TR LTR LTR Volume, V (vph) 94 165 7 35 92 35 7 432 49 66 319 22 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 1 1 1 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 4 4 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 2 0 17 0 13 0 3 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 15.0 JG= G= G= JG= 36.0 G= G= G= Y= 4 IY= Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 60.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH I RT Adjusted flow rate, v 103 186 38 121 523 445 Lane group capacity, c 320 469 267 441 2016 1733 v/c ratio, X 0.32 10.40 10.14 0.27 1 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.25 1 0.25 0.25 1 0.60 0.60 file://C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \s2k78.tmp 4/10/2008 Detailed Report 0 0 Page 2 of 2 Total green ratio, g/C Uniform delay, di 18.4 18.7 117.5 18.1 5.7 5.7 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.575 0.575 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 Initial queue delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control delay 18.9 19.3 17.7 18.5 3.3 3.3 Lane group LOS B B B B A A Approach delay 19.2 18.3 3.3 3.3 Approach LOS B B A A Intersection delay 8.2 X c = 0.30 Intersection LOS A HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1f file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \s2k78.tmp 4/10/2008 Detailed Report 0 0 Page 1 of 2 HCS2000TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RP Agency or Co. GCC Date Performed 411012008 Time Period PM PEAK Intersection MYRTLE /TURNER Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Analysis Year 2008 EXISTING Project ID Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT I TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, Ni 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 Lane group LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume, V (vph) 71 75 44 9 72 45 29 503 19 31 368 38 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 1 1 1 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start -up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 4 4 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 20 0 24 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 26.0 G= G= G= G= 85.0 G= G= G= Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 200 121 648 514 Lane group capacity, c 308 388 2255 2180 v/c ratio, X 0.65 1 1 0.31 1 0.29 0.24 Total green ratio, g/C 0.22 1 1 0.22 1 0.71 0.71 file: //C:\Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \s2k83.tmp 4/10/2008 Detailed Report 0 i Page 2 of 2 Uniform delay, di 42.8 39.5 1 1 6.4 6.1 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 0.219 0.219 Delay calibration, k 0.23 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 4.8 0.5 0.1 0.1 Initial queue delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control delay 47.6 39.9 1.5 1.4 Lane group LOS D D A A Approach delay 47.6 39.9 1.5 1.4 Approach LOS D D A A Intersection delay 10,8 c = 0.37 Intersection LOS 8 HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1f file://C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \s2k83.tmp 4/10/2008 M *Denotes value different from FOOT "default". -Default non - signallzed values applied. For a description of report variables and values, please refer to the last page of the report. WTindale - Oliver and Associates Produced using: vTIMAS v1.163 Tampa, Florida Page: 50 0 • Arterial Area LOS LOS LOS MSV LOS LOS LOS MSV LOS LOS MSV Facility ID: 474 Length Class Type Method STD Mult Mult MSV Speed LOS ALT US 191 CLEARWATER -LARGO RD: (ROSERY RD -to- BELLEAIR RD) .809 2 2 AP -2002 D 1.00 1.00 2,220 32.97 B 2 2 MSV Base % % % LOS 920 24.26 5"' Lane # Fac 2 Sat Hvy No Excl Posted Arr Signal Cycl Physical Trav Seg Seg Se ment: Jur FIHS T eALF Len Si T AADT KFact DFact Volume Flow PHF Vhcl Pass Turns Speed T T Len /C Capacity v/c Time Speed LOS 4780 - ALT US 19 CLEARWATER -LARGO RD: (ROSERY RD -to- PONCE C SR N/O 4U .00 .513 1 SA 22,426 .095 .55 1,172 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 40 4 1 110 .58 2,211 0.53 53.8 34.30 B 4770 - ALT US 19 CLEARWATER -LARGO RD: (PONCE DE LEON -to- BELI SR NIO 4U .00 .296 1 SA 18,274 .095 .55 955 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 40 4 1 83 .54 2,032 0.47 34.5 30.9D B *Denotes value different from FOOT "default". -Default non - signallzed values applied. For a description of report variables and values, please refer to the last page of the report. WTindale - Oliver and Associates Produced using: vTIMAS v1.163 Tampa, Florida Page: 50 0 • Arterial Area Area LOS LOS LOS MSV LOS LOS MSV Facili ID: 477 Length Facility ID: 475 Length Class Type MSV Method STD Mult Mult Type MSV Speed LOS ALT US 19 1 EDGEWATER DR: (MYRTLE AVE -to- BROADWAY AVE) 2.091 2 2 MSV AP -2002 D 1.00 1.00 LOS 920 24.26 C 2 AP -2002 SIS/ Lane # Fac D 1.00 1.00 Base % % % 11,300 Excl Posted Arr Signal Cycl 1 Trav Seg SIS/ Lane # Fac C AADT KFact DFact Volume Flow PHF Vhcl Pass Sat Hvy No Excl Posted Arr Signal Cycl Physical Trav Seg Seg Segment: Jur FIHS TypeAUF Len Sig Typ AADT KFact DFact Volume Flow PHF Vhcl Pass Turns Speed Typ Typ Len /C Capacity v/c Time Speed LOS 2610 - ALT US 191 EDGEWATER DR: (MYRTLE AVE -to- SUNSET POINT R SR N/0 21.1 .00 .449 1 SA 16,322 .095 .55 853 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 35 4 2 75 .45 853 1.00 73.3 22.00 C 2600 - ALT US 19 ( EDGEWATER DR: (SUNSET POINT RD -lo- UNION ST) SR N/0 2U .00 .499 0 SA 16,322 .095 .55 853 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 35 See Note Below 51.6 34.80 B 1810 -ALT US 19 I EDGEWATER DR: (UNION ST -to- BELTREES ST) SR N/O 2U .00 .529 0 SA 16,322 .095 .55 853 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 35 _ See Note Below: 54.7 34.80 B 1800 - ALT US 19 EDGEWATER DR MAIN ST: (BELTREES ST -to- BROAI SR N/0 2U .00 .614 1 SA 18,884 .095 .55 987 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 35 4 2­100' .49 931 1.06 130.7 16.90 E *Denotes value different from FOOT "default". -Default non - signallzed values applied. For a description of report variables and values, please refer to the last page of the report. WTindale - Oliver and Associates Produced using: vTIMAS v1.163 Tampa, Florida Page: 50 0 • Arterial Arterial Area LOS LOS LOS MSV Facili ID: 477 Length Class Type Method STD Mult Facility ID: 476 MSV Length Class Type .097 Method 1 AP -2002 STD Mult Mult 1.00 1,080 6.94 MSV Speed LOS ALT US 191 FT HARRISON AVE: (BELLEAIR RD -to- CHESTNUT ST) % % 1.5513 2 AP -2002 SIS/ Lane # Fac D 1.00 1.00 Sat 11,300 Excl Posted Arr Signal Cycl 1 Trav Seg 20.59 C AADT KFact DFact Volume Flow PHF Vhcl Pass Turns Speed Typ Typ Len /C Capacity v/c Time Speed Base 2650 - ALT US 191 FT HARRISON AVE: (CHESTNUT ST -to- COURT ST) SR N/0 2D .00 .097 1 SA % % % .095 .55 1,110 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 0.00 30 4 1 100 .60 1,057 1.05 50.4 6.90 F SIS/ Lane # Fac Sat Hvy No Excl Posted Arr Signal Cycl Physical Trav Seg Seg Segment: Jur FIHS TypeALF Len Sig Typ AADT KFact DFact Volume Flow PHF Vhcl Pass Turns Speed Typ Typ Len /C Capacity vlc Time Speed LOS 2690 - ALT US 191 FT HARRISON AVE: (BELLEAIR RD -to- BELLEVIEW BL SR N10 2D .00 .291 1 SA 23,604 .095 .55 1,233 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 16.00 40 4 1 120 .60 1,258 0.98 47.6 22.00 C 2680 - ALT US 191 FT HARRISON AVE: (BELLEVIEW BLVD -to- LAKEVIEW SR N/0 2D .00 .383 1 SA 23,604 .095 .55 1,233 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 16.00 40 4 1 120 .60 .1,258 0.98 55.7 24.80 B 2670.1- ALT US 191 FT HARRISON AVE: ( LAKEVIEW RD -to- PINELLAS Sl SR N/0 2D .00 .249 1 SA 19,869 .095 .55 1,038 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 16.00 40 4 1 120 .60 1,251 0.83 35.9 25.00 B 2670.2 - ALT US 191 FT HARRISON AVE: ( PINELLAS ST -to- JEFFORDS Sl SR N/0 2D .00 .125 1 SA 19,869 .095 .55 1,038 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 16.00 30 4 1 120 .60 1,251 0.83 29.2 15.40 D 2670.3 - ALT US 191 FT HARRISON AVE: ( JEFFORDS ST -to- DRUID RD) SR N/0 2D .00 1 SA 19,869 .095 .55 1,038 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 16.00 30 4 1 120 .60 1,251 0.83 44.3 20.50 C 2660.1 - ALT US 191 FT HARRISON AVE: (DRUID RD -to- TURNER ST) SR N/0 2D .00 MZ81 1 SA 19,869 .095 .55 1,038 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 16.00 30 4 1 120 .60 1,251 0.83 33.1 17.20 D 2660.2 - ALT US 191 FT HARRISON AVE: (TURNER ST -to- CHESTNUT ST SR NIO 2D .00 .092 1 SA 19,869 .095 .55 1,038 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 16.00 30 4 1 120 .60 1,251 0.83 25.2 13.20 E *Denotes value different from FOOT "default". -Default non - signallzed values applied. For a description of report variables and values, please refer to the last page of the report. WTindale - Oliver and Associates Produced using: vTIMAS v1.163 Tampa, Florida Page: 50 0 • Arterial Area LOS LOS LOS MSV Facili ID: 477 Length Class Type Method STD Mult Mult MSV Speed LOS ALT US 19 1 FT HARRISON AVE: (CHESTNUT ST -to- COURT ST) .097 4 1 AP -2002 D 1.00 1.00 1,080 6.94 F Base % % % SIS/ Lane # Fac Sat Hvy No Excl Posted Arr Signal Cycl Physical Trav Seg Seg Se ment: Jur FIHS TypeALF Len Sig Typ AADT KFact DFact Volume Flow PHF Vhcl Pass Turns Speed Typ Typ Len /C Capacity v/c Time Speed LOS 2650 - ALT US 191 FT HARRISON AVE: (CHESTNUT ST -to- COURT ST) SR N/0 2D .00 .097 1 SA 21,239 .095 .55 1,110 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 0.00 30 4 1 100 .60 1,057 1.05 50.4 6.90 F *Denotes value different from FOOT "default". -Default non - signallzed values applied. For a description of report variables and values, please refer to the last page of the report. WTindale - Oliver and Associates Produced using: vTIMAS v1.163 Tampa, Florida Page: 50 0 • *Denotes value different from FDOT "default°. -Default non - signalized values applied. For a description of report variables and values, please refer to the last page of the report Tindale- Oliver and Associates Produced using: vTIMAS v1.163 Tampa, Florida Page: 110 • • Arterial Arterial Area LOS LOS LOS LOS MSV = I(�40 Length Class Type Method Facili ID: 919 Facility ID: 921 Length Class Type Class Method STD Mult Mult Rso - •S 1,320 MSV I MSV Speed LOS MYRTLE AVE: (LAKEVIEW RD -to- CHESTNUT ST) MYRTLE AVE: (CHESTNUT ST -to- DREW ST) .819 U 2 1 AP -2002 D 1.00 1.00 way 1,470 930 22.06 19.84 D C Jur FIHS TypeALF Len Sig Typ AADT KFact DFact Volume Flow PHF Vhci Pass Turns Speed Typ Typ Len Base % % % Base % % % CL N10 2U .00 .203 0 NA 6,800 .095 .55 460 1,700 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 35 0 0 0 1.00 1,700 SIS/ Lane # Fac B S'S' ! # Fac SIS/ Lane # Fac Sat Hvy No Excl Posted Arr Signal Cycl Sat Hvy No Excl Posted Arr Signal Cycl Cycl Physical Trav Sag Seg Se ment: Jur FIHS T eALF Len Si T AADT KFact DFact Volume Flow PHF Vhcl Pass Turns Speed Typ Typ Len /C Capacity v/c Time Speed LOS 4220.2 - MYRTLE AVE: (LAKEVIEW RD -to- JEFFORDS ST) CL N/0 41.1 .00 .254 1 SA 4,916 .095 .55 257 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 40 4 2 120 .42 1,606 0.16 40.7 22.30 C 4220.1 - MYRTLE AVE: ( JEFFORDS ST -to- DRUID ST) CL N/0 4U .00 31.3 1 SA 4,916 .095 .55 257 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 40 4 2 120 .42 1,606 0.16 45.2 24.80 C 25645.2- MYRTLE AVE: (DRUID ST -to- TURNER ST) CL N10 41.1 .00 .095 1 SA 4,916 .095 .55 257 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 40 4 2 120 .42 1,606 0.16 28.5 12.00 F 25645.1- MYRTLE AVE: (TURNER ST -to- CHESTNUT ST) CL N/0 4U .00 .157 1 SA 4,916 .095 .55 257 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 40 4 2 120 .42 1,606 016 33.5 16.80 E *Denotes value different from FDOT "default°. -Default non - signalized values applied. For a description of report variables and values, please refer to the last page of the report Tindale- Oliver and Associates Produced using: vTIMAS v1.163 Tampa, Florida Page: 110 • • Arterial Arterial Area LOS LOS LOS MSV Facili ID: 922 Length Class Type Method STD Mult Mult Facility ID: 921 Facili ID: 920 Length Length Class Type Method STD Mult Mult 1,320 MSV MSV Speed Speed LOS MYRTLE AVE: (CHESTNUT ST -to- DREW ST) .876 .500 4 1 AP -2002 D 1.00 1.00 1,470 1,640 22.06 C 17.30 C Jur FIHS TypeALF Len Sig Typ AADT KFact DFact Volume Flow PHF Vhci Pass Turns Speed Typ Typ Len Base % % % Base % % % CL N10 2U .00 .203 0 NA 6,800 .095 .55 460 1,700 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 35 0 0 0 1.00 1,700 SIS/ Lane # Fac B SIS/ Lane # Fac Sat Hvy No Excl Posted Arr Signal Cycl Sat Hvy No Excl Posted Arr Signal Cycl Trav Seg Physical Se ment: Trav Seg Seg Se ment: Jur FIHS TypeALF Len Sig Typ AADT KFact DFact Volume Flow PHF Vhcl Pass Turns Speed Typ Typ Len /C Capacity v/c Time Speed LOS 4200 - MYRTLE AVE: (CHESTNUT ST -to- COURT ST) CL N/0 41.1 .00 .070 1 SA 6,284 .095 .55 328 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 30 5 2 120 .42 1,562 0.21 19.8 12.80 D 4190.2 - MYRTLE AVE: (COURT ST -to-,PIERCE ST) CL N/0 4U .00 .122 1 SA 7,652 .095 .55 400 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 30 5 2 120 .42 1,600 0.25 25.9 17.00 C 4190.1 - MYRTLE AVE: (PIERCE ST -to- CLEVELAND ST) CL NIO 41.1 .00 .133 1 SA 7,652 .095 .55 400 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 30 5 2 120 .42 1,600 0.25 27.1 17.70 C 4180 - MYRTLE AVE: (CLEVELAND ST -to- DREW ST) CL N/O 4D .00 .174 1 SA 8,226 .095 .55 430 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 30 5 2 120 .42 1,593 0.27 31.3 20.10 B *Denotes value different from FDOT "default°. -Default non - signalized values applied. For a description of report variables and values, please refer to the last page of the report Tindale- Oliver and Associates Produced using: vTIMAS v1.163 Tampa, Florida Page: 110 • • Arterial Arterial Area LOS LOS LOS MSV Facili ID: 922 Length Class Type Method STD Mult Mult Facility ID: 921 Speed Length Class Type Method STD Mult Mult D 1.00 1.00 1,320 MSV B Speed LOS MYRTLE AVE: (DREW ST -to- MARSHALL ST) Base .876 2 2 AP -2002 D 1.00 1.00 SIS / Lane # Fac 1,470 Hvy No Excl Posted Arr Signal Cycl 22.06 C Seg Segment: Jur FIHS TypeALF Len Sig Typ AADT KFact DFact Volume Flow PHF Vhci Pass Turns Speed Typ Typ Len Base % % % LOS 4150- MYRTLE AVE: (MARSHALL ST -to- EDGEWATER DR) CL N10 2U .00 .203 0 NA 6,800 .095 .55 460 1,700 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 35 0 0 0 1.00 1,700 SIS/ Lane # Fac B Sat Hvy No Excl Posted Arr Signal Cycl Physical Trav Seg Seg Se ment: Jur FIHS TypeALF Len Sig Typ AADT KFact DFact Volume Flow PHF Vhcl Pass Turns Speed Typ Typ Len IC Capacity v/c Time Speed LOS 4170.1 - MYRTLE AVE: (DREW ST -to- SEMINOLE ST) CL N/O 4U .00 .374 1 SA 8,800 .095 .55 460 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 35 4 1 120 .42 1,586 0.29 55.2 24.40 C 4170.2 - MYRTLE AVE: ( SEMINOLE ST -to- PALMETTO ST) CL N/0 41.1 .00 .127 1 SA 8,800 .095 .55 460 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 35 4 1 120 .42 1,586 0.29 32.6 14.00 E 4160 - MYRTLE AVE: (PALMETTO ST -to- MARSHALL ST) CL N/0 41.1 .00 .375 1 SA 8,800 .095 .55 460 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 35 4 1 120 .42 1,586 0.29 55.2 24.40 C *Denotes value different from FDOT "default°. -Default non - signalized values applied. For a description of report variables and values, please refer to the last page of the report Tindale- Oliver and Associates Produced using: vTIMAS v1.163 Tampa, Florida Page: 110 • • Arterial Area LOS LOS LOS MSV Facili ID: 922 Length Class Type Method STD Mult Mult MSV Speed LOS MYRTLE AVE: (MARSHALL ST -to- EDGEWATER DR) .203 2 2 Conceptual D 1.00 1.00 1,320 40.00 B Base % % % SIS / Lane # Fac Sat Hvy No Excl Posted Arr Signal Cycl Physical Trav Seg Seg Segment: Jur FIHS TypeALF Len Sig Typ AADT KFact DFact Volume Flow PHF Vhci Pass Turns Speed Typ Typ Len /C Capacity v/c Time Speed LOS 4150- MYRTLE AVE: (MARSHALL ST -to- EDGEWATER DR) CL N10 2U .00 .203 0 NA 6,800 .095 .55 460 1,700 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 35 0 0 0 1.00 1,700 0.31 32.2 40.00 B *Denotes value different from FDOT "default°. -Default non - signalized values applied. For a description of report variables and values, please refer to the last page of the report Tindale- Oliver and Associates Produced using: vTIMAS v1.163 Tampa, Florida Page: 110 • • s APPENDIX B • Drive -in Bank (912) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area On a: Weekday Number of Studies: 19 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 4 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 246.49 68.23 - 817.00 140.03 Data Plot and Equation 4,000 3,000 c W '.7% U L 2,000 N N Q a 1,000 0 'X X X ,X .......... - X - --- ---- ---- - - -- -- -- X X . X 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: T = 182.34(X) + 256.87 - - - - -- Average Rate R2 = 0.59 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 1685 Institute of Transportation Engineers Drive -in Bank (912) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, ' One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Number of Studies: 23 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 4 Directional Distribution: 56% entering, 44% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 12.34 3.00 - 45.39 10.68 Data Plot and Equation 170 160 150 140 130 120 W 110 Q F= 100 r 90 N > 80 a� rn 70 I I 60 F- 50 40 30 20 10 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - -, - -- ;--- -y -- -X -- . - - - X' ... .... - - - - - - - - - - - -- X X . -- - - - - X - - - -- - -- - ---- -1 - - - - - - - X .X 'X X; ----- --- -- --- -; ---- - -- ............ - ; - - - -- X X XX X----- - --- X X X--- - -- ---- -. - - -- - -- --- - -; - -- --- . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve. Equation: Not given - - - - -- Average Rate R2 = * * ** ' Trip Generation, 7th Edition 1686 Institute of Transportation Engineers Drive -in Bank (912) ' Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, ' One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: 47 IAverage 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 3 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting ITrip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 45.74 3.00 - 242.50 43.52 Data Plot and Equation a c W d H N U L N c� Q 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 x. . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X X; - X - -;- - - - -... ..- --- - ----^ ---- -- --- ----•----- - - -- .X X X X X ;X X; x X ;X X ---------- X` >= --- X X X. X X x. X X .. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Equation: Not given - - -"' Average Rate R2 _ * * ** ' Trip Generation, 7th Edition 1687 Institute of Transportation Engineers Medical- Dental Office Builc?ing (720) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area On a: Weekday Number of Studies: 10 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 45 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 36.13 23.16 - 50.51 10.18 Data Plot and Equation 5,000 4,000 U) a c W Q 3,000 N U L N d (d > 2,000 Q I F- 1,000 0 X .X_ _ ____ ___. ... _._ _._ .... X - -- , -- (' X : -X-- - ----- - - - - -• --- ...... -• ... 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve - - - - -- Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: T = 40.89(X) - 214.97 R2 = 0.90 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 1190 Institute of Transportation Engineers 0 01 Medical - Dental Office Building (720) ' Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Number of Studies: 21 ' Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 39 Directional Distribution: 79% entering, 21 % exiting Trin Generation per 1000 Sa. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 2.48 0.85 - 4.79 1.94 Data Plot and Eauation Cn a c. W Q H N U L N N OI a> Q I� 300 200 100 0 X' X X X X ----- ...- ... -r /--- --- - --- ---- --- -- ----- --- -- - ----. X /X X X X ! X X X r X X X . x X 0 10 20 30 X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Equation: Not given 40 50 60 70 X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area 80 90 100 110 120 -- - - -- Average Rate R2 = * * ** ' Trip Generation, 7th Edition 1191 Institute of Transportation Engineers Mecal- Dental Office Buil�ng (720) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: 41 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 30 Directional Distribution: 27% entering, 73% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 3.72 0.97 - 8.86 2.50 Data Plot and Equation 500 0) c w CL d U L N d t� N Q F- 400 300 200 100 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve - - - - -- Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.93 Ln(X) + 1.47 R2 = 0.77 X-; - - -X - ;- - - - - -, - - - - - , - - - - - - X X X X - -------------- X ; - - -- - -; - - - X . X X , XX --- --- X /- x XX-X - -- - -- • - - -- ----- X X X)` X X X X X X X XX X X X Trip Generation, 7th Edition 1192 Institute of Transportation Engineers Detailed Report • • Page 1 of 2 HCS2000 DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RP Agency or Co. GCC Date Performed 411612008 Time Period PM PEAK Intersection FT. HARRISONI JEFFORDS Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Analysis Year FUTURE WITH PROJECT Project ID Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, Ni 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group LTR LTR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 62 74 20 37 44 20 15 502 22 23 696 44 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 13 13 13 7 7 7 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start -up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 4 3 4 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 4 0 6 0 1 0 3 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 27.0 G= G= G= G= 85.0 G= G= G= Y= 4 IY= Y= Y= IY= 4 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 164 103 16 569 25 802 Lane group capacity, c 314 331 460 1311 594 1308") v/c ratio, X 0.52 0.31 0.03 0.43 0.04 6O.fi1 file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \s2kCA.tmp 4/16/2008 Detailed Report Page 2 of 2 Total green ratio, g/C 0,22 0.22 0.71 0.71 0.71 X0.71 Uniform delay, d, 40.8 38.8 5.2 7.4 5.3 '9-0 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.219 1.000 0.219 Delay calibration, k 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.20 Incremental delay, d2 1.6 0.5 0.0 0.2 10.0 0.9 Initial queue delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control delay 42.4 39.3 5.3 1.8 5.3 2.8 Lane group LOS D D A A A A Approach delay 42.4 39.3 1.9 2.9 Approach LOS D D A A Intersection delay 8.7 Xc = 0.59 Intersection LOS A HCS2000TM Copyright m 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1f file://C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \s2kCA.tmp 4/16/2008 Two -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 Rights Reserved file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \u2k10E.tmp 4/16/2008 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period RP GCC 411612008 PM PEAK Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year FT. HARRISONI MAGNOLIA CLEARWATER FUTURE WITH PROJECT Project Description t/West Street: MAGNOLIA DRIVE North /South Street: FT. HARRISON AVENUE rsection Orientation: North -South Stud Period hrs : 0.25 kEa hicle Volu mes and Adjustments or Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 2 546 52 50 687 7 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 606 57 55 763 7 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- — 2 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 es 1 1 0 1 1 0 figuration L TR L TR kLa tream Si nal 0 0 or Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 51 1 45 4 0 9 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 56 1 1 50 4 0 1 10 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Len at and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR (vph) 2 55 107 14 C (m) (vph) 844 926 284 304 lc 0.00 0.06 0.38 0.05 95% queue length 0.01 0.19 1.69 0.14 Control Delay 9.3 9.1 25.1 17.4 LOS A A D C Approach Delay -- -- 25.1 17.4 ,Approach LOS -- -- D C Rights Reserved file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \u2k10E.tmp 4/16/2008 Detailed Report 1 0 Page 1 of 2 HCS2000 DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RP Agency or Co. GCC Date Performed 411612008 Time Period PM PEAK Intersection FT. HARRISON /DRUID Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Analysis Year FUTURE WITH PROJECT Project ID Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, Ni 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group LTR LT R L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 16 53 10 74 31 33 15 473 120 42 596 12 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 1 I 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 3 0 21 0 3 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 24.0 JG= G= G= G= 88.0 G= G= G= Y= 4 IY= Y= Y= IY= 4 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 80 111 13 16 621 44 640 Lane group capacity, c 348 280 317 576 el- 325? 593 137§ v/c ratio, X 0.23 0.40 0.04 0.03 0.471 0.07 .4-7 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.73 0.73 0.73 10.73 file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \s2kD5.tmp 4/16/2008 Detailed Report 1 0 Page 2 of 2 Total green ratio, g/C Uniform delay, d, 40.3 41.7 38.7 4.4 6.5 4.5 6.5 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.216 1.000 0.216 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 0.3 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.3 Initial queue delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control delay 40.6 42.6 38.8 4.4 1.7 4.6 1.6 Lane group LOS D D D A A A A Approach delay 40.6 42.2 1.7 1.8 Approach LOS D D A A Intersection delay 7.9 X c = 0.45 Intersection LOS A HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1f file://C:\Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \s2kD5.tmp 4/16/2008 Detailed Report Page 1 of 2 HCS2000 DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RP Agency or Co. GCC Date Performed 411612008 Time Period PM PEAK Intersection FT. HARRISON /TURNER Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Analysis Year FUTURE WITH PROJECT Project ID Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group LT R LT R L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 15 75 45 47 54 34 18 551 41 38 581 23 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 30 0 24 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Per 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 22.0 G= G= G= G= 90.0 IY= G= G= G= 1Y= Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 104 17 118 12 21 689 44 703 Lane group capacity, c 327 293 276 293 561 (1397 569 1403 v/c ratio, X 0.32 0.06 0.43 10.04 0.04 0.49 0.08 0.50 0.18 0.18 1 0.18 0.18 0.75 `0.75 10.75 10.75 file://C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \s2kEl.tmp 4/16/2008 Detailed Report Page 2 of 2 Total green ratio, g/C Uniform delay, di 42.5 40.4 43.4 40.3 3.9 6.0 4.0 6.0 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.230 1.000 0.230 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 0.6 0.1 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.3 Initial queue delay, d3 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control delay 43.1 40.5 44.5 40.4 3.9 1.6 4.0 1.7 Lane group LOS D D D D A A A A Approach delay 42.7 44.1 1.7 1.8 Approach LOS D D A A Intersection delay 7.9 X,� = 0.49 Intersection LOS A HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1f file://CADocuments and Settings\rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \s2kEl.tmp 4/16/2008 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Detailed Report E I* Page 1 of 2 HCS2000 DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RP Agency or Co. GCC Date Performed 411612008 Time Period PM PEAK Intersection MYRTLE /JEFFORDS Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Analysis Year FUTURE WITH PROJECT Project ID Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, Ni 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 Lane group LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume, V (vph) 92 72 32 3 18 15 16 382 5 5 343 26 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 4 4 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 12 0 12 0 0 0 3 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 1 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 1 08 Timing G= 25.0 JG= G= G= G= 86.0 G= G= I G= Y= 4 IY= Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 204 26 448 413 Lane group capacity, c 320 376 2383 2397 v/c ratio, X 0.64 0.07 0.19 Total green ratio, g/C 0.21 0.21 1 0.72 0.72 file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \s2kEF.tmp 4/16/2008 Detailed Report Page 2 of 2 Uniform delay, d, 43.4 38.2 1 1 5.6 5.5 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 0.203 0.203 Delay calibration, k 0.22 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 4.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 Initial queue delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control delay 47.6 38.2 1.2 1.2 Lane group LOS D D A A Approach delay 47.6 38.2 1.2 1.2 Approach LOS D D A A Intersection delay 10.7 X = 0.29 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1f file://C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \s2kEF.tmp 4/16/2008 Detailed Report 0 1* Page 1 of 2 HCS2000 DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RP Agency or Co. GCC Date Performed 411612008 Time Period PM PEAK Intersection MYRTLE /DRUID Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Analysis Year FUTURE WITH PROJECT Project ID Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 1 I 1 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 Lane group L TR L TR LTR LTR Volume, V (vph) 104 1184 7 36 106 36 7 449 51 69 331 28 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 1 1 1 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 4 4 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 2 0 17 0 13 0 3 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 1 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 15.0 IY= G= G= G= I G= 36.0 G= G= G= 4 Y= Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 60.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH I RT Adjusted flow rate, v 114 207 40 137 543 46.7,` Lane group capacity, c 315 469 249 442 1201 v/c ratio, X 0.36 0.44 0.16 0.31 0 2 0.27) 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 60 0.60 file://C: \Documents and Settings\rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \s2kFA.tmp 4/16/2008 Detailed Report Page 2 of 2 Total green ratio, g/C Uniform delay, di 18.6 19.0 17.6 18.3 5.7 5.7 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.575 0.575 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.4 10.1 0.1 Initial queue delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control delay 19.3 19.6 17.9 18.7 3.4 3.4 Lane group LOS B B B B A A Approach delay 19.5 18.5 3.4 3.4 Approach LOS B B A A Intersection delay 8.6 X = 0.32 Intersection LOS A HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1f file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \s2kFA.tmp 4/16/2008 Detailed Report Page 1 of 2 HCS2000 DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RP Agency or Co. GCC Date Performed 411612008 Time Period PM PEAK Intersection MYRTLE /TURNER Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Analysis Year FUTURE WITH PROJECT Project ID Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT I TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, Ni 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 Lane group LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume, V (vph) 74 84 46 9 80 47 30 523 20 32 388 40 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 1 1 1 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 4 4 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 20 0 24 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 26.0 IY= G= G= G= G= 85.0 G= G= G= 4 Y= Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 217 132 674 541 Lane group capacity, c 301 389 2248 2165 v/c ratio, X 0.72 10.34 1 J0.,30 0.25 Total green ratio, g/C 0.22 0.22 1 F0.71' , 0.71 file://C:\Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \s2k105.tmp 4/16/2008 Detailed Report t• Page 2 of 2 Uniform delay, di 43.6 1 39.7 1 1 6.5 6.2 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 0.219 0.219 Delay calibration, k 0.28 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 8.2 0.5 0.1 0.1 Initial queue delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control delay 51.8 40.3 1.5 1.4 Lane group LOS D D A A Approach delay 51.8 40.3 1.5 1.4 Approach LOS D D A A Intersection delay 11.7 X = 0.40 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 If file://C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \s2k105.tmp 4/16/2008 Two -Way Stop Control . Page 1 of 2 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst RP Intersection MAGNOLIA /DRIVEA Agency/Co. GCC Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Date Performed 411612008 Analysis Year FUTURE WITH PROJECT Analysis Time Period PM PEAK 5 6 Project Description East/West Street: MAGNOLIA DRIVE North /South Street: DRIVE Intersection Orientation: East -West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 0 5 97 0 7 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate veh /h 0 5 107 0 7 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 -- -- 2 -- -- Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 90 0 0 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate veh /h 100 0 0 0 0 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 2 0 2 0 0 0 Percent grade ( %) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration I LR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR Volume, v (vph) 0 100 Capacity, cm (vph) 1478 941 /c ratio 0.00 0.11 Queue length (95 %) 0.00 0.36 Control Delay (s /veh) 7.4 9.3 file://C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \u2kl08.tmp 4/16/2008 Two -Way Stop Control 0 Is Page 2 of 2 LOS A A pproach delay s /veh 9.3 pproach LOS -- -- A HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1f file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \u2kl08.tmp 4/16/2008 Two -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 Rights Reserved file: / /C:\Documents and Settings\rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \u2k10B.tmp 4/16/2008 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period RP GCC 411612008 PM PEAK Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year FT. HARRISON /DRIVE B EXIT CLEARWATER FUTURE WITH PROJECT Project Description East/West Street: DRIVE 8 EXIT ONLY North /South Street: FT. HARRISON AVENUE Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 584 0 0 747 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 648 0 0 830 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L T T U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 16 0 16 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 17 0 17 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 0 2 0 0 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Len th, and Level of Service Approach NB SIB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR (vph) 0 34 (m) (vph) 802 215 lc 0.00 0.16 95% queue length 0.00 0.55 Control Delay 9.5 24.9 LOS A C pproach Delay — — 24.9 pproach LOS — — C Rights Reserved file: / /C:\Documents and Settings\rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \u2k10B.tmp 4/16/2008 URBAN STREET WORKSHEE1 Page 1 of 1 URBAN STREET WORKSHEET #1 General Information Site Information Analyst RP gency /Co. GCC Date Performed 411612008 Time Period PM PEAK Urban Street FT. HARRISON (TURNER - JEFFORD Direction of Travel North -bound Jurisdiction CLEARWATER nal sis Year FUTURE WITH PROJECT Project Description: Input Parameters Analysis Period(h) T = 0.25 Segments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cycle length, C (s) 120.0 120.0 Eff. green to cycle ratio, /C 0.730 0.750 /c ratio for lane group, X 0.470 0.490 Cap of lane group, c veh/h) 1325 1397 Pct Veh on Gm., PVG Arrival type, AT 4 4 Unit Extension, UE sec 0.0 0.0 Length of segment, L mi 0.25 0.16 Initial Queue, Qb (veh) 0 0 Urban street class, SC 2 2 Free -flowspeed, FSS mi /h 35 35 Running Time, TR s 29.8 20.0 Other delay, s 0.0 0.0 Delay Computation Uniform delay, d1 (s) 6.7 5.9 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 Incremental delay adj, k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Upstream filtering ad' factor, 1 1.000 0.880 Incremental delay, d2 (s) 1.2 1.1 1 3.8 Initial queue delay, d3 (s) 0 0 Progression adj factor, PF 0.115 0.001 0.256 0.256 0.256 0.256 0.256 0.256 Control delay, d s 2.0 1.1 Segment LOS Determination Travel time, ST (s) 31.7 21.1 ravelspeed, SA mi /h I 28.4 27.3 Se ment LOS 8 C Urban Street LOS Determination Total travel time (s) 52.8 Total length (mi) 0.41 Total travel speed, SA (mi /h) 28.0 Total urban street LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1f file://C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \a2k115.tmp 4/16/2008 URBAN STREET WORKSHEEJ Page 1 of 1 URBAN STREET WORKSHEET #1 General Information Site Information Analyst RP gency /Co. GCC Date Performed 411612008 Time Period PM PEAK Urban Street FT. HARRISON (TURNER - JEFFORD Direction of Travel South -bound Jurisdiction CLEARWATER nal sis Year FUTURE WITH PROJECT Project Description: Input Parameters Analysis Period(h) T = 0.25 Segments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cycle length, C (s) 120.0 120.0 Eff. green to cycle ratio, /C 0.730 0.710 /c ratio for lane group, X 0.470 0.610 Eap of lane group, c veh/h) 1375 1308 Pct Veh on Gm., PVG Arrival type, AT 4 4 Unit Extension, UE sec 0.0 0.0 Length of segment, L mi 0.16 0.25 Initial Queue, Qb (veh) 0 0 Urban street class, SC 2 2 Free -flowspeed, FSS mi /h 35 35 Running Time, TR s 20.0 29.8 Other delay, s 0.0 0.0 Delay Computation Uniform delay, d1 (s) 6.7 8.9 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 Incremental delay adj, k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Upstream filtering ad' factor, 1 1.000 0.880 Incremental delay, d2 (s) 1.2 1.9 3.3 Initial queue delay, d3 (s) 0 0 Progression adj factor, PF 0.115 0.212 0.256 0.256 0.256 0.256 0.256 0.256 Control delay, d s 1.9 3.8 Segment LOS Determination Travel time, ST (s) 21.9 33.5 ravelspeed, SA mi /h 26.3 I 26.9 Secament LO C C Urban Street LOS Determination Total travel time (s) 55.4 Total length (mi) 0.41 Total travel speed, SA (mi /h) 26.6 otal urban street LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1f file: //C:\Documents and Settings \\rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \a2kl15Amp 4/16/2008 URBAN STREET WORKSHEET #1 0 • Page 1 of 1 URBAN STREET WORKSHEET #1 General Information Site Information nalyst RP gency /Co. GCC Date Performed 411612008 Time Period PM PEAK Urban Street MYRTLE AVE/ (JEFFORDS- TURNER) Direction of Travel North -bound urisdiction CLEARWATER nal sis Year FUTURE WITH PROJECT Project Description: Input Parameters Analysis Period(h) T = 0.25 Segments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cycle length, C (s) 60.0 120.0 Eff. green to cycle ratio, /C 0.600 0.710 /c ratio for lane group, X 0.270 0.300 Cap of lane group, c veh/h) 2015 2248 Pct Veh on Gm., PVG Arrival type, AT 4 4 Unit Extension, UE sec 0.0 0.0 Length of segment, L mi 0.31 0.10 Initial Queue, Qb (veh) 0 0 Urban street class, SC 2 2 Free -flowspeed, FSS mi /h 35 35 Running Time, TR s 33.9 12.5 Other delay, s 0.0 0.0 Delay Computation Uniform delay, d1 (s) 5,.7 6.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 Incremental delay adj, k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Upstream filtering ad' factor, 1 1.000 0.973 Incremental delay, d2 (s) 0.3 0.3 4.2 Initial queue delay, d3 (s) 0 0 Progression adj factor, PF 0.576 0.212 0.256 0.256 0.256 0.256 0.256 0.256 Control delay, d s 3.6 1.7 Segment LOS Determination Travel time, ST (s) 37.6 14.2 ravelspeed, SA mi /h 29.7 25.4 Segment LOS B C Urban Street LOS Determination Total travel time (s) 51.8 Total length (mi) 0.41 otal travel speed, SA (mi /h) 28.5 otal urban street LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1f file://C:\Documents and Settings\rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \a2k11B.trap 4/16/2008 URBAN STREET WORKSHEET #1 Page 1 of 1 URBAN STREET WORKSHEET #1 General Information Site Information Analyst RP gency /Co. GCC Date Performed 411612008 Time Period PM PEAK Urban Street MYRTLE AVE/(JEFFORDS- TURNER) Direction of Travel South -bound Jurisdiction CLEARWATER nal sis Year FUTURE WITH PROJECT Project Description: Input Parameters Analysis Period(h) T = 0.25 Segments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cycle length, C (s) 60.0 120.0 Eff. green to cycle ratio, /C 0.600 0.720 /c ratio for lane group, X 0.270 0.170 Cap of lane group, c veh/h) 1718 2391 Pct Veh on Gm., PVG Arrival type, AT 4 4 Unit Extension, UE sec 0.0 0.0 Length of segment, L mi 0.10 0.31 Initial Queue, Qb (veh) 0 0 Urban street class, SC 2 2 Free -flowspeed, FSS mi /h 35 35 Running Time, TR s 12.5 33.9 Other delay, s 0.0 0.0 Delay Computation Uniform delay, d1 (s) 5.7 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 Incremental delay adj, k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Upstream filtering ad' factor, 1 1.000 0.973 Incremental delay, d2 (s) 0.4 0.1 4.4 Initial queue delay, d3 (s) 0 0 Progression adj factor, PF 0.576 0.165 0.256 0.256 0.256 0.256 0.256 0.256 Control delay, d s 3.7 1.0 Segment LOS Determination Travel time, ST (s) 16.2 35.0 ravelspeed, SA mi /h 22.2 31.9 Segment LOS C 8 Urban Street LOS Determination Total travel time (s) 51.2 Total length (mi) 0.41 Total travel speed, SA (mi /h) 28.8 Total urban street LOS 8 HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1f file://C:\Documents and Settings\rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \a2k11B.tmp 4/16/2008 • 700 1400 E. = cC7 VUlV1�� 1012— ?z;.fZ-T Lar, e NaT Wlftf?AAWTEms' 64 2 — LANE HIGHWAYS 100 FULL- WIDTH TURN LANE > cc so O TAPER 2 Q w a- 60 z ' z RADIUS O LY REQUIRED 40 C7 cc 20 1 NOTE: For posted speeds at or under 45 mph, peak hour right turns greater than 40 vph, total peak hour approach less than 300 vph, and adjust right turn volumes. Adjust peak hour right turns = i, Peak hour right turns ­20 100 200 300. 400 500 600 TOTAL PEAK HOUR APPROACH VOLUME (VPH) I, 120 4 — LANE HIGHWAYS = 100 FULL -WIDTH TURN LANE CL 1 Cr D O = 80 ul TAPER CL Z z 60 H c? X. 40 RADIUS 7.7 . .20 Y •' ' NOTE: For application on high: speed. highways 400 600 800 1000 1200 �i+ink +S 200 �j , a i 3Ji 411 TOTAL PEAK HOUR APPROACH VOLUME (VPH) ?raff c -turn lanes. (Source: Ref. 4 -11) volulna • 700 1400 E. = cC7 VUlV1�� 1012— ?z;.fZ-T Lar, e NaT Wlftf?AAWTEms' .t C-71— —t—, Florida SD' :2� -HII!L I I ili ,'1. - I.i t — ct -c 1' I _..-. .� a .- x I .. t c ■- i — .- 1 -)0 c -c G t- .. c .- -c ��. FISRER ffil? ARCHITECTS loos 6_13 -118 rLt,,.N rr \D�I'M ! k¥ © ¢2 GNl �» § «�IQ2� . 3: • 0 0 R PLAN FIRST FLOOR /8- - 7w 26 444,66- 11 14 �11 I J A 4 1 11 11 11 11 H L-L- - - - - - - - - - - - um 10 I BYPASS LANE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - j- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - SrAM 2 0 R PLAN FIRST FLOOR /8- - 7w • 11 ril � ��' T®rlol-l"Lials) " � BE a KGTol a al F;,l k, 26'-6' 26*-6, 24'-4* 12'-6- - — - — - — - — - — - -- — - — - — - — -- 4 LOWY II u ---------- 11 II II II ----- ------ -- - - - --------- -------- TENWT SDIEPATIDN OAVM II I II II II II 11 II II II -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - F - - - - - - - - II II II 11 - II 11 II II II II II II - - - - - - - - - - T - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- II 11 II rr__JJ II II 11 11 II u STAR 26,4, ril � ��' T®rlol-l"Lials) " � BE a KGTol a al F;,l k, w . � 11' 19 MW PARCEL=49 277 S.F. NORTH PARCEL=6,018 S.F. S.F. ALLEN OLIA DAIV. w W— M dr4r45' E HE II z o.; POW xv Cox- inue Date 03/25108 Revisions Imnuiv L05- 49 �hl. cc LAJ LLI 2 to CIO uj U- Cn z < o .e C) SCALE: I'm20' w a 20 41 Lai u Medical F ANS76 * '037 _j! - ul 4w --a j IW- 7.3— S BMW' V n. M dr4r45' E HE II z o.; POW xv Cox- inue Date 03/25108 Revisions Imnuiv L05- 49 �hl. cc LAJ LLI 2 to CIO uj U- Cn z < o .e C) SCALE: I'm20' w a 20 41 Lai u jjyo4 A � {}a 1.1 •21.1 'aA 'aA '2IA '2i/ 'ZIA '22.4 '71d '77.1 'n5 'ad '22.8 21,/ •21A '1AA •11 P......`......... D......... C............................1. _........,........,...._.. .._....!... .... rf. j.12A._14d.._71A..nd....ad....a .yt]A.,�Atd. 'A.1A.. �A1A A....77A....714 ...2pd....U1d, .fA,A...11.� .... .............. ............ '1]A 'WA '22A'213'211'a 21A715115a.02]5 210 ''2A'n.7' a.1 ' 717 ' 22A *NA '1]t ' ]W '73A 'a.2 ' •a 'i]A '2]�Y 'aA '2]5 'io 'ri0 ']�A 'S]�,l 'I]d 'n.l •]] ( 1].1 18.1 tt,l 20.1 27.7 a 71,] •7].1 'nA '!tA 211 73.1 '7 5 21.0 'nA X10,1 '41.1 10.1 'Ill ...........__ ................. .. ......... ............... ......... _ ..........i ' 17. 1 '18./'nA 'MA 'a.f'aA'71A'72D'7].1 'tld '710 '210 'tA'a.8 '211 '701 711 '18./'1]1 / \ '1]A 1pp '41A ',,A '26 'n.l ']1A 'n�] 'n] '2t.e '?tit 'n1 '9�A '>� 'FA ']IA 'NSA 'IBA 21,1;1;;.,`\ '. � �•• ................:.:' iQb ';S6 %;;.�.11D::��JR:.�rti�.:'.i �.. �.1 &'7::'.tljC`''.LT.A': =.N 'YF, 2.iFA' AtIT,4,'L{i�b��l�irY�..'1. �.1.��� ..._l� I r , 1 FUTURE SCHEDULE r1luCai71B ��I�� By81w ��B ��]OUV�19 �Ilw��wALlld�ogn ]IRFlItlYM ' I.nWDe I1f11N MFq+IgY 1pllWMBgAUCignM WY1IPFU�iNI01BOWwDM14 �RWYI 'AMHMUMICP1119YDF2GVwmWOUt1 MY�g11tlY010] WCllgigrtwrt�iwrtWWt gMAWWYAO.wr YOYYYWWIIACAOIY ' M1IOfKBMf IYT]YCCMIYa1D FCCCVUC]ggOpwi�p 2MIOBOtiN1ANIDUM WC111UCf1pdYWCrtM14W.Vt uwOVYY WUUInC1011�Y ' 4 w1M1WggNilw ']w11quCM1lwgtHlMlAUOMIFCl I,N22A. PHOTOMETRIC SITE SUMMARY 0000 N. CANOPY PHOTOMETRIC PLAN Ada d SYWIM E *MlFp, Uw ' neatBm .. Ww cAOO �w 1 r. • � O Q � � x O � � O h � r� O w I ALLEN (P) MAGNOLIA DRIVE CW ..,.gyp N 89'48'45' E I cw m"4 Q I� W 2 a I. N RETEN ION POND O,q;e * i-u rvr IT • r L-1 JUN 16 2008 r i c, i of : r.F,iE�Tich� LOTS 1, 2, 3, 9, 10 AND 11, BLOCK 34, MAGNOLIA PARK AS SHOWN ON A PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 43, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA; TOGETHER WITH A PART OF THE FORMER RAIL ROAD RIGHT OF WAY LYING EAST OF SAID LOT 9, BLOCK 34 OF MAGNOLIA PARK SUBDIVISION. TOGETHER WITH LOT 24, BLOCK 32, MAGNOLIA PARK AS SHOWN ON A PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 43, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA. t CAD) (1 I OF; F�TIi1 J THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY LIES WITHIN FLOOD ZONE "X" PER FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP 12103CO10BG MAP REVISED: 9/03/2003 SURVEY INFORMATION PROVIDED BY A SIGNED & SEALED SURVEY BY: LAND PRECISION CORPORATION 2683 SUNSET POINT ROAD CLEARWATER, FL 33759 FLORIDA REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR NUMBER 4608 DATED: 8/15/07 SECTIO 15,T0WNSMF 29S, RANGE E UTY OF CLEARWATER FI LLA 994111 TY, 11*1 rID . SIDE: - -- SITE DATA NEW ELEVATION +10.00 10' 20' EXISTING (E) PROPOSED (P) OFFICE REQUIRED 1,500 SOUTH PARCEL NORTH PARCEL SOUTH PARCEL NORTH PARCEL SOUTH PARCEL NORTH PARCEL ZONING: mmmmmomammmmmmmm© - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - -- - - - - - - - MID -POINT OF ROOF: 41'-6)" C O C 0 C 0 I I NEW ASPHALT CG R /OG CG R /OG CG R /OG LAND USE: S.F. 0 TEMP. SILT BARRIER i (V. U.A.) 633 S.F. 0 .25,653 TOTAL: 25,653 MEDICAL CLINIC M METER B. F.P.D. BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE F.H.A. FIRE USAGE: VACANT VACANT OFFICE SRETE RETENTION - -- - -- 633 S.F. 0 0.7 BANK(OFFICE) 0.95 0.75 (I.S.R.) 49,277 S.F. 6,018 S.F. 49,277 S.F. 6,018 S.F. OPEN SPACE: LOT AREA: 1. 3 AC. - ..._ .. _ D.14 AC. . .. _ - AC. 11,113 0.14 AC. 10,000 S.F. 3,500 S.F. 48,644 S.F. TOTAL: 55,295 S.F. 1.27 AC. TOTAL: 55,295 S.F. 1.27 AC. 25/ _ BUILDING COVERAGE: 6,659 S.F. - -- 7,423 S.F. 15.06% 0 PARKING LOT INTERIOR LANDSCAPING: (S.F. & % OF GROSS SITE) (PRIOR TO DEMO.) S.F. TOTAL: 7,423 18,604 S.F. 0.377 - - . -. - - -. S.F. 13.42% 0 - - 0.55 0.50 GROSS FLOOR AREA (S.F.): F.A.R.: 0 ___ 11.4% TOTAL: 18,604 S.F. 0.336 (F.A.R.) - -- 63 SPACES INCLUDING 3 H.C. - -- 17.5'(N) TO BLDG. - -- r 7.5'(N) TO PAVM'T. FRONT: ___ 18.8'(W) TO BLDG. _ -_ 25' 35' 221.6'(E) TO BLDG. SETBACKS: 7' TO PAVM'T. SIDE: - -- SQ FT 1O'(S) TO BLDG. NEW ELEVATION +10.00 10' 20' BANK/OFFICE 4/ 1,000 GFA 3,600 6'(S) TO S.W. OFFICE 4 / 1,000 GFA 1,500 1,500 - 1,000 =1.5 x4 = 6 Spaces MEDICAL ® 3,823 (1- FI) TOP OF PARAPET: 32' -2Yz" OFFICE mmmmmomammmmmmmm© OFFICE:25' -50 BLDG. HEIGHT: - -- 13,323 Total MID -POINT OF ROOF: 41'-6)" TOTAL - -- MED. CL.:25' 30' I I NEW ASPHALT ROOF PEAK: 45' -4y2" - ^1 PAVED VEHICULAR USE AREA: S.F. 0 TEMP. SILT BARRIER i (V. U.A.) 633 S.F. 0 .25,653 TOTAL: 25,653 S.F. M METER B. F.P.D. BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE F.H.A. FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY F.D.C. FIRE 35,077 7S_F__ T.B.O. TEMPORARY BLOW -OFF T. &V. TAP AND VALVE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO: 633 S.F. 0 0.7 ___ 0.95 0.75 (I.S.R.) , -..,.. ,- •,_,,... ..., 3- '5,'0'77' ..., - ,.,... TOTAL: 35,077 S.F. , -.._ ._ ..... -.... 0.634 OPEN SPACE: 14,200 S.F. _ 6,018 S.F. .� (S.F. & % OF GROSS SITE) 48,644 S.F. 0 28.8% -- - - - - 100% --- - 5% 25/ _ 98/ TOTAL : 20, 218 S.F . 36. 5/ PARKING LOT INTERIOR LANDSCAPING: - -- S.F. - -- 10% (S.F. & % OF V.U.A.) 11.4% ___ PARKING: - -- 63 SPACES INCLUDING 3 H.C. - -- 60 SPACES - -- PARKING CALCULATIONS: USE RATIO SQ FT CALCULATION NEW ELEVATION +10.00 PROPOSED ® ® ® ®10 ® ® ®® BANK/OFFICE 4/ 1,000 GFA 3,600 3,600 = 1,000 = 3.6 x 4 = 14.4 or 14 Spaces OFFICE 4 / 1,000 GFA 1,500 1,500 - 1,000 =1.5 x4 = 6 Spaces MEDICAL ® 3,823 (1- FI) °" p - M • m ° rL OFFICE mmmmmomammmmmmmm© 9,500 (2' FI) s NEW SAN. MANHOLE 3 /1,000 GFA 13,323 Total 13,323 1,000 = 13.32 x 3 = 39.96 or 40 Spaces TOTAL W� 60 REQUIRED PARKING SPACES I I NEW ASPHALT 63 PARKING SPACES PROVIDED FL-D2000 --05-0 o t EXIST. ELEVATION 1 EXIST. CONTOUR 1 NEW ELEVATION +10.00 l NEW CONTOUR ® ® ® ®10 ® ® ®® EXIST, STORM SEWER - -° NEW STORM SEWER A NEW UNDERDRAIN i osmnmmmaeoomoommmmommmmi i EXIST. SAN, SEWER °� •� - m.� �° I NEW SAN. SEWER ® EXIST. WATER SERVICE °" p - M • m ° rL NEW WATER SERVICE mmmmmomammmmmmmm© j NEW INLET s NEW SAN. MANHOLE Ln NEW CLEAN- OUT(C.O.) C. 0. NEW BUILDING AREA f I I NEW ASPHALT - ^1 I NEW CONCRETE �- rn TEMP. SILT BARRIER i LA POINT OF CONNECTION OF NEW UTILITY TO EXIST. Lni M METER B. F.P.D. BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE F.H.A. FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY F.D.C. FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION T.B.O. TEMPORARY BLOW -OFF T. &V. TAP AND VALVE `7 lill y 1:2xi C1.1 CIVIL SITE DATA C1.2 CIVIL SITE SPECIFICATIONS C2.1 DEMOLITION SITE PLAN C3.1 STAKING SITE PLAN C4.1 GRADING, DRAINAGE & UTILITIES SITE PLAN C5.1 CIVIL SITE DETAILS C5.2 CIVIL SITE DETAILS L1.1 LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN L1.2 LANDSCAPE NOTES & DETAILS L1.3 TREE PRESERVATION PLAN SITE PLAN APPROVE CASE # -as CASE TYPE S'-o+q twALL DRC DATE (,I5lo- CDB DATE -1 1,5 C SIGNATUREt DATE `7 z� NES Comm.: 0731 Drawn By: N.E.A. Checked By: H.G. Issue Date: 03/25/08 Revisions: No. Date Description QI 06/05/08 PER DKC A - - z� A .. 0 k, �� ,, =, �•:, �`� say '•�»*� Ln rij NES Comm.: 0731 Drawn By: N.E.A. Checked By: H.G. Issue Date: 03/25/08 Revisions: No. Date Description QI 06/05/08 PER DKC A - - z� A .. 0 QI a 0 W i M THIS DRAWING IS AN INSTRUMEN F I�WC� S'} IN THE PROPERTY OF THE ENGINEER, AND SHALL NOT BE RPRODUCE� BUSHED USED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE ENGINEE +. RIGHT 2008 NOT PUBLISHED �- R D , 44` �T F Tn'� - � N 16 2008 RAM A. GOEL, Ph.D., P.E. #47431 COPIES OF THESE PLANS ARE NOT VALID UNLESS EMBOSSED WITH THE SIGNING ENGINEER'S SEAL lJ�l oil ... • • .. .. �h '•�»*� Ln _..°".,. �- rn LA Lni �4 *- f, l r, Lid • , vi 1M lJ�l oil S.W.F.W.M.D. / EROSION CONTROL NOTES 1. DURING CONSTRUCTION SEDIMENT IS TO REMAIN ON SITE. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES PRIOR TO INITIATING AND DURING ALL PHASES OF LAND CLEARING AND CONSTRUCTION TO PREVENT SOIL EROSION AND SILTATION, 2. THE RETENTION AREAS SHALL BE ROUGH GRADED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, WITH ALL STORM WATER DIRECTED TO IT. AFTER COMPLETION OF ALL WORK, REMOVE DEBRIS AND SILTATION FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE RETENTION BASIN, AND FINE GRADE THE FINAL SIX (6) INCHES AND SOD. CONTRACTOR TO MAINTAIN THE SIDE SLOPE REQUIRED AND SHOWN ON PLAN, AND NOTIFY ENGINEER FOR AN INSPECTION PRIOR TO SODDING. 3. THE RETENTION AREAS AND OUTFALL CONTROL STRUCTURES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED EARLY IN THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD TO MITIGATE ANY ADVERSE WATER QUANTITY IN PARTS OFF SITE. 4. AFTER COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT, THE OWNER WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE STORMWATER FACILITIES. ACTIONS INCLUDED SHALL BE REGULAR MOWING OF THE BOTTOM AND SIDE SLOPES, PLUS PERIODIC INSPECTIONS AND REMOVAL OF DEBRIS, TRASH, ETC. THAT MAY BLOCK THE OPENINGS IN THE CONTROL STRUCTURES. 5. ALL DISTURBED CONDITIONS SHALL BE RESTORED TO NATURAL CONDITIONS OR BETTER, 6. ALL SIDE SLOPES OF RETENTION OR SWALE AREAS SHALL BE STABILIZED BY VEGETATION OR OTHER MATERIALS TO MINIMIZE EROSION AND PROTECT THE STORMWATER BASIN, NOTE: PLAN CONFLICTS, SHOWN OR UNSHOWN, WITH OTHER EXISTING SITE IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS AND PROTECT OR REINSTALL ALL DISTURBED EXISTING UTILITIES, PHONE LINES, POWER LINES, POWER SUPPORT CABLES, SPRINKLER LINES AND CONTROLS, MECHANICAL PIPELINES OR UNDERGROUND POWER CABLES AND RETURN EXISTING CONCRETE WALKS, DUMPSTER PADS, FENCE, HANDRAIL, VALVES, HYDRANTS, GUY WIRES, ELECTRIC BOXES AND PIPELINES WHICH SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REINSTALLED AS INCIDENTAL TO THE COST OF WORK SHOWN HEREUNDER, IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RESOLVE ANY CONFLICTS PRIOR TO AWARD OF THE CONTRACT. NOTE: REQUIRED EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MUST REMAIN INTACT THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION. FAILURE TO INSTALL OR PROPERLY MAINTAIN THESE BARRICADES WILL RESULT IN ENFORCEMENT ACTION WHICH MAY INCLUDE CITATIONS, AS PROVIDED BY CHAPTERS 4DD -4 & 4OD -40 F.A.C. CAN RESULT IN A PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $10,000 PER OFFENSE WITH EACH DATE DURING WHICH SUCH VIOLATION OCCURS CONSTITUTING A OFFENSE. MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS INSPECTIONS FOR STORM WATER DISCHARGE FACILITY 1. ALL SODDED AREAS SHALL BE MOWED AND MAINTAINED PROPERLY, 2. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL THE RETENTION AREA BE FILLED WITH ANY OTHER SUBSTANCE THAN STORMWATER. 3. SWALE AREAS SHALL BE KEPT CLEAN AND FREE OF ANY OBSTRUCTIONS. 4. IF DAMAGE TO THE SYSTEM DOES OCCUR, THE SYSTEM SHALL BE RECONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLAN. OPERATION & MAINTENANCE OF THE STORMWATER SYSTEM THE OWNER SHALL PERIODICALLY MONITOR THE STORMWATER SYSTEM (PIPE CONVEYANCE SYSTEM AND RETENTION POND) FOR SILT AND SEDIMENTATION BUILD UP. THE PIPE CONVEYANCE SYSTEM SHALL BE FLUSHED, AS DEEMED NECESSARY NO LESS THAN TWICE A YEAR. ALL MATERIAL SHALL BE COLLECTED DOWNSTREAM AND REMOVED. THE RETENTION POND SHALL BE KEPT MOWED AND THE BOTTOM FREE OF DEBRIS. IF WATER STANDS IN THE POND MORE THAN 48 HOURS THE OWNER SHALL RAKE AND /OR SCARIFY THE POND BOTTOM, AS DEEMED NECESSARY AND NO LESS THAN TWICE A YEAR TO RESTORE THE PERCOLATION CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POND, THE OWNER WILL BE RESPONSIBLE TO MAKE SURE THAT TO THE BEST OF HIS ABILITY NOTHING ENTERS THE SYSTEM BESIDES STORMWATER THAT COULD DETERIORATE THE FUNCTIONING CAPABILITIES OF THE SYSTEM, I.E. GASOLINE, OIL, GREASE, CHEMICALS, ETC. THE POND UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM SHALL BE INSPECTED ANNUALLY AND RETROFITTED AND FLUSHED SEMI - ANNUALLY. CLOGGED OR SPENT FILTER MATERIAL SHALL BE DISPOSED OF IN ALL MANNERS AS WITH THE HANDLING OF A HAZARDOUS WASTE. THE SPENT FILTER MATERIAL SHALL BE DISPOSED OFF IN A PERMITTED FACILITY. EROSION AND SILTATION CONTROL NOTES 1. SEDIMENT TRAPPING MEASURES: SEDIMENT BASINS AND TRAPS, PERIMETER BERMS, FILTER FENCES, BERMS, SEDIMENT BARRIERS, VEGETATIVE BUFFERS AND OTHER MEASURES INTENDED TO TRAP SEDIMENT AND /OR PREVENT THE TRANSPORT OF SEDIMENT ONTO ADJACENT PROPERTIES, OR INTO EXISTING WATER BODIES, MUST BE INSTALLED, CONSTRUCTED OR, IN THE CASE OF VEGETATIVE BUFFERS, PROTECTED FROM DISTURBANCE, AS A FIRST STEP IN THE LAND ALTERATION PROCESS. SUCH SYSTEMS SHALL BE FULLY OPERATIVE AND INSPECTED BY THE ENGINEER BEFORE ANY OTHER DISTURBANCE OF THE SITE BEGINS. 2, PROTECTION OF EXISTING STORM SEWER SYSTEMS: DURING CONSTRUCTION, ALL STORM SEWER INLETS IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SHALL BE PROTECTED BY SEDIMENT TRAPS SUCH AS SECURED HAY BALES, SOD, STONE, ETC„ WHICH SHALL BE MAINTAINED AND MODIFIED AS REQUIRED BY CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS, AND WHICH MUST BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER BEFORE INSTALLATION. 3. SEDIMENTATION BASIN: THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROHIBIT DISCHARGE OF SILT THROUGH THE OUTFALL STRUCTURE DURING CONSTRUCTION OF ANY RETENTION AREA AND WILL BE REQUIRED TO CLEAN OUT THE RETENTION AREA BEFORE INSTALLING ANY PERMANENT SUBDRAIN PIPE. IN ADDITION, PERMANENT RETENTION AREAS MUST BE TOTALLY CLEANED OUT AND OPERATE PROPERLY AT FINAL INSPECTION AND AT THE END OF THE WARRANTY PERIOD. 4. SWALES, DITCHES AND CHANNELS: ALL SWALES, DITCHES AND CHANNELS LEADING FROM THE SITE SHALL BE SODDED WITHIN (3) DAYS OF EXCAVATION. ALL OTHER INTERIOR SWALES, ETC„ INCLUDING DETENTION AREAS WILL BE SODDED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 5. PROTECTION AND STABILIZATION OF SOIL STOCKPILES: FILL MATERIAL STOCKPILES SHALL BE PROTECTED AT ALL TIMES BY ON -SITE DRAINAGE CONTROLS WHICH PREVENT EROSION OF THE STOCKPILED MATERIAL. CONTROL OF DUST FROM SUCH STOCKPILED MATERIAL, MAY BE REQUIRED, DEPENDING UPON THEIR LOCATION AND THE EXPECTED LENGTH OF TIME THE STOCKPILES WILL BE PRESENT, IN NO CASE SHALL UNSTABILIZED STOCKPILE REMAIN AFTER THIRTY (30) CALENDAR DAYS. 6. MAINTENANCE: ALL EROSION AND SILTATION CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE CHECKED REGULARLY, ESPECIALLY AFTER EACH RAINFALL AND WILL BE CLEANED OUT AND /OR REPAIRED AS REQUIRED. FILTER MEDIUM SPECIFICATIONS MEETING THE FILTER SAND SHALL BE WASHED MATERIAL F.D.O.T. ROAD AND BRIDGE SPECIFICATIONS FOR SILICA SAND AND QUARTZ GRAVELS, OR MIXTURES THEREOF (LESS THAN ONE (1) PERCENT SILT, CLAY AND ORGANIC MATTER), UNLESS FILTER CLOTH IS USED WHICH IS SUITABLE TO RETAIN THE SILT, CLAY AND ORGANIC MATTER WITHIN THE FILTER; CALCIUM CARBONATE AGGREGATE R ATE IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE SUBSTITUTE; AND HAVE AN EFFECTIVE GRAIN SIZE OF 0.20 TO 0,55 MILLIMETERS IN DIAMETER; A UNIFORMITY COEFFICIENT OF 1.5 OR GREATER. RATE OF 0.125 CM /SEC. OR GREATER, IF THE PERMEABILITY RATE OF THE FILTER SAND IS LESS THAN 0,125 CM /SEC, A REPLACEMENT OF THE FILTER SYSTEM WILL BE REQUIRED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE THE SAND TESTED AND APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE CONTRACTOR HAVE THE FILTER SAND TESTED AND APPROVED, 2. THE PERFORATED PIPE SH A LL CONSIST OF POLYVINYL CHLORIDE PVC CONFORMING TO ASTM D 3033, HAVE MINIMUM OF SIXTEEN (16) 3/8 INCH DIAMETER PERFORATIONS PER LINEAR FOOT OF PIPE AND BE ON THE BOTTOM 135' OF THE PIPE. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE DEWATERING MEASURES AS REQUIRED DURING THE INSTALLATION OF THE UNDERDRAIN AND ALL OF ITS COMPONENTS. 4, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT BACKFILL THE DRAIN PIPE UNTIL THE ENGINEER HAS VERIFIED AND APPROVED THE DRAIN PIPE GRADES AND INSTALLATION OF FILTER MEDIA, 5. SWFWMD REQUIRES AS -BUILT CERTIFICATION BY THE ENGINEER FOR THIS FILTER SYSTEM. TEST REPORTS FROM AN APPROVED LABORATORY ON GRADATION AND PERMEABILITY SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE AS -BUILT SUBMITTAL. CLEARING AND GRUBBING NOTES 1. PRIOR TO ANY SITE CLEARING, ALL TREES SHOWN TO REMAIN ON THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS SHALL BE PROTECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOCAL REGULATORY AGENCY'S TREE ORDINANCE AND DETAILS CONTAINED IN THESE PLANS. IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN THESE TREES IN GOOD C ONDITION. NO TREES SHOWN TO REMAIN SHALL BE REMOVED WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE OWNER, 2. THE CONTRACTOR IS TO PREPARE THE SITE PRIOR TO BEGINNING ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION IN ACCORDANCE, WITH THE SOILS TESTING REPORT, COPIES OF THE SOILS REPORT ARE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE OWNER OR THE SOILS TESTING COMPANY QUESTIONS REGARDING SITE PREPARATION REQUIREMENTS DESCRIBED IN THE SOILS REPORT ARE TO BE DIRECTED TO THE SOILS TESTING COMPANY. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CLEAR AND GRUB, ONLY THOSE PORTIONS OF THE SITE, NECESSARY FOR CONSTRUCTION. DISTURBED AREAS WILL BE SEEDED, MULCHED, OR PLANTED WITH APPROVED LANDSCAPE MATERIAL IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION. 4. THE TOP 4" TO 6" OF GROUND REMOVED DURING CLEARING AND GRUBBING SHALL BE STOCKPILED AT A SITE DESIGNATED BY THE OWNER TO BE USED FOR LANDSCAPING PURPOSES, UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE OWNER. CLEARING AND GRUBBING NOTES (CON'T) 5, ALL CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS AND OTHER WASTE MATERIAL SHALL BE DISPOSED OF OFF -SITE IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE REGULATIONS. ONLY "GRADING BY HAND" IS PERMITTED WITHIN THE CANOPY LINE OF TREES THAT ARE TO REMAIN, 6. THE CONTRACTOR IS TO OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS FOR REMOVING ANY EXISTING STRUCTURES. 7. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO NOTIFY ALL UTILITY COMPANIES TO DISCONNECT OR REMOVE THEIR FACILITIES PRIOR TO REMOVING OR DEMOLISHING. 8. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING A VISUAL INSPECTION OF THE SITE AND WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEMOLITION AND REMOVAL OF ALL UNDERGROUND AND ABOVE GROUND STRUCTURES THAT WILL NOT BE INCORPORATED WITH THE NEW FACILITIES, SHOULD ANY DISCREPANCIES EXIST WITH THE PLANS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING THE OWNER AND REQUESTING A CLARIFICATION OF THE PLANS PRIOR TO DEMOLITION. 9. DURING CONSTRUCTION, ALL STORM SEWER INLETS IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SHALL BE PROTECTED BY SEDIMENT TRAPS SUCH AS SECURED HAY BALES, SOD, STONE, ETC. WHICH SHALL BE MAINTAINED AND MODIFIED AS REQUIRED BY CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS, 10. ALL EROSION AND SILTATION CONTROL METHODS SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTAINED UNTIL CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE. 11. WHEN CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED, THE RETENTION /DETENTION AREAS WILL BE RESHAPED, CLEANED OF SILT, MUD AND DEBRIS, AND RE- SODDED IN ACCORDANCE TO THE PLANS. 12. CONTRACTOR IS TO PROVIDE EROSION CONTROL /SEDIMENTATION BARRIER (HAY BALES OR SILTATION CURTAIN) TO PREVENT SILTATION OF ADJACENT PROPERTY, STREETS, STORM SEWERS, WATERWAYS, AND EXISTING WETLANDS. WATER SYSTEM NOTES 1. ALL WATER MAINS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 36 INCHES OF COVER. 2. ALL WATER SYSTEM WORK SHALL CONFORM WITH LOCAL REGULATORY STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS, 3, ALL DUCTILE IRON PIPE SHALL BE CLASS 52 IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANSI A 21.50 (AWWA C 150) AND ANSI A 21.31 N PIPE SHALL RECEIVE 1 1 AWWA C 151 AND P ( ) EXTERIOR BITUMINOUS COATING IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANSI A 21.6, A 21,8 OR A 21.51 AND SHALL BE MORTAR LINED, STANDARD THICKNESS, AND BITUMINOUS SEALED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANSI A 21.6 (AWWA C 104 -71). 4. ALL FITTINGS LARGER THAN 2" SHALL BE DUCTILE IRON CLASS 53 IN ACCORDANCE WITH AWWA C -110 WITH A PRESSURE RATING OF 350 PSI. JOINTS SHALL BE MECHANICAL JOINTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH AWWA C -111. FITTINGS SHALL BE CEMENT MORTAR LINED AND COATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AWWA C -104. 5. ALL PVC WATER MAINS 4" THROUGH 12" SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH AWWA C -900, PIPE SHALL BE CLASS 15FO AND MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SDR 18 IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D -2241. 6, WATER MAIN PIPING OF LESS THAN 4 SHALL BE PER ASTM D2241 -89. 7. ALL FITTINGS 2" AND SMALLER SHALL BE SCHEDULE 40 PVC WITH SOLVENT WELDED SLEEVE TYPE JOINTS. B. ALL GATE VALVES 2" OR LARGER SHALL BE RESILIENT SEAT OR RESILIENT WEDGE MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF AWWA C509. 9. ALL FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF AWWA C502 AND SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE LOCAL UTILITY AND FIRE MARSHALL. 10. THE CONTRACTOR IS TO INSTALL TEMPORARY BLOW OFFS AT THE END OF WATER SERVICE LATERALS TO ASSURE ADEQUATE FLUSHING AND DISINFECTION. 11. THRUST BLOCKING SHALL BE PROVIDED AT ALL FITTINGS AND HYDRANTS AS SHOWN ON DETAILS. 12. MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION METHODS FOR WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOCAL REGULATORY AGENCY CODES, 13. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL HAVE PURPLE COLOR PIPING AND LABELING ON THE PIPE TO INSURE DIFFERENTIATION FROM POTABLE WATER PIPING, WATER SYSTEM TESTING AND INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS 1. ALL COMPONENTS OF THE WATER SYSTEM, INCLUDING FITTINGS, HYDRANTS, CONNECTION, AND VALVES SHALL REMAIN UNCOVERED UNTIL PROPERLY PRESSURE TESTED AND ACCEPTED BY THE OWNER'S ENGINEER. PRESSURE TESTS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH WATER DEPARTMENT SPECIFICATIONS. CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY OWNER'S ENGINEER AND WATER DEPARTMENT INSPECTORS 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF PERFORMING TESTS. 2. NEW WATER MAINS AFTER COMPLETION OF INSTALLATION OF NEW WATER MAINS, PRESSURE TESTING SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOCAL JURISDICTION WATER SYSTEM STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS. CONTRACTOR TO PERFORM CHLORINATION. SAMPLING OF NEW WATER MAINS SHALL CONFORM WITH COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH UNIT REQUIREMENTS AND RESULTS FORWARDED TO THE ENGINEER. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL A NEW WATER SYSTEM BE PLACED INTO SERVICE UNTIL CERTIFICATION BY THE ENGINEER HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND A RELEASE FROM COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH UNIT HAS BEEN ISSUED, SANITARY SEWER NOTES 1. ALL SANITARY SEWER MAINS & LATERAL SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 36 INCHES OF COVER. 2, ALL SANITARY SEWER MAINS & SERVICE LATERALS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF POLYVINYL CHLORIDE PIPE, SDR 35 OR AS OTHERWISE INDICATED ON THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. 3. ALL SANITARY SEWER WORK SHALL CONFORM WITH LOCAL REGULATORY STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 4 PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK WHICH REQUIRES CONNECTING NEW WORK TO EXISTING G LINES OR APPURTENANCES, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF EXISTING CONNECTION POINT AND NOTIFY OWNER'S ENGINEER OF ANY CONFLICTS OR DISCREPANCIES. 5. PVC PIPE AND FITTINGS SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM SPECIFICATIONS DESIGNATION D- 3034 -77C, MA SDR 35. INSTALLATION OF SDR 35 PIPE SHALL BE IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM SPECIFICATION SECTION D2321. ALL SANITARY SEWER PIPELINES SHALL BE SOLID GREEN IN COLOR. 6. ALL PVC FORCE MAINS SHALL BE CLASS 2000, SDR 21, COLOR GREEN, WITH A GREEN MAGNETIC TAPE A MINIMUM OF 2" WIDE, PLACED 1 FOOT BELOW THE PROPOSED GRADE. THE PRINTING ON THE MAGNETIC TAPE SHOULD READ "FORCEMAIN ", 7. ALL DUCTILE IRON PIPE SHALL BE CLASS 52 IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANSI A 21.50 (AWWA C 150) AND ANSI A21,51 (AWWA C 151). DUCTILE IRON PIPE SHALL RECEIVE INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR BITUMINOUS COATING IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANSI A 21.6, A 21.8, OR A 21.51. 8. ALL SANITARY SEWER GRAVITY MAINS OR SANITARY SEWER FORCEMAINS THAT REQUIRE D.I.P. ARE TO BE POLYLINED OR EPDXY LINED. 9. ALL SANITARY SEWER COVERS SHALL BE TRAFFIC RATED FOR HS -20 LOADING. SANITARY SEWER TESTING AND INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS 1, ALL GRAVITY SEWER PIPING SHALL BE SUBJECT TO A TELEVISION INSPECTION BY THE OWNER'S CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY THE ENGINEER 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE TO SCHEDULE INSPECTION. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM AN EXFILTRATION TEST ON ALL GRAVITY SEWERS INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REGULATION AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE LEAKAGE RATE: 100 GPD PER INCH PIPE DIAMETER PER MILE. TEST RESULTS ARE TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE REGULATORY AGENCY FOR APPROVAL. COORDINATION AND NOTIFICATION OF ALL PARTIES IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY. 3. ALL FORCE MAINS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO A HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE TEST IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REGULATORY AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION. SAID TESTS ARE TO BE CREATED BY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD AND SUBMITTED TO THE REGULATORY AGENCY FOR APPROVAL. COORDINATION AND NOTIFICATION OF ALL PARTIES IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY, WATER/SEWER CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS 62- 555.314 LOCATION OF PUBLIC_ WATER SYSTEM MAINS FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION, THE PHASE "WATER MAINS" SHALL MEAN MAINS, INCLUDING TREATMENT PLANT PROCESS PIPING, CONVEYING EITHER RAW, PARTIALLY TREATED, OR FINISHED DRINKING WATER, FIRE HYDRANT LEADS, AND SERVICE LINES THAT ARE UNDER THE CONTROL OF A PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM AND THAT HAVE AN INSIDE DIAMETER OF THREE INCHES OR GREATER. (1) HORIZONTAL SEPARATION BETWEEN UNDERGROUND WATER MAINS AND SANITARY OR STORM SEWERS, WASTEWATER OR STORMWATER FORCE MAINS, RECLAIMED WATER PIPELINES, AND ON -SITE SEWAGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS. (A) NEW OR RELOCATED, UNDERGROUND WATER MAINS SHALL BE LAID TO PROVIDE A HORIZONTAL DISTANCE OF AT LEAST THREE FEET BETWEEN THE OUTSIDE OF THE WATER MAIN AND THE OUTSIDE OF ANY EXISTING OR PROPOSED STORM SEWER, STORMWATER FORCE MAIN, OR PIPELINE CONVEYING RECLAIMED WATER REGULATED UNDER PART III OF CHAPTER 62- 610,F.A.C. (B) NEW OR RELOCATED, UNDERGROUND WATER MAINS SHALL BE LAID TO PROVIDE A HORIZONTAL DISTANCE OF AT LEAST THREE FEET, AND PREFERABLY TEN FEET, BETWEEN THE OUTSIDE OF THE WATER MAIN AND THE OUTSIDE OF ANY EXISTING OR PROPOSED VACUUM -TYPE SANITARY SEWER. (C) NEW OR RELOCATED, UNDERGROUND WATER MAINS SHALL BE LAID TO PROVIDE A HORIZONTAL DISTANCE OF AT LEAST SIX FEET, AND PREFERABLY TEN FEET, BETWEEN THE OUTSIDE OF THE WATER MAIN AND THE OUTSIDE OF ANY EXISTING OR PROPOSED GRAVITY -OR PRESSURE -TYPE SANITARY SEWER, WASTEWATER FORCE MAIN, OR PIPING CONVEYING RECLAIMED WATER NOT REGULATED UNDER PART III OF CHAPTER 62 -610, F.A.C. THE MINIMUM HORIZONTAL SEPARATION DISTANCE BETWEEN WATER MAINS AND GRAVITY -TYPE SANITARY SEWERS SHALL BE REDUCED TO THREE FEET WHERE THE BOTTOM OF THE WATER MAIN IS LAID AT LEAST SIX INCHES ABOVE THE TOP OF THE SEWER. (D) NEW OR RELOCATED, UNDERGROUND WATER MAINS SHALL BE LAID TO PROVIDE A HORIZONTAL DDISSTANCE OF AT LEAST TEN FEET BETWEEN THE OUTSIDE OF THE WATER MAIN AND ALL PARTS OF ANY EXISTING OR PROPOSED "ON -SITE SEWAGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEM" AS DEFINED IN SECTION 381.0065(2), F.S., AND RULE 64E- 6.002, F.A.C. (2) VERTICAL SEPARATION BETWEEN UNDERGROUND WATER MAINS AND SANITARY OR STORM SEWERS, WASTEWATER OR STORMWATER FORCE MAINS, AND RECLAIMED WATER PIPELINES, (A) NEW OR RELOCATED, UNDERGROUND WATER MAINS CROSSING ANY EXISTING OR PROPOSED GRAVITY -OR VACUUM -TYPE SANITARY SEWER OR STORM SEWER SHALL BE LAID SO THE OUTSIDE OF THE WATER MAIN IS AT LEAST SIX INCHES, AND PREFERABLY 12 INCHES, ABOVE OR AT LEAST 12 INCHES BELOW THE OUTSIDE OF THE OTHER PIPELINE. HOWEVER, IT IS PREFERABLE TO LAY THE WATER MAIN ABOVE THE OTHER PIPELINE. (B) NEW OR RELOCATED, UNDERGROUND WATER MAINS CROSSING ANY EXISTING OR PROPOSED PRESSURE -TYPE SANITARY SEWER, WASTEWATER OR STORMWATER FORCE MAIN, OR PIPELINE CONVEYING RECLAIMED WATER SHALL BE LAID SO THE OUTSIDE OF THE WATER MAIN IS AT LEAST 12 INCHES ABOVE OR BELOW THE OUTSIDE OF THE OTHER PIPELINE. HOWEVER IT IS PREFERABLE TO LAY THE WATER MAIN ABOVE THE OTHER PIPELINE, (C) AT THE UTILITY CROSSING DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPHS (A) AND (B) ABOVE, ONE FULL LENGTH OF WATER MAIN PIPE SHALL BE CENTERED ABOVE OR BELOW THE OTHER PIPELINE SO THE WATER MAIN JOINTS WILL BE AS FAR AS POSSIBLE FROM THE OTHER PIPELINE. ALTERNATIVELY, AT SUCH CROSSINGS, THE PIPES SHALL BE ARRANGED SO THAT ALL WATER MAIN JOINTS ARE AT LEAST THREE FEET FROM ALL JOINTS IN VACUUM -TYPE SANITARY SEWERS, STORM SEWERS, STORMWATER FORCE MAINS, OR PIPELINES CONVEYING RECLAIMED WATER REGULATED UNDER PART III OF CHAPTER 62 -610 F.A.C. AND AT LEAST SIX FEET FROM ALL JOINTS IN GRAVITY -OR PRESSURE -TYPE SANITARY SEWERS, WASTEWATER FORCE MAINS, OR PIPELINES CONVEYING RECLAIMED WATER NOT REGULATED UNDER PART III OF CHAPTER 62 -610, F.A.C. (3) SEPARATION BETWEEN WATER MAINS AND SANITARY OR STORM SEWER MANHOLES. (A) NO WATER MAIN SHALL PASS THROUGH, OR COME INTO CONTACT WITH, ANY PART OF A SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE. (B) EFFECTIVE AUGUST 28, 2003, WATER MAINS SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUCTED OR ALTERED TO PASS THROUGH, OR COME INTO CONTACT WITH, ANY PART OF A STORM SEWER MANHOLE OR INLET STRUCTURE. WHERE IT IS NOT TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE OR ECONOMICALLY SENSIBLE TO COMPLY WITH THIS REQUIREMENT I.E., WHERE THERE IS A CONFLICT IN THE ROUTING OF A WATER MAIN AND A STORM SEWER AND HERE ALTERNATIVE ROUTING OF THE WATER MAIN OR THE STORM SEWER IS NOT TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE OR IS NOT ECONOMICALLY SENSIBLE), THE DEPARTMENT SHALL ALLOW EXCEPTIONS TO THIS REQUIREMENT WE., THE DEPARTMENT SHALL ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF CONFLICT MANHOLES), BUT SUPPLIES OF WATER OR PERSONS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT CONFLICT MANHOLES MUST FIRS OBTAIN A SPECIFIC PERMIT FROM THE DEPARTMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH PART V OF THIS CHAPTER AND MUST PROVIDE IN THE PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT OR DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND DESIGN DATA ACCOMPANYING THEIR PERMIT APPLICATION THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: (1) TECHNICAL OR ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION FOR EACH CONFLICT MANHOLE, (2) A STATEMENT IDENTIFYING THE PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING EACH CONFLICT MANHOLE. (3) ASSURANCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS IN SUB - SUBPARAGRAPHS A. THROUGH D. BELOW. (A) EACH WATER MAIN PASSING THROUGH A CONFLICT MANHOLE SHALL HAVE A FLEXIBLE, WATERTIGHT JOINT ON EACH SIDE OF THE MANHOLE TO ACCOMMODATE DIFFERENTIAL SETTING BETWEEN THE MAIN AND THE MANHOLE. B WITHIN EACH CONFLICT MANHOLE THE WATER MAIN PASSING THROUGH THE MANHOLE SHALL BE I TALLED IN A WATERTIGHT CASING PIPE HAVING HIGH IMPACT STRENGTH (I.E., HAVING AN IMPACT STRENGTH (I.E„ HAVING AN IMPACT STRENGTH AT LEAST EQUAL TO THAT OF 0.25- INCH -THICK DUCTILE IRON PIPE). (C) EACH CONFLICT MANHOLE SHALL HAVE AN ACCESS OPENING, AND SHALL BE SIZED, TO ALLOW FOR EASY CLEANING OF THE MANHOLE. (D) GRATINGS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT ALL STORM SEWER INLETS UPSTREAM OF EACH CONFLICT MANHOLE TO PREVENT LARGE OBJECTS FROM ENTERING THE MANHOLE. (4) SEPARATION BETWEEN FIRE HYDRANT DRAINS AND SANITARY OR STORM SEWERS, WASTEWATER OR STORMWATER FORCE MAINS RECLAIMED WATER PIPELINES, AND ON -SITE SEWAGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS, NEW OR RELOCATED FIRE HYDRANTS WITH UNDERGROUND DRAINS SHALL BE LOCATED SO THAT THE DRAINS ARE AT LEAST THREE FEET FROM ANY EXISTING OR PROPOSED STORM SEWER, STORMWATER FORCE MAIN, OR PIPELINE CONVEYING RECLAIMED WATER REGULATED UNDER PART III OF CHAPTER 62 -610, F.A.C., AT LEAST THREE FEET, AND PREFERABLY TEN FEET, FROM ANY EXISTING OR PROPOSED VACUUM -TYPE SANITARY SEWER, AT LEAST SIX FEET, AND PREFERABLY TEN FEET, FROM ANY EXISTING OR PROPOSED GRAVITY OR PRESSURE -TYPE SANITARY SEWER, WASTEWATER FORCE MAIN, OR PIPELINE CONVEYING RECLAIMED WATER NOT REGULATED UNDER PART III OF CHAPTER 62 -610, F.A.C. AND AT LEAST TEN FE-T FROM ANY EXISTING OR PROPOSED 'ON -SITE SEWAGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEM" AS DEFINED IN SECTION 381,0065(2), F.S. AND RULE 64E- 6.002, F.A.C. (5) EXCEPTIONS, WHERE IT IS NOT TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE OR ECONOMICALLY SENSIBLE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS IN SUBSECTION (1) OR (2) ABOVE, THE DEPARTMENT SHALL ALLOW EXCEPTIONS TO THESE REQUIREMENTS IF SUPPLIES OF WATER OR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICANTS PROVIDE TECHNICAL OR ECONOMIC JUSTIFICATION FOR EACH EXCEPTION AND PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION FEATURES THAT AFFORD A SIMILAR LEVEL OF REUABIUTY AND PUBLIC HEALTH PROTECTION. ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE CONSTRUCTION FEATURES, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING. (A) WHERE AN UNDERGROUND WATER MAIN IS BEING LAID LESS THAN THE REQUIRED MINIMUM HORIZONTAL DISTANCE FFRROM ANOTHER PIPELINE AND WHERE AN UNDERGROUND WATER MAIN IS CROSSING ANOTHER PIPELINE AND JOINTS IN THE WATER MAIN ARE BEING LOCATED LESS THAN THE REQUIRED MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM JOINTS IN THE OTHER PIPELINE, (1) USE OF PRESSURE -RATED PIPE CONFORMING TO THE AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION STANDARDS INCORPORATED INTO RULE 62- 555.330, F.A.C., FOR THE OTHER PIPELINE IF IT IS A GRAVITY -OR, VACUUM - TYPE PIPELINE. (2) USE OF WELDED, FUSED, OR OTHERWISE RESTRAINED JOINTS FOR EITHER THE WATER MAIN OR THE OTHER PIPELINE. (3) USE OF WATERTIGHT CASING PIPE OR CONCRETE ENCASEMENT AT LEAST FOUR INCHES THICK FOR EITHER THE WWAATER MAIN OR THE OTHER PIPELINE. (B) WHERE AN UNDERGROUND WATER MAIN IS BEING LAID LESS THAN THREE FEET HORIZONTALLY FROM ANOTHER PIPELINE AND WHERE AN UNDERGROUND WATER MAIN IS CROSSING ANOTHER PIPELINE AND IS BEING LAID LESS THAN THE REQUIRED MINIMUM VERTICAL DISTANCE FROM THE OTHER PIPELINE. EC�UAUL TO THATEdF00.25 CASING DUCTILEGIRONPPIPE SORECONCITff HAVING INCHES THICK FOR THE WATER MAIN, AND ) R2 USE OF PIPE OR CASING PIPE, HAVING HIGH IMPACT STRENGTH LE., HAVING AN IMPACT STRENGTH AT LEAST UAL TO THAT dF 0,25- INCH -THICK DUCTILE IRON PIPE) OR CONC ETE ENCASEMENT AT LEAST FOUR INCHES THICK FOR THE OTHER PIPELINE IF IT IS NEW AND IS CONVEYING WASTEWATER OR RECLAIMED WATER. GRADING AND DRAINAGE NOTES 1. ALL DELETERIOUS SUBSTANCE MATERIAL, (I.E. MUCK, PEAT, BURIED DEBRIS), IS TO BE EXCAVATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE PLANS, OR AS DIRECTED BY THE OWNER'S ENGINEER, OR OWNER'S SOIL TESTING COMPANY. DELETERIOUS MATERIAL IS TO BE STOCKPILED OR REMOVED FROM THE SITE AS DIRECTED BY THE OWNER. EXCAVATED AREAS ARE TO BE BACKFILLED WITH APPROVED MATERIALS AND COMPACTED AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTING EXCAVATING AGAINST COLLAPSE AND WILL PROVIDE BRACING, SHEETING, OR SHORING, AS NECESSARY. TRENCHES SHALL BE KEPT DRY WHILE PIPE AND APPURTENANCES ARE BEING PLACED, DEWATERING SHALL BE USED AS REQUIRED, 3. ALL STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE REINFORCED CONCRETE CLASS III (ASTM C -76) UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON PLANS. 4. PVC STORM PIPE, 12" AND SMALLER SHALL CONFORM TO AWWA C -900, CLASS 150 STANDARDS, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, 5. ALL DRAINAGE STRUCTURE GRATES AND COVERS WITHIN TRAFFIC AREAS SHALL BE TRAFFIC RATED FOR HS -20 LOADINGS. 6. THE CONTRACTOR IS TO SOD THE RETENTION /DETENTION POND AS INDICATED ON PLANS WITHIN ONE WEEK FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION OF THE POND. 7. MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION METHODS FOR STREETS AND STORM DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LOCAL REGULATORY AGENCY. 8. ALL STORM STRUCTURES SHALL BE GROUTED TO THE INVERT ELEVATION(S) OF THE STORM PIPES(S). STORM PIPE SHALL BE SAW -CUT EVEN WITH THE STRUCTURE WALL(S). GROUT AROUND PIPES FOR WATER TIGHT AND SMOOTH FINISH. '_ PAVING, GRADING & DRAINAGE TESTING AND INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS 1. THE STORM DRAINAGE PIPING AND FILTRATION SYSTEM SHALL BE SUBJECT TO A VISUAL INSPECTION BY THE OWNER'S SOILS ENGINEER PRIOR TO THE PLACEMENT OF BACKFILL. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN THE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS UNTIL FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROJECT, 3. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING THE APPLICABLE TESTING WITH THE SOILS ENGINEER. TESTS WILL BE REQUIRED PURSUANT WITH THE TESTING SCHEDULE FOUND IN THE ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. UPON COMPLETION OF THE WORK, THE SOILS ENGINEER MUST SUBMIT CERTIFICATIONS TO THE OWNER'S ENGINEER STATING THAT ALL REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET. WORK IN FDOT RIGHTS -OF -WAY 1. DRIVEWAY TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO FDOT INDEX #515. 2. EROSION CONTROL AND SHOULDER SODDING SHALL CONFORM TO FDOT IND #104 & 105. ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN FDOT RIGHT -OF -WAY SHALL BE SODDED. 3. GUARDRAILS SHALL CONFORM TO FDOT IND #400. 4. ALL STRIPING SHALL BE LEAD FREE NON- SOLVENT BASED THERMOPLASTIC AND MEET ACCORDING TO THE FOOT SPECIFICATION SECTION 711 5. REFLECTIVE PAVEMENT MARKERS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF FDOT SPECIFICATIONS SECTION 706. 6. ALL SIGNS WITHIN FDOT RIGHT -OF -WAY SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF FDOT SPECIFICATIONS SECTION 700. 7, REFLECTIVE PAVEMENT MARKERS SHALL BE PLACED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FDOT STANDARD INDEX NO. 17352, 8. STRIPING WITHIN FOOT RIGHT -OF -WAY SHALL BE PLACED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FDOT STANDARD INDEX NO. 17346. 9. SIGNS WITHIN FOOT RIGHT -OF -WAY SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FDOT STANDARD INDEX NO. 11860 AND SHALL BE PLACED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FDOT STANDARD INDEX NO. 17302. 10. SIGNING AND STRIPING WITHIN FDOT RIGHT -OF -WAY SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (MUTCD). 11. ALL WORK PERFORMED WITHIN THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT -OF -WAY CONFORM TO: A.) FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROAD AND BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION (LATEST EDITION), (aka: STANDARD SPECS). B.) FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ROADWAY AND TRAFFIC DESIGN STANDARDS, CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND UTILITY OPERATIONS FOR STREETS AND HIGHWAYS ON STATE MAINTAINED SYSTEMS. (LATEST EDITION) (aka: STANDARD INDEX). COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE INDICES IS REQUIRED. C.) FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MANUAL OF UNIFORM MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE FOR STREETS AND HIGHWAYS (LATEST EDITION), (aka: GREEN BOOK). 12. TRAFFIC CONTROL & SIDEWALK CLOSURE ARE TO BE PER FDOT INDICES #600 AND #660. 13. APPLICANT MUST NOTIFY THE FLORIDA DEPT, OF TRANSPORTATION PINELLAS COUNTY MAINTENANCE OFFICE (48) HOURS IN ADVANCE OF STARTING PROPOSED WORK. CALL (727) 570 -5101. 14. BEFORE CONSTRUCTION IS TO BEGIN, THE APPLICANT SHALL DELIVER TO THE FLORIDA DEPT, OF TRANSPORTATION PROOF OF INSURANCE VERIFYING THAT THE APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT'S CONTRACTOR HAS COVERAGE UNDER THE LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF F.A.C. RULE CHPT. 14- 96.007(5)(C)6. CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY NOTE IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PERFORM A SURVEY (ACCOMPANIED BY THE ARCHITECT AND OWNER) OF THE ENTIRE PROJECT AREA INCLUDING BUILDING(S) AND SITE IMMEDIATELY UPON OCCUPYING THE WORK AREA AND BY PHOTOGRAPHIC AND WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DETAILING ANY AREAS THAT ARE NOT IN A FIRST CLASS CONDITION (SURFACES THAT ARE UNBROKEN, NON- CRACKED, NON- RUSTING, WITHOUT CHIPS, WITHOUT SPLINTERS, OF TEXTURE MATCHING ITS SURROUNDING, WITH NEW APPEARING FINISHES, AND OPERATING AS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED OR INTENDED TO OPERATE) WHICH WILL REMAIN IN THEIR PRESENT CONDITION AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THE OWNER A COMPLETE PROJECT IN FIRST CLASS CONDITION MEETING INDUSTRY WIDE STANDARDS IN QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROJECT AREA BUILDING(S) AND SITE (REGARDLESS OF WHETHER AN AREA IS SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED WITHIN THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS OR NOT) UNLESS A PARTICULAR AREA HAS BEEN DESCRIBED IN THE AFOREMENTIONED PHOTOGRAPHS AND WRITTEN DETAILS. CONTRACTOR HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT THE EXISTING BUILDINGS) UTILITIES AND SITE THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT TIME FRAME. SHOULD, DURING THE COURSE OF THE WORK, ANY AREA OF THE BUILDING(S) AND /OR UTILITIES AND /OR THE BUILDINGS) AND /OR UTILITIES AND /OR THE SITE BECOME DAMAGED AND THAT AREA WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT TO BE A PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR AND /OR REPLACE THE DAMAGED AREA TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ARCHITECT AND OWNER AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER. WATER SUPPLY STORM SEWER ELECTRICAL POWER IRRIGATION LINES FIBER OPTIC CABLES FIRE ALARM SYSTEM CABLES CONTROL WIRING SANITARY SEWER NATURAL AND LP GAS LINES RECLAIMED WATER SUPPLY T.V. CABLES TELEPHONE CABLES SECURITY WIRING SITE UNDERGROUND MECHANICAL SYSTEMS INCLUDING INSULATION IT WILL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE THE SPECIFIC LOCATION OF THE UNDERGROUND SERVICES B Y CAREFUL HAND EXCAVATION ONL Y UNLESS OTHER MEANS ARE APPROVED BY ARCHITECT AND OWNER BEFORE BEGINNING THE WORK. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPLACE OR REPAIR, PER SPECIFICATIONS, ANY AND ALL DAMAGED UNDERGROUND SERVICES AS LISTED ABOVE AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER. 1. TRENCH EXCAVATION - INCLUDE OSHA STANDARD 29 CFR, SECTION 1926.650 SUBPART P, WHICH IS NOW A PART OF LAWS OF FLORIDA CHAPTER 90 -96. - THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE WRITTEN ASSURANCE OF COMPLIANCE WITH THIS LAW. - A SEPARATE COST ITEM IDENTIFYING THE COST OF COMPLIANCE. A TRENCH SAFETY SYSTEM SHALL BE DESIGNED BY THE CONTRACTOR, AND APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. 2. ALL RETENTION AREAS STORM SEWER PIPING STORM W R STRUCTURES, SE E S UC URES, ETC. MUST BE IN PLACE AS PART OF THE FIRST PHASE OF CONSTRUCTION. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO ACCOMMODATE POSITIVE DRAINAGE THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION TO AVOID FLOODING OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. ANY FLOODING THAT MAY OCCUR DUE TO HIS WORK WILL BE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. 3. THE USE OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED DATA IS INTENDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR MUST UTILIZE SIGNED AND SEALED DOCUMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION. PAVING NOTES 1. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTING CONCRETE PAVEMENT, THE CONTRACTOR IS TO SUBMIT A PROPOSED JOINTING PATTERN TO THE OWNER'S ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL. 2. THE CONTRACTOR IS TO PROVIDE A 1/2" BITUMINOUS EXPANSION JOINT MATERIAL WITH SEALER, AT ABUTMENT OF CONCRETE AND ANY STRUCTURE, 3. ALL PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE MADE WITH TRAFFIC PAINT IN ACCORDANCE TO FOOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS 971 -12. PARKING STALL STRIPING TO BE 4" WIDE PAINTED WHITE STRIPES. 4. THE CONTRACTOR IS TO INSTALL EXTRA BASE MATERIAL WHEN THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE PAVEMENT ELEVATION AND THE TOP OF THE PIPE OR BELL IS LESS THAN TWELVE (12) INCHES. 5. STANDARD INDEXES REFER TO THE LATEST EDITION OF FOOT "ROADWAY AND TRAFFIC DESIGN STANDARDS." 6. PAVEMENT IN THE PROPERTY SHALL CONSIST OF 1-1/2" ASPHALT, TYPE MEETING CURRENT FDOT STANDARDS, ON 6" LIMEROCK BASE COMPACTED TO 98% OF MAXIMUM DENSITY, ON SUB -BASE COMPACTED TO 98% OF MAXIMUM DENSITY PER AASHTO T -180. 7. PAVEMENT IN R.O.W. SHALL CONSIST OF 2" ASPHALT, TYPE MEETING CURRENT FDOT ON 8" LIMEROCK BASE COMPACTED TO 98% OF MAXIMUM DENSITY, STANDARDS ON 10 -1/2" SUB -BASE STABILIZED TO 40 LBR AND COMPACTED TO 98% OF MAXIMUM DENSITY PER AASHTO T -180. NOTE TO CONTRACTOR THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE CERTIFIED RECORD DRAW- INGS, SIGNED AND SEALED BY A PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR. THE RECORD DRAWINGS SHALL SHOW FINAL GRADES FOR RETENTION BASIN(S), CONTROL STRUCTURE(S), INLETS & PIPES WITH TOP & BOTTOM ELEVATIONS, INVERTS & DIMENSIONING OF SLOT & BAFFLE. LOCATIONS OF ALL UTILITIES INCLUDING THE SANITARY SEWER AND WATER PIPING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TWO COPIES OF THE CERTIFIED RECORD DRAWINGS TO THE ENGINEER. THE AFOREMENTIONED RECORD DRAWING SHALL BE SUFFICIENT ENOUGH IN DETAIL TO BE ACCEPTABLE BY AGENCIES HAVING JURISDICTION. GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1. ALL THE WORK PERFORMED SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES OF THE VARIOUS GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE WORK. 2. ALL ELEVATIONS ARE REFERENCED FROM NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM(1988). 3. LOCATIONS, ELEVATIONS, AND DIMENSIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES, STRUCTURES, AND OTHER FEATURES ARE SHOWN ACCORDING TO THE BEST INFORMATION AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF PREPARATION OF THESE PLANS. THE CONTRACTOR WILL VERIFY THE LOCATIONS, ELEVATIONS, AND DIMENSIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES, STRUCTURES AND OTHER FEATURES AFFECTING THIS WORK PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECK THE PLANS FOR CONFLICTS AND DISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE OWNER'S ENGINEER OF ANY CONFLICTS OR DISCREPANCIES BEFORE PERFORMING ANY WORK IN THE AFFECTED AREA, 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXERCISE EXTREME CAUTION IN AREAS OF BURIED UTILITIES, AND SHALL PROVIDE AT LEAST 48 HOURS NOTICE TO THE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES, IN ORDER TO PERMIT MARKING THE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, IN ADVANCE OF CONSTRUCTION, BY CALLING "SUNSHINE" AT 1- 800 - 432 -4770 MINIMUM OF 2 DAYS AND MAXIMUM OF 5 DAYS PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTACTING ALL UTILITIES NOT INCLUDED IN THE "SUNSHINE" PROGRAM. 6, CONTRACTOR IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCTION SAFETY. SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS MAY BE REQUIRED IN THE VICINITY OF POWER LINES AND OTHER UTILITIES. 7, ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES MUST BE IN PLACE AND TESTED AND INSPECTED PRIOR TO BASE AND SURFACE CONSTRUCTION. 8. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THE PERMIT AND INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS OF THE VARIOUS GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, AND SCHEDULE INSPECTIONS ACCORDING TO AGENCY INSTRUCTION, 9, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT FOR APPROVAL TO THE OWNER'S ENGINEER; SHOP DRAWINGS ON ALL PRECAST AND MANUFACTURED ITEMS FOR THIS SITE, FAILURE TO OBTAIN APPROVAL BEFORE INSTALLATION MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. ALL SHOP DRAWINGS ARE TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL TO THE OWNER'S ENGINEER. 10. AT LEAST THREE (3) WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER AND APPROPRIATE AGENCIES, AND SUPPLY THEM WITH ALL REQUIRED SHOP DRAWINGS, THE CONTRACTOR'S NAME, STARTING DATE, PROJECTED SCHEDULE, AND OTHER INFORMATION AS REQUIRED. ANY WORK PERFORMED PRIOR TO NOTIFYING THE ENGINEER, OR WITHOUT AGENCY INSPECTOR PRESENT, MAY BE SUBJECT TO REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. 11, BACKFILL MATERIAL_ SHALL BE SOLIDLY TAMPED AROUND PIPES IN 6" LAYERS UP TO A LEVEL OF AT LEAST ONE FOOT ABOVE THE TOP OF THE PIPE. IN AREAS TO BE PAVED, BACKFILL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 100% MAXIMUM DENSITY AS DETERMINED BY AASHTO T -99. 12. SITE WORK CONCRETE SHALL HAVE A COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF AT LEAST 3,000 P.S.I. IN 28 DAYS, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, 13. ALL PRIVATE AND PUBLIC PROPERTY AFFECTED BY THE WORK SHALL BE RESTORED TO A CONDITION FQUAL TO OR BETTER THAN EXISTING CONDITIONS UNLESS SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED BY THE PLANS. ADDITIONAL COSTS ARE INCIDENTAL TO OTHER CONSTRUCTION AND NO EXTRA COMPENSATION IS TO BE ALLOWED. 14. ALL DISTURBED ,AREAS WHICH ARE NOT TO BE SODDED, ARE TO BE SEEDED AND MULCHED TO DOI STANDARDS, AND MAINTAINED UNTIL A SATISFACTORY STAND OF GRASS, ACCEPTABLE TO THE REGULATORY AGENCY AND ENGINEER OF RECORD, HAVE BEEN OBTAINED, ANY WASHOUTS, REGRADING, RESEEDING, AND GRASSING WORK, AND OTHER EROSION WORK REQUIRED, WILL BE PERFORMED BY THE CONTRACTOR, AT HIS EXPENSE, UNTIL THE SYSTEM IS ACCEPTED FOR MAINTENANCE, BY THE REGULATORY AGENCY AND ENGINEER OF RECORD. 15, THE SOILS ENGINEER IS TO SUPPLY THE ENGINEER WITH A PHOTOCOPY OF ALL COMPACTION TESTS, AND ASPHALT RESULTS, THE SOILS ENGINEER IS TO CERTIFY TO THE ENGINEER OF RECORD, IN WRITING, THAT ALL TESTING REQUIREMENTS, REQUIRED BY THE LOCAL REGULATORY AGENCY, AND THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT), FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS, AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS, HAVE BEEN SATISFIED, 16. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN A COPY OF THE APPROVED PLANS AND PERMITS AT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, 17. THESE DRAWINGS DO NOT INCLUDE NECESSARY COMPONENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION SAFETY. THE CONTRACTOR IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR MEANS AND METHODS FOR CONSTRUCTION SITE SAFETY. 18. ALL SODDING, SEEDING AND MULCHING SHALL INCLUDE WATERING AND FERTILIZATION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THESE AREAS UNTIL THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED AND ACCEPTED BY THE OWNER. 19. ALL PIPE LENGTHS ARE PLUS OR MINUS. PIPE MEASUREMENTS ARE CENTER TO CENTER OF STRUCTURES OR FITTINGS. PIPE MEASUREMENTS FOR MITERED END SECTIONS ARE TO END OF PIPE. 20. EXISTING PAVEMENT SHALL BE SAW -CUT WHERE NEW PAVEMENT IS TO BE ADDED OR EXISTING PAVEMENT TO BE ELIMINATED, 21. ADJUSTMENTS OF INLETS, JUNCTION BOXES, MANHOLE TOPS, WATER VALVES, WATER METERS, ETC., SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE CONTRACTOR'S BID AND NO CLAIM SHALL BE MADE AGAINST THE OWNER OR ENGINEER FOR THESE ADJUSTMENTS, IF REQUIRED. 22, ALL BACKFILL OVER ANY PIPE (STORM SEWER, SANITARY SEWER, OR WATERLINES) THAT IS INSTALLED UNDER ROADWAYS OR WITHIN THE EMBANKMENT OF THE ROADWAY, SHALL BE COMPACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH F,D.O.T. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, SECTION 125 -8,3, LATEST EDITION, 23. THE CONTRACTOR PERFORMING TRENCH EXCAVATION, IN EXCESS OF 5' FEET IN DEPTH, SHALL COMPLY WITH THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION'S (OSHA) TRENCH EXCAVATION SAFETY STANDARDS, 29 C.F.R., S.1926.650, SUBPART P, INCLUDING ALL SUBSEQUENT REVISIONS OR UPDATES TO THE STANDARDS AS ADOPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY (IDLES). 24. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE THE POINTS OF CONNECTIONS OF THE UTILITIES WITH DIFFERENT SUBS, SITE CONTRACTOR TO CONSTRUCT THE UNDERGROUND INFRASTRUCTURES i.e. SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER, WATER LINES, FIRE LINES, ETC., TO 5' OUTSIDE OF THE BLDG(S). THE PLUMBING CONTRACTOR TO CONNECT AND MEET THE INVERT ELEVATIONS OF THE SAID UTILITIES. ANY UTILITY WORK PERFORMED WITHIN 5' OF THE BLDG. SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PLUMBING CONTRACTOR, ALL WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL CODES, ORDINANCES AND REQUIREMENTS. 25. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED AND FINISHED IN A WORKMANLIKE MANNER TO COMPLETE SATISFACTION OF THE ARCHITECT /ENGINEER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BEST RECOGNIZED TRADE PRACTICES, 26, DEVIATIONS TO THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS WITHOUT CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER MAY BE CAUSE FOR THE WORK TO BE UNACCEPTABLE. DEVIATIONS SHALL RECEIVE WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE ENGINEER, 27. SIGNS, BUFFER WALLS & FENCES ARE SUBJECT TO SEPARATE SUBMITTALS) AND PERMITTING. DEVIATIONS SHALL RECEIVE WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE ENGINEER. 28, IT IS THE RESPONSIBILTY OF THE OWNER TO MAINTAIN AND VERIFY PERMIT APPROVAL(S) AND EXPIRATION DATES. SHOULD THE PROJECT NOT BE COMPLETED WITHIN THE PERMITTED TIME, IT IS THE OWNER'S RESPONSIBILTYTO FILE FOR EXTENSION REQUESTS WITH THE AGENCIES HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE PROJECT AREA. E B #5936 -01 M 0,j MV ,1d, Z V Lu nZ V% V #tu tu � VA O►x *a cc cc A0 1 z M 14 �_ I'm p W w v� M. z ® 1 cc h MR z to w V X ® !o z 0 M 4 cc 4 mull cc A a. 6N Ili ® W® z em 4 M CA � II= © = -4 ,1 ® cc cm 04 w M V 04. Revisions: No. Date Description ::t 06/05/08 PER DRC 0 1) 0 r -� i DEMOLITION NOTES NOTE. SILT FENCES AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MUST BE IN PLACE PRIOR hi_---- Ft N 89 04845 " E TO mAilup"rTInAl AND BE MAINTAINED THROUGH THE PROJECT. 1� __ I , , INVLPT = il') 46 INCLUDES THE REMOVAL/ RELOCATION F H�,,P - - -,, I DEMOLITION OF THE SITE 46.05 OF ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA, PAVING AND BASE, UTILITIES LINES (SANITARY SEWER, STORM 7 7 '''DI PIPES, WATER LINES, POWER POLES, OVERHEAD AND UNDER- GROUND POWER AND TELEPHONE CABLES, GAS LINES, TREES, SHRUBS, ETC.) AND IS NOT LIMITED TO WHAT'S SHOWN. OR DEMOLITION NOTES LEGEND REMOVE: ASPH. & BASE _5 AC DEMOLITION OF THE SITE INCLUDES Revisions: No. Date Description 06/05/08 PER DRC THE REMOVAL/RELOCATION OF NOTE: ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES WITHIN SILT FENCE SHALL NOT BE TRENCHED IN WHERE PROJECT AREA, PAVING AND ADJACENT TO TREES DESIGNATED TO REMAIN, THE SILT FENCE MUST BE SECURED THROUGH THE j u X ,l 'li2 BASE, UTILITY LINES (SANITARY SEWER, STORM PIPES, WATER PLACEMENT OF FILL OVER THE LOWER LIP OF THE POST OPTIONS: _Ci LINES, POWER POLES, OVERHEAD THE LOWER LIP OF THE BARRICADE 2'x4" OR 2.5"DIAM. WOOD; 1.JJLBS.IFT. ry AND UNDERGROUND POWER AND MIN. STEEL TELEPHONE CABLES, GAS LINES, TREES, SHRUBS, ETC.) AND IS 6' MAX FILTER FABRIC IN NOT LIMITED TO WHAT'S SHOWN. CONFORMANCE WITH crr aqr, x-nnT 15 SPECS. OR EQUAL toy EXIST, GROUND MIN. 181, , , 1' ­5� Fil REMOVE EXISTING ASPHALT BASE X X"" 12" 2] REMOVE EXISTING SIDEWALK S� F il: GI 20' II x 36 03 PRINCIPAL POST > OPTIONAL POSITION, 0 TOWARD CANTED F3] REMOVE EXISTING CURB POST < 2500 RD FLOW 1� 9,11.3 9 goo j N 2 O til �—FIL TER FABRIC FLOW X314, Q) SILT REMOVE EXISTING TREES > I SIL T Q) EXIST. GROUND 4 ALL CAVITY & EXCAVATION RESULTING FROM REMOVAL OF TREES, SHRUBS, PIPES, INLETS, GREASE TRAPS, SIGN, AND POLE BASE SHALL BE FILLED WITH APPROVED SUITABLE MATERIAL AND COMPACTED IN 12" LIFTS TO SILT BARRIER DETAIL 95% OF MAX DENSITY. < N.T.S. m m 5 OFF—SITE DISPOSAL OF STRUCTURES, UTILITIES AND CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS SHALL OCCUR IN SOLID WASTE I 14 DO DISPOSAL FACILITIES APPROVED BY F.D.E.P., AND PINELLAS COUNTY, Y504 a Icm ly I I E X-3506 *451 21 W 2 S (39 ® ALLEN (P) 42.94 m n rl RETENTION POND INV I'l 8=mmm m?m ug.�m EI E I I V F 1 13 'R I VE (1) MAGNOLIA D' ------- �.�,,I,NITARI NIANW)LE — - --------- PAINI Mf RKING RIM EL = 35 2,' IIIJ v EL = 3186 (22, ASPHALT) I'l 114V EL = 3111 85. la ST0f,0,I MANHOtE (22' ASPI-14LI-) E INV EL 1IL-Erill, 0� PIPE 8c 1,RN 3`1'76 1 085 _NOT FOLIN11 - - - - -- -- ---- -- - - -- -- - - ----- IN V. FI_ 5� 65 E 11.1'.' =a mma i= una i9am vm ® im, UZ3 �Lr i jzi- --- S wn- dia am CURB INLE I a p IA, = , -, It RIM CL ' 4 9 2 2'CURB .t, CXISTING 6" N INV EL -- 3�% 12 PVC, l,,'AIFR 2 Pvc, �;4�I,EF El -- ------------- - - 34 -Pit, 14* PALM X15111-43, 3" SAN EX CAS --- — --------- - ----- ----- - ----- J X.I. _m r I, / — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — �'na.- �IIV°.' — — — — / I — I - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — _=—, — —1 — — r— 7� L - Ll 3 5. 3 JJ4.60 I N 89051 '21 E r� KE 2 — -------- I_­ ----- - --- - ------ C==== C= E=== C= C=== = = r I � = = i C= cm �<-14 7D 40 IIISTINC, LATERAL X, '3560 -11 70 .349 0 15'PALM 12, PALM ,ht#.O *N- #* 35 113 i* � E' ISFINf� P" C I. WATER aa JO- OA j6' CIAK I 3t 12' PALM 3D 14'17A )6 ALM 36 IG, LM „us %* 3:5 �5 Y5 PALM CLUSTER 4-51 -5N 1/, 3141 @5 42 I 8'17AK I 11' PALM 4 c 4;'A \,I 394fl *11. �35 5 [L 544 10 2b 60 35'90.. )gOOS -',140 12. PALL 6.4'1 x X3.324 3695 x I 3 2i S S 2' , 45.9 1,35,2P X*31 Lc. 35:7 34,59 2 (#3 0 4.1 i76 a% PALM ♦ ACM CLUSTER 4-5 35.51) ♦ 5'4 u x'35 �10 < '1�eALM CLUSTER 4-9 F XIS TIN(, 40:le% I M'N 5 6 0 X 15 91) f"'1 ' ­3491 '.'3b 10 rr 5 70 >,35 0 1 G PlAk-m W - -1 Si S 8-9'5121' "34 q5 2 FQND 10 A R 6 70 t p lU 3e Uc 'AlISFORMER C= jc X37 C. X'37 E5 �p 1$ 1 12"I"C' __ :::I:: __ % 59. S 8905 L�_- - 135.00 rA 121 W 90 PkAl 3 7. 12 LA GRATE INLET- CRAIE. EL. - 37.1 -PO N0 IN0 INV FL ___ 35.46 3 7'9 3 Fr .3763 316 %:>: .f :T 3, 40 17,4'3 FOR vi"Jo !SXl 7L L Pl_,�NTER ARID\ t5PHILF PARIINC 129 ,2 , ?7 — NES Comm.: 0731 Drawn By: �[Checked By: H. I G. SCALE: V=20' 20 0 10 20 40 Issue Date: 03/25/08 Revisions: No. Date Description 06/05/08 PER DRC j u l'.�: _Ci SCALE: V=20' 20 0 10 20 40 Issue Date: 03/25/08 Revisions: No. Date Description 06/05/08 PER DRC a w ww O O ("At • 1 THIS DRAWING IS AN INSTRumej!N cQgvarl BaVm MATHE PROPERTY OF THE ENGINEER, AND SHALL NOT BEAEPRPA C B c R USED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT 'A. /, %00 THE CONSENT OF THE ENGINEL P'IRIGHT2008 NOT PUBLISHED /.A' t4 o 4 7 4 31 AT - 16 2008 m- L �,.D., P.E. #47431 A. , -!;�E "p COPIES OF THESE PLAN9ARE NOTVALID UNLESS EMBOSSED WITH THE'.SIGNING ENGINEERS SEAL -- _. �• mow. m • ( C 0 IJ FJ Yi I f3 T, il`VvER T - K.46 N 89 "48'45 " E E,;� 18 46.05' x X X X x ox NORTH PARCEL 6Y,018 S.F.---T t LJ X x X x L7 p1 w LLJ tz xa O ax Q) CL 6' HIGH c CHAIN LINK FENCE x Y O [I- 2 SOUTH PARCEL=49,277 S.F. I e T r P INT /p) �T X as cl x 5 8-9051'21" W 2.94' [YVICrAl V RETENTION POND CURB N:(L:l Rji,� ELI 55 13 r /f-, r MA GNOLIA DRIVE(l� iD) MARKIN,-" (22' A'5PHALT) ml7rLm= STC)RIIA triANHOI - E _t-NL) �F PIPE 1.-) 7 RIM, EL. =: , 0 I�rT F�-L)N-) v EL. ('URB 11,11-El TRUNCATED DOMES NEW 4' RRA EL 9 2 2'(,URB FIRE TRUCK EXISIINC 6" NEW ':3T-OP" SIGN CONC. WALK N IN V EL 3'.--' 12 (TYPI) PVC VVA I F F� & "STOP" BAR PVC, 6ArEF. 1 1` G 243 L.F. [�,Typ- Ex" GA's LNE - ------ 20'X20' L SIGHT VISIqILTIY qIKE 20'X20 TRIANGLE (TYP.) NEW 4'----�l `Al SIGHT VIS161L TlY CONC. WALK J 4.60' N 8905 1'21 TRIANGLE (TYP) Revisions: No. Date Description NEW 'STOP-!�� BAR S., PER DKC "DO NOT EWTER'=l SIGN ,O X20,,,T ,,, TI, � TRIANGLE �IYLP) o� T, il`VvER T - K.46 N 89 "48'45 " E E,;� 18 46.05' x X X X x ox NORTH PARCEL 6Y,018 S.F.---T t LJ X x X x L7 p1 w LLJ tz xa O ax Q) CL 6' HIGH c CHAIN LINK FENCE x Y O [I- 2 SOUTH PARCEL=49,277 S.F. I e T r P INT /p) �T X as cl x 5 8-9051'21" W 2.94' [YVICrAl V RETENTION POND CURB N:(L:l Rji,� ELI 55 13 r /f-, r MA GNOLIA DRIVE(l� iD) MARKIN,-" (22' A'5PHALT) ml7rLm= STC)RIIA triANHOI - E _t-NL) �F PIPE 1.-) 7 RIM, EL. =: , 0 I�rT F�-L)N-) v EL. ('URB 11,11-El TRUNCATED DOMES NEW 4' RRA EL 9 2 2'(,URB FIRE TRUCK EXISIINC 6" NEW ':3T-OP" SIGN CONC. WALK N IN V EL 3'.--' 12 (TYPI) PVC VVA I F F� & "STOP" BAR PVC, 6ArEF. 1 1` G 243 L.F. [�,Typ- Ex" GA's LNE - ------ 20'X20' L SIGHT VISIqILTIY qIKE 20'X20 TRIANGLE (TYP.) NEW 4'----�l `Al SIGHT VIS161L TlY CONC. WALK J 4.60' N 8905 1'21 TRIANGLE (TYP) LK *5 1 21 W J@' ❑0 -,K TREE BARRICADE TREE CANOPY /ROOT ZONE 135. pvc, 00' TREE BARRICADE D its ® c= C= TREE CANOPY /ROOT ZONE lil Lri V PARKING LOT INTERIOR LANDSCAPE TOTAL: 2,927 S.F. % .0 FIssue Date: 03/25/0 Revisions: No. Date Description QI S., PER DKC -A A LK *5 1 21 W J@' ❑0 -,K TREE BARRICADE TREE CANOPY /ROOT ZONE 135. pvc, 00' TREE BARRICADE D its ® c= C= TREE CANOPY /ROOT ZONE lil Lri V PARKING LOT INTERIOR LANDSCAPE TOTAL: 2,927 S.F. % .0 FIssue Date: 03/25/0 Revisions: No. Date Description QI 06/05/08 PER DKC -A A . 5 z "A I w1l to 1W I wmill SCALE: 1 "=20' to 0 10 20 41 .. ...... ...... THIS DRAWING IS AN INSTRLIMENT)C�ISE �%�Ar RAIN THE-PROPERTY OF THE E (ff ENGINEER, AND SHALL NOT BE REPI�ODUC US E I = WAY WITHOUT D� THE CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER, (pCOWGI- NOT PUBLISHED � 7A 1 N 6 2008 RAM A. GOEI P.E. #47431 COPIES OF THESE PLANS ARE NOT VALID UNLESS EMBOSSED WITH THE SIGNING ENGINEER'S SEAL 1 PIL _6' HIGH C. L. F. 35.0± (A4E.)- TOP EL. 'Hil SHW 31.0 PIL 6' HIGH C.L.F. 1. VARIES 10.5, _34.50 TOB (M. E.) --------------- LIW 34,�\,EX. GROUND wo ij. 0 30T EL 3 1. 00 -SECTIONA-A N. T S. U '-V 6" THICK 6 11 THICK CONCRETE CONCRETE ON GRADE 24' l 7' 28' ON GRADE -'-DO NOT DISTURB 211' "FIF-I _III lff=-.11. I I I --I 6" CONIC. CURB EX. GROUND COMPACTED W.A.N.E. AERATION SYSTEM GROUND NEW A: PA VEMI NEW A PA VEME PIL SECTION B-B N. T. S. PIL SECTION C- C 36.0 (M. E.) 35.5 (M. E.) ,"35 24 NOTE: REMOTE FDC BY OTHERS. TO PROVIDE ONLY 4" x 5" STORZ CONNECTION AND 4" CHECK VALVE. Revisions: No. Date Description STORZ CONNECTION 06/05/08 PER DRC PLACED AT A 30' ANGLE APP 36" ABOVE GRADE FROM FACE OF FDC. 4' CHECK VALVE- GRADE /, 4' DUCTILE IRON PIPE 4' 0R-14 PIPE 4' MJ ELL WITH RETAINING GLANDS REMOTE FDC DETAIL NTS N. T S. NO TE: ROOF RUNOFF SHA L L BE DIREC TED TO WA RD POND AREA. TREE #30 X.n ")I X3506 ALLEN /D) 34 611 Y4 77 Cp IN,/ERT = 30 46 N 89 04845 E X MH It .1 46.05 J 4 1 , N M7 Equx myll o •34 3� x x '35 77 35 1.11 x mg'>� 2520 542 X x X x X24 36 xu ox as uox-,3 23 I I X A X' A CL C. 0. INV. 30.0 x LLJ x L9 p LJLJ jl h 7.'3590 '3590 X 36-03 3477 NEW 36 LF OF 6" PVC U.D. 2 9 xg 0 07. 113 " PCP-----\ 0 CL LL Q) 601. LARDS ' 'S 18" M.E. x JYPiCAL) INV:J 1. 75 CONTROL STRUCTURE NE RETENTION POND z A. < (SEE DETAIL) EL. 34.50 I m TOP "BO EL. 31.00 x T a_ CONST. JO L. F. OF 0 2 15" RCP ®0.671 '34.80 1 1 >1 35 04 ,34 37 x3550 C= 2 5 89"51'21" W ,30 OAK PLANT BED 120' X"315 08 CURB INLET X3,i I RIf.4 IL = 35,13 S INV FL = 32 2.5 T T A M`V T T,7 V CROSS SECTION D-D Af A AT I E INV EL= 3213 N.T.S. % t- s�;�srs,y;�ti u \1C _- .�biss- N 6" THICK CONCRETE CONCRETE 6" THICK ON GRADE ON GRADE 12-1 - 25' DO NOT DISTURB 6. CURB EX. GROUND COMPACTED W.A.N.E. AERATION SYSTEM TREE #30 36" OAK PLANT BED CROSS SECTION E-E N.T.S. Vu SANITARY MANHOLE w-Immil-1-1, PAINT MARKING RCP INV EL. (T�fp) R IA EL = :55 24 NEW 6"x6" T&V 15 , 'A' INV. EL 31 F6 W Ex 18 RCP INV. EL. 29.7 &I&C. V. N INV FL. 31 83jff' C ORINE SRM MANHOLE 1,72' ASPHALT) rEml-mrmumEm V. INV EL 31.86 INJECTION POINT RIM EL = 3.4 76 (22' ASPHzLT) LND OF PIPE j;"\106 L, F. OF 18" 5. INV. EL 31.63 INV EL 20 85 NOT FOLIND RCP 0 0.249 CD 11m.. ® &&N 79 M9 ­j F3 PVC l CURB FILET [_X_ _fS I I N G 6" VVAIER-, EXISTING S" W '0 RIM ELI = 34 92 )'CURB - ----- PVC. �IVATER TAP & VALVE EXISTING G" - N INV EL = 32.12 m m m =IN m m w m m m m m PVC. WATER 2'CLJR6 EX GAS LINE 4 G7 XISIING 8" SAN 6" a14 A 7� CHLORINE 3479 11VJL 1, 1 IUN t'j. 10' PALN N 6" PVC DR14 W. 13 BIKE '21 E - 1�g��6"OPVC SIN 13 a .3 MIN, COVER 17 MIN. 9 334.60' N 890.51 RACK 90' BEN Cm r= © © C2 ® © en 9===== C= m X35 no 98 L. F OF 18 4D -NEW 1 112" (74 6 L. F. OF 15 NEW 6 DIP F) _T Sm RCP @ 0.20Z 'Tr Al _A, 9?T-jD RCP 0 0. 43Z 6" 20 E<IS11NO LA,r[RAI, 507 7317� SP NEW CV anon, un C � V C ' : rrirrlD C VA I u X LIU NEW 2" PVC (36" MIN. COVER) Gf?)ITE INLE i ­UEA = DOM WATER 36.2 36-2 36_2 36.2 SP -(J6" MIN. COVER) NEW 4' PVC DR 14F^ 0 SL G T=35.4 (J6 MIN. COVER) 16.2 --- R.L. --------- INV. -32.0 358 1 Cm C=2 Is= I ALM 36.6 1 � C=== C= FIRE DEPAR ENT © 7 ® i L-7 35te 35.51 'C- SlING 8" C I \,VA CONNECTION GRATE INLET 7 1 - - -,21 __T _.. - I - TER 2Y- SIAMESE 3b A GE=36.0 =% . . . 4 4 - 1: CONNECTION SLOT=J5.4 JUNCTION MANHOLE 4 INV. =,32.4 RIM EL, =J5. 8 4 A Aj Medical 4 INV. =J2.2 15, 4 1 s 1700r.• 26 L. F, OF 15 4 'K: RCP @ 0.267. CE 515 / f41 0 E, 3 823 S.F ❑ X.3 34.78 36.2 358 + PFE=37.3 4 3542 ','�5 50 D > X3948 5,7 .157 5 44' 3611 37 25 X 75Z -L, 4 35.90 - -- --- --------- 3 60 2 3621 31, 1 9 x -55 19 R.L. R2 _T 8 366 wI 1�7 39 24 "o 36 2 x 35 j�, ,' V 5 1524 �-Za&, 70 361 LOADINGZONE if bO 2 36,15 5.62 1E 5 Y) 2j, 4. 4 BYPASS U911 2 71 4 'AL' r 4' .8 4 I : z 4 ORATE INLEI-:-,\\ wl - - - - - - GE=35,0 + INV. =32.4 4 35.6� - LLJ C) 36.6 E 70 X35,50 3S 24 :?_1 35.8 36.2 35.8 35.4 EX 15 TIN, C -35 CID 0 1 C.O. 36.55 So, -NEW 6 PVC SAN. 411 6-- 12* PALI, SEWER 0 19 MIN. ^i '-�i ( A \ ` TO EX. LATERAL Bank �37.25 \3 36.2 36 Ist T70or 35.2+ 36 BO o3 +36.15 1S 600 S. E E, _rJ_11r 3826 K�� >�35 70 WON, C= ffmm=m=w__m= C= C= C======== ® -® Cm:=====m:== C= E= C3 C= C= C= C= v"Lm FFE=37.3 o 35,1 -6 RUAINING WALL LL S 89"51'21" W I C 2 0 �4.j J4 �b FOND 757.2­5 .15 70, J77° (ME) x3G to LARGE ~':36 70 02 ]RANSFORMER X376? I x3762 57,59 n 89051'21" W 135.00 - _ -_ Va, OAK .4, - - 3694 37 14'. ptLm L L-1 I,- < I GRATE INLET-­' 3724 F '014D X35 16 GRATE EL - 37.17 tit INV EL 35.46 37v,9 37.43 X:3753 ^3763 376.1 :< PLANTER AREA 1SPHALF PPRI-114C `)'TOP� WOOD /7,TAA,11'_' YZ COMMERCIAL 3UILD!, . cz: 11. 117 7 7 FINGHL7,r) FLOC).R X3-129 0 D7 Lq .1 1374 1 f L EV A T/0N 5, -3. 2 1" 3498 ID A RK I N 35x0 ® Y EX FHA X3A P4 TR,,ffEPRE5ERVAT10N T-A-BL-f-I TREE ELEVATION TO I 1 1 TREE ELEVATION TO 141 O TREE BARRICADES * TREE AERATION (WANE 3000) CONCRETE ROOT PRUNE __N AREA INSIDE SOOT PROTECTION ZONE tRRICADES] 0M CANOPY REDUCTION 0 PALM TO BE RELOCATED Y1(_ ALL WORK INSIDE THE TREE BARRICADES, CANOPY DRIP LINES, AND/OR TREE CANOPY SHALL BE SUPERVISED /IMPLEMENTED BY AN ISA CERTIFIED ARBORIST. *111E PROTECTIONIPRESERVATION NOTES AND DETAILS ARE ON SHEET L1.2 +.345,1 SCALE: 1 =20' A" 20 0 10 40 20 NES Comm.:. 0731 Drawn By: N.E.A. FChecked By: H.G. Issue Date: 03/25/ Revisions: No. Date Description & 06/05/08 PER DRC z� z� z� o /, �L'i �la pia THIS DRAWING IS AN INSTRUMENT F D rft�041N. fW 'a ' C �PROPERTY OF THE ENGINEER, AND SHALL NOT BE KEP OD ED ffi EWSED IN *4 WAY WITHOUT F THE CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER*7 C)C RIOX200 NOT PUBLISHED No.474 3 1 UN 16 2008 RAM A. JOEL; D., P.E. # COPIES OF THESE PLANS ARE NOT VALID UNLESS EMBOSSED WITH THE SIGNING ENGINEER'S SEAL • v LL a 2- 1/2 "x2 -1/2 "0/2" ANGLE 4"x3/8 "0 ANCHOR STUD GRATE FRAME W /STUD. STEEL FRAME W/2 ANCHOR STUDS PER SIDE - EQUAL CENTERS. GALVANIZE AFTER FABRICATION ANCHOR STANDARD DETAIL CAST IRON RETICULINE GRATE TRAFFIC TYPE (HS -20 LOADING) W/2 SIDED GRATE SEAT 8" CONC. WALL 4000 PSI 0 28 DAYS #4 � 012" O.C.E.W. NOTE: t. CUT PIPE FLUSH w /INSDE FACE OF WALL. 2. MORTAR BOTTOM TO MATCH INVERT OF INLET DETAIL OUTFALL PIPE. N.T.S. TOP ELEV. 34.5 —3:1 SIDE SLOPE 42 BOTTOM ELEV. 31.0 NOTE: SAND BASED SOD SIDES & BOTTOM RETENTION BASIN DETAIL N.T.S. ASPHALT @ 1/4" 2" ANCHOR PER FT. MIN. T^-.-; " ? "- r EXCEPT AS NOTED SEE FDOT I10 201 I EACH PARKING MPI FOR EYE BOLT AND SPACE SHALL BE CONC, WALK rOWN F.D.O.T. CERTIFIED CHAIN COMPACTED TO DOWN 98% MAX. DENSITY °p AASHTO T -180 AND WHITE PAINT, SUBBASE k' •;; w. r.a 2- 1/2 "x2 -1/2 "0/2" ANGLE 4"x3/8 "0 ANCHOR STUD GRATE FRAME W /STUD. STEEL FRAME W/2 ANCHOR STUDS PER SIDE - EQUAL CENTERS. GALVANIZE AFTER FABRICATION ANCHOR STANDARD DETAIL CAST IRON RETICULINE GRATE TRAFFIC TYPE (HS -20 LOADING) W/2 SIDED GRATE SEAT 8" CONC. WALL 4000 PSI 0 28 DAYS #4 � 012" O.C.E.W. NOTE: t. CUT PIPE FLUSH w /INSDE FACE OF WALL. 2. MORTAR BOTTOM TO MATCH INVERT OF INLET DETAIL OUTFALL PIPE. N.T.S. TOP ELEV. 34.5 —3:1 SIDE SLOPE 42 BOTTOM ELEV. 31.0 NOTE: SAND BASED SOD SIDES & BOTTOM RETENTION BASIN DETAIL N.T.S. N.T.S. NEW SURFACE (SEE NOTES 1 & 2) =EXIST, SURFACE LnIJI. JVf�r nl.L VARIES REPAIR OF PAVEMENT NOTES: 1. ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT SHALL BE MECHANICALLY SAWED AND ALL SURFACES TACK COATED. 2. SURFACE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING SURFACE AND THICKNESS; WITH MIN, OF 1 -1/2" ASPHALT F.D.O.T. MEETING CURRENT FDOT STANDARDS. 3. BASE MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED IN 6" COMPACTED LAYERS TO 98% OF MAXIMUM DENSITY AS DETERMINED BY AASHTO T -180, LAB REPORTS ARE REQUIRED. 4, BACKFILL FOR TRENCH SHALL BE PLACED IN 12" COMPACTED LAYERS TO 100% OF MAXIMUM DENSITY AS DETERMINED BY AASHTO T -99, LAB REPORTS ARE REQUIRED. REPAIR OF PAVEMENT CUTS N.T.S. PAF MO 6Y OIBABI.® Few OILY a2aa � NOTE: ALUMINUM 6r�J u NEW ASPHALT AND BASE -� lur vlr_vv 4:1 '�.. S .. SADDLE 6x6, 10x10 W.W.M. 6" ' '� #4 BAR 6 3000 PSI CONCRETE SIDE VIEW MITERED END SECTION DETAIL N.T.S. SEE PLAN P/L PLACE SOD 1/2" BELOW PAVEMENT FIN. GRADE PRIOR i TO SODDING POSITIVE DRAINAGE (4:1 MAX) MEET EX. COMPACTED GROUND P/L SEE PLAN PLACE SOD 1/2" BELOW PAVEMENT FIN. GRADE PRIOR NEW ASPHALT TO SODDING AND BASE POSITIVE DRAINAGE (4:1 MAX) MEET EX. - ,- .,�,ti;,.: •, .,.,,,.,.� ±.; .r`;'.,' : /\ \ \Vnm/ /ins / /in,. n, nu- lur_uu _un_- mi= uu -c11 COMPACTED GROUND GROUND TRANSITION AT THE PROPERTY LINE N.T.S. -� MEDIUM BROOM FINISH CONC. WALK FINISH GRADE TO 1" BELOW EDGE OF WALK 2' LEVEL 2' LEVEL SHOULDER VARIES (SEE PLAN) SHOULDER SOD SLOPE 1/4" PER FOOT SOD 4-1 III -III IIII =1111= IIII =III I COMPACTED FILL OR UNDISTURBED SOIL NOTE: WHEN SIDEWALK IS PROVIDE 1/4" TO BE REMOVED & /OR CONTROL JOINTS NEW SIDEWALK IS TO p 4'0. C., 5' O.C., BE ADDED, IT IS TO BE REMOVED TO THE 8' O.C., OR 12' O.C. NEAREST EXPANSION & 1/2" BITUMINOUS JOINT. EXPANSION JOINTS 0 40' D.C. FOR 4' SIDEWALKS, 50' O.C. FOR 5' OR GREATER. CONCRETE WALK DETAIL ASPHALT @ 1/4" BLDG. TO 3" PER FT. MIN. T^-.-; " ? "- r EXCEPT AS NOTED ..e. STOP EACH PARKING MPI BLUE SPACE SHALL BE CONC, WALK rOWN F.D.O.T. CERTIFIED CONSPICUOUSLY COMPACTED TO DOWN 98% MAX. DENSITY °p AASHTO T -180 AND WHITE PAINT, SUBBASE k' •;; w. r.a STABILIZED 40 L. B. R. ? COMPACTED TO ■ ■ ;,:,' 98% MAX. DENSITY 'm =I =_ AASHTO T -180 IN R.O.W. + DRIVEWAY SECTION N.T.S. NEW SURFACE (SEE NOTES 1 & 2) =EXIST, SURFACE LnIJI. JVf�r nl.L VARIES REPAIR OF PAVEMENT NOTES: 1. ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT SHALL BE MECHANICALLY SAWED AND ALL SURFACES TACK COATED. 2. SURFACE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING SURFACE AND THICKNESS; WITH MIN, OF 1 -1/2" ASPHALT F.D.O.T. MEETING CURRENT FDOT STANDARDS. 3. BASE MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED IN 6" COMPACTED LAYERS TO 98% OF MAXIMUM DENSITY AS DETERMINED BY AASHTO T -180, LAB REPORTS ARE REQUIRED. 4, BACKFILL FOR TRENCH SHALL BE PLACED IN 12" COMPACTED LAYERS TO 100% OF MAXIMUM DENSITY AS DETERMINED BY AASHTO T -99, LAB REPORTS ARE REQUIRED. REPAIR OF PAVEMENT CUTS N.T.S. PAF MO 6Y OIBABI.® Few OILY a2aa � NOTE: ALUMINUM 6r�J u NEW ASPHALT AND BASE -� lur vlr_vv 4:1 '�.. S .. SADDLE 6x6, 10x10 W.W.M. 6" ' '� #4 BAR 6 3000 PSI CONCRETE SIDE VIEW MITERED END SECTION DETAIL N.T.S. SEE PLAN P/L PLACE SOD 1/2" BELOW PAVEMENT FIN. GRADE PRIOR i TO SODDING POSITIVE DRAINAGE (4:1 MAX) MEET EX. COMPACTED GROUND P/L SEE PLAN PLACE SOD 1/2" BELOW PAVEMENT FIN. GRADE PRIOR NEW ASPHALT TO SODDING AND BASE POSITIVE DRAINAGE (4:1 MAX) MEET EX. - ,- .,�,ti;,.: •, .,.,,,.,.� ±.; .r`;'.,' : /\ \ \Vnm/ /ins / /in,. n, nu- lur_uu _un_- mi= uu -c11 COMPACTED GROUND GROUND TRANSITION AT THE PROPERTY LINE N.T.S. -� MEDIUM BROOM FINISH CONC. WALK FINISH GRADE TO 1" BELOW EDGE OF WALK 2' LEVEL 2' LEVEL SHOULDER VARIES (SEE PLAN) SHOULDER SOD SLOPE 1/4" PER FOOT SOD 4-1 III -III IIII =1111= IIII =III I COMPACTED FILL OR UNDISTURBED SOIL NOTE: WHEN SIDEWALK IS PROVIDE 1/4" TO BE REMOVED & /OR CONTROL JOINTS NEW SIDEWALK IS TO p 4'0. C., 5' O.C., BE ADDED, IT IS TO BE REMOVED TO THE 8' O.C., OR 12' O.C. NEAREST EXPANSION & 1/2" BITUMINOUS JOINT. EXPANSION JOINTS 0 40' D.C. FOR 4' SIDEWALKS, 50' O.C. FOR 5' OR GREATER. CONCRETE WALK DETAIL 6 SIGN BLDG. TO 3" X6' WHEEL STOP W /HOLE TO ..e. STOP EACH PARKING MPI BLUE SPACE SHALL BE CONC, WALK rOWN ELEV.: 33.0 CONSPICUOUSLY 2 - #5 � DRIVEN DOWN STRIPED IN BLUE °p STOP TO COMPACTED AND WHITE PAINT, y d' k' •;; w. r.a AND SHALL BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED WITH A PAVING ? ■ ■ ;,:,' PERMANENT, ABOVE- 'm =I =_ -� — 111- 7111 =1 GRADE SIGN BEARING - I- COMPACTED THE INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL OF ACCESSIBILLITY AND THE CAPTION SEE, 1'2' 5,� 1'2� "PARKING BY DISABLED PERMIT ONLY ". SITE E LAN - SUCH SIGNS SHALL NOT 2-1/2' FROM EDGE 2• BE OBSCURED BY A HC g» g» VEHICLE PARKED IN THE SYMBOL 1--I i--I 6" 6" SPACE. ALL HANDICAPPED 1� I F-I PARKING SPACES MUST 3 m = �o a� m� 3 BE SIGNED &MARKED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ONLY 2 k' THE STANDARDS - 2 ADOPTED BY THE BORDER MADE AT INITIAL CONIC. DEPARTMENT OF POURING TRANSPORTATION 4. SIGN TO BE MADE OF AND A.D.A. HANDICAP PARKING STRIPING DETAIL N.T.S. WHITE N.T.S. SYMBOL SHALL BE 5 FT. HIGH & WHITE PAINT COLOR HANDICAPPED PAVEMENT SYMBOL N.T.S. GROUT TOP OF HOLE EXIST. SURFACE SAW -CUT EXIST. EDGE OF PAVEMENT & BASE NEW SURFACE EXIST. BASE NEW BASE NEW SUBBASE PAVEMENT TRANSITION DETAIL N.T.S. ASPHALT @ 1/4" PER FT. MIN, �._. __?• =^�, EXCEPT AS NOTED 1�1i= := 111!_=fl� I,== 11j;-= -1111 =_ 1111-1111 —I I . I- - LIMEROCK BASE F.D.O.T, CERTIFIED COMPACTED TO 98% MAX. DENSITY AASHTO T -180 SUBBASE COMPACTED TO 98% MAX. DENSITY AASHTO T -180 ON SITE PARKING + DRIVEWAY SECTION N.T.S. F ROOF DRAIN FIN. GROUND UTILITY (i.e. SANITARY SEWER, WATER SERVICE, FIRE LINE OR STORM DRAIN) BY SITE CONTRACTOR TO 5' FROM BLDG. UTILITY WITHIN 5' OF BLDG. BY PLUMBING CONTRACTOR. FINAL CONNECTION BY PLUMBING CONTRACTOR UNLESS OTHERWISE COORDINATED BY THE G.C. UTILITY CONNECTION AT ALL BUILDINGS N.T.S. 6' LONG PRECAST BLDG. TO 3" CONCRETE WHEEL FIN, FLOOR ELEVATION STOP W /HOLE TO 7 -1/2" ACCEPT #6 � MAX. SLOPE "FOR A SNUG FIT 8 BLUE FROM EACH END 3„ ELEV.: 33.0 2 - #5 � DRIVEN III SHT C1.2) THROUGH WHEEL °p STOP TO COMPACTED SUBBASE AND SYMBOL 5-1/2" PAVING ? -, " BASE 'm =I =_ -� — 111- 7111 =1 1 I fi - I- COMPACTED SUBBASE i =! NOTE: LOCATE WHEEL STOP DISAE EM-ED 2-1/2' FROM EDGE 2• OF PAVEMENT TO WHITE CENTER OF WHEEL STOP. WHEEL STOP DETAIL N.T.S. REFLECTIVE SHEETING EXIST. SURFACE SAW -CUT EXIST. EDGE OF PAVEMENT & BASE NEW SURFACE EXIST. BASE NEW BASE NEW SUBBASE PAVEMENT TRANSITION DETAIL N.T.S. ASPHALT @ 1/4" PER FT. MIN, �._. __?• =^�, EXCEPT AS NOTED 1�1i= := 111!_=fl� I,== 11j;-= -1111 =_ 1111-1111 —I I . I- - LIMEROCK BASE F.D.O.T, CERTIFIED COMPACTED TO 98% MAX. DENSITY AASHTO T -180 SUBBASE COMPACTED TO 98% MAX. DENSITY AASHTO T -180 ON SITE PARKING + DRIVEWAY SECTION N.T.S. F ROOF DRAIN FIN. GROUND UTILITY (i.e. SANITARY SEWER, WATER SERVICE, FIRE LINE OR STORM DRAIN) BY SITE CONTRACTOR TO 5' FROM BLDG. UTILITY WITHIN 5' OF BLDG. BY PLUMBING CONTRACTOR. FINAL CONNECTION BY PLUMBING CONTRACTOR UNLESS OTHERWISE COORDINATED BY THE G.C. UTILITY CONNECTION AT ALL BUILDINGS N.T.S. N.T.S. F 2„ 5" I--I „ 1 I I I I I I I 12" 1•I I N � I I I 16" -- �' 4 9 2„ 10" GREASE BAFFLE TO BE 1/4" THICK ALUMINUM w /STAINLESS STEEL ANCHORS SLOT + GREASE BAFFLE DETAIL N.T.S. FILL GROUND 12" BLDG. TO 3" BELOW FIN, FLOOR ELEVATION FTP -25 1 -1/2 "R MAX. SLOPE 4:1 F BLUE 2% 1/2" WIDE ELEV.: 33.0 BACKGROUND III SHT C1.2) WHITE BORDER °p INV, ELEV.: 30.0 = 6" PVC PERF. AND SYMBOL 0 ::?6 PIPE W/ SOCK SIGN SPECAFICATIONS 00 INV. ELEV. 30.0 1 18 "x12" LOGO SIGN PARKWG BY • CONTROL STRUCTURE DISAE EM-ED N.T.S. 2• 2 SIGN COMBINATION WHITE OF 0.20 CM /SEC 1" SERIES "C" REFLECTIVE SHEETING BACKGROUND P AGGREGATE. (SEE SPECIFICATIONS SHEET C1.2) UNDERDRAIN DETAIL ONLY 1 /2 "E BLACK 3. LETTERS TO BE PER FDOT INDEX 304 BORDER MADE AT INITIAL CONIC. 1" HIGH SERIES C POURING CURB /i 4. SIGN TO BE MADE OF $255 FINE 1 " ALUMINUM WHITE BACKGROUND 5 OF HANDICAP RAMP DETAIL F.S. 318.18 1 G�LVANIOZEDESMEDL N.T.S. (SEE DETAIL) 3" 6" 3" 6. SIGNAGE PER A.D.A. FTP - 55 REQUIREMENTS HANDICAP PARKING SIGN DETAIL N.T.S. F 2„ 5" I--I „ 1 I I I I I I I 12" 1•I I N � I I I 16" -- �' 4 9 2„ 10" GREASE BAFFLE TO BE 1/4" THICK ALUMINUM w /STAINLESS STEEL ANCHORS SLOT + GREASE BAFFLE DETAIL N.T.S. FILL GROUND AROUND BLDG. TO 3" BELOW FIN, FLOOR ELEVATION & SOD GREASE SKIMMER MAX. SLOPE 4:1 F MIN, SLOPE 2% GROUND PREPARATION AT ALL BUILDINGS N.T.S. Ilil 4 COMPACTED FILLI I I I -1 -II I OR UNDISTURBED -_- SOIL III CONCRETE I I 6 CURB /WALK N.T.S. FINISHED GROUND FINISH GRADE TO I" BELOW EDGE OF WALK MEDIUM BROOM FINISH CONC. WALK EXPANSION JOINT �— 1-1/2" RADIUS VERTICAL CURB 6„ PAVING BASE COMPACTED SUBBASE (I NOTE: PROVIDE 1/4" CONTROL JOINTS 4'0.C., 5' O.C., 8' O.C., OR 12' 0.C. & 1/2" BITUMINOUS EXPANSION JOINTS 40' O.C. FOR 4' SIDEWALKS, 50' O.C. FOR 5' OR GREATER. DETAIL r 3' -1" A NON TRAFFIC GRATE `L ELEV,: 34,0 8" MASONRY OR APPROVED R.C. GREASE SKIMMER PREFAB (SEE DETAIL) �� - -,,; ,r •� BOTTOM OF SLOT Ill ELEV.: 33.0 Ea III SHT C1.2) 15 RCP °p INV, ELEV.: 30.0 = 6" PVC PERF. 0 ::?6 PIPE W/ SOCK INV. ELEV. 30.0 f' ulsul =nls IMPERVIOUS 6" UNDERDRAIN INV. ELEV: 30.0 CONTROL STRUCTURE N.T.S. PLACE CONC. SLAB /WALK 4" BELOW FLOOR ELEV. EXCEPT AT DOORS REMAIN FLUSH. EXPANSION JOINT SLOPE AT 1/4" PER FOOT 10:1 MAX. SLOPE SOD NOTES: 1. PROVIDE 5'x5'x4" THICK CONC. SLAB 0 ALL EMERGENCY EXITS. 2. CONFORM TO ABOVE DETAIL FOR PLACING WALKS AT THE SLOGS, PLACEMENT OF CONCRETE SLAB AT ALL BUILDINGS N.T.S. PLACE SOD 1/2" BELOW PAVEMENT NEW ASPHALT FIN. GRADE PRIOR AND BASE TO SODDING POSITIVE DRAINAGE COMPACTED GROUND PLACEMENT OF SOD AT PAVEMENT N.T.S. GRADE SAND BASED SOD SIDES & BOTTOM TOP ELEV. 34.5 III- III -III_ Revisions: No. Date Description 3'5' IMPERVIOUS BOTTOM MEMBRANE (30 MIL) =m _n1= Ill �� - -,,; ,r •� FILTER MEDIUM ,, _;;= (SEE SPECS. ' -, '; ,� '•; 2• = Ill Ea III SHT C1.2) iii _ °p = = 6" PVC PERF. 0 ::?6 PIPE W/ SOCK INV. ELEV. 30.0 nrur- w= ulsul =nls IMPERVIOUS MEMBRANE 3" MIN. LAYER 3 SIDES & ENDS 3/4" WASHED GRAVEL (30 MIL) FILTER FABRIC W /PERMEABILITY COEF. OF 0.20 CM /SEC NOTE: NEITHER #57 ROCK NOR FILTER MEDIA SHALL BE COMPRISED OF LIMESTONE, LIMEROCK OR OTHER CALCIUM CARBONATE AGGREGATE. (SEE SPECIFICATIONS SHEET C1.2) UNDERDRAIN DETAIL N.T.S. TRUNCATED DOMES PER FDOT INDEX 304 MADE AT INITIAL CONIC. POURING CURB /i b. .: .. ........:.::....... . :...:::...... 000 °a °00o , • . ;: %=° ° ° °O0°° [kN FLUSH CURB HANDICAP RAMP DETAIL cul�6 N.T.S. Z WATER MAIN OR STORM DRAIN 18" MIN. VERTICAL CLEARANCE GRADE --- - - - - -- -SAN SEWER 1° z GRADE " WATER � � � � \ P�� MAIN 10' 10, POW + V)z MLY WATER MAIN OR 10 MIN, STORM DRAIN D.I.P. IS USED IN PLACE OF P.V.C. I°'# HORIZONTAL CLEARANCE FOR A MIN. OF 10' EACH WAY m Pm e + FROM (� OF WATER MAIN WHEN STORM SEWER + THE VERTICAL CLEARANCE BETWEEN GALVANIZED METAL OR SAN. SEWER �� —� WATER &SEWER MAINS IS 18" OR LESS, SIGN POST WITH 3/8" GRAVITY MAIN 18" OR MORE VERTICAL CL HOLES DRILLED ON 1' CENTERS HORIZONTAL CLEARANCE gum r.' 1 "DROP 000 PSI CONC. L , N 4 ' 12" SIGN POST DETAIL N.T.S. L P.V.C. OR V.C.P. NOTE: SAN. SEWER GRAVITY MAIN CONCRETE ENCASEMENT OF SANITARY SEWER GRAVITY VERTICAL CLEARANCE MAIN IS NOT PERMITTED. WATER MAIN -I- SANITARY SEWER CLEARANCES N.T.S. - — FLUSH CURB FLUSH CURB RAMP DETAIL CURB N.T.S. CURB NES Comm.: 0731 Drawn By: N.E.A. Checked By: H.G. Issue Date: 03/25/00 Revisions: No. Date Description &06/05/08 0 t4 PER DRC ,0 0 �J 1 1.,i - r 116 �0 Ea A = T_ 0 NES Comm.: 0731 Drawn By: N.E.A. Checked By: H.G. Issue Date: 03/25/00 Revisions: No. Date Description &06/05/08 PER DRC 0 0 A 0 J J W D N J THIS DRAWING IS AN INSTRUMENT • F,6F 2�I ANl7 SHb ~ Ik THE PROPERTY OF THE ENGINEER, AND SHALL NOT BE RODUGM, °t H L1R US6p�.IN ANY WAY WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER .1 \ �' q! Y QHT 20,08 NOT PUBLISHED t1a A7431 JUN 16 2008 m � • 4 RAM A: GAEL, Ph. D., P.E. 431 COPIES OF THESE PLANS ARE NOT VALID UNLESS EMBOSSED WITH THE SIGNING ENGINEER'S SEAL A 0 o o 0 0 0 0 py o 0 ice Top View Approved Backflow X Ford Meter Flange Prevention DevidElanged) Ford Angle Valve(Flanged) Flow Brass Nipple Meter (F(anged) L c � � o C4 -P 0 In 12" c� TYPICAL SINGLE DEVICEI 112" and 2' MODELS NOTE: Device dust be installed level. CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA )K APPROVED R.P. DEVICES )K APPROVED DOUBLE -CHECK VALVES PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION ENGINEERING Hersey -Beeco Model FRP II Hersey -Beeco Model FDC REDMvUn�eY TYPICAL METER SETS W 02%94 Watts Model 909 or 009 Watts Model 709 or 007 CHECKED BY BACKFLOW PREVENTERS IND405o. Conbraco 40200 Conbraco 40100 DESIGNED BY 1 1/2' and 2' MODELS REV. DAZE DESCRIPTION APP. 2 OF 5 STANDARD CAST IRON MANHOLE GRADE ELEVATION CITY OR FRAME AND COVER, SEE NOTE 8-1 �� COUNTY ilfir r _iil-= ilr= ill.fii= yak NAME 2 TO 4 COURSES SANITARY OF CLAY BRICK PLASTERED WITH 1/2" "A" o o SEWER PORTLAND CEMENT e o 5 /8,.R COAL TAR EPDXY w TYPE 1 20 -3/4 TYPE 122 -3/4' IN AND OUT, SEE NOTE 4 W o TYPE II 32 TYPE II 34 -1/8' U => C' 0 Li PIPE BEDDING TO SLOPE U (nn ``' TYPE 13s' MACHINED GROUT I -� V -0" ABOVE TOP 6, x ROU o f TYPE II 40-1/2' SURFACES OF LATERAL SEWER -- - -- - Lu RING DETAIL COVER DETAIL I a. Op 00 N COVER AND RING NOTES: UNDISTURBED SOIL--' 1. TYPE I RING USED WHEN DIAMETER OF :• TTTT ,- LARGEST PIPE IN STRUCTURE IS 24" c, �,I ITI - -rI -• I= r -CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE OR LESS. RING AND COVER TO BE U.S. FLEXIBLE WATERTIGHT c, BASE W / #5 ® 9" O.C.B.W. FOUNDRY CAT. #485 -G OR EQUAL. MANHOLE SLEEVES NPl MIN 6" COARSE AGGREGATE 2. TYPE II RING USED WHEN DIAMETER OF COMPACTED F.D.O.T, #56 LARGEST PIPE IN STRUCTURE IS 27" SUBGRADE OR MORE. RING AND COVER TO BE U.S. "A" 24" DIA. FOR INLET FOUNDRY CAT, #655 -U OR EQUAL. PIPES 8" TO 27" DIA, 3. MANHOLE RING SURFACES IN CONTACT 32" DIA. FOR INLET _ PREFORMED RAM -NEK WITH COVER SHALL BE MACHINED PIPES 30" AND LARGER, JOINT SEALING COMPOUND SMOOTH. SEE NOTE 8. Z(OR APPROVED EQUAL). "B" VARIES, SEE NOTE 7. MANHOLE BARREL JOINT DETAIL "C" 8" OR 12 ", SEE NOTE 7. (SEE NOTE 2) APPROXIMATE WEIGHTS -LBS. 6" -1 TYPE I TYPE II RING 240 230 COVER 130 260 TOTAL 370 490 NOTES AND SPECIFICATIONS: 1. ALL PIPE STUBS FROM MANHOLES FOR FUTURE CONNECTIONS SHALL BE PRO- VIDED WITH WATERTIGHT PLUGS PLACED WITHIN THE MANHOLE. 2. MANHOLE SHALL CONSIST OF A MINIMUM NUMBER OF PRECAST SECTIONS, AS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. 3. SHALLOW TYPE MANHOLES WITH DEPTHS BETWEEN 4' -0" AND 5' -0" MAY BE CONSTRUCTED OF BRICK WITH A 4' -0" INSIDE DIAMETER AND CONE, OR A FLAT SLAB TOP. MANHOLES WITH DEPTHS LESS THAN 4' -0" WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. 4. A COAL TAR EPDXY PROTECTIVE COATING, EQUAL TO KOPPERS 300 M, SHALL BE APPLIED TO THE FILLETS AND WALLS OF PRECAST CONCRETE SANITARY SEWER MANHOLES. 2 COATS SHALL BE APPLIED TO THE INSIDE TO YIELD A FINAL DRY THICKNESS OF 9 MILS, AND 1 COAT SHALL BE APPLIED TO THE OUTSIDE. 5. MANHOLES SHALL CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM SPECIFICATION C -478, EXCEPT AS NOTED. 6. A DROP MANHOLE SHALL BE REQUIRED WHEN THE INVERT OF ANY INCOMING PIPE IS MORE THAN 2 FEET ABOVE THE INVERT OF THE MANHOLE. 7. A) 8" To 24" DIA. PIPE: 4' -0" MIN. INSIDE DIA. MANHOLE, 8" THICK. B 27" TO 36" DIA. PIPE: 5' -0" MIN. INSIDE DIA. MANHOLE, 12" THICK. C� 42" TO 48" DIA. PIPE: 6' -0" MIN. INSIDE DIA. MANHOLE, 12" THICK. 8. A) 8" TO 24" DIA. PIPE: RING SHALL HAVE A 20 -3/4" OPENING, EQUAL TO U.S. FOUNDRY CAT. 485 -G. B) 30" AND LARGER DIA. PIPE: RING SHALL HAVE A 32" OPENING, EQUAL TO U.S. FOUNDRY CAT. 655 -U. 9. MANHOLE COVER SHALL BE CENTERED IN MANHOLE. PRECAST SANITARY MANHOLE DETAIL N.T.S. Tapped Plug END CONNECTION NOTES: 1.) WALLS a.) New construction: maximum 6' -0' high and constructed of concrete block (8"x8 "06 "). Materials used should be consistent with those used in the construction of and architectural style of the principal building. (Section 3 -802 Materials) b.) Existing: maximum 6' -0' high replacement materials can be made of the same materials as long as they are made of approved opaque material. 2.) FOOTINGS 8 "x16" concrete w /2- #5 continuous rebar imbedded. 3.) CONCRETE SLAB Monolithic, min. 6' thickness w /imbedded 6'x6 " / 1000 welded wire fabric (W.W.F.), 3000 P.S.I. with fiber mesh reinforcing. 4.) CONCRETE FILLED CELLS With 1 - #5 vertical rebar tied to footer steel at each corner and every 4' O.C. 5.) GATES Constructed of min. 1 -1/2" diameter galvanized tubulcr steel w /privacy -type slats inserted in galvanized steel mesh fabric, hinge- mounted on min. 3" diameter galvanized steel post, (Gates and post constructed and installed per applicable building code by licensed fence contractor). 6.) DROP PIN 1/2" dia. 18" long metal rod gate latch. Provide 3/4" dia. hole 6" into concrete for rods. In asphalt provide o 3/4' P.V.C. sleeve, 6" long, or equal. 7.) SOIL Sail bearing capacity to be at least 2,500 P.S.F. OFF 2' Ball Valve_'� P Hose Bibb -'­*_ � 3/4' Galvanized 2' Galvanize 2' CorporatiO4_1__� Tapping Saddle - I I TOP CONNECTION CONCRETE MASONRY WALL CONSTRUCTION Materials, construction and quantity control of masonry shall be in accordance with Uniform Building Code (UBC), Chapter 24. General conditions and construction requirements shall be applied as specified in UBC, Section 2404 (f), during grouted masonry work. 1. All reinforcing steel shall be deformed bars conforming to ASTM A -615, Grade 60. Vertical reinforcement shall be placed in the center of the masonry cell, and shall be held In position at the top and bottom. 2. If a slab dowel does not line -up with a vertical core, it shall not be sloped more than one horizontal in six verticals (1 :6). 3. Horizontal wall reinforcement shall be standard truss type DUR -O -WALL (or equivalent) of 16' o.c.. 4. Hollow Load - bearing Concrete Masonry Units shall be normal weight Conforming to ASTM C -90, with a minimum compressive strength of 1,900 PSI. 5. Mortar shall be type M or S. in accordance with ASTM C -270. Place all masonry in running bond with 3/8" mortar joints. Provide complete coverage face shell mortar bedding, horizontal and vertical. 6. Coarse grout shall conform to ASTM C -476, with a maximum aggregate size of 3/8 ", 8" to 10" slump, and a minimum compressive str• ngth of 2,500 PSI at 28 days. 7. Minimum 3" X 3" clean -out holes (sow -cut) ore required at the bottom course of all cells to verify grout placement. Clean -outs shall be sealed after masonry inspection - provided in accordance with ACI 531 -4.6, and before grouting. 8. Prior to grouting, the grout space shall be clean, with nn mortar projections greater the M", mortar droppings or other foreign material. All cells shall be in vertical alignment, and shall solidly be filled with coarse grout as specified. 9. During placing, grout shall be consolidated with flexible cable vibrator. First grout pour shall be stopped a minimum of 1 - 1/2" below the top of the middle bond beam masonry. TYPICAL EIRE HYDRANT SETTING n.t,s, ONLY APPROVED Varies I Valve 1v Connecting Piece w /integrally I `-Restraining Joint (Typ,) cast Mech, Joint Gland on one End -D,L Rotatable Mech, Joint Gland on Other End. NOTES: 1. All Fire Hydrants to have 5 1/4' Valve Seat. 2. See Index # 407 for Jack & Bore Details. Kennedy Guardian No. K -81A Muller Centurian No. A -423 U.S. Pipe Metropolitan Valve Box Tapping Sleeve & Valve By City, Fee by Owner or Contractor Exist, Water Main A CLEAN ❑UT PLUG CHARLOTTE Pipe And Foundry Corlpa Part No. 106 Or Equal Concrete Pad 8'--J Thick x 1' -6' So. See NOTE For Traffic Bearing Cover. A FEMALE ADAPTER CHARLOTTE Pipe And Foundry Company 'art No. 101 Or Equal Plug TERMINAL CLEAN ❑UT DETAIL N.T,S. ZL NOTE; Cleanout Plug Cover To Be U.S. Foundry 7623 Or Equal, 0 14" Tie bears with 2 - #5 rebar continuous 12' s wing gate clearance min �(typ,) l drop pin =JJ1 E (typ.) 1 - #5 at 4' center 8 14' " -8 6" -1 06/05/08 - - -- --------------- - - - - -T 3000 p,s,i. concrete slab - 8'x 16' concrete with fiber mesh reinforcing footing I6' dia. Steel I thickness, 6'x6'/ 10x10 • I bollards I j cone. Filled (typ ELEVATION 0 N. T. S. Al I C I a� I I _a. ., I o 0 48" I 12 m I I �D (n I Max I clearance min. I Gr I 00 I Ln LL. swing gate 4' I I I (typ.) Min. I I II-- I - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- I I I � PLAN • N.T.S. drop pin hole (typ,) 0 14" Tie bears with 2 - #5 rebar continuous 12' s wing gate clearance min �(typ,) l drop pin =JJ1 E (typ.) 1 - #5 at 4' center 8 Revisions: No. Date Description 6" -1 06/05/08 PER DRC 3000 p,s,i. concrete slab - 8'x 16' concrete with fiber mesh reinforcing footing LAS - monolithic, min 6' w/ 2- #5 rebar ar Ctyp.) thickness, 6'x6'/ 10x10 LU W.W.F. •i ELEVATION 0 N. T. S. Al Finish grade to R/W allow 0,4' min,, 1,0' max. fall from property line to O Cur Minimum 36' Behind Back Of Curb Or Edge of Paverle 36" sidewalk SECTION c l e a no u Double -Sweep Tee�� CITY OWNED AND MAINTAINED ervice Lateral 30 " -36' or as Directed by the City HOMEOWNER OWNED _ AND MAINTAINED ANY VARIANCE MUST HAVE WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE CITY ENGINEER. fNES Comm.: 0731 FD rawn By: N.E.A. Checked By: H.G. Issue Date: 03/25/08 Revisions: No. Date Description 1Q 06/05/08 PER DRC LU LAS LU •i 0 Al Cq fNES Comm.: 0731 FD rawn By: N.E.A. Checked By: H.G. Issue Date: 03/25/08 Revisions: No. Date Description 1Q 06/05/08 PER DRC LU 0 LU •i 0 Al IIJ � I W! i 1 i W' i i 1 J THIS DRAWING IS AN INSTRUMENT OF �ErIAt5df5HAL1 REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ENGINEER, AND SHALL NOT BE REP GED (?UB DISHED' bR, USED IN ANY WAY WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE ENGIN ER,�g4 ' r� •� e .;(;CjCOPYRIGHT 2008 NOT PUBLISHED 1 6 2Q08 l+io.� 43' RAIM A JOEL, P.E. 04743 COPIES•`O1w YHESE PLANS ARE NOT VALID UNLESS EMBOSED INJp.TF�67SIGNING ENGINEER'S SEAL 902 LU LU •i Cq Ln LL. rn %. ' 1 ._ Sn 62 • _ ._ LL fir' LLQ • • vi ' <� 902 4 A I � SANITARY MANFIOLE RIM EL = 35.24 9 W. INV EL =- .',1.86 N. INV EL =- 31.8-3, - , f5 I f I E INV EL 31 36 -- -� -INd EL = 3183 ML PA „°-' - - - r yr 1 ! y v11d E;�j{, �EXISrING 8" SAN- I E �` ✓ � . EX. M � / g� O U LATERAL �77 ¢Y •L W W �I Ly a"v r DA- - EWI IING 8" C.I. iNAIER ^ 25 P 2 ML 1� CT 5G ® F-3&—] LE ~10 LE W o i; 12,A RA I__-- - - - -_- �^y�i ' tai I 49 I ",' �. 39 LE —I� � '� SG 3 i .•.yv �i � ,�- I J C5 In. nA• k3 i � 1 r4• I' PONO - I II t :J -' 0 q I � i- 1 1 ;_UTAE { ALLEN (P) MAGNOLIA DRIVE(F) SIORM MANH0U: • I TRIM EL = 34. 7F l2 %' .ASPHAL 1) E IN', EL = 50.55 CURF3 INLET RIM EL =3:15 S INV FL = '•2.25 E INV EL = 32.13 INYFRT == 30 4E I I I O {- i �� O O i \ p 190 I TK /�- ASPHALI PARKIN(', c,F�A rL .!4!- i N 89 °48'45 " Et \ c e, 4 6.05 -2, nth I w G. a J Ww' W Z _B tl_L.ARIIS o p (TlPICAL) RETENTION POND f.L WY W y'z FAINT 5N f (Trr) 22' ASPIIAL.1 a 2'c;uRo i DLO V { I 128 I TREE TABULATION TABLE 47 TREES INVENTORIED ON SITE (NOT INCLUDING 9 WAS HINGTOIA PALMS) 3/30/05 Revisions: No. Date Description TREE INVENTORY NUMBER 10 PALMS PROPOSED TO BE RELOCATED 1 SABAL( #23) & 9 WASHINTONIA 0 } 35 TREES RATED 2.5 OR LESS ON INVENTORY 1- 6,942,14- 17,19 -22 ,24,28- 28,31,32,34 - 38,38 - 40,43 -47 PLANT SCHEDULE :,e 10 PROTECTED TREES TO BE REMOVED 7,8,13,18,25,29,33,37,41,42 (PALMS DEFICIT AT 2.5 "DBH EA.) 1 TREE TO BE PRESERVED (10 PALMS RE -LOC) PLANT 5CHEDULE 10 PROTECTED REMOVED 121 TOTAL TREES PROTECTED' = 48% REMOVED OR 52 %RETAINED 184 TOTAL INCHES REMOVED (DEFICIT INCHES) 192 TOTAL INCHES PROPOSED TREES INSTALLED (not Including anypafms proposed or relocated) PROPOSED INSTALLED PALMS 3/1 CREDIT WITH A HEIGHT OF 10'CT (FOXTAILS PROPOSED ARE I0'CTTRIPLES) 14 SABALS + 10 PINDO = 23 2413 = 8 + 10 FOXTAIL TRIPLES =18 X 2.5 = 45 "CREDIT 192 f 45 = 237 CREDIT -184 DEF /C /T = f53 "CREDIT (INCL UDED IN TABULA TIONARE THE PINDO PALMS PROPOSED FOR PLANTING IN THE CITY RIGHT -OF -WAY) SHRUBS QTY BOTANICAL COMMON CONT FIELD2 DETAIL REMARKS TREE5 CODE QTY — BOTANICAL COMMON CONT CAL — SIZE DETAIL REMARKS CB 54 Conocarpus erectus sericeus 511ver Buttonwood 3 gal 24 "oa CQ 33 Crinum augustum 'Queen Emma' 'Queen Emma' Crmum 15 gal 48" 2/1-1 .2 CF 4 Cassia fl5tula Golden Shower 45 gal 2 "Cal 8'ct / DB 5G Dlanella tasmanica 'BIUShy' Varigated Flax Lily I gal 14" 2/1- I .2 1 12 Ilex vomitoria ' Pendula' Weeping Yaupon Holly 30 gal 2 "Cal 5'oa HC 219 Hamelia patens 'Compacta' Dwarf Scarlet Bush 3 gal 24110a 2/1- 1.2 LE 539 briope mu5cari 'Emerald Goddess' briope I gal 14" LM 8 Lagerstroemia indica 'Muskogee' Multi- Trunked Muskogee Crape Myrtle 30 gal 2 "Cal 8'oa I /LI .2 M5 2G2 Myrcianthes fragrans 5impson'5 Stopper 3 gal 24 "oa Li 12 Ligustrum,laponicum Japanese Privet 45 gal 2 "Cal 8'oa ULI .2 NM 28 Nephrolepis biserrata 'Macho Fern' Macho Fern 3 gal 18" "Cal NP 54 Nerlum oleander 'Petite Pink' Petite Pink Oleander 3 gal 24 "oa 2/1- 1 .2 QV 10 Quercus virginiana Southern Live Oak G5 gal 4 14' -I G' 1 /LI .2 t ML 153 Plectranthug - 'Mona Lavander' Mona Lavander 3 gal 14" TD 19 Taxodium distichum Bald Cypress G5 gal 4 "Cal 14' -1 G' 1/1-1 .2 PM I I Podocarpus macrophyllus Yew Pine 3 gal 24 "oa WL 1 .2 RA 170 Rhaphiolepis indica 'Alba' White Indian Hawthorn 3 gal 14" 2 /1- I .2 UA 3 Ulmus parvifolia ' Allee' Allee Lacebark Elm RPG 4 "Cal 12 -15' H / 5G I G I 5chefflera arboricola "Green" Dwarf Green Arboricola 3 gal 18" 2/1- 1 .2 PALM TREE5 CODE QTY BOTANICAL COMMON CONT CAL SIZE DETAIL REMARK5 5N 5 Strelitzia mcolai Giant Bird of Paradise 25 gal 8'oa ` ` PM2 10 Phoenix roebelenii Pigmy Date Palm Multi -Trunk B it B 3 -5iem robust 8'oa 5R 25 5trelitzia regmae Bird Of Paradise 15 gal 3G" �r V5 75 Viburnum suspensum 5andankwa Viburnum 3 gal 24 "oa 2/L1 .2 RE 3 Rhapis excelsa Lady Palm 15 gal 5+ stems 5'oa GROUND GOVER5 CODE QTY BOTANICAL COMMON CONT DETAIL REMARKS c a 51`2 13 5abal palmetto Palmetto 13 * B Robust 10'ct+ PA 7,473 sf Paspalum notatum 'Argentine' Bahia Grass sod RELOCATED PALM CODE QTY BOTANICAL COMMON COT CAL SIZE DETAIL REMARK5 1 ON TK 445 7rachelo5permum a9iaticum 'Kenrokuen' Dwarf Minima Jasmine I gal@ 18" oc 2/LI .2 5P I 5abal palmetto Palmetto B � Robust relocate existing palm ltiY WR 9 Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm Robust relocate existing palm 0 g� N fl 4 A I � SANITARY MANFIOLE RIM EL = 35.24 9 W. INV EL =- .',1.86 N. INV EL =- 31.8-3, - , f5 I f I E INV EL 31 36 -- -� -INd EL = 3183 ML PA „°-' - - - r yr 1 ! y v11d E;�j{, �EXISrING 8" SAN- I E �` ✓ � . EX. M � / g� O U LATERAL �77 ¢Y •L W W �I Ly a"v r DA- - EWI IING 8" C.I. iNAIER ^ 25 P 2 ML 1� CT 5G ® F-3&—] LE ~10 LE W o i; 12,A RA I__-- - - - -_- �^y�i ' tai I 49 I ",' �. 39 LE —I� � '� SG 3 i .•.yv �i � ,�- I J C5 In. nA• k3 i � 1 r4• I' PONO - I II t :J -' 0 q I � i- 1 1 ;_UTAE { ALLEN (P) MAGNOLIA DRIVE(F) SIORM MANH0U: • I TRIM EL = 34. 7F l2 %' .ASPHAL 1) E IN', EL = 50.55 CURF3 INLET RIM EL =3:15 S INV FL = '•2.25 E INV EL = 32.13 INYFRT == 30 4E I I I O {- i �� O O i \ p 190 I TK /�- ASPHALI PARKIN(', c,F�A rL .!4!- i N 89 °48'45 " Et \ c e, 4 6.05 -2, nth I w G. a J Ww' W Z _B tl_L.ARIIS o p (TlPICAL) RETENTION POND f.L WY W y'z FAINT 5N f (Trr) 22' ASPIIAL.1 a 2'c;uRo i DLO V { I 128 I TREE TABULATION TABLE 47 TREES INVENTORIED ON SITE (NOT INCLUDING 9 WAS HINGTOIA PALMS) 3/30/05 Revisions: No. Date Description TREE INVENTORY NUMBER 10 PALMS PROPOSED TO BE RELOCATED 1 SABAL( #23) & 9 WASHINTONIA 0 } 35 TREES RATED 2.5 OR LESS ON INVENTORY 1- 6,942,14- 17,19 -22 ,24,28- 28,31,32,34 - 38,38 - 40,43 -47 21 TREES PROTECTED INC. RELOCATED PALMS* :,e 10 PROTECTED TREES TO BE REMOVED 7,8,13,18,25,29,33,37,41,42 (PALMS DEFICIT AT 2.5 "DBH EA.) 1 TREE TO BE PRESERVED (10 PALMS RE -LOC) 30 10 PROTECTED REMOVED 121 TOTAL TREES PROTECTED' = 48% REMOVED OR 52 %RETAINED 184 TOTAL INCHES REMOVED (DEFICIT INCHES) 192 TOTAL INCHES PROPOSED TREES INSTALLED (not Including anypafms proposed or relocated) PROPOSED INSTALLED PALMS 3/1 CREDIT WITH A HEIGHT OF 10'CT (FOXTAILS PROPOSED ARE I0'CTTRIPLES) 14 SABALS + 10 PINDO = 23 2413 = 8 + 10 FOXTAIL TRIPLES =18 X 2.5 = 45 "CREDIT 192 f 45 = 237 CREDIT -184 DEF /C /T = f53 "CREDIT (INCL UDED IN TABULA TIONARE THE PINDO PALMS PROPOSED FOR PLANTING IN THE CITY RIGHT -OF -WAY) 'NOTE -PALMS TO BE RELOCATED AS SHOWN ON LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN Plant material located inside the visibility triangles are to be maintained at a height of less than 30" or a clear trunk of more than ADDITIONAL NOTES AND DETAILS ARE ON SHEET 1-1.2 SCALE: 111=20' 20 0 10 20 40 NES Comm.: 073 FDrawn By: je:cked By: H.G. Issue Date: 03/25/08 Revisions: No. Date Description I r) PER DRC 0 } I, :,e r) yJr SCALE: 111=20' 20 0 10 20 40 NES Comm.: 073 FDrawn By: je:cked By: H.G. Issue Date: 03/25/08 Revisions: No. Date Description I 06/05/08 PER DRC 0 } I, ` Z � t w J a W 1 r W� �a{ Q s N tt �( I E tk � 1; � J BUTLER DESIGN GROUP, INC GOLDEN RAIN NURSERY, INC. 4203 46TH AVE. N. ST. PETERSBURG, FL. 33714 H 727- 521 -1684, FAX: 727 - 527 -7422, E– MAIL:RONSPLANSOTAMPABAY.RR.COM DRAWN BY: RON BELKO CHECKED BY: CHUCK BUTLER Certified Arborist : FL -1235A Lam. } I, Lam. PLANTING AT TURF AREAS. KEEP TURF CLEAR FOR A 18" RADIUS CIRCLE AROUND THE TREE. MULCH WITH A 3" THICK LAYER OF SHREDDED BARK. RECESS TURF AREA 1" TO ALLOW FOR MULCH. FINISHED GRADE AT LAWN. JOO o ;III___ �mmm �III�IIII J Ln "ro " < I'7 .- r7 Q M F- F- F- F- O QQQ Q O 0� 0 N" OM :71A, BACKFILL MIX, SEE NOTES AND SPECIFICATIONS. PLANT PIT DETAIL SET ROOTBALL CROWN 1 1/2" HIGHER THAN THE SURROUNDING FINISHED GRADE. SLOPE BACKFILL AWAY FROM ROOTBALL FOR POSITIVE DRAINAGE. PLANTINGAT SHRUB AREAS. KEEP MULCH 6" - 8" FROM BASE OF TREE. MULCH WATER WELL AREA TO 3" DEPTH. 6" HIGH WATER WELL AT SHRUB AREAS. II =1I FINISHED GRADE AT SHRUBS. I III -1 ROOTBALL 2X ROOTBALL 32" AT 15 GALLON 48" AT 24" BOX 60" AT 30" BOX 72" AT 36" BOX TREE PLANTING MULTI -STAKE -0" WATER WELL: 4" HIGH AT SHRUB, NO WATER WELL AT LAWN AREA. z�. ' i z0 I- ICI -IiI (NOT COMPACTED) AND A MINIMUM OF 18 -24 INCHES WIDER THAN i "CINCH- TIE ", "GRO- STRAIT ", O �<� 'II �.- - - OR EQUAL FLEXIBLE RUBBER w o J AERIAL GUY TREE TIES IN FIGURE EIGHT LLI Ln CABLES TO FASHION. ATTACH TO STAKE m Q m CONNECT W/ TWO GALV. ROOFING NAILS. QQQ TRUNKS: ox m - Ln 4. IF ON SITE SOIL CONDITIONS ARE SUCH THAT SOIL AMENDMENTS 9 GA CABLE W/ CLEAR 2 LODGEPOLE PINE TREATED Q a PLASTIC TREE STAKES. SET STAKES DEPTH CONSISTENT WITH THE ROOT DEVELOPMENT OF PROPOSED COATING THRU APPROXIMATELY 120 DEGREES �- 5/8" DIA. APART, oo r BE CONSTRUCTED SUCH THAT LIMEROCK, ASPHALT, CONCRETE OR ANY RUBBER HOSE 00 THE PLANTING AREAS. TIE. 0 6. THE PRACTICE OF TREE TRUNK WRAPPING AND THE APPLICATION OF,,- L` PAINTS /TAR ONTO PRUNED TREE BRANCHES IS NOT RECOMMENDED °`1 FINISHED GRADE. E`? a (o Ln I I I =1 I I I ROOTBALL _--I I I =1 II=I I I; I I III w o 1 . F-5 =1' :,IIII�II �II�IIII�IIII X< f It O Ln • m - � AVOID PLACING STAKES Q a SEE PLANT PIT THRU ROOTBALL. - 1 DETAIL. d rl) STAKING DETAIL PLANTING AT TURF AREAS. KEEP TURF CLEAR FOR A 18" RADIUS CIRCLE AROUND THE TREE. MULCH WITH A 3" THICK LAYER OF SHREDDED BARK. RECESS TURF AREA 1" TO ALLOW FOR MULCH. FINISHED GRADE AT LAWN. JOO o ;III___ �mmm �III�IIII J Ln "ro " < I'7 .- r7 Q M F- F- F- F- O QQQ Q O 0� 0 N" OM :71A, BACKFILL MIX, SEE NOTES AND SPECIFICATIONS. PLANT PIT DETAIL SET ROOTBALL CROWN 1 1/2" HIGHER THAN THE SURROUNDING FINISHED GRADE. SLOPE BACKFILL AWAY FROM ROOTBALL FOR POSITIVE DRAINAGE. PLANTINGAT SHRUB AREAS. KEEP MULCH 6" - 8" FROM BASE OF TREE. MULCH WATER WELL AREA TO 3" DEPTH. 6" HIGH WATER WELL AT SHRUB AREAS. II =1I FINISHED GRADE AT SHRUBS. I III -1 ROOTBALL 2X ROOTBALL 32" AT 15 GALLON 48" AT 24" BOX 60" AT 30" BOX 72" AT 36" BOX TREE PLANTING MULTI -STAKE -0" WATER WELL: 4" HIGH AT SHRUB, NO WATER WELL AT LAWN AREA. z�. ' i z0 I- ICI -IiI (NOT COMPACTED) AND A MINIMUM OF 18 -24 INCHES WIDER THAN °_j '11_111 THE DIAMETER OF THE ROOT BALL. TREES SHALL BE INSTALLED SUCH O �<� 'II THAT THE TOP OF THE ROOT MASS IS LEVEL WITH THE SURFACE OF J Q -III J Ln Q u7 m t o QQQ O Ito -0o__ N ROOTBALL 2 X ROOTBALL 12" AT 1 GALLON 22" AT 5 GALLON 32" AT 15 GALLON SHRUB PLANTING 1" PLANT TABLETS AS NOTED OR SPEICIFIED. NATIVE SOIL MIX FIRMLY COMPACTED. 32 9343.23 -03 SET ROOTBALL CROWN 1 " HIGHER THAN SURROUNDING FINISHED GRADE. SLOPE FINISHED GRADE AT BACKFILL AWAY FROM ROOTBALL. MULCH TO 2" DEPTH AT WATER WELL. FINISHED GRADE. -1 Im I I I� PLANT TABLETS AS NOTED OR SPEICIFIED. BACKFILL MIX, SEE NOTES AND SPECIFICATIONS. NATIVE SOIL MIX FIRMLY COMPACTED. 32 9333.13 -01 TILLED AND LOOSENED NATIVE SOIL BACKFILL 1� J D J S m N H w C3 ROOTBALL� att FERTILIZER TABLETS AS SPECIFIED, PLACE UNIFORMLY AROUND ROOT MASS BETWEEN MIDDLE AND BOTTOM OF ROOT MASS. 4SE OF LEAF BUD BASE (IF HEART /P OF PALM CABBAGE PALMS MAY BE HURRICANE CUT ALL OTHERS MUST HAVE FRONDS TIED W /BIODEGRADABLE STRAP OR TWINE TRUNK SHALL BE STRAIGHT AND WITHOUT CURVES, FREE OF SCARS, BURNMARKS AND BOOTS x NOTE, STAKING & GUYING REOUIRED FOR r PALM, IF NECESSARY, OR AS DIRECTED BY LANDSCAPE a o ARCHITECT. 5 LAYERS OF BURLAP, 5 - 2'x4'x16' WOODEN BATTENS, CONNECTED WITH 2 -3/4' STEEL BANDS. OR APPROVED ALTERNATE REMOVE BURLAP AND ALL TIE MATERIAL FROM TYHE TOP 1/3 OF ROOTBALL 2'X4' WOOD BRACE (3 EA. MIN) NAIL TO BATTENS & STAKES WATER RING (6' WIDTH & HEIGHT) PROVIDING A WATER COLLECTION BASIN - - �- (3) 2'x4'x36' WOODEN STAKES OF THE ROOTBALL PALM PLANTING DETAIL CLEARWATER INDEX No. 904, SH. ]of I Rev. 8/21 /06 N.T.S. 3' MULCH LAYER EXISTING UNDISTURBED SOIL TREE RELOCATION: PROJECT MANAGER / CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISOR TO CONSULT AN ISA CERTIFIED ARBORIST FOR TREE RELOCATING AND PRESERVATION MEASURES. ALL TREES TO BE PRESERVED AND RELOCATED MUST BE PROTECTED AND OR RELOCATED TO A TEMPORARY HOLDING AREA PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION, DEMO, GRUBBING OR GRADING. 1: TREES RELOCATED AND STORED ON SITE MUST HAVE AVAILABLE REGULAR IRRIGATION AND PROTECTED FROM CONSTRUCTION INJURY. OR 2. TREES RELOCATED AND HELD OFF SITE (LE... ADJOINING PROPERTY, NURSERY, ETC..) MUST HAVE REGULAR IRRIGATION AVAILABLE AND PROTECTED FROM INJURY. IF TREES THAT ARE HELD ONIOFF SITE DIE OR SUFFER FROM LACK OF IRRIGATION OR SUFFER SERIOUS INJURY - PENALTIES PAID TO THE CITY OF CLEARWATER OR REPLACEMENT TREES WILL BE REQUIRED MEETING THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER. HARDWOODS DRIP LINE W 2/3 OF DRIP LINE Z HORIZONTAL ri HABITAT MANAGEMENT AND LANDSCAPING PERMITS: SPECIFICATI ❑NS - WOOD BARRIER 1. MINIMUM RADIUS TO BE PROTECTED: A. HARDWOODS - 2/3 DRIPLINE B. CONIFERS & SABAL PALMS - ENTIRE DRIPLINE, 2. UPRIGHTS - NO LESS THAN 2' X 2' LUMBER, 3. HORIZONTALS - NO LESS THAN 1' X 4' LUMBER. 4. BARRIERS SHALL BE ERECTED AROUND ALL PROTECTED TREES AND PALMS, AND INSPECTED BY CITY REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS. 5. UPRIGHT POSTS ARE TO BE AT LEAST 4 FEET IN LENGTH WITH A MINIMUM OF 1 FOOT ANCHORED IN GROUND AND 3 FEET ABOVE GROUND. 6. BARRIERS TO REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL ALL PAVING, CONSTRUCTION AND HEAVY EQUIPMENT IS OUT OF AREA. FURTHER INFORMATI ❑N MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE LAND RESOURCE SPECIALIST AT 562 -4741. UPRIGHT 1. A HABITAT MANAGEMENT AND LANDSCAPING PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROJECT. APPLICATION SHOULD NOT BE MADE UNTIL FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL HAS BEEN GRANTED. a. AN APPLICATION AND AN EXTRA COPY OF THE APPROVED FINAL APPLICATION PLAN MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THIS DEPARTMENT IN ORDER TO PROCESS THE PERMIT. b. ALL EXOTIC SPECIES, I.E., BRAZILIAN PEPPER (SCHINUS TEREBIN- THIFOLIUS), PUNK TREES (MELALEUCA QUINQUENERVIA), AND CHINESE TALLOW (SAPIUM SEBIFERUM) MUST BE REMOVED AS A CONDITION OF SITE DEVELOPMENT. WHERE NECESSARY DUE TO THEIR PROXIMITY TO PROTECTED PLANT MATERIAL, HAND REMOVAL WILL BE REQUIRED. SHOULD THIS REMOVAL BE TO A DEGREE THAT A POTENTIAL FOR EROSION IS CREATED, THE AREA MUST BE RESTABILIZED WITH SUITABLE MATERIAL. c. ONCE FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL (FAA) HAS BEEN GRANTED, A BARRICADE INSPECTION CAN BE SCHEDULED. WHEN THE BARRICADES HAVE BEEN APPROVED THE PERMIT CAN BE TYPED AND RELEASED. TREE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION: TREE BARRICADES AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURE REQUIREMENTS: 1. TREE BARRICADES AND /OR SILT SCREENS OR HAYBALES SHALL BE REQUIRED ALONG THE EDGES OF VEGETATED AREAS TO BE PROTECTED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF HABITAT MANAGEMENT AND LANDSCAPE PERMITS. THE LOCATION FOR EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ARE SHOWN ON THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. 2. ALL DESIRABLE TREES MUST BE RETAINED WHEREVER POSSIBLE. IT WILL BE REQUIRED THAT PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS (i.e. BUILDINGS, WALKWAYS, DRIVEWAYS, POND BANKS, DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, ETC.) BE ADJUSTED TO RETAIN DESIRABLE TREES. GRADE CHANGES MUST BE SENSITIVE TO TREES REMAINING. IN GENERAL, NO GRADE CHANGES SHOULD OCCUR WITHIN THE CANOPY DRIP LINE OF PINE TREES AND 2/3 THE CANOPY DRIP LINE OF HARDWOOD TREES TO BE SAVED. LANDSCAPING 1. EACH LANDSCAPING AND REPLANT TREE MUST BE PLANTED WITHIN A MINIMUM FIVE (5) FOOT BY TEN (10) FOOT OPEN SPACE PLANTER WITH SUITABLE GROUND COVER. LANDSCAPE TREES MUST BE PLANTED IN SAME VICINITY AS VEHICULAR USE AREAS IN ORDER TO BREAK THE MONOTONY OF UNBROKEN EXPANSES OF PAVING. TREES MUST NOT BE PLANTED WITHIN MAINTENANCE EASEMENTS. 2. THE USE OF XERISCAPE DESIGN MUST BE UTILIZED FOR THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE DESIGN. THE DESIGN DEMONSTRATES THE USE OF A LOW VOLUME IRRIGATION SYSTEM, ORGANIC MULCHES, DROUGHT AND COLD TOLERANT PLANT MATERIAL, ZONING OF PLANT MATERIAL BY WATER REQUIREMENTS, SOIL AMENDMENTS (IF NECESSARY) AND THE PRACTICAL USE OF TURF. 3. NEW LANDSCAPING MUST BE PROTECTED FROM VEHICULAR MOVE- MENT BY WHEEL STOPS OR CURBING WHERE POSSIBLE, THE AREA BETWEEN THE BARRIER AND LANDSCAPE MATERIAL SHOULD REMAIN AS GREENSPACE. 4. LARGE TREE SPECIES PROPOSED FOR INSTALLATION MUST BE A MINIMUM OF 20 FEET AWAY FROM BUILDINGS, SIGNS, FENCES, LIGHT POLES, UTILITY LINES AND ANY OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS THAT MAY IMPAIR NATURAL GROWTH. 5. TREES PROPOSED FOR INSTALLATION MUST NOT BE IN CONFLICT WITH PROPOSED OR EXISTING UTILITY LINES OR STRUCTURES, EASE- MENTS OR OTHER AREAS WHICH MAY REQUIRE EXCAVATION IN THE EVENT OF SYSTEM FAILURE. THESE FEATURES SUCH AS THE WATER LINES MUST REMAIN OUTSIDE THE 5' X 10' PLANTER AREA. 6. SOILS WITHIN PLANTER BEDS MUST BE SUITABLE FOR PROPOSED PLANTED MATERIAL WITH REGARDS TO pH, SOIL TEXTURE, SOIL STRUCTURE, AND SEASONAL HIGH WATER TABLE. 7. ALL LANDSCAPE MATERIAL MUST BE FLORIDA GRADE #1 OR BETTER. 8. ALL REQUIRED TREES MUST BE A MINIMUM OF 10' HIGH, 2 -1/2" CALIPER AT TIME OF PLANTING. 9. ALL HEDGES MUST BE 24" HIGH AT THE TIME OF PLANTING, PLANTED AT 30" ON CENTER, AND BE MAINTAINED AT A MINIMUM OF 3' IN HEIGHT. 10. WHERE LANDSCAPE OR REPLANT TREES ARE PROPOSED TO BE PLANTED IN THE PERIMETER BUFFER, THE BUFFER MUST BE A MINIMUM OF 5' WIDE. TREE BARRICADES CLEARWATER INDEX No. 909, SH. 1 of 1 Rev. 4/09/03 N.T.S. PINES DRIP LINE rNITTK)r nC)TP I TNIr IRRIGATION NOTES 1. SHALLOW WELLS, OPEN SURFACE WATER BODIES, OR RECLAIMED WATER MUST BE USED AS A SOURCE OF IRRIGATION WATER. THE DIST- RIBUTION SYSTEM FOR IRRIGATION MUST NOT BE CONNECTED TO COUNTY OR MUNICIPAL WATER SOURCES, UNLESS IT CAN BE DEMON- STRATED THAT THESE SOURCES ARE NOT AVAILABLE. 2. IRRIGATION SYSTEMS MUST UTILIZE LOW VOLUME DESIGNS SUCH AS LOW TRAJECTORY HEADS OR SOAKER HOSES TO PROVIDE DIRECT AP- PLICATION AND LOW EVAPORATION, SYSTEMS THAT OVERSPRAY AREAS THAT DO NOT REQUIRE IRRIGATION, SUCH AS PAVED AREAS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTABLE. HIGH IRRIGATION NEED AREAS MUST NOT OVERSPRAY LOW NEED AREAS. 3. HIGH WATER DEMAND LANDSCAPE AREAS SUCH AS TURF MUST BE SERVED BY A SEPARATE IRRIGATION ZONE THAN LOW WATER NEED PLANTER BEDS, OR MULCHED AREAS WITH TREES. IN NO CASE, SHALL ANY PLANTED VEGETATION AREA BE MORE THAN 50' FROM A WATER SUPPLY HOSE BIBB. 4. AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEMS MUST BE OPERATED BY AN IRRI- GATION SYSTEMS OPERATED BY AN IRRIGATION CONTROLLER CAPABLE OF DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN THE SCHEDULES OF HIGH AND LOW WATER DEMAND AREAS. CONTROLLERS MUST HAVE MULTIPLE CYCLE START CAPACITY AND A FLEXIBLE CALENDAR PROGRAM ABLE TO BE SET TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL OR WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT IMPOSED RESTRICTIONS. 5. AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEMS MUST BE EQUIPPED WITH RAIN SENSOR DEVICE OR SWITCH WHICH WILL OVERRIDE THE IRRIGATION CYCLE OF THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM WHEN ADEQUATE RAINFALL HAS THE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AN UNDERGROUND IRRI- GATION SYSTEM TO COVER 100% OF ALL ON SITE PLANTING AREA. THIS SYSTEM SHALL CONTAIN BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: 1. UNDERGROUND PIPING, SHALL BE PVC SCHEDULE 40 OR BETTER. 2. SEVEN (7) DAY PROGRAMMABLE TIME CLOCK TO ACTIVATE ZONES. 3. SPRINKLER HEADS COMPATIBLE WITH THE TYPE OF PLANTING. 4. ELECTRIC VALVES. 5. GAUGE 14 OF COPPER WIRE. 6. FIBERGLASS OR PLASTIC ZONE VALVE BOXES. WHERE PIPING IS UNDER DRIVEWAY AND CONCRETE WALKS, THE PIPES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN SCHEDULE 40 SLEEVES 18" BELOW GRADE. MATERIALS SUPPLIED SHALL BE EQUAL TO THOSE MANUFACTURED BY RAIN BIRD CO. OR APPROVED EQUAL. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT A SYSTEM LAY -OUT ALONG WITH CATALOG SHEETS OF ALL COMPONENTS IN THE SYSTEM TO THE OWNER FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. THE ENTIRE SYSTEM SHALL BE GUARANTEED BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF ACCEPTANCE BY THE ARCHITECT/ ENGINEER. ANY AND ALL USE OF HOSE BIBBS IN ASSOCIATION WITH NON- POTABLE WATER SUPPLIES SHALL BE IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH SBCCI STANDARD PLUMBING CODE, CHAPTER VI CRITERIA REFERENCE COLOR CODING OF ABOVE GRADE RISER PIPING AND LABEL /TAGGING OF OUTLETS AS NON- POTABLE WATER SUPPLY, ANY BUILDING TO BE DEMOLISHED IS SUBJECT TO NOTIFICATION TO THE AIR TOXICS SECTION OF THE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRIOR TO ANY DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS. IT XERISCAPING 1, ORGANIC MULCHES AND /OR DROUGHT TOLERANT GROUNDCOVERS WITHIN PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLANTER BEDS. 2. DROUGHT AND COLD TOLERANT PLANT MATERIAL. 3. GROUPING OR ZONING PLANT MATERIAL BASE ON SIMILAR WATER REQUIREMENTS AND THE LOCATION OF PROPOSED IRRIGATION WATERING SYSTEMS. 4. THE USE OF SOIL TESTING TO IDENTIFY SOIL CONDITIONS NECES- SARY FOR THE CONTINUED SURVIVAL OF PROPOSED LANDSCAPING. 5. ORGANIC SOIL AMENDMENTS (SUCH AS TOP SOILS, MANURE'S, PEAT AND COMPOSTED MATERIALS) MIXED EXISTING SOILS WITHIN LANDS - CAPING PLANTER BEDS TO DEPTHS CONSISTENT WITH THE ROOT DEPTH OF PROPOSED PLANTED MATERIAL (USE ONLY IF EXISTING SOIL CONDITIONS WARRANT THESE AMENDMENTS). 6. THE PRESERVATION AND INCORPORATION OF EXISTING PLANT COMMUNITIES ON SITE INTO THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. 7. TPE MINIMAL USE OF TURF GRASSES WHICH REQUIRE FREQUENT IRRIGATION, 8. LOW- MAINTENANCE DESIGN. TREE & SHRUB PLANTING DETAILS 1. THE ROOT MASS FORM OF EACH TREE PROPOSED FOR INSTALLATION SHALL BE BALLED OR BURLAPPED, BARE ROOT TREES ARE NOT AC- CEPTABLE. ALL NON BIODEGRADABLE WRAPPINGS WILL BE REMOVED AND BURLAP WILL BE FOLDED DOWN TO ENHANCE WATER ABSORPTION. IF WIRE BASKETS ARE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH BALLED AND BURLAPPED TREES. THE FIRST FEW ROWS OF EACH BASKET WILL BE REMOVED AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATION. 2. SUPPORTING APPARATUS SHALL BE REMOVED AFTER 1 COMPLETE GROWING SEASON. ALSO THE FLEXIBLE ATTACHMENTS SHALL BE USED WHERE SUPPORT WIRES ARE WRAPPED AROUND TREE TRUNKS /STEMS TO PREVENT CAMBIAL DAMAGE. 3. PLANTING HOLES ASSOCIATED WITH PROPOSED TREES MUST SLOPE (NOT COMPACTED) AND A MINIMUM OF 18 -24 INCHES WIDER THAN Date: 03/25/08 THE DIAMETER OF THE ROOT BALL. TREES SHALL BE INSTALLED SUCH 0 THAT THE TOP OF THE ROOT MASS IS LEVEL WITH THE SURFACE OF THE PLANTING HOLE. TREES SHOULD BE INSTALLED 3 - 5 INCHES 0 ABOVE GRADE ON SITES CONTAINING CLAY. A 2 - 3 INCH LAYER OF ORGANIC MULCH MUST ALSO BE PLACED OVER THE ENTIRE SURFACE OF EACH PLANTING HOLE. TO PREVENT FUNGAL INFECTION MULCH t SHOULD BE PULLED BACK A FEW INCHES FROM THE BASE OF EACH TREE. 4. IF ON SITE SOIL CONDITIONS ARE SUCH THAT SOIL AMENDMENTS WILL BE NECESSARY, THE PLANTING MUST INCLUDE SOIL MIXTURE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE SECTION OF EACH PLANTER AREA TO A DEPTH CONSISTENT WITH THE ROOT DEVELOPMENT OF PROPOSED PLANT MATERIAL, 5. PLANTERS ADJACENT TO OR WITHIN VEHICULAR USE AREAS MUST BE CONSTRUCTED SUCH THAT LIMEROCK, ASPHALT, CONCRETE OR ANY OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS DO NOT EXTEND UNDER THE SURFACE INTO THE PLANTING AREAS. 1 0 6. THE PRACTICE OF TREE TRUNK WRAPPING AND THE APPLICATION OF,,- "- PAINTS /TAR ONTO PRUNED TREE BRANCHES IS NOT RECOMMENDED °`1 BY THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURAL. E`? a l . 1 . F-5 NES Comm.: 0731 113rawn By: N. E. Checked By: H.G. a f. W � I I W' O ZI W� a a4 r 1 Z� a BUTLER DESIGN GROUP, INC GOLDEN RAIN NURSERY, INC. 4203 46TH AVE. N. ST. PETERSBURG, FL. 33714 H 727 - 521 -1684, FAX: 727 - 527 -7422, E- MAIL:RONSPLANSOTAMPABAY.RR.COM DRAWN BY: RON BELKO ISA Certified Arborist : FL -5802A CHECKED BY: CHUCK BUTLER ISA Certified Arborist FL -1235A )ssue Date: 03/25/08 Revisions: No. Date Description 0 0 t t 1 a f. W � I I W' O ZI W� a a4 r 1 Z� a BUTLER DESIGN GROUP, INC GOLDEN RAIN NURSERY, INC. 4203 46TH AVE. N. ST. PETERSBURG, FL. 33714 H 727 - 521 -1684, FAX: 727 - 527 -7422, E- MAIL:RONSPLANSOTAMPABAY.RR.COM DRAWN BY: RON BELKO ISA Certified Arborist : FL -5802A CHECKED BY: CHUCK BUTLER ISA Certified Arborist FL -1235A L1 M t t 1 a l . 1 s t f It • • � 1 j � � 1 L1 TREE PRESERVATION TABLE TREE ELEVATION TO I I I N 1� 1111 11H TREE ELEVATION TO 141 - -- • —• —•— — TREE BARRI CAD ES * TREE AERATION (WANE 3000) 4 , _�:] CONCRETE ROOT PRUNE AREA INSIDE ROOT PROTECTION ZONE BARRICADES ® CANOPY REDUCTION m ® O PALM TO BE RELOCATED li II 1, A 6 INVERT -- 30 1C , Y1ie ALL WORK INSIDE THE TREE BARRICADES, CANOPY DRIP LINES, iE AND /OR TREE CANOPY SHALL BE SUPERVISEDIIMPLEMENTED BY AN ISA CERTIFIED ARBORIST. z 0 C (_ LLI PROTECTION /PRESERVATION NOTES AND DETAILS ARE ON SHEET L1.2 U ALLEN (P) CURES INLET Y 1 m O O r L fY.* fl G H N 39048'45 " E 4 6.05' I mt m m _III I Ln p p Np M p.� pX n N® 0 z ° ° a_ p Ilil p r o� N x t\ ° ° W ^ ^� X° O p° 0 0 X p L S 89051 '21 " W 42.94' u -J Q I_ UJ ( n W v i a r 4 J s J W Z L3riL1 ARC'S c, _ _iTiPlCel ; NE RETENTION POND IJ RIM EL = 35.1s ) - -- - -- - I ° MA G N O L I A D -R I V E (I) ;INV EL = 32.5. - - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - -- -- - -- - - -- - I , F ,1 E INV EL = 32.13 •'-• D) 1 \� �- - - - -' 23l PAN" hAA;iNG °RANI if,Rl' h1AN1-101_E � - - - - - -- - - --- - - -- -- - -- ---- -- -- - - - -- - - -- - -- --- - -- -- -- --•--- -- - --- -- - - -- --- -- -- - -- (Tti�P) RIM El_ = 35.24 W ;NV EL 31.06 1122' ASPHALI) N. INV EL 31.E+3 ' ° S1GRM MANHOLE I. INV EL = 31.t3fi ii) (22' ASPHALT) INV EL I 0 ,f21tA EL == 34 j Fzffi- '.e"aa - o:i `-sui" e� " ewa - visor ' oo-�in -- ima - zimi':-'Em - .was -iu•'y 'prim -- -' w�p �u ¢� - erza9 —®sa ® -.ice fie U}-� / EL 50.85 E. 15 TIN - U' V:'A7ER i1 8 "PVC I RIIAR EL = 34.9'. -- -- - - -- - -- �_ __ -- - -- 9 2'c'URO _ EXISTING 6" EXISIING 6 "__ I INV E I jII PVC WATER -..- 1 f- _ __ - -'---- --- -'--'- -- °- -- - ---- -- --- --- ----_' u cv as IN er a.:+ za um fu aae EA ri nm tr. ml � am ma ma ma�$, : PV,. 'HATER � --- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- L = SZ 1-, -- -- - - -- - -- - -- - -- - - -- -_ - - � — - u ?'CUPH � n _ E - - -- G G� i• ___ HIV .._._.. ._ �i,A. .__ - -__ u." - -. tomr` ��mC ,',}�^x'Ae- wa.cea Gqp s • -�f , Rea- •ae -a. larEk Xm. w -auGAS w .9:LxIvN- Eec -+ro• j -- _— __- _— ®__°- _H - -R— - - - - - -- -- h . .�__ - - -_ .____-__.-___.-.-.—__.______ ..- __.__.____- __..ID_— __— ____ -__ � -� -- -_Y_ -. -- -— --__ .— _ ___— _ —_.—_ _.— _— __- _-- _�- _-- _— _ -__ -- gyp• PALM � 13IKE: _ -" tr• 334.60' N 89 °51 '21 " E - I AK 4 i3 z cccczz=c= 0 C7 C:3 C7 ® © © ® C= © ® C'9 1 ® 1 - -- -- -----------------•------ --- °------- ----- ----- ---- --• -�? Ll 11 1131ING LP iERF -- -- .� >fr C3 ®C9 t7! @3 r� tHl ® q�; � $�' ®� J �h \,\ \ \•`•`' , % ; % %. % //' - _ � TREE TABULATION TABLE IhJKNOV EL E L q� ° ��J' L�II( 1'RJv 3° C.I. t'JATER - -- - -- \ ' ' • 1 / 36' OAK -- t1 I, i 30' K PALM CLUSTER 4 -5 yts - ° 4 w� I �� "!- -- ----------- - - - - -- = —_ -_— _ -- -- -- -- — - - -- - -- - - -- - - - - - -- -;,��; 'LOADINGZONE' BYPASS WE 125c28' I q / � � EXISntIG -- -I PAD, !,,,v 1 _ 1O- OOT PRUNE ° p Bank I IS, "l / j� ///'�l(aS.F. C71' t! if S.l 0 c, 1.7;T, 37 - — — - ------------------ CANOPY REDUCTION iRAiNSFORMER ®_® ® m ® © 1=2 89 °51 '21 " W 4_1 135.00 a �� ' J trl• nnl' ��i \Ire 14 P_ TREE BARRICADE GRATE PoNG -` TREE CANOPY /ROOT ZONE N\l Et fi] 0 a 1 i_UM1.aE .• .f I s .�I :a! / CANOPY ELEVATION TO 14' J ALL CONCRETE TREE PROTECTION TO BE SET ON EXISTING GRADE -CANOPY ELEVATION TO I I'� WANE 3Q00 STEM El TREE BARRIO `- /ALM CLUSTCR 4 -5 TREE CANOPY /ROOT ZONE ROOT PRUNE I� C= ® C7 © ® C= C= � C= O � © C= - - — - -q _ R!:T.AINRJG WALL r, n e r • 1 n w 11 — TREE BARRICADE ® C= C�rC TREE CANOPY /ROOT ZONE - ASPHALT PA.RKINC: '` CRATE Ih!_, T ( ="b If. D. - 3 1' ^ LID -a p} 0 r J z T W w Q r- J p Q � PALM v ' Q 1J', ' PALM W Z 12' PALM p 47 TREES INVENTORIED ON SITE (NOT INCLUDING 8 WASHINGTNIA PALMS) 3/30/05 ® I -N TREE INVENTORY NUMBER 10 PALMS PROPOSED TO BE RELOCATED 1 SABAL( 923) 8: 9 WASHINTONIA I I I jC� 21 TREES PROTECTED INC. RELOCATED PALMS* 10 PROTECTED TREES TO BE REMOVED T, 8,13,18,26,29,33,37,41,42 (PALMS DEFICIT AT 2.5 "DBH EA.) 1 TREE TO BE PRESERVED (10 PALMS RE -LOC) 30 I I I � 1 d 184 TOTAL INCHES REMOVED (DEFICIT INCHES) 192 TOTAL INCHES PROPOSED TREES INSTALLED (not including any palms proposed or relocated) PROPOSED INSTALLED PALMS 3/1 CREDIT WITH A HEIGHT OF 10'CT (FOXTAILS PROPOSED ARE I D'CT TRIPLES) 14 SABALS + 10 PINDO = 23 2413 = 8 + 10 FOXTAIL TRIPLES =18 X 2.5 = 45 "CREDIT 192 + 45 = 237 CREDIT - 184 DEFICIT= +53 "CREDIT (INCLUDED IN TABULATION ARE THEPINDO PALMS PROPOSED FOR PLANTING IN THE CITY RIGHT -OF -WAY) � I t \ I PAD, !,,,v 1 _ 1O- OOT PRUNE ° p Bank I IS, "l / j� ///'�l(aS.F. C71' t! if S.l 0 c, 1.7;T, 37 - — — - ------------------ CANOPY REDUCTION iRAiNSFORMER ®_® ® m ® © 1=2 89 °51 '21 " W 4_1 135.00 a �� ' J trl• nnl' ��i \Ire 14 P_ TREE BARRICADE GRATE PoNG -` TREE CANOPY /ROOT ZONE N\l Et fi] 0 a 1 i_UM1.aE .• .f I s .�I :a! / CANOPY ELEVATION TO 14' J ALL CONCRETE TREE PROTECTION TO BE SET ON EXISTING GRADE -CANOPY ELEVATION TO I I'� WANE 3Q00 STEM El TREE BARRIO `- /ALM CLUSTCR 4 -5 TREE CANOPY /ROOT ZONE ROOT PRUNE I� C= ® C7 © ® C= C= � C= O � © C= - - — - -q _ R!:T.AINRJG WALL r, n e r • 1 n w 11 — TREE BARRICADE ® C= C�rC TREE CANOPY /ROOT ZONE - ASPHALT PA.RKINC: '` CRATE Ih!_, T ( ="b If. D. - 3 1' ^ LID -a p} 0 r J z T W w Q r- J p Q � PALM v ' Q 1J', ' PALM W Z 12' PALM p 47 TREES INVENTORIED ON SITE (NOT INCLUDING 8 WASHINGTNIA PALMS) 3/30/05 ® I -N TREE INVENTORY NUMBER 10 PALMS PROPOSED TO BE RELOCATED 1 SABAL( 923) 8: 9 WASHINTONIA I I I jC� 21 TREES PROTECTED INC. RELOCATED PALMS* 10 PROTECTED TREES TO BE REMOVED T, 8,13,18,26,29,33,37,41,42 (PALMS DEFICIT AT 2.5 "DBH EA.) 1 TREE TO BE PRESERVED (10 PALMS RE -LOC) 30 I I I � 1 d PAD, !,,,v 1 _ 1O- OOT PRUNE ° p Bank I IS, "l / j� ///'�l(aS.F. C71' t! if S.l 0 c, 1.7;T, 37 - — — - ------------------ CANOPY REDUCTION iRAiNSFORMER ®_® ® m ® © 1=2 89 °51 '21 " W 4_1 135.00 a �� ' J trl• nnl' ��i \Ire 14 P_ TREE BARRICADE GRATE PoNG -` TREE CANOPY /ROOT ZONE N\l Et fi] 0 a 1 i_UM1.aE .• .f I s .�I :a! / CANOPY ELEVATION TO 14' J ALL CONCRETE TREE PROTECTION TO BE SET ON EXISTING GRADE -CANOPY ELEVATION TO I I'� WANE 3Q00 STEM El TREE BARRIO `- /ALM CLUSTCR 4 -5 TREE CANOPY /ROOT ZONE ROOT PRUNE I� C= ® C7 © ® C= C= � C= O � © C= - - — - -q _ R!:T.AINRJG WALL r, n e r • 1 n w 11 — TREE BARRICADE ® C= C�rC TREE CANOPY /ROOT ZONE - ASPHALT PA.RKINC: '` CRATE Ih!_, T ( ="b If. D. - 3 1' ^ LID -a p} 0 r J z T W w Q r- J p Q � PALM v ' Q 1J', ' PALM W Z 12' PALM p 47 TREES INVENTORIED ON SITE (NOT INCLUDING 8 WASHINGTNIA PALMS) 3/30/05 TREE INVENTORY NUMBER 10 PALMS PROPOSED TO BE RELOCATED 1 SABAL( 923) 8: 9 WASHINTONIA I 35 TREES RATED 2.5 OR LESS ON INVENTORY 1- 6,942,14- 17,19 -22 ,24,20- 28,31,32,34 - 38,38- 40,43 -47 21 TREES PROTECTED INC. RELOCATED PALMS* 10 PROTECTED TREES TO BE REMOVED T, 8,13,18,26,29,33,37,41,42 (PALMS DEFICIT AT 2.5 "DBH EA.) 1 TREE TO BE PRESERVED (10 PALMS RE -LOC) 30 10 PROTECTED REMOVED If 21 TOTAL TREES PROTECTED* = 48% REMOVED OR 52 %RETAINED 184 TOTAL INCHES REMOVED (DEFICIT INCHES) 192 TOTAL INCHES PROPOSED TREES INSTALLED (not including any palms proposed or relocated) PROPOSED INSTALLED PALMS 3/1 CREDIT WITH A HEIGHT OF 10'CT (FOXTAILS PROPOSED ARE I D'CT TRIPLES) 14 SABALS + 10 PINDO = 23 2413 = 8 + 10 FOXTAIL TRIPLES =18 X 2.5 = 45 "CREDIT 192 + 45 = 237 CREDIT - 184 DEFICIT= +53 "CREDIT (INCLUDED IN TABULATION ARE THEPINDO PALMS PROPOSED FOR PLANTING IN THE CITY RIGHT -OF -WAY) 'NP I t -PALMS 10 1S1: KtLOGA 1 tU AS SHOWN UN LANUSGAPE SI I E PLAN ADDITIONAL NOTES AND DETAILS ARE ON SHEET L1.2 "7 ee,° ,° Pti hil 1 1 F ES Comm.: 073 I Drawn By: M.E.A. Checked By: H.G. Z I a J gat F O �a } 1 W li I 1 a. W �W BUTLER DESIGN GROUP, INC GOLDEN RAIN NURSERY, INC. 4203 46TH AVE. N. ST. PETERSBURG, FL. 33714 f H 727 -521 -1684, FAX: 727 - 527 -7422, E- MAIL:RONSPLANS ®TAMPABAY.RR.COM DRAWN BY: RON BELKO CHECKED BY: CHUCK BUTLER Certified Arborist : FL -1235A ssue Date: 03/25/08 Revisions: No. Date Description I 06/05/08 PER DRC 0 0 t 1 t i � Z I a J gat F O �a } 1 W li I 1 a. W �W BUTLER DESIGN GROUP, INC GOLDEN RAIN NURSERY, INC. 4203 46TH AVE. N. ST. PETERSBURG, FL. 33714 f H 727 -521 -1684, FAX: 727 - 527 -7422, E- MAIL:RONSPLANS ®TAMPABAY.RR.COM DRAWN BY: RON BELKO CHECKED BY: CHUCK BUTLER Certified Arborist : FL -1235A t 1 t i � Y t q EASY ELEVATION NORTH ELE!lAi10 it �r 1/891 = 1' -0" 1/811 = 1' -0" 1/811 = 1' -0" L_ i NOTE: 1 1 BE 1 1 ON ROOF AND SCREENED FROM TOP OF PARAPET 1 nAr,�'W TOP OF RIDGE Elm 7 ■I■ Elm EIS oil MIN —� - -- e e i ELEVATION 1/813 = 1 I -0" MARK PAINT TYPES (in Pam) COLOR P1 PAINT TYPE #1 "SNOWBOUND" - SHERWIN WILLIAMS - SW7004 P2 PAINT TYPE #2 "VANILLIN" - SHERWIN WILLIAMS - SW6371 P3 PAINT TYPE #3 "CAEN STONE" - SHERWIN WILLIAMS - SWO028 P4 PAINT TYPE #4 "CLARY SAGE" - SHERWIN WILLIAMS - SW6178 P5 PAINT TYPE #5 "ROOKWOOD TERRA COTTA" - SHERWIN WILLIAMS- SW2803 P6 PAINT TYPE #6 "GROUNDED" - SHERWIN WILLIAMS - SW6089 � • .� � a Y COLOR LEGEND O SEE "COLOR CRITERIA" PROVIDED BY ARCHITECT PRIOR TO THE PURCHASE OF PAINT. U E .g W MARK MATERIAL TYPES COLOR M1 MATERIAL TYPE #1 STANDING SEAM ALUMINUM ROOF "SILVER" - PAC -CLAD M2 MATERIAL TYPE 2 CORAL STONE - "FOSSIL REEF" -BY OWENS CORNING M3 MATERIAL TYPE #3 RAISED STUCCO BAND M4 MATERIAL TYPE #4 PREFINISHED ALUMINUM M5 MATERIAL TYPE #5 EXTERIOR GRADE WOOD MATERIAL LEGEND O SEE "MATERIAL CRITERIA" PROVIDED BY ARCHITECT PRIOR TO ANY PURCHASES. ROOF DECK (LOW) 14' -21 2" SECOND FLOOR FINISH FLOOR 0' -0" FINISH GRADE < -Z �Z wsps�' o� rte. ...� a � • .� � a Y U E .g W g OZ=L�i. Z Z (�mm W s 30 m 0 W � x� Z� N W 4 Z O2 m < -Z �Z wsps�' o� 99. fA W =Br` :m a N � a Y U E .g W g OZ=L�i. Z Z (�mm W s 30 m 0 W � x� Z� N W 4 Z O2 m co U N � z w w c Z 0 CO w a 0 00: cn J=uZ °R — 0 Q p ao- -� N .a J � I 0 O P. 00 LLJ �O Q ZE � �® O � 0 cc �O W f x Lu 5?� O� �. V RELEASED FOR: BID PERMIT CONSTR. REVISIONS: A10/15/07 City Cmnt 2 4/1/08 OWNER 4 5/13/08 DRC -COM WILLIAM ME F151A ER ARCHITECT 0010829 ■.1 T Issue Date: 8 -15 -07 zil)lProject No.: 27036 .. 5 FA ovmwm WTI R2 w IPA ro . III Fit I it s; ILI � t rn DME UII, PM WAR � 1 FAM mnw� 1 I, o V ( , 6=1 LU REE J I , W MUM Or �� 51 I X I 20.0 i c!) ; • 0 ... ... r' Fo g waoir W(OSIS OF BEAMNGS - PER DEED) "wmw E Mo AAPROX332,01" OR I J Fop OAK Wr i is i O� OLF I a ,. o i 20 m I I ITO O� I o I 3a I • Ll O I C33) ox 4TM FEET 5--7 n°�nr wAut Y.� VACANT LOT -0 oars 1197 w a� m SCALE: 1 "= 20' 70 mor own em R n E. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOTS 1, 213191 10 AND Ill BLOCK 34, MAGNOLIA PARKAS SHOWN ON A PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 431 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINEL.LAS COUNTY, FLORIDA; TOGETHER WITH APART OF THE FORMER RAIL ROAD RIGHT OF WAY LYING EAST OF SAID LOT 9; BLOCK 34 OF MAGNOLIA PARK SUBDIVISION, TOGETHER WITH LOT 24, BLOCK 32, MAGNOLIA PARK AS SHOWN ON A► PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED its PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 43, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA. I0 a ti `, s v pf_�yiz.'•� aA � o� I ai, 10.49p a 14,O @I flu% U Iphi -68.., v.0 a,x u1, ,an A p W .6ot fiUjO l� U.2 w X a .* C4 if be R-eA ode- 'em HUN o r�ll�e e Pl ol�I 7-W mars- W4 17 RIP PLP SLOW -6 MY g S WOW W(M) � APPRO X04.74!! Tm 6v t , G ?Q { i 7 �N" oo � yaj��30 0 °3 ' Uj yl< wgv :2 ly- W ® J �o n cl) Uj Co v— LL- o N �� o C? le^ 0 0 $ o ' o t S O J < 03 �• ti. _ w u a 2 w Q • o z� qj o M 0 0 z N F.. t N• z a�^ q� N it �4 a M ER 10 mo^ "no M n� c J 1 . I overulme orF 67, Lori 17-` NG .,..� ago aN Lori 0 co ovmwm WTI R2 w IPA ro . III Fit I it s; ILI � t rn DME UII, PM WAR � 1 FAM mnw� 1 I, o V ( , 6=1 LU REE J I , W MUM Or �� 51 I X I 20.0 i c!) ; • 0 ... ... r' Fo g waoir W(OSIS OF BEAMNGS - PER DEED) "wmw E Mo AAPROX332,01" OR I J Fop OAK Wr i is i O� OLF I a ,. o i 20 m I I ITO O� I o I 3a I • Ll O I C33) ox 4TM FEET 5--7 n°�nr wAut Y.� VACANT LOT -0 oars 1197 w a� m SCALE: 1 "= 20' 70 mor own em R n E. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOTS 1, 213191 10 AND Ill BLOCK 34, MAGNOLIA PARKAS SHOWN ON A PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 431 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINEL.LAS COUNTY, FLORIDA; TOGETHER WITH APART OF THE FORMER RAIL ROAD RIGHT OF WAY LYING EAST OF SAID LOT 9; BLOCK 34 OF MAGNOLIA PARK SUBDIVISION, TOGETHER WITH LOT 24, BLOCK 32, MAGNOLIA PARK AS SHOWN ON A► PLAT THEREOF, RECORDED its PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 43, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA. I0 a ti `, s v pf_�yiz.'•� aA � o� I ai, 10.49p a 14,O @I flu% U Iphi -68.., v.0 a,x u1, ,an A p W .6ot fiUjO l� U.2 w X a .* C4 if be R-eA ode- 'em HUN o r�ll�e e Pl ol�I 7-W mars- W4 17 RIP PLP SLOW -6 MY g S WOW W(M) � APPRO X04.74!! Tm 6v t , G ?Q { i 7 �N" oo � yaj��30 0 °3 ' Uj yl< wgv :2 ly- W ® J �o n cl) Uj Co v— LL- o N �� o C? le^ 0 0 $ o ' o t S O J < 03 �• ti. _ w u a 2 w Q • o z� qj o M 0 0 z N F.. t N• z a�^ q� N it �4 a M ER 10 mo^ "no M n� c J 1 . I wa: Y WZ Y Cn N w 8 0 tJ 1 I + �� + + + 11-a + + + V + + + V + + w o. 1.4 21.7 22.4 22.Q 22.3 22.7 22.8 22.4 22.8 22.7 29.3 22.6 22.4 21.7 21.4 19.3 1 amp _ SYMBOL MANUFACTURER MODEL NUMBER OLTAGE LAMPS MOUNTING DESCRIPTION 13.0 _ 19.6 21.5 20.5 22.6 22 +21.2 +22.9 +23.0 +21.2 ±23.0 +22.9 + LFHSOL- H10- 175MHFE- 9SRFR- TLGTRG SYMBOL SUFFIX LEGEND: E - PROVIDE FIXTURE WITH MNUMUM 1100 LUMEN EMERGENCY BATTERY BALLAST (700 LUMEN FOR DOWNLIGHTS). F - PROVIDE FIXTURE WITH DRYWALL FLANGE KIT. 1 22.8 22.6 20.5 21.5 19.6 + 13.4 + 20.0 + 22.0 + 21.2 + 23.1 + 23. + 21.9 + 23.5 + 23.5 + 22.0 + 23.5 + 23.5 + 2 .9 + 23.3 + 23.1 + 21.2 + 22.0 + + 20.0 134 A A A A I A A + 14.1 0.2 + 22.4 + 22.7 + ❑ 23.5 + 23. + 23.4 + ❑ 23.9 + 23.9 + 23.5 + ❑ 23.9 + 23.9 + 23.4 + ❑ 23.7 + 23.5 + 22.7 + ❑ 22.4 + + 20.2 1411 i 2 .3 +23.1 +23.2 +21.4 +23.1 +23.1 +2 .3 +23.0 +22.8 +20.7 +21.7 +19.7 +1311 13.1 19.7 21.7 20.7 22.8 23. +A9 4 +4A 7 +el4 1 +nn o +nn � +nn n +nd . + ^- ^ + -- + ^� t-_ _ +__ _ +_I_ _ +_ _ _ + + + + + FIXTURE SCHEDULE SYMBOL MANUFACTURER MODEL NUMBER OLTAGE LAMPS MOUNTING DESCRIPTION COVERED CANOPY + AVERAGE MAXIMUM MINIMUM AVERAGE / MINIMUM MAXIMUM / MINIMUM 20=fc 23.9 fc 1 10.5 fc A U (1) 175W METAL HALIDE RECESSED 10" SQUARE HORIZONTAL METAL HALIDE, REGRESSED LENSED DOWNLIGHT. PRESCOLITE LFHSOL- H10- 175MHFE- 9SRFR- TLGTRG SYMBOL SUFFIX LEGEND: E - PROVIDE FIXTURE WITH MNUMUM 1100 LUMEN EMERGENCY BATTERY BALLAST (700 LUMEN FOR DOWNLIGHTS). F - PROVIDE FIXTURE WITH DRYWALL FLANGE KIT. P - PROVIDE FIXTURE WITH ELECTRONIC PROGRAM RAPID START BALLAST N LIEU OF ELECTRONIC INSTANT START BALLAST. W - PROVIDE FIXTURE WITH WIRE GUARD. GENERAL NOTES: 1. FLUORESCENT FIXTURES NOT CONTROLLED BY OCCUPANCY SENSORS SHALL BE PROVIDED STANDARD WITH ELECTRONIC INSTANT START BALLAST WITH A MAXIMUM THD <10% AND MINIMUM BALLAST FACTOR OF 0.9. 2. FLUORESCENT FIXTURES CONTROLLED BY OCCUPANCY SENSORS SHALL BE PROVIDED STANDARD WITH ELECTRONIC PROGRAMMED START BALLAST WITH A MAXIMUM THD <10% AND MINIMUM BALLAST FACTOR OF 0.9. 3. ALL FLUORESCENT LAMPS SHALL BE 82 CRI, 4100 KELVIN UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. PHOTOMETRIC SITE SUMMARY COVERED CANOPY + AVERAGE MAXIMUM MINIMUM AVERAGE / MINIMUM MAXIMUM / MINIMUM 20=fc 23.9 fc 1 10.5 fc 1.9:1 2.3:1 N CANOPY PHOTOMETRIC PLAN SCALE: 1/8"=V-0" Advanced Systems Engineering, Inc. Prolect Engineer Job No. 8049.13 Harold A. Scott Manager. HAS PE -54082 CADD: KW ACA -8468 13566 AutomobAe Boulevard, SWIe 330, Clearwater, FL 33782 - Office: 727.640.9398 - Facsimile: 727.493.4415 Copyright 2008 - all rights reserved. No pert of this document may be reproduced without the permission of ASE. an' -4" L- i 111 Doi �um 1/811 = 1' -0" C CD 0 N W"og�q�n zoo CD E3 N �� Z � a Q W G 3 N W lad U }z O F W F Q� O T Z N 96 U- = m e m CCD oo = °ateaQ Z�o'n o Z� e Y a e V O af Z O � U � � Z33 Z(n m 0.' MW O U W yZ co U N � w w � F- C.. 1/811 = 1' -0" C CD 0 N W"og�q�n zoo CD E3 N �� Z � a Q W G 3 N W lad U }z O F W F Q� O T Z N 96 U- = m e m CCD oo = °ateaQ Z�o'n o Z� e Y a e V O af Z O � U � � Z33 Z(n m 0.' MW O U W yZ co U N � w w � F- < � U co w � W o z_ Z� U Q �- p < - -� N "Y Lu y 0 QC25 L 1 ) Lj ®Q LL' PUL 00"M fi 10401111 RELEASED FOR: BID PERMIT CONSTR. REVISIONS: A10/12/07 City Cmnt A210/22/07 City Cmnt A14/1/08 OWNER 4 5/13/08 DRC —COM WILLIAM JOE FISHER ARCHITECT 0010829 A2.1 Issue Date: 8 -15 -07 Project No.: 27036 L 2 01 - I C-4 N2 2 CO 04 N C-4 C14 C) 7 ih C'4 C-4 C14 2 C-4 04 90'-4" 26'-8'1 261-8'p 24P-401 129-8to CD c*4 2 6 2 b 7 ih 2 CO cV 04 ft 00 b NO SECOND FLOOR PLAN. 3/16" = l'—O" o cn 0m cm is ez 'n w Li 85 Lu F- f5 = F- = = (n cn = Lai ff IB U- I=n 0: 0- U0:: cm w ui C3 m a M.8 m = t;i cn cm =5 F cp 10 = C:l U z co w w z F— 0 w 03 cl) CO) CO 0 a: W z Q Uz Fr (L z 04 ,—A 22 1 L nm CC 2-21 LU 0 ca > < 0 0 x i I .J LLJ Lu ILL RELEASED FOR: BID PERMIT CONSTR. REVISIONS: A4/1/08 OWNER 5/13/08 DRC—COM WILLIAM JOE FISHER ARCHITECT 0010829 2 A2.2 I-- T Q Issue Date: 8-15-07 Project No.: 27036 asap � O O U U v v o cn 0m cm is ez 'n w Li 85 Lu F- f5 = F- = = (n cn = Lai ff IB U- I=n 0: 0- U0:: cm w ui C3 m a M.8 m = t;i cn cm =5 F cp 10 = C:l U z co w w z F— 0 w 03 cl) CO) CO 0 a: W z Q Uz Fr (L z 04 ,—A 22 1 L nm CC 2-21 LU 0 ca > < 0 0 x i I .J LLJ Lu ILL RELEASED FOR: BID PERMIT CONSTR. REVISIONS: A4/1/08 OWNER 5/13/08 DRC—COM WILLIAM JOE FISHER ARCHITECT 0010829 2 A2.2 I-- T Q Issue Date: 8-15-07 Project No.: 27036 u 1p Yll � P y✓ FI�D2008 -05014 1001 S FT HARRISON,AVE .ARBOR OAKS PROFESSIONA ]PLANNER OF REC40RD: IT40T ENTERED ATLAS # 295B ZONING: C LAND USE: CG RECEIVED: 05/02/2008 INCOMPLETE: COMPLETE: / MAPS: J PHOTOS: STAFF REPORT: - DRC: CDB: -7 , ,5 j LDe5 Planning Department Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 0 Telephone: 727 - 562 -4567 Fax: 727 - 562 -4865 ❑ SUBMIT ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION ❑ SUBMIT 14 COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION -Plans and application are required to be collated, stapled, and folded into sets ❑ SUBMIT FIRE PRELIMARY SITE PLAN: $200.00 ❑ SUBMIT APPLICATION FEE CASE #: RECEIVED BY (staff initials): DATE RECEIVED: 1001 S FT HARRISO FLD2008 -05014 HARBOR OAKS PROFESSIONAL CTI• Zoning: C atlas# NOTE: 15 TOTAL SETS OF INFORMATION REQUIRED (APPLICATIONS PLUS SITE PLAN SETS) FLEXIBiJL D'E3TE11 -JOP MEl< T A P'LIC-AiiON Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project (Revised 04/24/2007) PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT— A. APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND AGENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4- 202.A) APPLICANT NAME: MAILING ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER: CELL NUMBER _ SNKR I, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company _ 181.5 Health Care Drive, Trinity, FL 33655 _ FAX NUMBER: EMAIL: PROPERTY OWNER(S): SNKR, I, LLC, a Florida Limited Liabili List ALL owners on the deed AGENT NAME: Northside Engineering Services, Inc. MAILING ADDRESS: 300 S. Belcher Road, Clearwater, FL 337.65 _ PHONE NUMBER: 727- 443 -2869 FAX NUMBER: 727- 446 -8036 CELL NUMBER: 727 -235 -8475 EMAIL: B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4- 202.A) PROJECT NAME: STREET ADDRESS PARCEL NUMBER(S): PARCEL SIZE (acres): LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PROPOSED USE(S): Harbor Oaks Professional Ctr. PROJECT VALUATION: $ 3, 000,000 1001 S. Ft Harrison Clearwater FL 15/29/15/54450/032 /0240; 15/29/15/54450/034 /0010; 0030; 0090 1.27 PARCEL SIZE (square feet): 55,295 See attached Medical Clinic /office and Bank i DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: See attached Specifically identify the request (include number of units or square footage of non - residential use and all requested code deviations; e.g. reduction in required number of parking spaces, specific use, etc.) C: \Documents and Settings\derek.ferguson\ Desktop \planningforms _0707 \Comprehensive n l <3f'r�ajcf(FL'h}d 2tOT?t Pagel of 8_ .. t C)(; DOES THIS APPLICATION INVOLVE THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR), A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, OR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED (CERTIFIED) SITE PLAN? YES _ NO X (if yes, attach a copy of the applicable documents) C. PROOF OF OWNERSHIP: (Code Section 4- 202.A.5) CK SUBMIT A COPY OF THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY, DEED TO THE PROPERTY OR SIGN AFFIDAVIT ATTESTING OWNERSHIP (see page 7) D. ❑ 1. WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 3- 913.A) Provide complete responses to the six (6) GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA— Explain how each criteria is achieved, in detail: The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. See attached 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. See attached 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. See attached 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. See attached 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. See attached 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. See attached ronrw , 6 2000 C: \Documents and Settings \derek.ferguson\ Desktop \pianningforms _0707 \Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 04- 24- 07.doc Page 2 of 8 WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria) ❑ Provide complete responses to the six (6) COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT CRITERIA — Explain how each criteria is achieved, in detail: 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use and /or development standards set forth in this zoning district. See attached 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district See attached 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. See attached 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development. See attached 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; C. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and /or preservation of a working waterfront use. See attached 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off - street parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; C. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: ❑ Changes in horizontal building planes; ❑ Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; ❑ Variety in materials, colors and textures; ❑ Distinctive fenestration patterns; ❑ Building stepbacks; and ❑ Distinctive roofs forms. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. See attached �_ +fit P►' nnnn,.. LVUU C: \Documents and Settings \derek.ferguson\ Desktop \planningforms_0707 \Comprehensive Infill Project'(FLD) 04- 24- 07.doc Page 3 of 8 RANII .° #E 0 "OF C-# t4V.i';i. -R 0 01 E. STORMWATER PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria Manual and 4- 202.A.21) IX A STORMWATER NARRATIVE MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH ALL APPLICATIONS. All applications that involve addition or modification of impervious surface; including buildings, must include a stormwater plan that demonstrates compliance with the City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria manual. A reduction in impervious surface area does not qualify as an exemption to this requirement. C� If a plan is not required; the narrative shall provide an explanation as to why the site is exempt. CX At a minimum, the STORMWATER PLAN shall include the following; IX Existing topography extending 50 feet beyond all property lines; D[ Proposed grading including finished floor elevations of all structures; CR All adjacent streets and municipal storm systems; a Proposed stormwater detention /retention area including top of bank, toe of slope and outlet control structure; c:y A narrative describing the proposed stormwater control plan including all calculations and data necessary to demonstrate compliance with the City manual. IX Proposed stormwater detention /retention area including top of bank, toe of slope and outlet control structure; lY Signature and seal of Florida Registered Professional Engineer on all plans and calculations. ❑ COPY OF PERMIT INQUIRY LETTER OR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SWFWMD) PERMIT SUBMITTAL (SWFWMD approval is required prior to issuance of City Building Permit), if applicable 11 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF STORMWATER PLAN REQUIREMENTS (Applicant must initial one of the following): RMR Stormwater plan as noted above is included Stormwater plan is not required and explanation narrative is attached. At a minimum, a grading plan and finished floor elevations shall be provided. CAUTION — IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A STORMWATER PLAN AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR. If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Public Works Administration Engineering Department at (727) 562 -4750. F. SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 4- 202.A) IX SIGNED AND SEALED SURVEY (including legal description of property) — One original and 14 copies; CZ TREE SURVEY (including existing trees on site and within 25' of the adjacent site; by species, size (DBH 4" or greater), and location, including drip lines and indicating trees to be removed) —please design around the existing trees; C TREE INVENTORY; prepared by a "certified arborist ", of all trees 4" DBH or greater, reflecting size, canopy (drip lines) and condition of such trees; EY LOCATION MAP OF THE PROPERTY; ❑ PARKING DEMAND STUDY in conjunction with a request to make deviations to the parking standards (ie. Reduce number of spaces). Prior to the submittal of this application, the methodology of such study shall be approved by the Community Development Coordinator and shall be in accordance with accepted traffic engineering principles. The findings of the study will be used in determining whether or not deviations to the parking standards are approved; EK GRADING PLAN, as applicable; ❑ PRELIMINARY PLAT, as required (Note: Building permits will not be issued until evidence of recording a final plat is provided); Cl COPY OF RECORDED PLAT, as applicable; OR:ellyt PECOVED E 2000 I' V,� , � t �„r ! f!T �L�i"i7Vib�:k�,:. ��fbe,o� �3tl C: \Documents and Settings \derek.ferguson\ Desktop \planningforms_ 0707 \C m�pre e sive4nfiil,Project (FLD) 04- 24- 07.doc Page 4 of 8 ..1 kJ1 G. SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4- 202.A) D W !3 0 SITE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24" x 36 "): X Index sheet referencing individual sheets included in package; X North arrow; _ X Engineering bar scale (minimum scale one inch equals 50 feet), and date prepared; X All dimensions; X Footprint and size of all EXISTING buildings and structures; X Footprint and size of all PROPOSED buildings and structures; X All required setbacks; _X_ All existing and proposed points of access; X All required sight triangles; Identification of environmentally unique areas, such as watercourses, wetlands, tree masses, and specimen trees, including X description and location of understory, ground cover vegetation and wildlife habitats, etc; Location of all public and private easements; __X_ Location of all street rights -of -way within and adjacent to the site; Location of existing public and private utilities, including fire hydrants, storm and sanitary sewer lines, manholes and lift stations, gas X and water lines; _X All parking spaces, driveways, loading areas and vehicular use areas; X Depiction by shading or crosshatching of all required parking lot interior landscaped areas; Location of all solid waste containers, recycling or trash handling areas and outside mechanical equipment and all required screening X {per Section 3- 201(D)(i) and Index #701 }; X Location of all landscape material; _X Location of all onsite and offsite storm -water management facilities; X Location of all outdoor lighting fixtures; and X Location of all existing and proposed sidewalks. SITE DATA TABLE for existing, required, and proposed development, in written /tabular form: X Land area in square feet and acres; X Number of EXISTING dwelling units; X Number of PROPOSED dwelling units; X Gross floor area devoted to each use; X Parking spaces: total number, presented in tabular form with the number of required spaces; Total paved area, including all paved parking spaces & driveways, X expressed in square feet & percentage of the paved vehicular area; Official records book and page numbers of all existing utility X easement; X Building and structure heights; X Impermeable surface ratio (I.S.R.); and X Floor area ratio (F.A.R.) for all nonresidential uses. REDUCED COLOR SITE PLAN to scale (8 %X 11); EXISTING REQUIRED PROPOSED See C1.1 _ FOR DEVELOPMENTS OVER ONE ACRE, provide the following additional information on site plan: X One -foot contours or spot elevations on site; X Offsite elevations if required to evaluate the proposed stormwater management for the parcel; X All open space areas; _ X Location of all earth or water retaining walls and earth berms; X_ Lot lines and building lines (dimensioned); X Streets and drives (dimensioned); X Building and structural setbacks (dimensioned); X Structural overhangs; . Q,,$I y4 6 2008 OF c !"'o e i!'7 : Ei% i a;:R C: \Documents and Settings \derek.ferguson \Desktop \planningforms_0707 \Comprehensive Infill Project (FLD) 04- 24- 07.doc Page 5 of 8 • • H. LANDSCAPING PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4- 1102.A) ❑ LANDSCAPE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24" x 36 "): X All existing and proposed structures; _ X Names of abutting streets; X Drainage and retention areas including swales, side slopes and bottom elevations; _.X_ Delineation and dimensions of all required perimeter landscape buffers; _ X Sight visibility triangles; X Delineation and dimensions of all parking.areas including landscaping islands and curbing; Existing trees on -site and immediately adjacent to the site, by species, size and locations, including driplines (as indicated on required X tree survey); Location, size, and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, indicated by a key relating to the plant —X schedule; Plant schedule with a key (symbol or label) indicating the size, description, specifications, quantities, and spacing requirements of all X existing and proposed landscape materials, including botanical and common names; Typical planting details for trees, palms, shrubs and ground cover plants including instructions, soil mixes, backfilling, mulching and X protective measures; Interior landscaping areas hatched and /or shaded and labeled and interior landscape coverage, expressing in both square feet and X percentage covered; X Conditions of a previous development approval (e.g. conditions imposed.by the Community Development Board); X Irrigation notes. Ll REDUCED COLOR LANDSCAPE PLAN to scale (8% X 11); tY COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM application, as applicable. Landscape associated with the Comprehensive Landscape Program shall exceed minimum Code requirements to offset the areas where minimum Code will not be met. I. BUILDING ELEVATION PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4- 202.A.23) IX BUILDING ELEVATION DRAWINGS —with the following information; X All sides of all buildings; X Dimensioned; X Colors (provide one full sized set of colored elevations); X Materials; X Sight visibility triangles; LIC REDUCED BUILDING ELEVATIONS —same as above to scale on 8% X 11. J. SIGNAGE: (Division 19. SIGNS / Section 3 -1806) UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT ❑ All EXISTING freestanding and attached signs; Provide photographs and dimensions (area, height, etc.), indicate whether they will be removed or to remain. ❑ All PROPOSED freestanding and attached signs; Provide details including location, size, height, colors, materials and drawing; freestanding signs shall include the street address (numerals) ❑ Comprehensive Sign Program application, as applicable (separate application and fee required). ❑ Reduced signage proposal (8% X 11) (color), if submitting Comprehensive Sign Program application. t° :J 16 2008 C: \Documents and Settings \d ere k.ferguson \Desktop \p Ian ningforms -0707 \Compre hens ive Infill ProjecQ{F�,DJ,G.4,2,4.0�,doc Page 6of8 rcf�►vt��.: irs6:se$n.La��tl C!7;OFOrte'a� «a 'i.wArr vAka 't,R • 0 K. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: (Section 4- 202.A.13 and 4- 801.C) EJ Include if required by the Traffic Operations Manager or his /her designee or if the proposed development: Will degrade the acceptable level of service for any roadway as adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. Will generate 100 or more new vehicle directional trips per hour and /or 1000 or more new vehicle trips per day. Will affect a nearby roadway segment and /or intersection with five (5) reportable accidents within the prior twelve (12) month period or that is on the City's annual list of most hazardous intersections. Trip generation shall be based on the most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Trip General Manual. The Traffic Impact Study must be prepared in accordance with a "Scoping Meeting" held with the Traffic Operations Manager and the Planning Department's Development Review Manager or their designee (727- 562 -4750) Refer to Section 4 -801 C of the Community Development Code for exceptions to this requirement. Acknowledgement of traffic impact study requirements (Applicant must initial one of the following): Traffic Impact Study is included. The study must include a summary table of pre- and post - development levels of service for all RMR roadway legs and each turning movement at all intersections identified in the Scoping Meeting.— N� Traffic Impact Study is not required. r` CAUTION - IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR. If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Public Works Administration Engineering Department at (727) 562- 4750. L. FIRE 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 developer due to the impact of this project. The water supply must be able to support the needs of any required fire sprinkler, standpipe and /or fire pump. If a fire pump is required the water supply must be able to supply 150% of its rated capacity: Compliance with the 2004 Florida Fire Prevention Code to include NFPA 13, MFPA 14, NFPA 20, NFPA 291, and MFPA 1142 (Annex H) is required. 0 Acknowledgement of fire flow calculations /water study requirements (Applicant must initial one of the following): Fire Flow Calculations/Water Study is included. RMR Fire Flow Calculations/Water Study is not required. CAUTION - IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A FIRE FLOW CALCULATIONS/ WATER STUDY AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR. If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Fire Prevention Department at (727) 562 -4334. M. SIGNATURE: I, the undersigned,, acknowledge that all representations made in 4s application are true and accurate to the best of my kn ' ledge and authorize City representatives to visit and ph tograph the property described in this application. Signature of property owner or representative STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELAS �xVrn to and subscribed before me this t day of A.D. 20�= to me and /or by tc�x/,Vaz E who is personally known has producedW ,cj., as ide 66fication. Not public, My commission exoires. —.- gq�� usr� r c)mEEN A. WILLIAMS JAL MY COMMISSION # DD 57"'r EXPIRES: October 14, 201 � 4fif1R�Pro�ect (FI Pa .Q�,b"7ndbwo co. i- 800.3 -NOTA Y PECSAO C:1Documents and Setti! gs l derek. ferguson \Desktoplplanningforms_i 1 + 6 2Q08 Page 7 of 8 �� I Mr, �.Z.r'�VT Apr I b 08 03:0bp Stylistic Uesign Uevelope U4/ A4/ 4rivu AV. A. i r t r 44uuuou • N. AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHOR= AGiEWT: t. provide names at all properly QWngrt an deed - PF U+i fWl names' sbW,Rx , LLC /1(4/9b2JJ p.2 11L""fy` LuG G11V .7VU.7 0 r-M�7G LI Lf uC 2- That 0 arrWue s-) the owrler(s) and record Utte rmider(s) of Ohs to 00ing described property (addres9 or geneMl location): 1001 S. Pt. Hurri®onw Clearwater 3. That this property constiDWec the property for wtkh a requa* bra: (desuibe reg4+eal) comprehensive in -fill Redevelopment Application bas been submitted to redeveicp the aite with Medical Clini2r office and tank uses- the undyed (►st>i►►+ave) appointed and (does/do) 8paolnt ' Noxt;ho: de Engineering $eicviCefi, Inc. as (hiartheir) agt:rd(s) to extaaule any petWuns or other doa:m" nacesseryto of ed such petltW: S. Thet th)s affidavit ties been esaeuMd to Indua►the My olC3eorwatw. Florida to atrsider and act an the above described property: 6. That site vWt5 to the prvpertq are rteoesesery by CIly represenlattves in Cale► to process thic'13POC tiort and the owner auutorizes City representafivam to visit and photogrepti the property deecnried In thfs sppfieattan: 7, That cedi that the foregoing Isifue and earned. Property OVUr10r (S- % S� [� 1` - - L L- < ^°P�ny vm Icl iparty ( Property tanner STATF- OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINEWA$ -t- Derare ma -lie a dmigned. an officer duty oammisaiorted by the [am of the $left 0( Florida. an This _ / _2� day of �--perw"Iy appeared N�- 1, 1 4 ! . l trJl J: _ who having been first duty awom Oaposes and. 38ye that halshe fvly, understands the ConterAC of ltta arlidaVit that hershe ai pwd. JEAN MARIE MCINTYRE-HAUSHALTER MY COMMISSION 4 DD 728840 J y•, a€ EXPIRES: November 7, 2011 �. Bonded ThrutJoWry Public tJndenvrhere _ ��POn1iIG.9t raWrC Notary sealfStemp cmoctmmim and SeMingslderek. fstgumortUJesfatoptptar ►ni�gWr.nn_O7d71COmpatsrtensive Wall Project (FL.D) G4-24- 17.dnc pop is or 8 ciI16. PE( EWED 61008 •I. Provide- names of all property owners on deed -- PRINT full names: ki6ltC,iT� :rliC 2. That (I arnAsre are) the ovfner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described prol'ir'rty (address or general localiori): 1001 S. 1r't. Har.'s-i.son, clea.ewater 3. Thal this property constifutes file properly for which a request fora: (describe request) - 1.,.0[)0 aquai --a foiat medical, office medical. Clinic with il-e 3.in�rcvem nt:r 1, That the undersigned (has have) appointed and (does /do) appoint: 8rr�[-thwidn L•'ncjir[e5r:i.;:g �erv.ices, T_lto. ars {i115 /fhaii`) egenf(.$) td execute clay I.�atiilnns arotherdaournerrts necessarytn effer,C siicli petitican; 15. That tills affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act on the above desrribed property; 6. That ;site visits to the property are necessary by (.,fly tepresen1atives in order to process tills applicaifan and the owner authorizes City rapreeentati'✓es t[) visit and Photograph the property described in Ibis dppliratlon; 7. 1114[1! (lAme), the undersigned rir.ilhority, hereby cerlify that Ilia foregoing Is true Land cnrrrryo , Ar ..... PruparPy C)wria G�c Prot�erty L�i'vner .. . Property Owner STATE, OF FLCIRWA, COUNTY (,)F I�INELLAS .Property ovmer Before rile the till derslgned, all officer dilly eonimissioned by file lavvs cf t1tia 3tatt, �f- t9lnride , on this lj clay of personally oppearecf ��0%�a 1C �/� c � vai c h wing been first eels sworn Deposes and says that helshe fully understands the conienis of fhe affidavit that he /sl r. 11II -w �� i`•I � �u � Signature Notary SeaPstamp My Com AA, 3 �a�. • Q�Mb S1)A �q/ • .. e. Co eta 9 p %� • #DD454 243 • 10 "q C Documents and Settf ngslderel,. fergusonl De,c lctoplilanningforns_0 % =l.D) 04- ?4- 07.doc Page 0 of 5 M)'W x , 6 2008 p r T llg'r,�ltsi;,��,�^i fU�4�d'+?ewa�:ti�aV[I ,. • 4 This letter will serve as authorization for Housh Chovaee (agent Name) with gorthside Engineering services, Inc. to act as an agent for SNRKI. I (Property Owner's Name) And to execute any and all documents related to securing permits and approvals for the construction on the property generally located at 1001 S. Ft. Harrison. Clearwater, Florida (Property Location) PINELLAS County, State of FLORIDA. Signature of Property Owner Address of Property Owner City /State /Zip Code Print Name of Property Owner s� Title ;7.17 —810 P i //Y' Telephone Number State of The foregoing instrument was acknowled before me this L day County of 20 Dom, b as who is personally known to me or who has produced \ \ \ \ \��1�iillllll111 / /// as identification and who did (did not) take an oath. N\ BUS / / .• •���SSIO/�F� . c, fiber 2g ON Notary Public 2• y #DD454243 ,F•�§i�Tnature) i y °-/ ranee / /�� � O STA���� \ \ \ \\ \\�mmissi # llllllllt6 (SEAL ABOVE) 3 2006 e q 07Y OF (Name of Notary Typed, Printed or Stamped) • • FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project FLD2008 -05014 1001 S. Fort Harrison Harbor Oaks Professional Center NES Project # 731 June 13, 2008 Description of Request: To construct a two story commercial development, containing a medical clinic and office uses with following the reductions or variances: Building Front (North) Reqd: 25' Regst: 17.50' Front (West) Reqd: 25' Reqst: 18.80' Pavement Height Front (North) Reqd: 25' Reqst: 7.5' (to Parking) Side (South) Reqd: 10' Reqst: 6.0' (to Sidewalk) Side (South) Reqd: 10' Reqst: 6.5' (to Parking) Side (East) Reqd: 1.0' Reqst: 7.0' (to Parking) Allowable - Office: 25' -50' Allowable - Medical Clinic: 25' Proposed: 32' 2 -1/2" (Top ofparapet) 41'6-1/2" (Mid -point of roof) 45' 4 -1/2" (Roof peak) Also, reductions to the required landscape buffers through a Comprehensive Landscape Application to allow the following: Landscape Buffers Front (North) Front.(East) Reqd: 10' Reqst: 7.5' Reqd: 10' Reqst: 7' General Applicable Standards (Section 3- 913(A) : 1. The portion of the project which will contain the building and parking is zoned "C" and allows a F.A.R of 0.55, respectively the project is proposed in general conformance with these standards. The proposed development will be in harmony with the character of the adjacent developments and the surrounding area which hosts a mixture of similar commercial and medical offices. The building setbacks that we are proposing exceed the neighboring. building located to the North on Magnolia which has a zero front setback along S. Ft. Harrison Avenue and the newly approved Harbor Oaks townhome project with a front building setback off S. Ft. Harrison of only 10'. t_ �' ` 16 2008 ENT • The proposed two story development will be consistent with the adjacent properties in scale and bulk; the surrounding and adjacent properties are comprised of one and two story developments very similar in scale and bulk as the proposed development. 2. The proposed site design, height and building design will be compatible and consistent with the new developments in the area in addition to blending well with the older existing built environment. 3. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the values as redevelopment of this site will promote investment and encourage further redevelopment of the surrounding land and buildings. The current assessed value of the vacant land is $1,760,000 with a projected value of construction of over $4,000,000 providing improved land values to the surrounding sites, and increased assessment to the City of Clearwater. 4. No health or safety issues are anticipated with the proposed development; the proposed uses are compatible with the commercial corridor, comply with the existing zoning, are appropriate and similar with adjacent developments, and will not create any negative effects on the surrounding properties. The redevelopment plan includes responsible site drainage; fully landscaped yards and a new building which meets current building code and FEMA requirements to further improve the heath and safety of the surrounding community. 5. The development plan provides single vehicular access to the site and is located . along the secondary street, Magnolia Drive; the primary vehicular egress for the site is also located along Magnolia Drive. Negative affects are further mitigated by providing only the bank drive thru egress onto Ft. Harrison; a formal Traffic Impact Study has been provided and offers further- discussion related to vehicular mitigation, safety and traffic congestion. 6. The immediate vicinity is currently characterized by mixed land use patterns; the proposed mixture of medical clinic and office uses including a bank will be consistent with the community character and will provide additional commercial support to the surrounding area. The proposed development uses and urban design elements are consistent with the desires for the area; the design will blend beautifully with the community character and will provide further enhancement and support to the surrounding environment. 7. No adverse effects associated with visual, acoustic, olfactory and hours of operation . are anticipated as these items are addressed and minimized through appropriate and responsible design. The design, number and location of driveways; the proposed mixture of uses and the architectural design of the building together with the proposed hours of operation (Monday — Friday 8am -5pm) all play a part in accomplishing minimalization of any anticipated adverse effect. ORIVA11W .- 6 2008 2 • 1 0 Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria The following items make the site very difficult to develop without deviations: a. The irregular shape of the parcel, having narrow lot width at points makes the site more difficult to develop without deviations; with a truly rectangular parcel three of the requested deviations would not be necessary. b. Contributing to the difficulty of developing without deviations is the fact that the site has three yards that are considered "front" requiring a larger setback for the north, east and west yards. c. Provide an access point along Magnolia that is appropriately distanced from the intersection of Magnolia and Ft. Harrison, together with the objective to maintain appropriate access spacing from the Pinellas Trail, the location of the access drive and parking layout is somewhat predetermined for this site. 2 The uses proposed, the site and architectural design are in conformance with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan, as well as the purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of the code; the proposed uses, design and function are appropriate for the neighborhood and surrounding community. The project, as proposed will not impede the normal and orderly development of the improvement of surrounding the properties. The project is expected to improve, not impair value of the property and the adjacent properties. Further, the location of the development, uniquely situated adjacent to the Pinellas Trail, will result in the improvement of approximately 135 linear feet of the Pinellas Trail boundary with professionally designed landscaping, providing; rewards and benefit to the entire community. 4 Adjoining properties will not suffer detriment as a result of this development; the development of this vacant property will increase property values for the surrounding area. The projects location within a "hospital area" with such close proximity the hospital complex will only offer support the community and provide new additional employment opportunities. With the proposed mixture of uses, together with the site and architectural design, no negative impacts are anticipated. 5. The immediate vicinity is currently characterized by mixed land use pattern; the proposed mixture of office and medical clinic uses will be consistent with the community character and will provide the desired commercial support to the surrounding area. The proposed development uses and design elements are consistent with the desires for the area and will blend beautifully with the community character, providing further enhancement and support to the surrounding environment. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard and flexible development use. 6. Re- development of the subject property is in close accordance with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City of Clearwater and will continue to upgrade the area. 66 2000 I x �LMTTRS Mir ri t. r • • a. Practical development of this property requires deviations from development standards for setbacks and buffers primarily due to the irregular shaped lot. The proposed setbacks, design and use are consistent and compatible with the newly approved Harbor Oaks town home project in addition to many of the other surrounding developments. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties in anyway. This proposed development will further promote the positive redevelopment pattern of the area. b. There are no adopted applicable design guidelines for this area. C. The proposed development and design supports the established character of development (commercial, office, medical clinic uses) along this stretch of S. Ft. Harrison Avenue with many existing developments having reductions to building setbacks, and landscape buffers. d. In response to the desired design elements provided within the Development Code, we offer the following: Harbor' Oaks is a mixed -use development which is architecturally influenced by the designs of old Florida. This style of architecture provides many opportunities in building form as well as material selection. Horizontal building plans undulate as the standing seam metal roofs break up the parapets. Wooden trellises shade the first floor fagade creating dramatic shadows. Old Florida details and materials, such as long overhangs, brackets supporting the roof, Bahama style shutters, coral stone, and a standing seam metal .roof tie the building to the past. Fenestration patterns become tall and narrow in the corner towers adding elegance while drawing ones eyes up to the long brackets supporting the roof. Building setbacks fall within the requirements creating a public space around the building. The design and scale of the project integrates into the surrounding community and offers a unique influence of the past incorporating many of the design elements described within the Development Code. e. The proposed development plan provides appropriate buffers and distance between buildings, with professionally designed landscaped yards, featuring four tiers of plantings along much of Ft. Harrison and three tiers of planting along Magnolia Drive. Although minimal deviations for the setback to pavement and the dumpster are being requested along the Pinellas Trail much of this yard actually meets the requirement; the lot line is angled creating this additional variance request. Additional landscaping has been included in the design to provide the desired buffering. The proposed plan offers trees in excess of the minimum required by code with all available open space on the larger site being planted with a multitude of varieties, textures and colors of plantings. The proposed development will benefit the community character and property values, above and beyond the required development standards. NES 731 - 1001 —S. Ft. Harrison — RMR/rmr revised 6.13.08 °' 16 2008 4 tta,i � t tPf *•,.�. '"r} 1 ^.�- q Clearwater Planning Department 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 Telephone: 727 - 562 -4567 Fax: 727- 562 -4865 ❑ SUBMIT ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION ❑ SUBMIT 14 COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION -Plans and application are required to be collated, stapled and folded into sets • CASE NUMBER: RECEIVED BY (Staff Initials): DATE RECEIVED: * NOTE: A TOTAL OF 15 SETS OF THIS APPLICATION AND ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A COMPLETE LEVEL ONE OR LEVEL TWO APPLICATION. COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM (Revised 04/24/2007) PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT— APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND AGENT INFORMATION: (Code Section 4- 202.A) APPLICANT NAME: SNKR I, LLC __.._...... ......_. .......... ..._.._...... .._ ....... _ ......... _ ..... ................. ......... ........_-__- ...._....._.._._. _....._..__.._....... -........_.....__....... .-- __._...._.....__..._....._.. MAILING ADDRESS: 1815 Health Care Drive, Trinity, FL 34655 PHONE NUMBER: (727 809 -114.6 _ ........� ._..___ FAX NUMBER: CELL NUMBER: 4 v EMAIL: �~ PROPERTY OWNER(S): SNKR, I , LLC a Florida Limited Liability Company t_ist ALL owners on the deed AGENT NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER: -CELL NUMBER: NOrthside Engineering Services, Inc. Renee Ruggiero, Project Planner 300 S. Belcher Road, Clearwater, FL _727- 443 -2869 FAX NUMBER: renee@northsideengineering.com 7277 -235 -8475' �_' EMAIL: �- - - 1. ARCHITECTURAL THEME: a. The landscaping in a Comprehensive Landscape Program shall be designed as a part of the architectural theme of the principal buildings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for the development. OR b. The design, character, location and /or materials of the landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program shall be demonstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for development under the minimum landscape standards. SEE COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE NARRATIVE - 1tiZC-.9 '^'t r YA'4S •r,,, C:IDocuments and Settingslderek. fergusonIDesktoplplanningforms _07071ComprehensCi�ve� an0scap ProgP2m�04 4- 07.doc Page 1 of 2 r' 2. COMMUNITY CHARACTER: The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater. SEE COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE NARRATIVE 3. PROPERTY VALUES: The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program will have a beneficial impact on the value of the property in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. SEE COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE NARRATIVE 4. SPECIAL AREA OR SCENIC CORRIDOR PLAN: The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program is consistent with any special area or scenic corridor plan which thN/�ity of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in which the parcel proposed for development is located. THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 3, DIVISION 12 MAY BE WAIVED OR MODIFIED AS A PART OF A LEVEL ONE OR LEVEL TWO APPLICATION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, IF THE APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL INCLUDES A COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM, WHICH SATISFIES THE ABOVE CRITERIA. THE USE OF LANDSCAPE PLANS, SECTIONS / ELEVATIONS, RENDERINGS AND PERSPECTIVES MAY BE NECESSARY TO SUPPLEMENT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WORKSHEET. SIGNATURE: I, th undersigned, acknowledge that all representations made in this a Acation are true and accurate to the best of my kno le ge and authorize City representatives to visit and P logfaph the property described in this application. ature of property owner or representative ORF,�9�a RECU�W A IN 6 2009 a�ENT STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINEL�AS Sw rn to and subscribed before me this day of A.D. 20 to me and /or by who is personally known has produced as identification. Kota public, My commission expires: E1.800-3-Noj-ARy [7C�REEN A. WILLIAMS MY COMMISSION# DD''576718 EXPIRES: October 14, 2010 'FL Notwy Dlsepupt Assoc. Co. C:IDocumenfs..and Settingslderek. fergusonlDe, sktoplplanningforms _07071Comprehensive Landscape Program 04- 24- 07.doc Page 2 of 2 9 COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM NARRATIVE Case Number: FLD2008 -05014 ONNNAL Project Address: 1001 S. Ft. Harrison fl"`-Cth W. Project Name: Harbor Oaks Medical Center °;� 6 ZQQ� NES Project: #0731 Date: June 10, 2008 PlANNI US CN 0FC#'fkZ111;A — Request: A reduction to the landscape buffer along Magnolia Drive and the Pinellas Trail from 10' to 7'. 1. Architectural Theme: A. N/A B: The plan provides plantings beyond the minimum code requirements with four tiers of plantings along; the majority of the Ft. Harrison frontage and three tiers along Magnolia Drive. The plan provides over 85 new trees, virtually all available green space has been utilized within the landscape design. 2. Community Character: The proposed landscape treatment is designed to provide years of benefits without the disruption of building function, drainage and utilities. The landscape design includes just over 1,800 new plantings, consisting of 28 different varieties and will offer the community immediate visual rewards. The design provides landscaping that is tolerant to the Florida environment and is pedestrian friendly. Once installed, the landscaping will greatly enhance and improve the streetscape and community character. Further, the location of the development, uniquely situated adjacent to the Pinellas Trail, will result in the improvement of approximately 135 linear feet of the Pinellas Trail boundary with professionally designed landscaping, providing additional rewards and benefit to the entire community. 3. Property Values: The quality of the proposed plantings, together with the professional landscape design will offer upgraded and positive value to the immediate vicinity. 4. Special Area or Scenic Corridor Plan: The development is not located within a Special Area or Scenic Corridor Plan 6.13.2008 Revised Harbor Oaks NES 731 rmr /RMR 0 �; —,, Pd, AFFIDAVIT "i O OUT HC3RIZE AGENT: t. Provide navies of all property owners on deed – PRINT full names: St:1KRIY ITC 2. That (I amiwe are) the owner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property (address or general location): 100.1 S. Ft. Harrison, Clearwater 3. That this property constitutes the property for which a request for a: (describe request) 21,000 square foot medical office / medical clinic with site improvements 4. That the undersigned (has /have) appointed and (does /do) appoint: alnrthside Engineering Services, Inc. as (hisltheir) ardent(s) to execute any petitions or other documents necessary to affect such petition; 5 Thal this affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act on the above described property; 6. That site vislts to the properly 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 (Ilwa), the undersigned authority, hereby certify that the foregoing is true and Corr c Property Owner Prc 0 Civvnet Property Owner STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PtNELL AS .Property Owner Before me the undersigned, an offloer duly commissioned by the laws of fife Stat f Florida, on this lj day of ,�JJ 9 / � W Personally appeared eJ�O/( who having been first duly sworn Deposes and says ihat het$110 fully understands the contents of fhe affidavit that hels" Notary Seai/Starnp My Comy�~Xtr - �". G�' per 2 '-Co • - v i . • co ap N o • o #DD454 ?_43 0 n8orance Boo' O GADocumentsand Settirigslderek. fergusonl t)esktopiptanningforms_074 � �Ft.G) 04- 24- 07.doc Page B of a / /V11M� 111m`�`\\\ ORNOM M, PE Q 2 2000 DWENT CITY OF CEf`ercr�iiEu:IC LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION This letter will serve as authorization for Housh Ghovaee (agent Name) with Northside Engineering Services, Inc. to act as an agent for SNRKI, Inc. (Property Owner's Name) And to execute any and all documents related to securing permits and approvals for the construction on the property generally located at 1001 S. Ft. Harrison Clearwater Florida (Property Location) PINELLAS County, State of FLORIDA. Signature of Property Owner Address of Property Owner mw "4q City /State /Zip Code Print Name of Property Owner Title ?17 •-8'0 P YZ4� Telephone Number State of The foregoing instrument was acknowled before me this day County of o , 20 Dom, b as �w who is personally known to me or who has produced `11111111111/C/ s identification and who did (did not) take an oath. BUS O. •c° fiber,29 Q =ylr • .. 0 ° • *= Notary Public y. o #DD454243,0 •Pc�$j- nature) /9'P/A'•�';° ; c; mmissi # / /// /ellll rii1 -1►RAI (SEAL ABOVE) (Name of Notary Typed, Pri K " J Q 2 2000 :% PLANK-34G CQ?,4M`v1ENT Cl Y 0 F C! E%`M'jX1ER Case Number: FLD2008 -05014 Project Address: 1001 S. Ft. Harrison Project Name: Harbor Oaks Professional Center NES Project: # 731 Date: June 16, 2008 Narrative for Stacking Length for Magnolia Dr. Driveway The purpose of this narrative is to provide information relating to the traffic pattern surrounding the proposed development, the proposed site design and the anticipated effect the proposed stacking length may have on the safe movement of vehicles along the local street: • The design offers onsite parking with a single ingress and egress point along Magnolia Drive and one egress point along S. Ft. Harrison for the bank drive -thru, improving the previous existing conditions of two curb cuts along S. Ft. Harrison and one curb cut along Magnolia Drive. • The site design provides a safe 160' distance between the street intersection and the driveway access along Magnolia Drive, improving the previous condition which provided a curb cut within 75' of the intersection. • Although the proposed stacking length does not meet the letter of the Code by providing a 40' stacking area from property line, the intent and spirit of the code is satisfied as the dimension from curb to the first parking space is 36' providing safe access to and from the site. • Magnolia Drive is a two lane, 30 MPH local type street which dead ends just east of the Pinellas Trail, due to the minimal traffic flow along Magnolia it is expected that the throat reduction from 40' to 17' will not create adverse traffic conditions along Magnolia Drive. Based upon the above factors, negative impact relating to function and safety are not anticipated as a result of the proposed stacking length. NOTE: Please also see Traffic Impact Study prepared by Robert Pergolizzi, previously submitted. b C= - Information prepared By c9° Northside Engineering Services, Inc. phi 0 is � 7 I 6.16..08 Harbor Oaks NES 731 rmr /RMR F`.r [1- I'R.EPARED BY AND I�2v \C'rURN TO: KrN'r' R.UNNELLS, P.A. 101 MAIN STRIJYT, SUITr A SArrTY ITARBOIt, FL 34695 PZI: (727)'726 -2728 ' 0 'KEN BURKE; CLERK OF COURT PINELLAS COUNTY FLORIDA INST# 2007276305 06/20/2007 at 01:57 PM OFF REC BK: 15942 PG: 1401 -1403 DoeType:DEED RECORDING: $27.00 D DOG STAMP: $9275.00 [SPACE ABOVE LINE Fort RECORDING DATA] W A.R.R A N T Y D F.E .I THIS INDENTURE, made this day of J v % , 2007, betweenFullvio DiVello, as Trustee of the Ft. Harrison Property Land Trust, datedDecemher 30, 2005, whose address is 400 Islandway, No. 703, Clearwater, Florida 33767, Grantor (herein called 'First Party "), and, SNKR I, LLC; a Florida limited liability company, whose address is 1815 Health Care Drive, Trinity, FL 34655, Grantee (herein called "Second Party "). WITNESSETH, that the said party of the first part, for and in consideration of the sum of TEN DOLLARS and other good and valuable considerations, to it in hand paid, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold and transferred, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell and transfer unto the said party of the second part and his heirs and assigns forever, all that certain parcel of land lying and being in the County of Pinellas, and State of Florida, to wit: Legal Description: Exhibit "A" attached TOGETHER with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances, with everyprivilege, right, title, interest and estate, dower and right of dower, reversion, remainder and easement thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining: TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same in fee simple forever. And the said party of the first part covenants with the said party of the second part that it is lawfully seized of the said premises, that they are free from all encumbrances, save and except for all covenants and restrictions of record; that certain mortgage originally filed in Official Records Book 14143, Page 9230, of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, in favor of Fifth Third Bank, and subsequently assigned to Synovus Bank,of Tampa Bay in Official Records Book 15828,.Page 1305 of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, having a current..,principal balance of $780,000.00,, which mortgage and balance grantee herein, by acceptance of this deed, hereby a.s.sumes and expressly agrees to pay; and taxes for the current year, and that it has good right and lawful authority to sell the same; and that the said party of the first part does hereby fully warrant the title to the said land, and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. ^.1 - Ply \ \Wxpwks (it l \run tic) lspi0ormsLepI\ Clients\ DiVello, Fulvio - Fort Harrison Sale \DeedWarranty.SNKR ldoc.doc I Page 1. 4a 'Y Ib Y 6" 1 6 2008 P1 IJNWA'�S IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Party of the first Part has hereunto set its hand and seal the clay and year above written. SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVEIZED IN OUR PIZESENCE: Ft. Harrison Property Land Trust, dated December 30, 2005 Print Name ArNTA IRIJNNEL1;s By: Fulvio DiVello, Trustee STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PINELLAS r The foregoing instrument was acknowledged Before me this day of , 2007, by Fulvio DiVello, as Trustee of the Ft. Harrison Property Land Trust dated ecember 30, 2005, who is personally, known to me or who has produced identification and. who did take an oath. (seal) Notary Public 'Tate of Florida My Commission Expires AMY v. '406=-Z Printed rime: MARY O.MANESTAR MY COMMISSION A DD 508212 EXPIRES: Fobnjwy 3, 2010 gl „rt . Baled Tr u Notary ft"Ic Undormftors 1 1'*A IL P. r ti C: "'E. 4. t D , 6 2000 e Srr� /;ti:IC EXTITBTT "A" a Lot 24, Block 32, and Lots 1, 2, 3, 9 and 10 and 50 foot strip of vacated Railroad Right of way on East, and Lot 11, Block 34, Magnolia Park, according to the neap or plat thereof as recorded in flat Book 3, Page(s) 43, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. O'�t! AL F.11'.( t 'VM a..,= , c 2008 rl"';'"VOFC-f-FEI MI�a,1. R f • Tree Inventory =-1001 South Fort flarrison Avenue Prepared by: Alan Mayberry, Consulting Arborist March 30, 2005 I.S.A. Certified Arborist #SO -0305 The following report is submitted by Alan. Mayberry and includes findings that I believe are accurate based on my education, experience and knowledge in the feld of Arboriculture. I have no interest personally or financially in this property and this report is factual and unbiased. This report is the property ofFuliicco Divello and will not be given to other entities unless so directed. Site Overview and Canopy Analysis The subject property includes a former commercial building and a single family, residential house. Historically, the property has been cleared of all native vegetation and even the larger native trees are second growth, The tree canopy is composed primarily,of the native live oak (Quercus virginiana) and laurel oak (Quercus laur folia) trees. Palm species including the native sabal palm (Sahal palmetto) are also present. In addition, the site contains an admixture of exotic trees that were planted by the previous occupants or invasive species such as the camphor tree (Cinnamomum camphora) that grew from seed. The mid -story vegetation is comprised of planted ornamental shrubs and various grasses make up the groundcover vegetation. The overall condition of the trees is below average as the site trees reflect neglect and improper maintenance. However, a small percentage of the trees warrant preservation and they have been identified in the inventory. In addition, several trees are border line for preservation and will be upgraded if remedial maintenance is performed. . Tree Inventory Data A tree inventory is a written record of a tree's condition at the time of inspection. It is a valuable tool to prioritize tree maintenance and remove trees with problems that could lead to failure and cause personal injury or property damage. The tree inventory lists four codes and also has a comment section. The following is an explanation of the inventory data: o° Tree# location - Each tree is assigned a number for reference in the inventory that corresponds with a number on the site plan that identifies the location of the tree in the field.. - ; Size — Tree size is a measure of the tree's trunk diameter measured at 11.5' above grade. If a fork exists in the trunk at that point: the diameter is measured a.t the narrowest area, below the fork, Palm species are measured by feet of clear fr-unk, Clear trunk (shown as s= �Z n • C.T.) is measured from the grade to the base of the bud. NOTE; If the crown spread is required to be shown on a plan use the following formula: The crown spread is equal to 1' radius for each inch of trunk diameter_ It is better to use this formula. than the actual location of the branch spread as a tree will develop roots in the opposite, direction of a lean or one -sided crown. The crown spread for palms is 6' radius from the trunk. Species — Each tree is listed by its coniinon and botanical name the :first time it is listed in the inventory. For simplicity the tree is listed by its common name thereafter. Condition Rating — The condition rating is an assessment of the tree's overall structural strength and systemic health. Elements of structure include: 1) the presence of cavities, decayed wood, split, cracked, rubbing branches etc,, 2) branch. arrangements and attachments, i,e,, well spaced vs. several. branches emanating.from the same area on the trunk, codominan.t stems vs. single leader trunk, presence of branch collars vs. included bark. Elements of systemic health relate to the tree's overall energy system measured by net photosynthesis (food made) vs, respiration (food used). A tree with good systemic' health will have a vascular system that moves water, nutrients and photosynthate around the tree as needed. Indicators of a healthy systemic system used in the overalt'condition rating include: 1) live crown ratio (the amount of live crown a. tree has relative to its mass), 2) crown density (density of the foliage), 3) tip growth (shoot elongation is a sign that the tree is making and storing energy. The overall condition rating also takes into consideration the species, appearance and any y unique features. The rating scale is 0 -6 with 0 being a dead tree and 6 a specimen. I.ncremerits of 0:5 are used to increase accuracy. Examples of the tree rating system are as follows: 0- A dead tree 1- A tree that is dying, severely declining, hazardous, harboring a communicable disease or a tree designated by the State of Florida's Exotic Pest Plant Council as a category #1 ecological nest i.e.; Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus ter.ehinthtfohys), A tree with a rating of 1 should be removed as it is beyond treatment and is a. threat to cause personal injury or property damage. 2 -- A tree exhibiting serious structural defects such as codominant stems with included bark at or near the base, large cavities, large areas of decayed wood, crown dieback cracked /split scaffold branches etc. In. addition, a tree with health issues such as 16:v, energy, low live crown ratio, ,serious disease or insect problems, nutritional deficien`ak,,s or soil pH problems, A tree with a rating of #2 should be removed unless the probl�i�?:(s) can be treated. A tree with a #2 condition rating will typically require a considerable amount of maintenance to qualify for an upgrade of the. condition rating. ` M LU .Y C= o CS C%.1 Gw cc's U • • 3- A tree with average structure and systemic health and with. problems that can be corrected with moderate maintenance. A. tree with a codominant stem not in the basal area that will be subordinated or called and braced. or a codominant stern that will soon have included barb can be included as a 43_ A tree with a rating of #3 has average appearance, crown. density and live crown. ratio and should be, preserved if possible, 4- A tree with a rating of 4 has good. sti °u.cfure and systemic health with minor problems that can be easily corrected with minor maintenance. The tree should have an attractive appearance and be essentially free of any debilitating disease or insect problem. The tree should also have above average crown density and live crown ratio. Mature trees exhibiting scars, old wounds, small cavities or other problems that are not debilitating can be. included in this group particularly if they possess unique form or other aesthetic amenities relating to their age: A tree with a. rating of 4 is valuable to the property and should be preserved. 5 — A tree with very high live crown ratio and exceptional structure and systemic health and. virtually free of insect or disease problems or nutritional deficiencies. A tree in this category should have a balanced crown with exceptional aesthetic amenities. A tree in this category should be of a species that possesses characteristics inherent to longevity and withstanding construction impacts. A tree with a #5 rating lends considerable value to the site and should be incorporated into the site design. A tree with a #5 rating is worthy of significant site plan modification to ensure its preservation. 6 — A specimen tree. A specimen tree is a tree that possesses a combination of superior qualities in regards to systemic health, structural strength, crown density, live crown ratio, form (balanced crown), overall aesthetic appeal, size, species, age and uniqueness. A great effort should be made to preserve a specimen tree including shifting structures that would adversely impact the tree. In addition, a specimen tree should have an undisturbed area equal to its dripline (equal to the branch spread) to grow in. Only an experienced and competent International Society. of Arboriculture (I.S.A.) Certified Arborist should be allowed work on a specimen tree. Comments: The comment section serves to note observations relative to the tree but not covered in the inventory data or expands on information in the inventory data. It may include maintenance recommendations to improve the tree's overall condition rating. It. may also have recommendation`s on whether to remove or preserve a tree. e cim C= NOTE: A tree inventory is typically valid for- 3-5 years. However, events such as drought, lightning, mechanical root damage, freeze, improper maintenance ari'd R severe storms can downgrade the rating value of a tree.- Conversely' remedial maintenance can upgrade the value. If you suspect that a tree has been adversely =a_ affected have the tree inspected by a qualified International Society of�J Arboriculture JSA) Certified Arborist. 0 • At the time of this inventory several trees were in a.total or semi- deciduous state. It is difficult to assess the live crown ratio and overall systemic health of a tree when the foliage is not present. However, most of the oaks are now producing catkins (flowers) consequently the density of flowers and /or leaf buds were used to calculate systemic issues. Irk0e Inventory Tree 9 Size Species Rating 1 10" laurel oak (Quercus lau), folia) 2.5 Comments: This tree was not identified. on the tree survey but has been added. The tree is growing in a planter and is located 3' from the rear wall of the commercial building fronting South Fort Harrison Avenue. The root collar and trunk are free of decay or cavities, The tree has three codominant stems located. approximately 9' above grade'that have severely included bark and that support most of the tree's canopy. The tree has average live crown ratio and below average form. The codominant stems could be mitigated by subordinate pruning but this procedure would be costly and take at least three years before structure was restored. Recommend removal of this tree, 2 7" deciduous PX1 'Note: The crown of this tree was totally bare at the time of the inventory and the branches are growing over the roof so an identification of species based oil morphological elements was not possible. The species will be provided as soon as foliage appears. . Comments: This tree was not identified on the tree survey. The tree is growing in the same raised planter as tree #1. It is located 5' south of tree #1 and 3' from the rear building wall. The trunk is situated against the edge of the planter. This tree has a tight v- shaped crown that is composed of two scaffold branches. The tree has average form and structure and good live crown ratio. Recommend removal. 3 8" live oak (Quem7& virginiana) 10 4 Comments: This tree is not identified on the survey, The tree is growing 5' from the rear.L of the commercial building. The crown of this tree is composed of three scaffold branches that are codominant with included bark present in the crotches. The overall form r� and stntcture is poor, The tree has above average live crown ratio and is systemically healthy, Recommend removal, 4 8" laurel oak 2.5 Comments: This tree is situated P fTorn a shed located in ,the rear of the commercial building. This tree has below average form with average,structure and live crown ratio. It has .6 surface roots which is unusual for a small tree (surface roots grow on top of the grade and can be attributed to site conditions or genetic characteristics). As this tree grows the, surface roots will increase in size and cause problems to structures and create a trip hazard. Recommend removal. 22" laurel oak 0.5 Comments: This tree Is not shown on the site plan and is actually growing in the right of way of S. Fort Harrison Avenue where it grows through an awning attached to the old produce stand. This tree is severally declining, It has basal wounds, trunk cankers, internal decay and a dysfunctional systemic system. It is in imminent danger of falling and should be removed immediately. Contact the City of Clearwater's Urban Forestry Division (562 -4950) as they are responsible for right of way trees. . NOTE: There is a palm growing in. the right of way and. also some on the property that were not inventoried because they had less than 10' of clear trunk and are not considered protected trees by City of Clearwater code. All palms having clear trunks breateT than 10' will be inventoried. 6 34" laurel oalc 0.5 Comments: This tree has massive internal decay indicated by the presence of heart rot sporophores colonized all over the trunk. The root collar and large root flares are suffering from. decay as a result of previous physical wounds. There is a large area of decay in the form of decaying stubs 6' above grade. This tree has no tipper crown structure as the only foliage is resulting from vigorous stickers growing from the decaying scaffold branches. This tree is hazardous and needs to be removed. 7 30" live oak 3.5 Comments: This tree was in full flower (catkins) at the time of inspection and appears to have above average live crown ratio based on the amount`of catkins. The trunk and root collar are healthy and free of any debilitating problems. This tree has two major scaffold branches that form the crown, They are codominant but have a wide u- shaped crotch with connective tissue present. There is an 8" dead stub that needs to be removed i:fthe tree is F.a _ preserved. The tree has good form with interesting serpentine branches. The crown is somewhat irregular in appearance but still has above average aesthetic qualities. This tree will. benefit from pruning to remove stubs and small deadwood in the crown. If preserved � � �, C11Q and maintained properly this tree will evolve into a very good tree. Recommend t_�. preservation. 7—! 34" live oak 3,0 Comments: This tree has a 4" diameter girdling root that wraps around approximately 30% of the tree's root collar. This root will injure the tree but has not caused damage yet and could easily be rernoved, The trunk is sound. The crown is composed of two scaffold branches that are codominant, The crotch has a tight u- shape that has connective tissue at this th-ne but could become included. in the future. The upper crown has above average overall structure, Part of the crown. grows to the west over the rear parking lot of the commercial building and has some damage in the form of torn branches and branch wounds likely caused from large trucks that drove beneath this tree. This portion of the crown will need to be raised if the tree is preserved. The crown of this tree is barely average in appearance. The form is irregular and there are gaps in the canopy and it has very little crown to the east. however, the tree is systemically healthy and could evolve into a good tree if preserved and maintained properly. The main crotch should be cabled and braced as it is codominant with a tight crotch that will become included. As live oaks are long -lived trees that adapt well. to construction, this tree could be preserved if it falls into a green area. However, it does not warrant site design modifications for preservation. 9 29" laurel oak 1 Comments: The trunk has a 12" x 12" area of decay on the lower east side close to the base. The decay is not causing structural problems at this time but will progress and cause problems to the root collar area in the future. This tree has an 12" and an 18" diameter codominant trunk that forms the base structure for the crown. The codominant is severally included and there is a large bulge on the west side of the inclusion indicating internal cracks /wounding. The upper crown has poor structure with small cavities, decay sporophores, suckers and large dead wood. The crown has low live crown ratio. This free is not salvageable and needs to be removed.. 10 9" Schefflera (Brassaia actinophylla) 1.0 Coininents: This tree was not shown on the site plan. It is growing 2' from the chimney located on the west side of the old house. The tree is not recommended for preservation as the schefflera is very cold sensitive and produces a large surface root system. 1.1 16" laurel oak 1.0 Comment: This tree was attached by connective tissue at the root: collar to a 24" diameter laurel oak that is now a 6' dead stump infected with Hypoxylon canker, The decay from Y the sttuxip will affect this tree's root collar area as the decay progresses into the basal area. There is also a. queen palm that is � p growing against the trunk of the laurel oak. The e= c,,• ` . free has an old flush cut wound on the northwest side of the trunk that is causing internal v } decay. 1'he tree has virtually no upper crown and stnreture is nonexistent. This tree needs; to be removed. 12 10' C.T. queen palm (Syagrus ro7nanzoffrana) 2.0 CorrincEts: This palm has below average crown and appearance.for-a. queen palm. The base is growing against tree # #11 and this condition will prevent the palm from being able to be transplanted. Recommend removal. 13 15" live oak 3.0 Comments: This tree is growing against the concrete wall of the front porch of the old house. In addition, it has an avocado tree growing against its trunk. The root flare is healthy but is somewhat asymmetrical where the avocado tree interferes with its growth. The trunk is sound and forks 8' above grade into three scaffold branches that form the upper crown. The tree has good upper crown structure with average overall form. The live crown ratio is above average. The appearance is only average but will improve if maintained properly and given room to grow. It is a borderline tree in regards to desirability for preservation and should only be preserved if it falls into a green space. 14 6" avocado (Per °.vea Americana) 1.0 Comments: This tree has poor form and structure and is an undesirable species due to its cold sensitivity, Recommend removal. 15 20" laurel oak 0.5 Comments: The trunk of tree #16 grows at an angle into the basal area of this tree. If they continue to grow in this manner they will wound each other and cause structural . problems at the critical root collar area. This tree has a very poor upper crown structure. One leader is dead with sporophores growing along the branches. The other two branches have been- previously topped and are dying. Recommend removal of this hazardous tree. 16 12" live oak 1.0 Comment: This tree grows at angle out from the base of tree #15. The tree has poor structure as it has virtually no crown. One branch grows on top of tree- #13 causing damage to a lateral branch. This tree will be damaged when tree # 15 is removed. Recommend. removal. 17 30" live oak 2,0 Comments: This tree is growing east of the old house and abuts the east side of the driveway. The root collar and lower trunk are sound. At 4.5' above there is a galvanized steel cable embedded into the trunk all the way around the trunk and again about a third of the way around and six inches higher on the trumk. The cable is totally embedded except for one area where the cable tip protrudes from the trunk. The girdling has caused . the trunk to grow callus tissue around the wound resulting in a pronounced bulging of the trunk tissues. I estimate that the girdling occurred approximately 20 years ago, Just above the girdled area the tree forks into .two 15" diameter codominant sterns that have an 8" bark inclusion. The upper crown has good st11►cture and appearance, however, there is t b` approximately 25% dieback probably due to the girdling activity that destroyed part of the tree's vascular system. The tree has apparently restored most of its vascular system as evidenced by its'growth. A major concern for this tree .however relates to the location of the decay resulting from. the girdling, It is located just beneath the bark inclusion and the chance of coalescing decay creating a structural ha-zard is probable. This tree has an overall attractive appearance but &ing,the potential for structural failure it is recommended for removal, The only ajtemative is to place rods in the crotch and cables in the upper crown to secure this tree. However, the procedure is expensive and impractical for a tree with the above described damage, 19 . 23 ", 29" live oalr 3.5 Comments: This tree was not shown on the site plan. This tree has a galvanized one quarter inch steel cable going horizontally through the 29" diameter trunk but it is not girdling the tree and is not causing a structural problem. This tree splits into two tmu *s 3' above grade. The thinks form a u- shaped crotch with connective tissue present and do not appear to have a structural weakness. The 23" diameter trunk grows to the north and develops an average crown in forum and above average in regards to live crown ratio and structure. This side of the tree is somewhat restricted due to competition from an adjacent tree to the west. The 29" trunk forks 65' above grade and develops a crown above and to the east, west and south, The overall crown of this trunk has above average foram with good live crown ratio. The fork has a slight inclusion that should he cabled and braced to ensure stability. The tree needs pruning to remove small deadwood and stubs. This is a good overall tree but should be cabled and braced in the southern trunk fork and have a rod installed between the two trunks for extra protection. If this work is performed the tree would be upgraded to a 4.0. Recommend preservation. 1.9 25" laurel oak 0.5 Comments: This tree has a wound on the south side of the trunk that starts 6" above grade and goes 3' high up the trunk causing internal decay, The tree forms a codominant 8' above grade, The trunk on the west side is completely dead with sporophores growing along the trunk. The trunk on the east side is dead at the top and only has sucker growth. This tree is hazardous and needs to be removed. 20 12' C. T. queen pall 2.5 Comlments: This palm is not shown on the plan. The palm has a below average crown and has been affected by competition from adjacent trees, Transplanting on site is not recommeruded for this palm as it would be more cost effective to plant a new palm. Recommend removal, 21 T" laurel oak 2.0 Comments: This tree has a good trunk that forks 5' above grade and forms a narrow vase shaped crown, The fork produces a codoiiiihant situation that will become included in the 01-1 c f : IL liiture. The live crown ratio is good but this tree has very poor form dire to overhead branches and is not recommended for preservation. 22 3" 3" 3" 2" 2" schefflera 1.5 Cornrnents: This tree is not shown on the surveybut is a protected tree by definition. of size for a cluster tree in the City of Clearwater code. The cluster has average aesthetic appeal but is not reconunended for preservation as it is an undesirable species. 23 1.0' C. T. sabal palm (,Yah zl pahnetto) 5.0 Comment: This is an exceptional palm that would be a specimen if it was taller. This palm has a near perfect trunk and crown. The boots (frond stubs) remain from. top to bottom but they serve to protect the trunk and can be pruned off to have a clean trunk. Recommend preservation or transplanting on site., 24 40' laurel oak 1.0 Comments: This tree is growing P from the sidewalk along Magnolia Drive. The sidewalk has been jogged to save this tree, The tree is also growing just east of a power pole into an area labeled vacated easement on the site plan. This tree has four codominant trunks that form the crown. The east codominant trunks are severely included. The north and west side iriink attachments are not included but have weak attachments. The root collar on the north side of the tuknk has had two flare roots severed and decay is present in the affected basal area. There is also a large trunk canker (sunken tissue) on the north side. A large scaffold branch growing to the southwest that is dead is cracked and ready to fail. The tree has cavities on the scaffold branches on the east side that are affecting the tree's stability. The upper crown structure is very poor as the crown has large deadwood, old stubs and major dieba.ck. This tree is hazardous and needs to be removed as soon as possible. 25 10' C.T. sabal palm 3.5 Comments: This palm is growing 15' due south of tree #24 and is also located in the vacated easement. This palm is healthy and has a good crown. The condition has been downgraded slightly because the crown has been impacted by branches from tree #24 that have affected the symmetry of the crown. This palm will evolve into an attractive palm. Recommend preservation or transplanting on site. Note; There is a small five stem cluster Senegal date palm (Phoenix rechnata) located just east of tree #25 that is not large enough to be protected by City code so it is not inventoried. However, it has value and can be preserved in place or moved on site. 26 511. Citrus 0.5 Comments: This tree is 90% dead. Recommend removal. • 27 9" laurel. oak 2.0 Comments; This tree is growing beneath the crown of adjacent trees and has very poor overall form. The crowd is mostly one -sided growing toward the northeast and the live crown ratio is. average. The structure downgrades the overall condition rating as the main fork is a codominant stem with included bark. The inclusion will worsen over time and could lead to structural failure in the main crotch. if this tree had a balanced crown the codgminant situation could be corrected through subordinate pruning, however, it is not practical for this tree. Recommend removal. 28 S" laurel oak l.S' Comments: This tree was not shown on the survey but is inventoried as if is a protected tree according to City Code, This tree is growing 1' from the base of tree #29. protecte has virtually no crown as it is suppressed by tree #29. The canopy is small and grows to the east. The tree has poor structure.and essentially no aesthetic value. Recommend removal. 29 14" laurel oak 3.0 Comments; The trunk and root flare are structurally sound but this tree has a girdling root on the south. side that has caused very minor damage to the root flare. The girdling root can be removed. This tree has good overall structure and above average live crown ratio. This tree is a healthy and structurally sound tree with the only downgrading factor being the form. The tree has very little crown to the south. due to competition from tree #30, a large live oak tree. This tree could be preserved or removed to reduce tine competition to the more desirable live oak tree ( #30), 30 .33" live oak 4.0 Comments: The tnrnk of this tree is sound and forks into two large codo.nninant sterns 6' above grade. The crotch of the fork is slightly pinched on one side and will become included in the future. The crown spreads to the north and east but is somewhat restricted . due to competition on the north and south. The crown is slightly thinning on the west side but overall has very good live crown ratio. This tree is a good tree overall and the crown will develop synunetry if the adjacent trees are removed. Potentially thus could be the best tree on the site. In the Aitu.re the main crotch should be cabled and braced if the bark becomes included. This tree is worthy of moderate site plan modifications for preservation. If this tree is preserved the site design should alloi� an undisturbed rooting area equal to three fourths the tree's dripline. Paved surfaces can count towards undisturbed rooting area if the paved surface is built on grade and aerated. 31 25" . live oak 2.5 �TR a- �,1 Comments- This tree has a sound'trunk and root flare all d the upper crown. structure is - average.. The south side has a few sucker branches that grow upward forming a mass of foliage. These'branches should be removed as they will not form a. canopy arid are not attached with a. branch collar. There is an 8" diameter lateral branch that grows to the northeast that has a badly decayed area and this branch should be removed. There is a. 6" diameter brancli -that has suffered storm damage and needs to be removed, In addition, the tree has a large dead stub and minor deadwood that needs removal. The overall form is poor as the crown is mostly one - sided and lacks aesthetic appeal. The tree is systemically healthy with above average structure and could be preserved if it falls into a green area. 32 47" laurel oak ' 0,5 Comments: This tree is very old with large trunk flutes and cankers (sunken tissue areas). The trunk has sporophores present indicating internal decay and there are many old stub cuts on the trun1c. The tree has two very large codominant trunks about 25" in diameter that have a.pocket cavity in the crotch. The upper canopy has seven scaffold branches that form the crown and each one is broken at the top with major dieback and deadwood present. The only growth is from suckers. This tree has poor structure, form and live crown ratio and is a hazard. Recommend removal. 33 >10 C.T, Senegal date palm (Phoenlx reelinata) 4,5 Comments: This palm is not shown on the site plan but is a protected palm as it has stems with over 10' of clear trunk, This palm actually has 5 stems with over 10' of clear trunk. In addition, it has several other. stems of various sizes. The palm cluster has not been pruned for a very long time and presents a wholly appearance. However; the palm cluster is healthy. and once.pnmed would be extremely valuable. This palm cluster should be pruned and preserved in place or moved on site, A second alternative would be to contact a palm broker about buying this cluster. 34 22" laurel oak 2.0 Comments: This tree has .minor basal decay on the southeastern side that should not debilitate the tree's structural integrity, The major downgrading factor of this tree is two severely included codominant scaffold branches forking 5' above grade. The bark is deeply included and the. condition will predispose the crotch to fail. The scaffold p p � r � ^ (.n, branches support a vase shaped crown witli below average live crown ratio, stricture and form. The crown is restricted and grows to the north and south. The upper crown is in �5 ;6 decline indicated by tip dieback. Recommend removal. 35 32" live oak 2.0 Com.rnents: This tree is growing 6' from a retaining wall for a retention pond located just south Of the, south property .line. The tree suffered root loss when the grade was cut for the retention pond as reflected by branch dieback in the tipper crown. The trunk and root flare are soured. The tn.ink forks into an equal codominant stein 5' above grade and the crotch is u- shaped -with connective tissue present. The west codorninatlt has a 4" diameter cavity from a previous stub cut that is causing minor decay. The form and associated aesthetic appeal .is low and th.e crown has a heavy vine infestation. The live crown ratio is above average on the south side but low elsewhere in the canopy. This tree is not recommended for preservation. however, if it falls into a green space buffer it could be preserved but will require remedial maintenance to improve the structure. In addition, it should be inspected every two years for the presence of included bark and the need for cabling and bracing. 36 . 4" camphor (Cinnamomum eamphora) 0.5 Comments: This tree is not shown on the site plan but is protected per City code. This tree is actually a cluster of sucker stems (one was 4" diameter at 4.5' above grade) grooving from an old stump. The tree has no structure or form. Recommend removal.. 37 10 C.T. Senegal date palm 3.0 Comments: This palm cluster was not shown on the plan but has two stems with over 10' ofclear trunlc and several others stems of various sizes. This cluster has not been pruned in a very long time and if cleaned up could be preserved in'place or f1-ansplanted. on site. 38 10" citnts (calamondin) 2,0 Comments: This.citrus has a basal decay caused by a fungus that is progressively deadly. The fungus destroys vascular tissue which is reflected by diebacic in this tree's crown. Recommend removal, 39 citrus (grapefrtti.t) 1.5 Comments: This tree has major diebacic in the crown and is declining. Recomme -n.d removal, 40 12" citrus (calarnondin) 2.0 Comments: This citrus is in poor condition and is not recommended for preservation. 41 10 C.T, Senegal date palm 4.0 Comments: This palm has four trunks that have at least 10' of clear trunk This cluster has not been pruned in a long time but would be valuable if cleaned tip. This palm cluster is located 3' from the west wall of the house and may not be able to be successfully transplanted. As this palm cluster is valuable, preservation is recommended in place. However, if the palm does not fall into a green area, a palm moving company could be contacted to determine if transplanting is feasible, Recommend preservation. 42 29" live oa.lc 3.0 0 L,J C= 4 Cho +• 4s 7 "t Comments: The root flare and trunk are sound. The lower and Lipper: crown has good structure. The Live crown ratio is above average. The form is below average as the crown is irregular and branching is minimal with foliage often tufted at the ends. The tree is systemically healthy and has good structure and will improve with remedial pruning. Preservation is not recommended unless the tree falls into a green area, 43 21" laurel. oak 0.5 1. - Comments:-This tree-has :a very -large cavity "dii "the- southeast side of th.e trunk that is causing major structural`problems'. The tree has very poor upper crown structure with codominant stems with included bark in the crown. The live crown ratio is below average and the form is very poor. This tree is a .hazard tree and should be removed. L.4 38" laurel oak 0.5 Comments: This tree has an open cavity on the south side 6" above grade that reveals a hollow trunk. This tree is very hazardous and needs to be removed as soon as possible, 4 5 15" camphor 2.0 Comments: This tree has a straight trunk but very poor upper crown form and structure. The crown resembles a stalk of celery, The live crown ratio is average. The camphor tree is identified as a category one ecological pest plant by the State of Florida Pest Plant Council. Recommend removal. 46 18" live oak 2.0 Comments: This tree has a good trunk that divides into three scaffold branches that support a crown with very poor .form. The majority of the tree's crown grows to the southwest. The tree offers very little aesthetic appeal. The live crown ratio and upper crown structure is average. The downgrading factor of this tree is its appearance. Recommend removal. 47 24" camphor J 0.5 Comments: This'tree is covered top to bottom with vines. The tree has essentially no crown structure or form. The tree consists of a trunk with only a few lateral branches that have foliage tufted at the ends. The live crown ratio, structure and form are extremely poor. Recommend removal. rp-1,0-4, NoRTHSIDE Eitziueerbu, Services laic. 11 — STORMWATER REPORT FOR Civil Land Planning DUe Diligence Reports Re-Zoning, Land Use, Annexation Stormwater Management Utility Design Traffic Construmon Administration HARBOR OAKS PROFESSIONAL CENTER PROJECT RAM A. oil C) eo (n GOEL, W.431 June 12, 2008 PROJECT No. 0731 P.O. Box 4948 Clearwater, FL 33758-4948 tech @northsidnengineering.com 727 443 2869 Fax 727 446 8036 orzt4NAL me-ev m- " "' 16 2008 MIENT • DRAINAGE NARRATIVE \J The proposed construction activities consist of the following: • Construction of 35,077 S.F. of open impervious vehicular use, building and sidewalk area. • Construction of a stormwater pond to provide attenuation and water quality treatment for a volume equal to V2" of runoff over the entire site. • Treatment of stormwater will be achieved through an effluent underdrain system. The overflow will be piped to an existing stormwater system on Magnolia Drive. • The more stringent of SWFWMD's 25yr / 24hr post- development flow not exceeding the 25yr / 24hr pre- development flow vs. Clearwater's weighted coefficient of runoff of stormwater detention was used to determine the storage volume requirement. It was found that the City of Clearwater's stormwater requirement (7,075 cf) was more strict than SWFWMD's requirement and therefore was used in the design of the pond. • The Drainage Calculations have been prepared in accordance with the City of Clearwater Drainage Manual. • The project is located in an open basin. Construction of this project will not increase the existing peak discharge rate or volume. • No wetlands are located in or adjacent to the project area. No wetland impacts will result from construction of this project. 0MOL RECE 1 A ;p, ST.-I -, a 1 p6., 2008 ry ENT CJ TV of OF PROJECT NAME: PROJECT NO.: EXISTING CONDITIONS TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA= IMP. AREA= POND AREA= PERV.AREA= C CALCULATIONS TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA= IMP. AREA= POND AREA= PERV.AREA= 0 • Harbor Oaks Professional Center 731 55,295 SF = 1.27 ACRES 19,967 SF = 0.46 ACRES 0 SF = 0.00 ACRES 35,328 SF = 0.81 ACRES 55,295 SF 19,967 SF OF IMP. AREA @ C = 0 SF OF POND AREA @ C = 35,328 SF OF PERV. AREA @ C = C = 0.30 T.O.C. = 60 MINUTES PROPOSED CONDITIONS TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA= IMP. AREA= POND AREA= PERV.AREA= C CALCULATIONS TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA= IMP. AREA= POND AREA= PERV.AREA= 55,295 SF = 35,077 SF = 3,703 SF = 16,515 SF = 1.27 ACRES 0.81 ACRES 0.08 ACRES 0.38 ACRES 55,295 SF 35,077 SF OF IMP. AREA @ C = 3,703 SF OF POND AREA @ C = 16,515 SF OF PERV. AREA @ C = C = 0.73 T.O.C. = 60 MINUTES �;�i� J 4 0.475 -1 0.2 0.95 1 0.2 PROJECT NAME: Harbor Oaks Professional Center PROJECT NO.: 731 5 POND STAGE STORAGE DATA: T.O.B. EL.= D.H.W. 25 EL. W.Q. EL.= BOTTOM EL.= STAGE ft -NGVD AREA SF AREA AC STORAGE CF 34.50 4,096 0.094 9,517 34.25 3,899 0.090 8,517 34.00 3,703 0.085 7,567 33.50 3,309 0.076 5,814 33.00 2,916 0.067 4,258 32.00 2,129 0.049 1,735 31.00 1,342 0.031 0 TOTAL WATER QUALITY CALCULATIONS: DRAINAGE AREA = REQUIRED WATER QUALITY DEPTH = REQUIRED WATER QUALITY VOLUME _ PROPOSED OUTFALL ELEVATION = 55,295 SF 0.50 IN 2,304 CF 33.00 FT AVAILABLE WATER QUALITY VOLUME = 4,258 CF " " ;,ct'L ;mil 0Y 0 NORTHSIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES 25 YEAR STORM EVENT PROJECT: Harbor Oaks Professional Center PROJECT NO. 731 RUN -OFF COEFFICIENTS • PRE - CONSTRUCTION I (IN /HR ) DRAINAGE AREA = TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA= 55,295 SF 1.27 AC 60 MIN IMP. AREA= 19,967 SF OF IMP. AREA @ C = 0.475 POND AREA= 0 SF OF POND AREA @ C = 1 PERV. AREA= 35,328 SF OF PERV. AREA @ C = 0.2 C= 0.30 POST - CONSTRUCTION TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA= 55,295 SF 1.27 AC IMP. AREA= 35,077 SF OF IMP. AREA @ C = 0.95 POND AREA= 3,703 SF OF POND AREA @ C = 1 PERV. AREA= 16,515 SF OF PERV. AREA @ C = 0.2 C= 0.73 STORAGE CALCULATION PRE - CONSTRUCTION I (IN /HR ) DRAINAGE AREA = 1.27 AC TIME OF CONC. Tc = 60 MIN I @ Tc =60 (25 YEAR EVENT)= 3.60 IN /HR Q(out) = C x I x A= 1.37 CFS POST - CONSTRUCTION 7,075 WEIR DESIGN WATER QUALITY DEPTH = TOTAL VOLUME REQUIRED = TOTAL VOLUME PROVIDED = TIME MIN.) I (IN /HR ) Q(in) (CFS) INFLOW (CF) OUTFLOW (CF) STORAGE (CF) 60.00 3.60 3.33 11,999 4,924 7,075 MAX. STORAGE = TOP. OF WEIR ELEV.= BOT. OF WEIR ELEV.= H= Q= L= Q/3.3 *H ^1.5 = 0.5 in. MAX. STORAGE REQUIRED = MAX. STORAGE PROVIDED = 7,075 CF 34.00 FT 33.00 FT 1.00 FT or 12" 1.37 CFS 0.42 FT or 5" 7,075 CF 7,567 CF " !hw OF • • NORTHSIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES POND DRAWDOWN ANALYSIS PROJECT: Harbor Oaks Professional Center PROJECT NO.: 731 VOLUME PROVIDED = 4,258 C.F. BOTTOM OF SLOT ELEV. = 33.00 BOTTOM OF POND ELEV. = 31.00 UNDERDRAIN INVERT ELEV. = 30.00 COEFFICIENT OF PERMEABILITY (K) = 0.09 FT /MIN LENGTH OF UNDERDRAIN = 36 FT SIZE OF UNDERDRAIN = 6 INCH POND AREA (SF) = 2,916 S.F. POND AREA (SF) = 1,342 S.F. ELEV. AVG. HEAD [NCR HEAD L (AVG) HYD. GRAD. FILTER AREA FLOW POND AREA INCR VOL. INCR TIME FT FT FT FT FT /FT S.F. CFM S.F. C.F. MIN. 33.00 2,916 2.50 0.50 2.75 0.91 57 4.62 1,358 294 32.50 2,522 2.00 0.50 2.75 0.73 57 3.70 1,161 314 32.00 2,129 1.50 0.50 2.75 0.55 57 2.77 964 348 31.50 1,735 1.00 0.50 2.75 0.36 57 1.85 767 415 31.00 1,342 TOTAL DRAWDOWN VOLUME _ TOTAL DRAWDOWN TIME = 4,251 C.F. 22.8 HOURS q� aakf x Tata'R' "'— • 0 April 22, 2008 SNKR, I, LLC 1815 Health care Drive Trinity, Florida 33655 Dr. Shodan Patel, Owner Reference: HARBOR OAKS PROFESSIONAL CENTER Subject: Maintenance and Operation of the Retention Pond Dear Dr. Patel: Per the rules and regulations of the Southwest Florida Water Management District, we are required to furnish you with a set of instructions for maintenance and operation of the retention pond. The retention pond is designed to maintain certain volumes of rainfall runoff corresponding to specific water elevations. The control structure regulates the level of the water in the pond. The volume above the weir should be discharged under a skimmer and over the weir within a few hours following a storm event. The volume below the weir should take less than 24 hours to be discharged through natural soil infiltration. The water level in the pond should drop approximately 24" below the weir, and the pond should be dry within 24 hours following a storm event, assuming there is no interceding rainfall. Z re. Here are some suggested procedures to keep the pond system �- functional: N • The bottom of the pond should be inspected regularly ` V CC " ` `y to assure that excess siltation or erosion has not occurred. Siltation and erosion in the pond shall be VA controlled to assure that the storage volume is not t ; affected. Periodic scarification of the pond bottom and removal of silts may be required to rejuvenate the percolation rate. It is required that scarification be done every six (6) months. • Grass clippings and other vegetative debris should be removed from the area surrounding the pond. • The area immediately in front of the control structure should be cleared of aquatic growth • Limit fertilizer use around the pond area to prevent nutrient loading of the facility. • The control structure should be checked monthly and all debris cleared. • Your Management of Surface Water Permit should contain a number of conditions which must be met. If you have any questions or concerns about this project please do not hesitate to call our office. Sincerely, Northside Engineering Services, Inc. CO y 6J L w + 4 A� r 0 0 Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. Land Development Consulting • Engineering • Planning • Transportation • Permitting ICOT Center 13825 ICOT Boulevard, Suite 605 Clearwater, FL 33760 F,,!-7 I ED Phone: (727) 524 -1818 `'` Fax: (727) 524 -6090 2 8 April 18, 2008 Ms. Renee Ruggiero, Project Planner Northside Engineering Services, Inc. 300 South Belcher Road Clearwater, Fl 33765 Re: Harbor Oaks Medical Center — Traffic Impact Analysis Dear Ms. Ruggiero: '.O.:'TPE":C e,IFEN1 APR 2 1 2008 Per our discussion enclosed are three (3) copies of the Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed Harbor Oaks Medical Center. This analysis was conducted in accordance with a methodology established with Himanshu Patni at the City of Clearwater and concludes no off -site improvements are required to maintain acceptable levels of service. Please submit two (2) copies and the CD containing analysis files to the City of Clearwater with your application package. Please, contact me if you have any questions. Si ely, ✓ff� Robert Pergolizzi, Al Principal Cc: Robert Covington, Stylistic Design Developers (w /encl) 08 -024 , 08/30/2007 09:31 72756249 PUBLIC UTZLITI w PAGE 02 FLOW TEST Cl CITY OF CLEARWATER WATER DEPARTMENT LOCATION FT 56A) A Vf-j IDATEOFTEST S/a7/07 ISTATIC, PSI 37 IRE SIDUAL p 191' Hvb _3_7 INTOT PSI IFLOW /J-5V GPM IHYDRANT# 36- LGRID # imisc; CDE FF/c-/F-LZ: ICUSTOMER REQUESTING TEST OREMNAL Pi kNli � OREMNAL Pi kNli � 08/30/2007 09:31 7275624961 PUBLIC UTILITIES PAGE 04 I � 1,-A uu LO ... 14 it 1 ..... ..... .. ...... . . . T I., ------------ VD 74t yy Ito 14 lb S�ptu 5/2/2008 Receipt #: 1200800000600003665 _ 12:07:03PM r Date: 05/02/2008 Line Items: Case No Tran Code Description Revenue Account No Amount Paid FLD2008 -05014 04 Flexible Commercial 001000000341262000 1,205.00 FLD2008 -05014 Fire - Prelim Site Plan 001000000342501000 200.00 Line Item Total: $1,405.00 Payments: e Method Payer Initials Check No Confirm No How Received Amount Paid Check SUNTRUST CHECK STYLISTIC R_D 9723334 In Person 1,405.00 DESIGN Payment Total: $1,405.00 K] THIS IS NOT A PERMIT. This is a receipt for an application for a permit. This application will be reviewed and you will be notified as to the outcome of the application. Page 1 of 1 cReceipt.rpt C I T Y OF C L E A R W A T E R POST OFFICE BOX 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758 -4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562 -4567 FAX (727) 562 -4865 - PLANNING DEPARTMENT July 15, 2008 Ms. Renee Ruggiero Northside Engineering Services, Inc. 300 S. Belcher Road Clearwater, Florida 33765 Re: FLD2008 -05014 1 1001 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue Dear Ms. Ruggiero: This letter constitutes a Development Order pursuant to Community Development Code (CDC) Section 4- 206.D.6. On July 15, 2008, the Community Development Board (CDB) reviewed your Flexible Development approval for Office and Medical Clinic uses in the Commercial (C) and Office (0) Districts with a reduction to the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 17.5 feet (to building) and 7.5 feet (to off - street parking), a reduction to the front (west) setback from 25 feet to 18.8 feet (to building), a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 7 feet (to off - street parking) and a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to 6.5 feet (to off - street parking); and an increase in building height from 25 feet to 45.16 feet as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project pursuant to Community Development Code Sections 2 -704.0 and 2- 1004.C, and reductions to the perimeter buffers along Magnolia Drive and the Pinellas Trail from 10 feet to 7.5 and 7 feet, respectively (to proposed pavement), as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3- 1202.G. The CDB APPROVED the application with conditions based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. Findings of Fact: 1. That the 1.27 acre subject property is located at the southeast corner of South Fort Harrison Avenue and Magnolia Drive (1.13 acres), and on the north side of Magnolia Drive approximately 350 east of South Fort Harrison Avenue and adjacent to the west side of the Pinellas Trail (0.14 acres); 2. That the north portion of the subject property is located within the Office (0) District and the Residential /Office General (R /OG) Future Land Use Plan category and will consist only of a stormwater retention area and landscaping; and 3. That the south portion of the subject property is located within the Commercial (C) District and the Commercial General (CG) Future Land Use Plan category and will consist of 18,423 square feet of medical clinic and office uses. Conclusions of Law: 1. That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the Maximum Development Potential standards as per CDC Sections 2 -701.1 and 2- 1001.1; 2. That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the applicable Standards and Criteria as per CDC Sections 2 -704 and 2 -1004; 3. That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the Flexibility criteria for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project as per CDC Sections 2 -704.0 and 2- 1004.C; and "EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER" July 15, 2008 0 0 FLD2008 -05014 1 1001 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue Page 2 of 3 4. That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3- 913.A. Conditions of Approval: 1. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, evidence of filing a Unity of Title with Pinellas County between all parcels involved in the application must be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department; 2. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, any outstanding comments of the Engineering Department shall be addressed; 3. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, any outstanding comments of the Fire Department shall be addressed; 4. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, any outstanding Land Resource comments shall be addressed; S. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the plans are revised to clearly depict the locations of and the means by which all mechanical equipment will be screened from view from public streets and abutting properties; 6. That prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, all on -site utility facilities, whether they be existing or proposed, are to be placed underground as part of the redevelopment of the site; 7. That any /all wireless communication facilities to be installed concurrent with or subsequent to the construction of the subject development must be screened from view and /or painted to match the building to which they are attached, as applicable; 8. That any /all future signage must meet the requirements of Code and be architecturally integrated with the design of the building with regard to proportion, color, material and finish as part of a final sign package submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any permits which includes: (a) All signs fully dimensioned and coordinated in terms of including the same color and font style and size; and . (b) All signs be constructed of the highest quality materials which are coordinated with the colors, materials and architectural style of the building; and 9. That the final design and color of the building shall be consistent with the architectural elevations submitted to (or as modified by) the CDB, and be approved by Staff. - Pursuant to Community Development Code Section 4 -407, an application for a building permit shall be made within one year of Flexible Development approval Ouly 15, 2009). All required certificates of occupancy shall be obtained within two years of the date of issuance of the initial building permit. The building permit must be obtained within six months of the initial permit application. This timeframe to obtain the initial building permit may be extended for an additional six months for cause by the Community Development Coordinator. Time frames do not change with successive owners. The Community Development Coordinator may grant an extension of time for the Flexible Development approval for a period not to exceed one year and only within the original period of validity. The Community Development Board may approve one additional extension of time for the Flexible Development approval after the Community Development Coordinator's extension to initiate a building permit application. The issuance of this Development Order does not relieve you of the necessity to obtain any building permits or pay any impact fees that may be required. In order to facilitate the issuance of any permit or license affected by this approval, please bring a copy of this letter with you when applying for any permits or licenses that require this prior development approval. Additionally, an appeal of a Level Two approval (Flexible Development) may be initiated pursuant to Community Development Code Section 4 -502.6 by the applicant or by any person granted party status within 14 days of the date of the CDB meeting. The filing of an application/ notice of appeal shall stay July 15, 2008 0 0 FLD2OO8 -05014 1 1001 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue Page 3 of 3 the effect of the decision pending the final determination of the case. The appeal period for your case expires on July 29, 2008 (14 days from the date of the CDB meeting). Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Robert G. Tefft, Planner III at (727) 562 -4539 or via e-mail at.robert.tefft@myclearwater.com. Sincerely, Michael Delk, AIC Planning Director S I Planning Departmentl C D B I FLEX (FLO) I Inactive or Finished Applications I Ft Harrison Ave S 1007 - Harbor Oaks Professional Ctr 2008 07- I S APPROVED I Ft Harrison Ave 5 7001 -Development Order 2008 07- 75.doc Civil Land Planning Norths1de Due Diligence Reports Re- Zoning, Land Use, Annexation Stormwater Management Utility Design June 10, 2008 Traffic Construction Administration Mr. Robert Tefft Planner III City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S. Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 RE: FLD2008 -05014 1001 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue DRC Response NES #731 Dear Mr. Tefft: Listed below are our responses to the Development Review meeting held on June 5, 2008. General Engineering (Prior to Issuance of Building Permit) 1. — 13. All items acknowledged; all required revisions will be provided on plans prior to submitting for building permit. Fire 1. A yard FDC has been located a minimum of 15' from the building, please see revised C4.1. 2. Hydrant has been located along Magnolia, just west of the driveway, please see revised C4.1. 3. Please see revised C4.1; 2'/2" Siamese connection provided. 4. After meeting with Inspector James Keller on 6.10.08 it was determined additional hydrant not required; please see additional existing FHA located approx. 115' south of site.. 5. See revised plans 30' turning radius provided at all entrances and exits. Land Resources 1. East /West and North/South section provided on revised sheet C4.1 for Tree #30 which is being preserved not Tree #31. PO. Box 4948 Clearwater, FL 33758 -4948 tech @nor•thsideengineering.com 727 443 2869 Fax 727 446 8036 OROW FIFG�$ z, 2000 Pl.ANNI"N' Dh RAZ:M1rN t""'TE OF Ct F:Arz'vVA1ER Landscaping 0 • 1. Please see revised landscape plan with the bald cypress relocated. 2. Please see revised landscape plan providing Ilex Vomitoria within island. 3. Please see revised Comprehensive Landscape Application to include a deviation to the buffer along the Pinellas Trail. 4. Landscape plan has been revised to provide the correct number of trees; please see revised plan. 5. Palms will remain where not in conflict with the new 4' wide sidewalk. 6. Please see revised plan for improved spacing of trees and note below. Note: Per Ron Belko (ISA Certified Arborist) All trees shown are spaced appropriately for their growth habits, Oaks which have a decurrent growth habit are spaced at 35' o.c. The Bald Cypress are spaced closer but the growth habits for the cypress are excurrent and more appropriate for the locations selected. The Cassia, Iles, Crepe Myrtle, and Ligustrum are accent trees and have been located due to their close proximity to existing trees or pavement. If the remains questions to the growth habits of the trees selected or the design please contact Ron Belko at 727 - 409 -8532. Parks and Recreation 1. Site Data Table has been revised to include 6,659 sq ft of building area previously on site. We also hereby acknowledge, open space impact fees are due prior to issuance of building permit or final plat (if applicable), whichever occurs first for sites over an acre of land. Stormwater (Prior to Issuance of Building Permit) 1. Approved SWFWMD permit will be provided upon receipt. 2. — 9. All items acknowledged; all required revisions will be provided on plans prior to submitting for building permit. Solid Waste 1. Arborist has directed clear trunk to 14' in height; Tree Preservation Plan reflects this information; please see revised Sheet C5.2 for dumpsier detail. Traffic Engineering 1. Please see revised stacking distance; as per your direction, dimensions changed from 18' to 19'. 2. Additional sight visibility triangle provided at the Pinellas Trail, in addition to revisions to the landscape plan to address this triangle. 3. Please see revised drive through lanes, as per your direction, dimensions revised to 10' from edge of curb to edge of curb. 4. Scaled passenger vehicle revised to 7' as per your direction. 5. The by -pass lane will allow by -pass activity at a certain point; it is not intended to allow all cars access at all times. ESA nu 0 " 0 p FA ` 2° 0 • 1. Please see revised landscape plan with the bald cypress relocated. 2. Please see revised landscape plan providing Ilex Vomitoria within island. 3. Please see revised Comprehensive Landscape Application to include a deviation to the buffer along the Pinellas Trail. 4. Landscape plan has been revised to provide the correct number of trees; please see revised plan. 5. Palms will remain where not in conflict with the new 4' wide sidewalk. 6. Please see revised plan for improved spacing of trees and note below. Note: Per Ron Belko (ISA Certified Arborist) All trees shown are spaced appropriately for their growth habits, Oaks which have a decurrent growth habit are spaced at 35' o.c. The Bald Cypress are spaced closer but the growth habits for the cypress are excurrent and more appropriate for the locations selected. The Cassia, Iles, Crepe Myrtle, and Ligustrum are accent trees and have been located due to their close proximity to existing trees or pavement. If the remains questions to the growth habits of the trees selected or the design please contact Ron Belko at 727 - 409 -8532. Parks and Recreation 1. Site Data Table has been revised to include 6,659 sq ft of building area previously on site. We also hereby acknowledge, open space impact fees are due prior to issuance of building permit or final plat (if applicable), whichever occurs first for sites over an acre of land. Stormwater (Prior to Issuance of Building Permit) 1. Approved SWFWMD permit will be provided upon receipt. 2. — 9. All items acknowledged; all required revisions will be provided on plans prior to submitting for building permit. Solid Waste 1. Arborist has directed clear trunk to 14' in height; Tree Preservation Plan reflects this information; please see revised Sheet C5.2 for dumpsier detail. Traffic Engineering 1. Please see revised stacking distance; as per your direction, dimensions changed from 18' to 19'. 2. Additional sight visibility triangle provided at the Pinellas Trail, in addition to revisions to the landscape plan to address this triangle. 3. Please see revised drive through lanes, as per your direction, dimensions revised to 10' from edge of curb to edge of curb. 4. Scaled passenger vehicle revised to 7' as per your direction. 5. The by -pass lane will allow by -pass activity at a certain point; it is not intended to allow all cars access at all times. 0 • 6. Vertical "clear" height of the ceiling over drive thru area provided on civil sheet C3.1 and architects plan, providing 12'6" clear heights as per discussions at DRC (no fire access required). 7. Meeting held with Himanshu Patina and Robert Pergolizzi on June 5, 2008; all items related to this item address in meeting. 8. As per discussion and suggestion at DRC, handicap spaces intended to service the medical clinic have been relocated to allow improved accessibility, revision resolved conflict with the loading zone. General Notes: Items 1. and 2. Acknowledged. Planning 1. Please see revised narrative. 2. Please see revised narrative and Comprehensive Landscape narrative to address the deviations along the Pinellas Trail. 3. The irregular shape of the property was actually pointed out by a fellow Planning Dept. staff member in a previous review of the project; I assumed acknowledgement of a hardship associated with the shape of the land would not change based upon the Planner assigned to the project. If the parcel were truly rectangular, three of the requested setback deviations would not be require; we believe the irregular shape of the land provides additional justifiable hardship. 4. See revised Architectural sheet A2.2 providing a rated tenant separation. 5. As per your request the tree wells have been deleted from the design, please see revised civil and landscape plans. 6. Please see revised civil plans which now correctly depict the east property line abutting the Pinellas Trail as a "front" yard. 7. Please see the revised civil plans providing a reduced sidewalk dimension along Magnolia and Ft. Harrison as per your request. 8. A/C Units roof mounted and shielded as per Code, please see revised Architectural plans. 9. Please see revised plans for corrected height of bldg to peak of roof, midpoint and parapet. 10. Please see lighting plan provided by Architect. 11. Please see revised civil plans which provide the proposed setback of dumpster from the northeast corner to the east property line as per your request. 12. As per our discussions at DRC the handicap spaces intended. to service the medical clinic have been relocated and the conflict has been resolved, please see revised plans. Additionally, as per our conversation, the loading zone has been reduced to 28' in length, creating a zone large enough to allow box truck size ® rig, m ae delivery vehicles which are the typical size of delivery vehicles for the proposed cv uses on site. , 13. The ATM machine location has not yet been determined, the final financial o vA LL, f-L. institution taking occupancy will have specific requirements associated with the ®= " ATM machine, the business plan of the occupying bank will dictate the location �"t of the ATM machine; it is our intent to meet any code requirements in association with the ATM location. s 0 14. Acknowledged, prior to issuance of any building permits the required Unity of Title will be provided to and approved by the Planning Dept. 15. Acknowledged, all available utilities will be installed underground. 16. Please see revised landscape plan which provides a more intense buffer to better and more effectively shield dumpster enclosure as per your request, additional planting proposed to accomplish adequate shielding. I trust you will find this information sufficient to allow placement on the Community Development Board Agenda. However, should you require additional information or clarification, please feel free to contact me and I will respond immediately to any additional information required. Thank you for your kind and professional assistance. Sincerely, (5.g:,-7- Renee Ruggiero, Project Planner NES #731 DRC response 6.11.08 RMR /rmr cc: NES File 731 piy Ord C= o- LM 0 C-4 7 r;1' 9:50 am4 Case Number: FLD2008 -0500- 1001 S FT HARRISON AVE Owner(s): S N K R I Llc 1815 Health Care Dr Trinity, Fl 34655 TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E -MAIL: No Email Representative: Housh Ghovaee 300 S. Belcher Road Clearwater, Fl 33765 TELEPHONE: 727 - 443 -2869, FAX: 727 - 446 -8036, E -MAIL: renee @northsideengineering.com , Location: 1.27 total acres located at the southeast corner of South Ft. Harrison Avenue and Magnolia Drive and on the north side of Magnolia Drive approximately 350 east of South Ft. Harrison Avenue adjacent to the west side of the Pinellas Trail Atlas Page: 295B Zoning District: C, Commercial Request: Flexible Development approval for Office and Medical Clinic uses in the Commercial (C) and Office (0) Districts with a reduction to the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 17.5 feet.(to,building) and 7.5 feet (to off - street parking), a reduction to the front (west) setback from 25 feet to 18.8 feet (to building), a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 7 feet (to off - street parking) and a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to 6.5 feet (to off - street parking); and an increase in building height from 25 feet to 45.16 feet as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project pursuant to Community Development Code Sections 2 -704.0 and 2- 1004.C. Proposed Use: Medical clinic Neighborhood Harbor Oaks Neighborhood Assoc Association(s): Clearwater, Fl 33756 320 Magnolia Drive TELEPHONE: 461 -9657, FAX: No Fax, E -MAIL: No Email Neighborhood Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Association(s): Clearwater, Fl 33763 1821 Springwood Cir S TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E -MAIL: No Email Presenter: Robert Tefft, Planner III Attendees Included: The DRC reviewed this application with the following comments: General Engineering: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 5, 2008 - Page 7 DRC Action Agenda L 1 I . Prior to the issuanclea building permit: • 1. The City of Clearwater will provide water tap, and a B.F.P.D. (back flow prevention device) if applicable.. Applicant is responsible for all applicable impact and installation fees. Payment for the backflow prevention device is paid to Utilities Customer Service in the Municipal Services Building located at 100 South Myrtle Avenue. 2. This project proposes a fire supply connection, a potable water service and a fire hydrant extension. Each of these connections shall be made separately to the City's water main. 3. Provide a note or dimension on the plan indicating that the Fire Department Connection (FDC) shall be located a minimum of 15 -feet from the front of the building. 4. Provide a note or dimension on the plan indicating the Fire Department Connection (FDC) is located 25 to 50 -feet from the Fire Hydrant Assembly (FHA). 5. Because the occupancy of the proposed building is medical office, the applicant/owner will be responsible for all associated fees for a required reduced pressure B.F.P.D. (back flow prevention device). 6. Verify the Medical Office and Bank will connect to sanitary sewer utilizing a single Tnnection. ote that the contractor will be required to field verify through coordination with City Public > Utilities personnel the location of a sanitary sewer lateral to serve this property. If a sewer lateral does not exist, the contactor will be required to pay applicable fees for a new lateral. 8. Show on the plan a double sweep clean out for the sanitary sewer lateral and include Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards Detail #305, pg. 1/3 on the plans. 9. The plans include City of Pinellas Park details; please utilize City of Clearwater standards and details for this project. 10. Revise plans to delete references to thrust blocks. Applicant shall utilize mechanical restraints n "y. A 10 -foot wide sidewalk is proposed to be constructed along Magnolia Drive. The City requires a minimum 4 -foot wide sidewalk along this street and suggests reduction in sidewalk width to reduce possibility of tree -root uplift that will result if a 10 -foot wide sidewalk is constructed. 12. Turning radii at all driveways shall be a minimum of 30 feet per City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards index #108. 13. Reclaimed water is not presently available for irrigation on this site. Environmental: 1 . No issues. Fire: I . The FDC shall be a yard FDC and shall be located a minimum of 15 ft from the building towards Magnolia. Show on utility plan PRIOR TO CDB. 2. Move new fire hydrant to the north towards Magnolia. Show on plan PRIOR TO CDB. 3 . Fire Department Connection shall be a 2 1/2" Siamese connection listed for such use. Show on plan PRIOR TO CDB. .4. Show location of additional fire hydrant for fire fighting use. Must be within 300' of building as hose lays and on same side of street as .building. PRIOR TO CDB 5 . Provide and show on the plan minimum 30' turning radius for emergency vehicle ingress and egress at all entrance and exits. PRIOR TO CDB. Harbor Master: No Comments Legal: No Comments Land Resources: I . Show a E/W and N/S section throught the concrete parking at tree #31 prior to CDB. Insure that the concrete is "on grade ". Landscaping: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 5, 2008 - Page 8 DRC Action Agenda 1.1 1 , Pursuant to Comn& Development Code (CDC) Section 3- 1202.0 shade trees must be planted a minimum of five feet from any impervious area. The bald cypress proposed along the east side of the driveway at Magnolia Drive does not meet this requirement. 2 . Pursuant to Community Development Code (CDC) Section 3- 1202.E.1., one shade tree is required with each landscape island. The islands bordering the proposed loading zone do not contain the required tree. Revise. 3 Pursuant to Community Development Code (CDC) Section 3- 1202.D.1, a ten -foot landscape / buffer is required where the property is adjacent to the Pinellas Trail. Revise the proposed and/or the Comprehensive Landscape request accordingly. 4. Pursuant to Community Development Code (CDC) Section 3- 1202.E.1, one shade tree is required for every 150 square feet of required green space. Based upon a requirement of 2,565 square feet, 17 interior trees are required. The landscape plan proposed only includes 14 interior trees. 5. There are 3 palms in the adjacent rights -of -way that area not noted as being removed or relocated but are in conflict with the proposed improvements. Revise the landscape plan. 6. Many of the proposed shade trees around the perimeter of the site are spaced very close to one another. Typically, trees should be spaced every 35 feet on center. Revise the landscape plan to provide for more adequate spacing. Parks and Recreation: 1, . Site data table needs to be corrected to reflect the square footage of any previous buildings on the property. Once that information is provided, P &R will be able to determine if P &R impact fees are due and payable on this project. Stormwater: I . The following shall be addressed prior to building permit. 1. Provide an approved SWFWMD permit or letter of exemption. 2. Show gutter system routing roof runoff to the storm system. 3. City of Clearwater has requested LA Engineering, the engineering company for the 907 S Fort Harrison, to change 12" HDPE to 12" Contech 2000 pipe. The change in pipe material and/or design may impact applicant's proposed stormwater design. Applicant shall contact LA Engineering to obtain the revised plan to incorporate in the design. 4. Top of control structure shall be at elevation 34.0' to allow 6" of freeboard. 5. Provide a detail of the proposed manhole on the right -of -way showing all pipe invert elevations. 6. It is not permitted that the metered end section is set at elevation lower than the pond bottom. The use of ductile iron pipe instead of reinforced concrete pipe may help this problem. 7. Side swale does not have sufficient grades. 8. Please revise plans to show proposed inlets located along the flow line and in open areas to be utilized their full capacity. 9. Please show on sheet C4.1 an alternate design of the outfall pipe in the event of the Magnolia Park Office & Townhomes project (case BCP2006- 12232) does not take place or takes place after this project. General note: 1. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Soliaste: Trucks need 13' 9" will they clear tree at Dumpster " show Dumpster detail in plans Traffic Engineering: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 5, 2008 - Page 9 DRC Action Agenda I.l 1 . The stacking distaoor both a vehicle and the space /gap between Oehicles shall be 19' not 18' as shown in the drive through lanes. 2. Depict on the plans an additional sight triangle where subject property abuts the Pinellas Trail. There shall be no object(s) in the sight triangles, which do not meet the City's acceptable vertical height criteria at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade. (City's Community Development Code, Section 3 -904). 3. Widen the drive through lanes to 10' wide from edge of curb to edge of curb. 4. Revise the width of the scaled passenger vehicle to T wide. 5 How will bypass lane function if vehicles are stacked in the drive through lanes as shown? "Tte bypass lane seems narrow and hard for a vehicle to maneuver into. 6. The vertical "clear" height of the ceiling over the drive through & bypass lanes shall be at a nimum of lei -Cp�� 7.. t this point o time Traffic Operations Division has some concerns regarding the Traffic pact Analysis specifically the Level of Service (LOS) at some key point intersections along Fort Harrison Avenue. Please contact Bennett Elbo or Himanshu Patni at (727) 562 -4775. 8. The loading zone interferes with ADA access from the handicapped parking space to an accessible entrance into the building. Revise plan to correct this problem. Planning: The above to be addressed prior to a Community Development Board (CDB) hearing. General Note(s): 1) Applicant shall comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule and paid prior to a Certificate of Occupancy (C.O ). 2) DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 5, 2008 - Page 10 DRC Action Agatda I.1 till And 1 . Pursuant to CDC S&n 3- 913.A.1, the proposed development of shall be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of the adjacent properties. The written response does not address how the proposal is consistent with the scale and bulk of the adjacent properties. Provide a revised response. 2 . Pursuant to CDC Section 2- 704.C.6.e, flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off - street parking shall be justified based on demonstrated compliance in the provision of appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. The response provided should be revised to address the reductions fo the east setback along the Pinellas Trail as well as its associated landscape buffer. 3 . Pursuant to Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2- 704.C.1, the development shall be otherwise impractical without deviations from the use and/or development standards set forth in the zoning district. The response provided indicates the property has an irregular shape and narrow width at points; however the property is generally rectangular in shape and at its narrowest is 135' in width. Consider revising this response. 4. Clarify on the floor plans where/how the medical clinic use is seperated from the office use on the second floor. 5. The tree wells proposed within the Fort Harrison Avenue and Magnolia Drive rights -of -way are inconsistent with the surrounding blocks. Revise the plans to remove the: tree wells and the associated palms. 6. The plans and the description of request both identify the majority of the east property line as being a "side" for setback purposes; however as this portion of the property abuts the Pinellas Trail right -of -way this is actually a "front ", and the plan should be designed as such. 7. The ten -foot sidewalk proposed along Fort Harrison Avenue and Magnolia Drive is excessive. Reduce the width to four feet or five feet consistent with the City standards as established by the City Engineer. 8 . Depict the locations of all mechanical equipment and the means by which they will be screeded from view of adjacent properties and rights -of -way as per CDC Section 3- 201.D. Revise the architectural elevations to depict the proposed height as measured from the existing grade, not finished floor. 10. How will the drive -thm lands be illuminated? Are lights to be fully recessed? Provide photometric calculations for the drive -thru. 11 . Provide a dimension from the northeast corner of the dumpster enclosure to the east property line. 12. The proposed loading zone conflicts with a walkway provided ADA accessibility. Revise the location of the loading zone. 13 . Is an ATM intended for the bank? If so, then depict the location of the ATM on the plans (site, landscape and architectural elevations). 14. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, evidence of filing a Unity of Title with Pinellas County between all parcels involved in the application must be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department. 15. Pursuant to CDC Section 3 -911, all utilities, including individual distribution lines, shall be installed underground. In addition, those utilities within the Magnolia Drive right -of -way must be brought underground. 16. Pursuant to CDC Section 3- 913.A.6, the design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic, olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. Given the location of the dumpster enclosure to the Pinellas Trail and the reduction to the required landscape buffer width, a more intense buffer may be necessary. Other: No Comments Notes: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, June 5, 2008 - Page 11 DRC Action Agenda 1.1 ,f I �r„E PLANNING DEPARTMENT May 5, 2008 Ms. Renee Ruggerio Northside Engineering Services, Inc. 300 S. Belcher Road Clearwater, Florida 33765 C ITY OF C LEARWarE R POST OFFICE BOX 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758 -4748 MUNICIPAL. SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562 -4567 FAx (727) 562 -4865 Re: FLD2008 -05014 11001 S. Fort Harrison Avenue I Letter of Completeness Dear Ms. Ruggerio: The Planning Department staff has entered your application into the Department's filing system and assigned the case number FLD2008- 05014. After a preliminary review of the submitted documents, staff has determined that the application is complete. The Development Review Committee (DRC) will review the application for sufficiency on Thursday, June 5, 2008, in the Planning Department Conference Room (Room 216), which is located on the second floor of the Municipal Services Building at 100 South Myrtle Avenue. You will be contacted by the Planning Department's Administrative Analyst within one week prior to the meeting date for the approximate time that your case will be reviewed. You or your representative (as applicable) must be present to answer any questions that the DRC may have regarding your application. Additional comments may be generated by the DRC at the time of the meeting. Sincerely, Robert-G. Tefft; Planner iIl_ - Tel:. (727) 562 -4539 Fax: (727) 562 -4865 E -Mail: robert.tefft Amycleamater. coin "EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER" CITY OF. CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TEL: (727) 562 -4567 FAX: (727) 562 -4865 O U • FACSIMILE. COVER SHEET Date: May 5, 2008 To: Renee Ruggerio, (727) 446 -8036 From: Robert G. Tefft, Planner III Re: FLD2008 -05014 11001 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue Number of Pages Including Cover Sheet: 2 Comments: ** Please confirm receipt via e-mail at: robert .tef(a),mvclearx,ater.con: ** ** Visit the Planning Department online at www.myclearivater.com ** *A < • CITY OF CLEARWATER NOTICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD PUBLIC HEARINGS The Community Development Board of the City of Clearwater, Florida, will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, July 15, 2008, beginning at 1:00 PM, in the City Council Chambers, in City Hall, 3rd floor, 112 South Osceola Ave, Clearwater, Florida, to consider the following request: NOTE: All persons wishing to address an item need to be present at the BEGINNING of the meeting. Those cases that are not contested by the applicant, staff, neighboring property owners, etc. will be placed on a consent agenda and approved by a single vote at the beginning of the meeting. 1. SKNR, I, LLC (Northside Engineering Services, Inc) are requesting Flexible Development approval for Office and Medical Clinic uses in the Commercial (C) and Office (0) Districts with a reduction to the front (north) setback from 25 ft to 17.5 ft (to building) and 7.5 ft (to off - street parking), a reduction to the front (west) setback from 25 ft to 18.8 ft (to building), a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 ft to 7 ft (to off - street parking) and a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 ft to 6.5 ft (to off - street parking); and an increase in building height from 25 ft to 45.16 ft as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project pursuant to Community Development Code Sections 2 -704.0 and 2- 1004.C, and reductions to the perimeter buffers along Magnolia Dr. and the Pinellas Trail from 10 ft to 7.5 and 7 ft, respectively (to proposed pavement), as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3- 1202.G. (Proposed Use: Medical Clinic and Office.) at 1001 -1009 S Ft Harrison Ave. and 507 -600 Magnolia Ave, Magnolia Park Blk 32, Lot 34, Blk 34 Lots 1 -3, 9 —10, 50 ft Strip Vac RR R/W on E. Assigned Planner: Robert Tefft, Planner III. FLD2008 -05014 Interested parties may appear and be heard at the hearing or file written notice of approval or objection with the Planning Director or City Clerk prior to the hearing. Any person who decides to appeal any decision made by the Board or Council, with respect to any matter considered at such hearings, will need to request a record of the proceedings and, for such purpose, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based per Florida Statute 286.0105. Community Development Code Sec 4 -206 states that party status shall be granted by the Board in quasi-judicial cases if the person requesting such status demonstrates that s/he is substantially affected. Party status entitles parties to personally testify, present evidence, argument and witnesses, cross - examine witnesses, appeal the decision and speak on reconsideration requests, and needs to be requested and obtained during the case discussion before the CDB. An oath will be administered swearing in all persons giving testimony in quasi-judicial public hearing cases. If you wish to speak at the meeting, please wait to be recognized, then state and spell your name and provide your address. Persons without party status speaking before the CDB shall be limited to three minutes unless an individual is representing a group in which case the Chairperson may authorize a reasonable amount of time up to 10 minutes. Five days prior to the meeting, staff reports and recommendations on the above requests will be available for review by interested parties between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., weekdays, at the City of Clearwater, Planning Department, 100 S. Myrtle Ave., Clearwater, FL 33756. Please contact the case presenter, at 562 -4567 to discuss any questions or concerns about the project and/or to better understand the proposal and review the site plan. • • Michael Delk Cynthia E. Goudeau, MMC Planning Director City Clerk City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748, Clearwater, FL 33758 -4748 NOTE: Applicant or representative must be present at the hearing. A COPY OF THIS AD IN LARGE PRINT IS AVAILABLE IN OFFICIAL RECORDS AND LEGISLATIVE SERVICES. ANY PERSON WITH A DISABILITY REQUIRING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING SHOULD CALL (727) 562 -4093 WITH THEIR REQUEST. To learn more about presenting to Clearwater boards and City Council, go to http:// clearwater .granicus.comNiewPublisher.php ?view id =11 and click on 'Resident Engagement Video." You can also check the informational video out from any Clearwater public library. Ad: 07/03/08 FLD 08- 05014:121 1100 FT HARRISON LAND TRUST 02 JEFFORDS STREET LTD 407 ST ANDREWS RD 402 JEFFORDS ST BELLEAIR FL 33756 - 1935 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3828 ASHRAF, BESSADA DMP PA 3184 CRESCENT OAKS BLVD TARPON SPRINGS FL 34688 - 7610 BACH, MICHAEL BACH, PATTI 4176 MYSTIC CT SAN JOSE CA 95124 - 3327 BAY REAL ESTATE INVESTORS WEISS, MARY L THE 1744 N BELCHER RD STE 200 CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 1305 BOTANICAL & HERBAL RESOURCES 805 S FT HARRISON AVE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3901 BROWN, KENNETH P BROWN, BRENDA 423 MAGNOLIA DR CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3837 C S M PROPERTIES PTNSHP 508 JEFFORDS ST # C CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3839 CASTAGNA LAW FIRM 611 DRUID RD E STE 710 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3947 CONKLIN, LESLIE M CONKLIN, DEBRA S 430 LOTUS PATH CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3832 AUSTIN MEDICAL CTR INC 3389 CLARINE WAY E DUNEDIN FL 34698 - 9439 BAIR, DAVID M 17389 US HIGHWAY 19 N CLEARWATER FL 33764 - BEKIRI, REIS BEKIRI, MAZES 539 JASMINE WAY CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3917 BRIDGETON INVESTMENTS LLC 611 DRUID RD E # 201 & 202 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3959 BURWELL, ROBERT A SR BURWELL, MERRY JUNE 680 ISLAND WAY # 410 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - CALVARIO, ALBERTO CALVARIO, DEBORA 20140 EAGLE GLEN WAY ESTERO FL 33928 - 3051 41NDRIOLA, MICHAEL J ANDRIOLA, JOANNA M 416 LOTUS PATH CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3832 B K B PROPERTIES INC 800 ISLAND WAY CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1825 BATT, HOWARD C 611 DRUID RD E # 712 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3931 BOLLANO, PIRO MICI, ELENI 857 HARBOR OAK LN CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3933 BROWN, ELLEN RAYNA LLC 2973 CIELO CIR S CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 1411 BURWELL, ROBERT A SR BURWELL, MERRY JUNE 680 ISLAND WAY # 410 1983 CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1983 CEKA BUILDING LLC 1105 S FT HARRISON AVE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3907 CONTI, DIANA 525 JASMINE WAY CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3917 CARPENTER, JANA Q THE 612 HARBOR IS CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 1801 CLAY, CHRISTINE 424 LOTUS PATH CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3832 CREDITIQ INC 611 DRUID RD E # 405 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3935 CRISTINO, LENNY CRITCHLEY, JOSEPH E CSX TRANSPORTATION INC 115 8TH ST 423 LOTUS PATH 500 WATER ST BELLEAIR BEACH FL 33786 - 3220 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3831 JACKSONVILLE FL 32202 - 4423 1 • • DELP, MICHAEL DESAI, ANUP DRUHILL PROF CTR CONDO ASSN DELP, SUSAN C DESAI, CHHAYA DRUID RD 516 JASMINE WAY 908 S FORT HARRISON AVE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3940 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3904 DRUID ROAD DUNN, THOMAS DWORKIN, GARY H 611 DRUID RD E STE 105 COMIANO, RONALD F DWORKIN, MARY L CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3948 843 S FT HARRISON AVE 415 MAGNOLIA DR CANADA CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3901 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3837 EQUITY TRUST CO FARRIS, STEVEN FBO ROBERT A BURWELL JR IRA FARRIS, LAUREN FERRARA TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS 815 S FORT HARRISON AVE 472 HARBOR DR S 611 DRUID RD E # 704 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3901 INDIAN ROCK BEACH FL 33785 - CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3939 3156 FETTIG, ALBERT G FL DEPT OF TRANS FORT HARRISON PROPERTY LAND 524 JASMINE WAY 315 COURT ST TR CLEARWATER FL 33756 - CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 5165 445 HAMDEN DR CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2537 FOTIOU, ZACHARIAS FOTIOU, ZACHARIAS GENDUSA, SAMUEL J FOTIOU, MERCEDES FOTIOU, MERCEDES GENDUSA, JOY 428 MAGNOLIA DR 517 JASMINE WAY 414 MAGNOLIA DR CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3838 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3917 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3838 GIOTAKIS, BOB GOODMAN, SHERRY GOULD, RICHARD TREVOR 2401 VIRGINIA ST 420 LOTUS PATH GOULD; DIANE CHRISTINE PARK RIDGE IL 60068 - 2252 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3832 513 JASMINE WAY CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3917 HAKSAR, MANJULA HANGHOFER, ADELHEID G HARRITY, MICHELLE HAKSAR, ELIZABETH 500 JASMINE WAY 803 S FORT HARRISON AVE 424 MAGNOLIA DR CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3940 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3901 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3838 HARTLAGE, NANCY L HEMERICK, F DAVID HENDRIX, SCOTT D HARTLAGE, STEPHEN M 902 S FORT HARRISON AVE HENDRIX, RANNIE D 418 JEFFORDS ST CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3904 221 GREENWOOD DR CLEARWATER FL 33756 - WEST PALM FL 33405 - HEYE, HANS F HOLMES, JENNIFER JANNELLI, GILBERT G 611 DRUID RD E STE 200 PO BOX 592 909 S FORT HARRISON AVE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3946 PARK RIDGE IL 60068 - 0592 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3903 JOSEPH, THOMAS A KEDAN, ELITE KEDAN, ELLA THE JOSEPH, DUNIA E 2354 HADDON HALL PL 2354 HADDON HALL PL 612 WOODLAKE DR CLEARWATER FL 33764 - 7510 CLEARWATER FL 33764 - 7510 LOUISVILLE KY 40245 - CANADA 0 0 KERR, RUTH THEL KERR, RUTH THEL KILGORE, CAROLE W 501 JASMINE WAY 501 JASMINE WAY 105 WILLADEL DR CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3917 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3917 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 1941 LAY, JERRY 106 W 5TH ST # 3 COVINGTON KY 41011 - 1404 LOTUS LAND 1055 S FORT HARRISON AVE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3905 MAGNOLIA PARK REALTY 907 S FT HARRISON AVE # 102 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3903 MARTENS, DAVID C MARTENS, CANDACE S 425 LOTUS PATH CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3831 MINES, JONATHAN MINES, CARLEN 505 DRUID RD E CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3909 NICHOLS, DEAN E NICHOLS, ANN C 119 POINCIANA LN LARGO FL 33770 - 2662 PANTELIDES, GUS K 611 DRUID RD # 703 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3939 PENNY, KENNETH E JR GOSCIN- PENNY, LEE 4598 CLEARWATER HARBOR DR LARGO FL 33770 - LEWIS, CATHERINE 553 JASMINE WAY CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3917 MADDALUNA, JOHN J 813 HARBOR OAK LN CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3933 MAGURNO, ELSIE A EST RR 2 BOX 280B ATHEN PA 18810 - 9646 MC QUIGG, MICHAEL C MC QUIGG, EUGENIA F 429 MAGNOLIA DR CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3837 MOORES, REBECCA J 201 HOWARD DR BELLEAIR BEACH FL 33786- 3533 OHANA ENTERPRISES INC 201 S LINCOLN AVE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - PATCH, JAMES M PATCH, SHARON E 825 HARBOR OAK LN CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3933 LINETSKY, LIDIA LINETSKY, FELIX S 611 DRUID RD E # 302 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3919 MAGNOLIA MEDICAL CENTER LLC PO BOX 2893 CLEARWATER FL 33757 - 2893 MARION, BRANDON L MARION, ANGELA M 849 HARBOR OAK LN CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3933 CANADA MIHOPOULOS, ALEXANDER MIHOPOULOS, ELEONORA 545 JASMINE WAY CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3917 MORTON PLANT HOSP ASSN INC PO BOX 210 CLEARWATER FL 33757 - 0210 PAITSEL, RICHARD - PAITSEL, PATRICIA 853 HARBOR OAK LN CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3933 PAUL, JASON 845 HARBOR OAK LN CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3933 PERFECTLY BALANCED BOOKS INC PHILLIPS, CRAIG 611 DRUID RD E # 401 PHILLIPS, PEGGY CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3920 611 DRUID RD E #707 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3947 RODRIGUEZ, ROSALIA C RUIZ, MIGUEL SAAD, FATHY Z 418 LEEWARD IS 811 S FORT HARRISON AVE SHENODA, SAMIRA S CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2309 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3901 528 JASMINE WAY CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3940 r� • SCHAEFER, JAMES O SHAMSAH, H SHIDI TRUST SHEHU, FATBARDH SCHAEFER, NANCY E 611 DRUID RD E STE 301 809 HARBOR OAK LN 430 JASMINE WAY CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3919 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3933 CLEARWATER FL 33756.- 3822 SHOHAM, ILANA 815 HARBOR OAK LN CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3933 SOTOS, ELAINE 8507 W NORMAL NILES IL 60714 - STEWART, BRUCE STEWART, DONNA 841 HARBOR OAK LN CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3933 TAM PARTNERS LLC 1 RED MILL LN DARIEN CT 06820 - 3612 TOLBA, ALAN TOLBA, MICHAEL A 837 HARBOR OAK LN CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3933 TRAPOZZANO, RUBY H 901 SEMINOLE BLVD # 102 LARGO FL 33770 - 7456 URBANEK, ANTHONY P URBANEK, ANN 537 JASMINE WAY CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3917 YOUSSEF, AIDA N REVOCABLE TRUS PO BOX 6062 CHESTERFIELD MO 63006 - 6062 YOUSSEF, TAWFIK, REVOCABLE TRU PO BOX 6062 CHESTERFIELD MO 63006 - 6062 SILVER, LESLIE SILVER, GILDA 816 HARBOR OAK LN CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3936 CANADA SPIRIDELLIS, NIKOLAOS T 170 SAND KEY ESTATES DR CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2981 SUBRAMANIAN, ARUNACHALAM SUBRAMANIAN, VALLI 8777 LAUREL DR PINELLAS PARK FL 33782 - 4345 TEMME, R WAYNE 421 JASMINE WAY CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3821 TOMAK, TYRONE J 7870 DANA POINT RD LAS VEGAS NV 89117 - 1927 TULLY, JOE TULLY, CYNTHIA 611 DRUID RD # 407 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3935 WAYLAND, ROBERT E CHALACHE, NAJEH F 905 S FT HARRISON AVE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3903 YOUSSEF, NANCY S TRUST 536 JASMINE WAY CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3940 SKOU, JAN ERIK KNUDSGAARD TYRIVEGEN 19 JESSHEIM 2050 00000 - NORWAY STEVENS,KAREN 424 JASMINE WAY CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3822 SZABO,BRUCE 611 DRUID RD E STE 717 CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3947 TOLAN, DONALD J TOLAN, MAUREEN 417 JASMINE WAY CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3821 TOWN HOMES OF HARBOR OAKS HOME 4131 GUNN HIGHWAY TAMPA FL 33618 - TURNER, GERALDINE C 801 S FORT HARRISON AVE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3901 WICKERSHAM, HERBERT F WICKERSHAM, M ANN 428 LOTUS PATH CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 3832 YOUSSEF, TAMER S 2001 TRUST PO BOX 508 INDIAN ROCKS BEACH FL 33785 - 0508 CDB Meeting Date: July 15, 2008 Case Number: FLD2008 -05014 Agenda Item: E. 1. Owner /Applicant: SNKR I, LLC Representative: Northside Engineering Services, Inc. Addresses: 1001 -1009 S. Fort Harrison Avenue and 507 -600 Magnolia Avenue CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING. DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT. GENERAL INFORMATION:. REQUEST:. Flexible Development approval for Office and Medical Clinic uses in the Commercial (C) and Office (0) Districts with a reduction to the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 17.5 feet (to building) and 7.5 feet (to off - ,street parking), a reduction to the front (west) setback from 25 feet to 18.8 feet (to building), a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 7 feet (to off - street parking) and a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to 6.5 feet (to off - street parking); and an increase in building height from 25 feet to 45.16 feet as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project .pursuant to Community Development Code Sections 2 -704.0 and 2- 1004.C, and reductions to the perimeter buffers along Magnolia Drive and the Pinellas Trail from 10 feet to 7.5 and 7 feet, respectively (to proposed pavement), as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3- 1202.G. CURRENT ZONING:. Commercial (C) District: south side of Magnolia Drive; and Office (0) District: north side of Magnolia Drive CURRENT FUTURE LAND. Commercial General (CG): south side of Magnolia Drive; and USE .CATEGORY: Residential /Office General (R/OG): north side of Magnolia Drive PROPERTY USE: Former Use: Retail Sales and Detached Dwelling Proposed Use: Medical Clinic and Offices EXISTING North: Commercial (C) and Office (0) Districts Offices SURROUNDING ZONING South: Commercial (C) District Medical Clinic AND USES: East: Institutional (I) District Off - Street Parking West: Commercial (C) District Medical Clinic Community Development Board — July 15, 2008 FLD2008 -05014 — Page 1 0 ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions:. The 1.27 acre subject properties are located at the southeast corner of South Fort Harrison Avenue and Magnolia Drive (1.13 acres), and on the north side of Magnolia Drive approximately 350 east of South Fort Harrison Avenue and adjacent to the west side of the Pinellas Trail (0.14 acres). The north parcel is zoned Office (0) District with an underlying Future Land Use Plan designation of Residential /Office General (R/OG), while the south parcel is zoned Commercial (C) District with an underlying Future Land Use Plan designation of Commercial General (CG). The subject properties are presently vacant, but had previously consisted of a retail sales and services use and a detached dwelling. Development Proposal:. On May 2, 2008, a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application was submitted for the subject property. Under the development proposal 13,323 square feet of Medical Clinic and 5,100 square feet of Office (18,423 square feet total) with associated off - street parking will be constructed on the south portion of the 'subject property. An associated stormwater retention area with landscaping will be constructed on the north portion of the subject property. The request had been made as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project as the proposed Medical Clinic use is only specifically authorized within the Commercial (C) District as a Flexible Standard Development (FLS) use with no flexibility in required setbacks or height and reduced setbacks to the building and pavement have been requested, as well as additional building height. The development proposal's compliance with the various development standards of the Community Development Code (CDC) is discussed below. Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.): Pursuant to CDC Section 2- 701.1, within the CG Future Land Use Plan category, the maximum allowable F.A.R. is 0.55; therefore the 1.13 acres is permitted a maximum of 27,072 square feet of gross floor area. The development proposal is for only 18,423 square feet (0.37 FAR); thus the proposal is in compliance with the above requirement. Impervious Surface Ratio (I.S.R.): Pursuant to CDC Section 2- 701.1, within the CG Future Land Use Plan category, the maximum allowable I.S.R. is 0.95. As proposed, the development (south parcel) will have an I.S.R. of 0.71 and therefore meets the above requirement. There are no impervious surfaces on the north parcel. Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Section 2 -704, within the C District, there is no applicable maximum building height for Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects. However, as a Flexible Standard Development (FLS) use, medical clinics are permitted a height of 25 feet; and as a Flexible Development (FLD) use, offices may be permitted a height of 50 feet. The development proposes a building height of 45.16 feet from the average existing grade, which is consistent with the established parameters for an office use, but not for a medical clinic. However, there will be no difference in the outward appearance of the building based upon the use occupying that portion of the building. As such, there should be no adverse affects in allowing the proposed building height of 45.16 feet for both the office and medical clinic portions of the building. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Section 2 -704, within the C District, there are no applicable minimum setbacks for Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects. However, the medical clinic and office uses both have a minimum required front setback of 25 feet and side setback of 10 feet. The development proposal includes the following reduced setback requests: • Reduce the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 17.5 feet (to building); • Reduce the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 7.5 feet (to off - street parking); Community Development Board — July 15, 2008 FLD2008 -05014 — Page 2 • u ❑ Reduce the front (west) setback from 25 feet to 18.8 feet (to building); ❑ Reduce the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 7 feet (to off - street parking); and ❑ Reduce the side (south) setback from 10 feet to 6.5 feet (to off - street parking). The applicant has requested the reduced building setbacks, based upon the location of the ingress /egress driveway at Magnolia Drive, which is dictated by its proximity to both South Fort Harrison Avenue and the Pinellas Trail. In order to accommodate a building of sufficient size and provide for an adequate vehicle stacking distance, the requested building setbacks are necessary. With regard to the reduced off - street parking setbacks, these setbacks are necessary in order to provide for the construction of an adequate parking lot. As the parking lot has two frontages, development meeting those minimum setbacks would reduce the parking lot by approximately 30 spaces. While the reduced setbacks also impact the required perimeter landscape buffer, sufficient area will still remain for a buffer meeting minimum planting requirements to be established. Minimum Off - Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Sections 2 -703 and 2 -704, within the C District, medical clinics and offices are required to provide three and four off - street parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, respectively. Therefore, the proposed 13,323 square feet of medical clinic (40) and the 5,100 square feet of office floor area (20) requires a total of 60 off - street parking spaces. As proposed, a total of 63 off - street parking spaces will be provided; thus the development proposal exceeds its parking requirement. Solid Waste Containers and Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3- 201.13.1, all solid waste containers, recycling or trash handling areas and outside mechanical equipment shall be completely screened from view from public streets and abutting properties by a fence, gate, wall, mounds of earth, or vegetation. The proposed architectural elevations denote that all of the mechanical equipment is to be located on the roof and screened from view. However, no plans have been provided with this submittal that depict the locations of the mechanical equipment on the roof and the means by which they would be screened from view. It is therefore attached as a condition of approval that prior to the issuance of any building permits, the plans are revised to clearly depict the locations of and the means by which all mechanical equipment will be screened from view from public streets and abutting properties. Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3 -911, all utilities, including individual distribution lines, shall be installed underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. It is attached as a condition of approval that prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy all on -site utility facilities, whether they be existing or proposed, are to be placed underground as part of the redevelopment of the site. Landscaping_ Pursuant to CDC Section 3- 1202.D.1, where non - residential uses are adjacent to a local street right -of -way, a ten -foot wide perimeter landscape buffer is required. The development proposal is adjacent to Magnolia Drive (north) and the Pinellas Trail (east); however buffer widths of only 7.5 and 7 feet, respectively have been proposed. Based upon the above, the applicant has requested the approval of a Comprehensive Landscape Program with the above referenced reductions to the perimeter landscape buffers. Comprehensive Landscape Program: Pursuant to CDC Section 3- 1202.G, the landscaping requirements contained within the Code can be waived or modified if the application contains a Comprehensive Landscape Program satisfying certain criteria. The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with those criteria: Community Development Board — July 15, 2008 FLD2008 -05014 — Page 3 • Consistent I Inconsistent 1. Architectural theme: Standard Proposed 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 0.37 X on the parcel proposed for development; or Maximum 50 feet b. The design, character, location and/or 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 Minimum Setbacks development under the minimum landscape standards. 17.5 feet (to building) X1 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 7 feet (to pavement) landscape program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater. 4. Property values: The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape X X' program will have a beneficial impact on the value of property in the immediate Side (south): 10 feet vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. X1 5. Special area or scenic corridor plan: The landscape treatment proposed in the X 63 parking spaces comprehensive landscape program is consistent with any special area or scenic Off - Street Parking corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in (3.41/1,000 GFA) which the parcel proposed for development is located. Total: 60.36 The reduced widths of the northern and eastern perimeter landscape buffers from 10 feet to 7.5 and 7 feet, respectively, will not be to the detriment of the site, nor will it negatively impact the adjacent right - of -way. The buffer will contain the trees and hedge material required by the Code, as well as additional groundcovers and shrubs far in excess of minimum requirements; thus resulting in a demonstrably more attractive landscape plan. Further, the proposed landscape will have a beneficial impact on surrounding property and will enhance the community character. Code Enforcement Analysis: There is no outstanding Code Enforcement issue associated with the any of the individual subject properties. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards and criteria as per CDC Section 2 -704: 1. See above discussion with regard to Minimum Setbacks. Community Development Board — July 15, 2008 FLD2008 -05014 — Page 4 Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent F.A.R. 0.55 0.37 X Maximum 50 feet 45.16 feet X Building Height Minimum Setbacks Front (north): 25 feet 17.5 feet (to building) X1 7.5 (to pavement) Front (east): 25 feet 7 feet (to pavement) X1 Front (west): '25 feet 18.8 feet (to building) X' Side (south): 10 feet 6.5 feet (to pavement) X1 Minimum Medical Clinic (3/1,000 SF GFA): 39.96 63 parking spaces X Off - Street Parking Office (4/1,000 SF GFA) 20.4 (3.41/1,000 GFA) Total: 60.36 1. See above discussion with regard to Minimum Setbacks. Community Development Board — July 15, 2008 FLD2008 -05014 — Page 4 COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2 -704.0 (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project): Consistent I Inconsistent 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly X development and improvement of surrounding properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X development 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or L The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off - street X parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: ❑ Changes in horizontal building planes; ❑ Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; ❑ Variety in materials, colors and textures; • Distinctive fenestration patterns; • Building stepbacks; and ❑ Distinctive roofs forms. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. Community Development Board —July 15,-2008 FLD2008 -05014 — Page 5 0 • 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- 913.A: Consistent I Inconsistent 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the X immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including X visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:. The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of June 5, 2008, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB). Findings of Fact. The Planning 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 1.27 acre subject property is located at the southeast corner of South Fort Harrison Avenue and Magnolia Drive (1.13 acres), and on the north side of Magnolia Drive approximately 350 east of South Fort Harrison Avenue and adjacent to the west side of the Pinellas Trail (0.14 acres); 2. That the north portion of the subject property is located within the Office (0) District and the Residential /Office General (R/OG) Future Land Use Plan category and will consist only of a stormwater retention area and landscaping; and 3. That the south portion of the subject property is located within the Commercial (C) District and the Commercial General (CG) Future Land Use Plan category and will consist of 18,423 square feet of medical clinic and office uses. Conclusions of Law. The Planning Department, having made the above findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law: 1. That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the Maximum Development Potential standards as per CDC Sections 2 -701.1 and 2- 1001,.1; 2. That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the applicable Standards and Criteria as per CDC Sections 2 -704 and 2 -1004; 3. That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the Flexibility criteria for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project as per CDC Sections 2 -704.0 and 2- 1004.C; and 4. That the development proposal has been found to be in compliance with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3- 913.A. Based upon the above and subject to the attached conditions, the Planning Department recommends APPROVAL of the Flexible Development approval for Office and Medical Clinic uses in the Commercial (C) and Office (0) Districts with a reduction to the front (north) setback from 25 feet to 17.5 feet (to Community Development Board — July 15, 2008 FLD2008 -05014 — Page 6 building) and 7.5 feet (to off - street parking), a reduction to the front (west) setback from 25 feet to 18.8 feet (to building), a reduction to the front (east) setback from 25 feet to 7 feet (to off - street parking) and a reduction to the side (south) setback from 10 feet to 6.5 feet (to off - street parking); and an increase in building height from 25 feet to 45.16 feet as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project pursuant to Community Development Code Sections 2 -704.0 and 2- 1004.C, and reductions to the perimeter buffers along Magnolia Drive and the Pinellas Trail from 10 feet to 7.5 and 7 feet, respectively (to proposed pavement), as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3- 1202.G. Conditions of Approval: 1. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, evidence of filing a Unity of Title with Pinellas County between all parcels involved in the application must be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department; 2. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, any outstanding comments of the Engineering Department shall be addressed; 3. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, any outstanding comments of the Fire Department shall be addressed; 4. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, any outstanding Land Resource comments shall be addressed; 5. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the plans are revised to clearly depict the locations of and the means by which all mechanical equipment will be screened from view from public streets and abutting properties; 6. That prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy, all on -site utility facilities, whether they be existing or proposed, are to be placed underground as part of the redevelopment of the site; 7. That any /all wireless communication facilities to be installed concurrent with or subsequent to the construction of the subject development must be screened from view and/or painted to match the building to which they are attached, as applicable; 8. That any /all future signage must meet the requirements of Code and be architecturally integrated with the design of the building with regard to proportion, color, material and finish as part of a final sign package submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any permits which includes: (a) All signs fully dimensioned and coordinated in terms of including the same color and font style and size; and (b) All signs be constructed of the highest quality materials which are coordinated with the. colors, materials and architectural style of the building; and 9. That the final design and color of the building shall be consistent with the architectural elevations submitted to (or as modified by) the CD�B, and be approved by Staff. Prepared by Planning Department Staff: 1/ Robert G. Tefft, Planner IIA ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Aerial Map; Zoning Map; Existing Surrounding Uses Map; and Photographs S: (Planning Departmen4C D BIFLEX (FLD)IPending cases)Up for the next CDBIFt Harrison Ave S 1001 - Harbor Oaks Professional Or 2008 07 -15 R71Ft Harrison Ave S 1001 - Staff Report 2008 07- 15.doc Community Development Board — July 15, 2008 FLD2008 -05014 — Page 7 0 0 Robert G. Tefft 100. South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 (727) 562 -4539 robert.tefftnmyclearwater.co m PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Planner III City. of Clearwater,. Clearwater,. Florida June 2005 to Present. Duties include performing technical review of and preparation of staff reports for various land development applications, the organization of data and its display in order to track information and provide status reports, and making presentations to various City Boards and Committees. • Planner II City. of Clearwater, Clearwater, Florida May 2005 to June 2005 Duties include performing technical review of and preparation of staff reports for various land development applications, the organization of data and its display in order to track information and provide status reports. • Senior. Planner. City of Delray Beach, Delray Beach, Florida . . October 2003 to May 2005 Performed technical review of and prepared staff reports for land development applications such as, but not limited to: site plans, conditional uses, rezonings, land use amendments, and text amendments. Organized data and its display in order to track information and provide status reports. Make presentations to various City Boards. Planner. City of Delray Beach, Delray Beach,. Florida March 2001. to October 2003. Performed technical review of and prepared staff reports for land development applications such as, but not limited to: site plans, conditional use and text amendments. Organization of data and its display in order to track information and provide status reports. Provided in -depth training to the Assistant Planner position with respect to essential job functions and continuous guidance. Assistant Planner City. of Delray Beach, Delray Beach, Florida October 1999 to March 2001. Performed technical review of and prepared staff reports for site plan development applications. Performed reviews of building permit applications. Provided information on land use applications, ordinances, land development regulations, codes, and related planning programs /services to other professionals and the public. EDUCATION • Bachelor of Arts, Geography (Urban Studies), University of South Florida, 1999 LICENSES & CERTIFICATES • American Planning Association Community Development Board — July 15, 2008 FLD2008 -05014 — Page 8 • • Uj 0 Q@ ]� a =Iii h Z 0 PINE PIN E ST z Cr escent LU 0 a DRUID RD = W DRUID RD PROJECT SITE WAY JAG r O MAGNt)L1A D U PATH = LO t-- U- El JEFFORDS ST c�. 0. GRAND CENTRAL FPINFIl I A LOCATION MAP Owner: SNKR I, LLC Case: FLD2008 -05014 Site: 1001 -1009 S. Fort Harrison Avenue Property Size: 1.27 acres 507 -600 Magnolia Drive PIN: 15- 29 -15- 54450 - 034 -0010 Atlas Page: 2958 15- 29 -15- 54450 - 034 -0030 15- 29 -15- 54450- 034 -0090 15-29-15-54450-034-0110 15- 29 -15- 54450 - 032 -0240 0 0 Owner: SNKR I, LLC AERIAL MAP Case IJ� X11 'M Afl i F- D200& -D5014 Site: 1001 -1009 S. N)rt Harriso-i Avenue Property � ize: 1 27 acEEs 507 -600 Magnolic Drive PIN: 15- 29 -15- 5445 -D -054 -001 C Atlas Pao,.-: 295B 15- 29- 15- 54451- 02:4 -003C 15 -29 -15 -5445 0-4 -009C 15 -29 -15 -5445 = -0---4-0110 15 -29 -15 -5445 : -0M -0240 5 4150' 83729 — — — �114 8391 42 513 900 Y 841 I v z 54 �9 84 43 517 I o � 845 31 Z z 54�8 �' 44 521 36 m I 84932 I 5437 8511 525 45 5336 24 Q 85333 1 ' 2 — — — 902 = I sos 53]18 0 85734 I 906 3 3 ' 907 6 24 2 69 67 4 N 906 � 23 909 W MAGNOLIA DR L r (° Q o co HD Z I � 1 0 I I 1 ' I ,000 Q 1001 I $ I C I 1002 507 I I 70 I 68 2 I 1 ' 10 i 9 1 2 1 I 0) 7 ' 1040 I 1009 3 I - — — — I I 10 I 103 22 I 21 4 I 6 ' 7 I 8 1055 507 °Q I 1046 5 LOTUS ATH IRT ZONING MAP Owner: SNKR I, LLC Case: FLD2008 -05014 Site: 1001 -1009 S. Fort Harrison Avenue Property Size: 1.27 acres 507 -600 Magnolia Drive PIN: 15- 29 -15- 54450 - 034 -0010 Atlas Page: 295B 15- 29 -15- 54450- 034 -0030 15- 29 -15- 54450 - 034 -0090 15-29-15-54450-034-0110 15- 29 -15- 54450 - 032 -0240 0 0 CU 5 h q X09 5% J 83729 I RETAIL 900 439 42513 AIFTACHE Q 84130 I e 844 SAES & 4351 ELLING 54§8 o I 44531 I z 36 SERYIW 521 ``� 5W W2 1 8511 24 45525 5, Q Ct 85333 1 I 2 — — — 902 T I 905 5 q 85734 906 1 3 - - - 907 1 6 i 8 24 2 69 i 67 `OFFICE I I N I sos - - - - - - -- I ° 23 4 L909a I I I .0 I IM 2 MAGNOLIA DR O I y I I R _"AI L a = 1001 1 h 2 I ^ � 1 1000 I SALES &1002 Cr I 507 70SE �I� 0 2 11 I I 1 ti 1 10 1 9 I 1 2 I I I 07 1 1 1040 1009 3 I -- EF= STR.EET- 1 I I I PARKING 10 A*i ARIED I I 4 i 6 I 7 1 8 I 22 21 I 1055 1 DWELLINGS - - - _MEDIC I 507 I 1046 CkI N I 34 I 1 I I I ' I - - I I - - - - - -1 - - - - - I - - - ' I -- - - - —J - - LOTUS PATH LO EXISTING SURROUNDING USES MAP Owner: SNKR I, LLC Case: FLD2008 -05014 Site: 1001 -1009 S. Fort Harrison Avenue Property Size: 1.27 acres 507 -600 Magnolia Drive PIN: 15- 29 -15- 54450 - 034 -0010 Atlas Page: 2956 15- 29 -15- 54450 - 034 -0030 15- 29 -15- 54450 - 034 -0090 15-29-15-54450-034-0110 15- 29 -15- 54450 - 032 -0240 0 0 Looking ! outh from Magnolia Drive at subject property (near Ft. iarrison Avenue intersection) Looking r orthwest across Magnolia Drive at adjacent property Looking south from Magnolia Dri\.e at sLbje__ property Looking southeast from Magnolia Drive 1t ad-acen property (off- street parking) to the east Looking north across Magnolia Dive at iorif parcel and nearby development 1001 and 1009 S. Ft. Harrison Avenue 1 507 and 600 Magnolia Drive FLD2008 -05014 ORr DIW:: -Vj BIT QTY OF QC-AZAA ISR Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. J-% V L- HARBOR OAKS PROFESSIONAL CTR Zoning: C. atlas# 295B 0 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR HARBOR OAKS MEDICAL CENTER CLEARWATER, FLORIDA PREPARED FOR: SNKR I, LLC ml PREPARED BY: GULF COAST CONSULTING, INC. APRIL 2008 PROJECT # 08 -024 Robert Pergoliz ' A f' AICP #9023 II. 0 INTRODUCTION 0 The applicant is proposing to develop a mixed use project on the southeast corner of the S. Fort Harrison Avenue / Magnolia Drive intersection which is the subject of a site plan review application. According to the site plan the project is expected to contain a 3,600 s.f bank with drive- through lanes and up to 14,823 s.f medical office space. This application requires an assessment of the traffic impacts of the development. Prior to completing this analysis a methodology was established with the City of Clearwater staff. EXISTING BASE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS The property has frontage on S. Fort Harrison Avenue and Magnolia Drive. (See Figure 1) Full access is proposed to Magnolia Drive and access to S. Fort Harrison Avenue will be limited to exiting traffic only. The adjacent segment of S. Fort Harrison Avenue is a two -lane roadway with a center turn lane. Magnolia Drive is a two -lane local road which terminates at the Pinellas Trail and Myrtle Avenue is a four -lane roadway. Existing base conditions were established by obtaining PM peak period traffic counts at several nearby intersections. The traffic counts were adjusted to annual averages using FDOT seasonal adjustment factors. Existing traffic volumes are shown in Figure 2. The intersections were analyzed using the HCS software. The HCS printouts are included in Appendix A and the existing conditions are shown in Table 1. Roadway segment existing conditions are shown in Table 2. TABLE 1 EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Ft. Harrison Ave. / Jeffords Street A 8.5 Ft. Harrison Ave. / Magnolia Drive A/C 9.2/19.1 Ft. Harrison Ave. / Druid Road A 6.9 Ft. Harrison Ave. / Turner Street A 7.8 Myrtle Ave. / Jeffords Street B 10.1 Myrtle Ave. / Druid Road A 8.2 Myrtle Ave. / Turner Street B 10.8 Note: For unsignalized intersections A/C = LOS of major street left turn/minor street approach. All intersections presently operate at LOS B or better under base PM peak hour traffic conditions. Operating conditions on roadway segments in the area were analyzed using HCS software and Pinellas County MPO 2007 LOS Report capacities and are shown below in Table 2. 1 PROJECT LOCATION PROJECT 08 -024 4 Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. DATE: FIGURE: I ,,,�,, Land Development Consulting 42008 DRAWN BY: AEL 1 a 0 0 N 0 v m c n N Op 0 v v O� o a m = u �N 0 s w� Zv 33 L 45 N M N to M L �— 52 r�i r%) 40 TURNER ST. l L� 72 9 ,4J rfr 7,--- rfr 72 43 o,t 75� M 44 C14 '0 L � 1 Ln �i 00 LO �i of L32 M i 35 N -t "1 j57 N � -3G N M t0 DRUID RD. I 1 135 —92 15J rf r 94J rf r 51 10 m orn 167 n 0) � :21 N N n !D °1 M i M L 0 ^�N L _ M �1 6 co ci I MAGNOLIA DR �l f r 4 J Q N O M 9� � (01 Cni �i L14 O L14 . N I0 N n M ID — 1 L f— 42 N M Lo r 36 I JEFFORDS ST. -- 17 3 r FI �J 55 J �j� r 88 J r f r 71 � 19 d DLO 69 —� I 25 �r, n to d n i = TRAFFIC SIGNAL W • a a i t0 ( M F CIO w pp 0 EXISTING PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME (2008) PROJECT NO: 08 -024 Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. DATE: FIGURE: 42008 Land Development Consulting 2 DRAWN BY: AEL r 0 ,0 TABLE 2 EXISTING ROADWAY SEGMENT OPERATIONS (2008) All roadway segments analyzed presently operate at LOS C or better. III. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS As requested by the City of Clearwater background traffic in the build -out year of 2010 was estimated using a 2% annual growth rate. Using Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 7t' Edition rates, the amount of traffic generated by the project was calculated. Trip generation estimates are shown below in Table 3: TABLE 3 TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES � I NI 11ti P " ,k rllwwl %1z� 1.. 0%th + .. .: 44 (25 in 19 out) k „P J,I� t ,(k,�. . 7j61111"r :.._� 164 (82 in 82 out) Drive-in bank Medical office i •' � e me� f •q • ' � � � , � �� 4 � I I / ci. ; ^. Ft. Harrison Ave (Pinellas — Jeffords ) 2 -lane w /Lt lane 1157 HCS C Ft. Harrison Ave Jeffords — Magnolia 2 -lane w /Lt lane 1190 HCS C Ft. Harrison Ave Magnolia - Druid 2 -lane w /Lt lane 1183 HCS C Ft. Harrison Ave Druid — Turner 2 -lane w /Lt lane 1170 HCS C Myrtle Ave. (Pinellas — Jeffords ) 4 lanes 741 HCS B Myrtle Ave. (Jeffords — Druid) 4 lanes 849 HCS B Myrtle Ave (Druid — Turner) 4 lanes 972 HCS B All roadway segments analyzed presently operate at LOS C or better. III. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS As requested by the City of Clearwater background traffic in the build -out year of 2010 was estimated using a 2% annual growth rate. Using Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 7t' Edition rates, the amount of traffic generated by the project was calculated. Trip generation estimates are shown below in Table 3: TABLE 3 TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATES � I NI 11ti P " ,k rllwwl %1z� 1.. 0%th + .. .: 44 (25 in 19 out) k „P J,I� t ,(k,�. . 7j61111"r :.._� 164 (82 in 82 out) Drive-in bank Medical office • i • • ' S_ , / I I / The project would generate 1,422 daily trips and 219 PM peak hour trips which is the critical time period. As requested by the City of Clearwater, pass -by capture for the bank was limited to 30 %, and as a result there are 50 pass -by trips which is only 4% of the adjacent street traffic on Fort Harrison Avenue. As such the net project impact would be 169 PM peak hour rip marX trips (72 in / 97 out). The expected distribution is shown in Figure 3, and adjacent street impact of primary trips is shown in Table 4. 2 0 0 DATE: 4/2008 DRAWN BY: AEL Ml I coi L34 4 J f F 102 L47 nmao 0 54 47 5% Ln o0N a M M 5% —80 _ 9 1 to TURNER ST. 1 X44 5% 37 JEFFORDS ST. 15 f F 5% J 74 71 F 75 ^ z:;: co C0 84— ono M. N 45 � U-) 08 -024 46 `N Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. Land Development Consulting � 1 C, d � I N N L33 N � � in � i N CD �v1a —31 15% OD M Of NMID 36 10% -106 �-- 74 DRUID RD. I I I F 36 16 7 f F 104 � �1 f F 53 -- 10 LO n N 184 — n v � � 0 i �� 5— 97 0 7 6 > M o LO O r I to M 1 L 16 2 I 90 L + L 1 16 C� DRNE B EXIT ONLY coo ID In 45 -- 1 ` 97 f 219 PM Trips (97 in/ 122 out) DATE: 4/2008 DRAWN BY: AEL Ml I coi MAGNOLIA DR. 4 J f F 102 0— Na n 9--- f 72 --- ° o M O to � � ro N to L20 to C11 ! L X44 5% 37 JEFFORDS ST. a 5% J f r 62 74— Q na N 20 co C0 a PROJECT NO: a, i • = TRAFFIC SIGNAL 08 -024 M w 'n vF i FUTURE PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUME (2010) Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. Land Development Consulting DATE: 4/2008 DRAWN BY: AEL Ml I coi 3 f— 15 1 ID N M IF-3 - L18 1 92 J f 72 --- fO Ln 32 N a o � In a PROJECT NO: 08 -024 FIGURE: 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TABLE 4 PROJECT IMPACT CALCULATIONS Ft. Harrison Ave (Pinellas — Jeffords) 2 -lane 68 2360 2.88% 9.3/25.1 w /Lt lane A 7.1 Ft. Harrison Ave. / Turner Street Ft. Harrison Ave (Jeffords — Magnolia) 2 -lane 85 2360 3.60% Myrtle Ave. / Druid road w /Lt lane 8.6 Myrtle Ave. / Turner Street B Ft. Harrison Ave (Magnolia - Druid) 2 -lane 84 2360 3.56% C* w /Lt lane Ft. Harrison Ave (Druid — Turner) 2 -lane 51 2360. 2.16% w /Lt lane The roadway segments primarily impacted by the project are shown above. Traffic impact will occur on portions of Ft. Harrison Avenue and the intersections, as well as Magnolia Drive which is a local road. Project traffic was added to background traffic to show future traffic conditions and the intersections were reanalyzed using HCS. The HCS printouts are included in Appendix B and the expected future intersection operations are shown below in Table 5. TABLE 5 FUTURE INTERSECTION OPERATIONS (2010) Ft. Harrison Ave. / Jeffords Street A 8.7 Ft. Harrison Ave. / Magnolia Drive A/D* 9.3/25.1 Ft. Harrison Ave. / Druid Road A 7.1 Ft. Harrison Ave. / Turner Street A 7.9 Myrtle Ave. / Jeffords Street B 10.7 Myrtle Ave. / Druid road A 8.6 Myrtle Ave. / Turner Street B 11.7 Magnolia Drive / Drive A A/A* 7.4/9.3 Ft. Harrison Ave. / Drive B (exit) C* 24.9 Note: For unsignalized intersections A/B = LOS of major street left turn/minor street approach. As shown, all intersections would continue to operate at LOS C or better. Expected roadway segment operations are shown in Table 6. k] FA TABLE 6 FUTURE ROADWAY SEGMENT OPERATIONS (2010) As shown in Table 6, all roadways are expected to operate at LOS C or better with the project impact. The HCS printouts show Ft. Harrison will operate at LOS C with average travel speeds of 28 MPH northbound and 26.6 MPH southbound, and Myrtle Avenue would operate at LOS B with average travel speeds of 28.5 MPH northbound and 28.8 MPH southbound. Due to low volume on Magnolia Drive, left or right turn lanes at the project driveway are not warranted. The turn lane warrant sheet from NCHRP Report #279 Intersection Channelization and Design Guide are included in Appendix B. Based on the HCS intersection analysis the queue length for exiting vehicles is less than 1 vehicle at each driveway, therefore a throat depth of 25 feet would be adequate. The "exit only" driveway to Ft. Harrison Avenue is located approximately 100 feet south of Magnolia Drive. Magnolia Drive is unsignalized and northbound traffic would not be stopped at this location, therefore vehicles exiting this driveway would not be blocked. The driveway would need to be limited to exiting movements only, to reduce conflicts, and this access to Ft. Harrison Avenue will help eliminate undesired movements. Proximity to the Pinellas Trail should reduce parking and traffic demand as the site can be reached through walking or bicycling. 1 IV. CONCLUSION The existing conditions analysis demonstrates acceptable intersection and roadway segment operations. Traffic impacts to downtown roadways will be primarily on Ft. Harrison Avenue and Magnolia Drive. Future intersection and roadway operations would be at LOS C or better for all intersections and LOS C or better on roadways. No off -site improvements are required and turn lanes are not warranted at the project driveway to Magnolia Drive. 1 aY i Ft. Harrison Ave Pinellas — Jeffords 2 -lane w /Lt lane 1292 HCS C Ft. Harrison Ave Jeffords — Magnolia 2 -lane w /Lt lane 1347 HCS C Ft. Harrison Ave (Magnolia - Druid) 2 -lane w /Lt lane 1339 HCS C Ft. Harrison Ave Druid — Turner 2 -lane w/Lt lane 1283 HCS C Myrtle Ave. Pinellas — Jeffords 4 lanes 781 HCS B Myrtle Ave. (Jeffords — Druid) 4 lanes 881 HCS B Myrtle Ave (Druid — Turner) 4 lanes 1016 HCS B As shown in Table 6, all roadways are expected to operate at LOS C or better with the project impact. The HCS printouts show Ft. Harrison will operate at LOS C with average travel speeds of 28 MPH northbound and 26.6 MPH southbound, and Myrtle Avenue would operate at LOS B with average travel speeds of 28.5 MPH northbound and 28.8 MPH southbound. Due to low volume on Magnolia Drive, left or right turn lanes at the project driveway are not warranted. The turn lane warrant sheet from NCHRP Report #279 Intersection Channelization and Design Guide are included in Appendix B. Based on the HCS intersection analysis the queue length for exiting vehicles is less than 1 vehicle at each driveway, therefore a throat depth of 25 feet would be adequate. The "exit only" driveway to Ft. Harrison Avenue is located approximately 100 feet south of Magnolia Drive. Magnolia Drive is unsignalized and northbound traffic would not be stopped at this location, therefore vehicles exiting this driveway would not be blocked. The driveway would need to be limited to exiting movements only, to reduce conflicts, and this access to Ft. Harrison Avenue will help eliminate undesired movements. Proximity to the Pinellas Trail should reduce parking and traffic demand as the site can be reached through walking or bicycling. 1 IV. CONCLUSION The existing conditions analysis demonstrates acceptable intersection and roadway segment operations. Traffic impacts to downtown roadways will be primarily on Ft. Harrison Avenue and Magnolia Drive. Future intersection and roadway operations would be at LOS C or better for all intersections and LOS C or better on roadways. No off -site improvements are required and turn lanes are not warranted at the project driveway to Magnolia Drive. 1 APPENDIX b 0 7- 1500 - PKSEASON 2006 Peak Season Factor Category Report - Report Type: ALL Category: 1500 PINELLAS COUNTYWIDE Week Dates SF MOCF: 0.94 PSCF • -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 01/01/2006 - 01/07/2006 1.06 1.12 2 01/08/2006 - 01/14/2006 1.03 1.09 3 01/15/2006 - 01/21/2006 1.00 1.06 4 01/22/2006 - 01/28/2006 0.99 1.05 5 01/29/2006 - 02/04/2006 0.98 1.04 * 6 02/05/2006 - 02/11/2006 0.97 1.03 * 7 02/12/2006 - 02/18/2006 0.96 1.02 * 8 02/19/2006 - 02/25/2006 0.95 1.01 * 9 02/26/2006 - 03/04/2006 0.94 1.00 *10 03/05/2006 - 03/11/2006 0.93 0.98 *11 03/12/2006 - 03/18/2006 0.92 0.97 *12 03/19/2006 - 03/25/2006 0.92 0.97 *13 03/26/2006 - 04/01/2006 0.98 *14 04/02/2006 - 04/08/2006 -9,93- 1.00 *15 04/09/2006 - 04/15/2006 1.00 *16 04/16/2006 - 04/22/2006 0.95 1.01 *17 04/23/2006 - 04/29/2006 0.96 1.02 *18 04/30/2006 - 05/06/2006 0.97 1.03 19 05/07/2006 - 05/13/2006 0.98 1.04 20 05/14/2006 - 05/20/2006 0.99 1.05 21 05/21/2006 - 05/27/2006 1.00 1.06 22 05/28/2006 - 06/03/2006 1.00 1.06 23 06/04/2006 - 06/10/2006 1.00 1.06 24 06/11/2006 - 06/17/2006 1.01 1.07 25 06/18/2006 - 06/24/2006 1.01 1.07 26 06/25/2006 - 07/01/2006 1.01 1.07 27 07/02/2006 - 07/08/2006 1.01 1.07 28 07/09/2006 - 07/15/2006 1.02 1.08 29 07/16/2006 - 07/22/2006 1.02 1.08 30 07/23/2006 - 07/29/2006 1.02 1.08 31 07/30/2006 - 08/05/2006 1.02 1.08 32 08/06/2006 - 08/12/2006 1.02 1.08 33 08/13/2006 - 08/19/2006 1.02 1.08 34 08/20/2006 - 08/26/2006 1.03 1.09 35 08/27/2006 - 09/02/2006 1.03 1.09 36 09/03/2006 - 09/09/2006 1.04 1.10 37 09/10/2006 - 09/16/2006 1.04 1.10 38 09/17/2006 - 09/23/2006 1.04 1.10 39 09/24/2006 - 09/30/2006 1.03 1.09 40 10/01/2006 - 10/07/2006 1.03 1.09 41 10/08/2006 - 10/14/2006 1.03 1.09 42 10/15/2006 - 10/21/2006 1.02 1.08 43 10/22/2006 - 10/28/2006 1.04 1.10 44 10/29/2006 - 11/04/2006 1.05 1.11 45 11/05/2006 - 11/11/2006 1.06 1.12 46 11/12/2006 - 11/18/2006 1.08 1.14 47 11/19/2006 - 11/25/2006 1.07 1.13 48 11/26/2006 - 12/02/2006 1.07 1.13 49 12/03/2006 - 12/09/2006 1.06 1.12 50 12/10/2006 - 12/16/2006 1.06 1.12 51 12/17/2006 - 12/23/2006 1.04 1.10 52 12/24/2006 - 12/30/2006 1.02 1.08 53 12/31/2006 - 12/31/2006 1.00 1.06 * Peak season 10- Apr -2007 14:07:42 830UPD [1,0,0,1] 7- 1500- PKSEASON.tXt Page 1 Detailed Report Page 1 of 2 HCS2000 DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RP Agency or Co. GCC Date Performed 411012008 Time Period PM PEAK Intersection FT. HARRISONI JEFFORDS Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Analysis Year 2008 EXISTING Project ID Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, Ni 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group LTR LTR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 55 71 19 36 42 14 14 445 21 17 622 37 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 13 13 13 7 7 7 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 10.92 0.92 10.92 0.92 10.92 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start -up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 4 3 4 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 4 0 6 0 1 0 3 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N, 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 27.0 G= G= G= G= 85.0 G= G= I G= Y= 4 IY= Y= Y= IY= 4 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 153 1334 94 15 506 18 713 Lane group capacity, c 322 510 1311 630 1309 v/c ratio, X 0.48 0.28 1 0.03 0.39 1 0.03 0.54 file: / /C: \Documents and Settings\rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \s2k47.tmp 4/10/2008 Detailed Report Page 2 of 2 Total green ratio, g/C 0.22 0.22 0.71 0.71 1 0.71 0.71 Uniform delay, di 40.4 38.5 5.2 7.0 5.2 8.3 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.219 1.000 0.219 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 10.11 0.11 0.14 Incremental delay, d2 1.1 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.5 Initial queue delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control delay 41.5 38.9 5.2 1.7 5.2 2.3 Lane group LOS D D A A A A Approach delay 41.5 38.9 1.8 2.4 Approach LOS D D A A Intersection delay 8.5 Xc = 0.53 Intersection LOS A HCS2000TM Copyright m 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1f file: //CADocuments and Settings\rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \s2k47.tmp 4/10/2008 Two -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 Rights Reserved file://C: \Documents and Settings\rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \u2k29.tmp 4/11/2008 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period RP GCC 411112008 PM PEAK Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year FT. HARRISONI MAGNOLIA CLEARWATER 2008 EXISTING Project Description East/West Street: MAGNOLIA DRIVE North /South Street: FT. HARRISON AVENUE Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 2 509 3 2 661 7 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 565 3 2 734 7 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- 2 -- — Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration L TR L TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 6 1 0 4 0 9 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 6 1 1 1 0 4 1 0 10 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Len at and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR (vph) 2 2 7 14 C (m) (vph) 866 1004 263 359 lc 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.04 95% queue length 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.12 Control Delay 9.2 8.6 19.1 15.4 LOS A A C C ,Approach Delay -- -- 19.1 15.4 pproach LOS -- -- C C Rights Reserved file://C: \Documents and Settings\rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \u2k29.tmp 4/11/2008 Detailed Report i • Page 1 of 2 HCS2000 DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RP Agency or Co. GCC Date Performed 411012008 Time Period PM PEAK Intersection FT. HARRISON /DRUID Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Analysis Year 2008 EXISTING Project ID Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group LTR LT R L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 15 51 10 57 30 32 9 419 98 40 546 12 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 3 0 21 0 3 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking I Grade I Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM' Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, GP 3.2 3.2 3.2 I 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 24.0 G= G= G= IY= G= 88.0 G= G= G= Y= 4 IY= Y= Y= 4 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 77 92 12 9 541 42 588 Lane group capacity, c 350 297 317 605 1328 638 1375 v/c ratio, X 0.22 0.31 0.04 10.73 0.01 0.41 0.07 0.43 0.20 0.20 0.20 10.73 0.73 0.73 file: //C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \s2k53.tmp 4/10/2008 Detailed Report 9 • Page 2 of 2 Total green ratio, g/C Uniform delay, di 40.2 40.9 38.7 4.3 6.1 4.5 6.2 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.216 1.000 0.216 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, dz 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 Initial queue delay, d3 0.0 10.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 Control delay 40.5 41.5 38.7 4.3 1.5 4.5 1.6 Lane group LOS D D D A A A A Approach delay 40.5 41.2 1.6 1.8 Approach LOS D D A A Intersection delay 6.9 X = 0.40 Intersection LOS A HCS2000TM Copyright m 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved 0 Version 4.1f file: //CADocuments and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \s2k53.tmp 4/10/2008 Detailed Report Page 1 of 2 HCS2000 DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RP Agency or Co. GCC Date Performed 411012008 Time Period PM PEAK Intersection FT. HARRISON /TURNER Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Analysis Year 2008 EXISTING Project ID Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, Ni 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group LT R LT R L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 14 72 43 40 52 33 17 499 34 37 537 22 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start -up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR olumes 0 30 0 24 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade I Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G r 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 22.0 G= G= G= G= 90.0 G= G= G= Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= IY= 4 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH I RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 100 1 15 107 10 20 620 43 650 Lane group capacity, c 328 293 287 293 590 1397 606 1403 v/c ratio, X 0.30 0.05 0.37 0.03 0.03 0.44 10.75 0.07 0.46 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 10.75 0.75 0.75 file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \s2k5E.tmp 4/10/2008 Detailed Report is 1 0 Page 2 of 2 Total green ratio, g/C Uniform delay, di 42.4 40.4 43.0 40.3 3.8 5.6 4.0 5.7 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.230 1.000 0.230 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 0.5 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 Initial queue delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control delay 42.9 40.5 43.8 40.3 3.9 1.5 4.0 1.6 Lane group LOS D D D D A A A A Approach delay 42.6 43.5 1.6 1.7 Approach LOS D D A A Intersection delay 7,8 X� = 0.45 Intersection LOS A HCS2000TM Copyright m 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1f file://CADocuments and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \s2k5E.tmp 4/10/2008 Detailed Report Page 1 of 2 HCS2000- DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RP Agency or Co. GCC Date Performed 411012008 Time Period PM PEAK Intersection MYRTLE /JEFFORDS Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Analysis Year 2008 EXISTING Project ID Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, Ni 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 Lane group LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume, V (vph) 88 69 25 3 17 14 11 367 5 5 330 25 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 4 4 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial.unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 12 0 12 0 0 0 3 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 25.0 G= G= G JG= 86.0 G= G= G= Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 189 24 426 397 Lane group capacity, c 320 377 2411 2392 v/c ratio, X 0.59 0.06 1 0.18 0.17 Total green ratio, g/C 0.21 0.21 1 1 0.72 0.72 file: //C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \s2k69.tmp 4/10/2008 Detailed Report 0 0 Page 2 of 2 Uniform delay, di 42.9 38.1 1 1 5.5 5.5 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 0.203 0.203 Delay calibration, k 0.18 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 2.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 Initial queue delay, d3 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 Control delay 45.8 38.2 1.2 1.1 Lane group LOS D D A A Approach delay 45.8 38.2 1.2 1.1 Approach LOS D D A A Intersection delay 10.1 X = 0.27 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1f file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \s2k69.tmp 4/10/2008 Detailed Report 0 0 Page 1 of 2 HCS2000' DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RP Agency or Co. GCC Date Performed 411012008 Time Period PM PEAK Intersection MYRTLE /DRUID Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Analysis Year 2008 EXISTING Project ID Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, Ni 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 Lane group L TR L TR LTR LTR Volume, V (vph) 94 165 7 35 92 35 7 432 49 66 319 22 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 1 1 1 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 4 4 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 2 0 17 0 13 0 3 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 15.0 JG= G= G= JG= 36.0 G= G= G= Y= 4 IY= Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 60.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH I RT Adjusted flow rate, v 103 186 38 121 523 445 Lane group capacity, c 320 469 267 441 2016 1733 v/c ratio, X 0.32 10.40 10.14 0.27 1 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.25 1 0.25 0.25 1 0.60 0.60 file://C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \s2k78.tmp 4/10/2008 Detailed Report 0 0 Page 2 of 2 Total green ratio, g/C Uniform delay, di 18.4 18.7 117.5 18.1 5.7 5.7 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.575 0.575 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 Initial queue delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control delay 18.9 19.3 17.7 18.5 3.3 3.3 Lane group LOS B B B B A A Approach delay 19.2 18.3 3.3 3.3 Approach LOS B B A A Intersection delay 8.2 X c = 0.30 Intersection LOS A HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1f file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \s2k78.tmp 4/10/2008 Detailed Report 0 0 Page 1 of 2 HCS2000TM DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RP Agency or Co. GCC Date Performed 411012008 Time Period PM PEAK Intersection MYRTLE /TURNER Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Analysis Year 2008 EXISTING Project ID Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT I TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, Ni 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 Lane group LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume, V (vph) 71 75 44 9 72 45 29 503 19 31 368 38 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 1 1 1 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start -up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 4 4 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 20 0 24 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 26.0 G= G= G= G= 85.0 G= G= G= Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 200 121 648 514 Lane group capacity, c 308 388 2255 2180 v/c ratio, X 0.65 1 1 0.31 1 0.29 0.24 Total green ratio, g/C 0.22 1 1 0.22 1 0.71 0.71 file: //C:\Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \s2k83.tmp 4/10/2008 Detailed Report 0 i Page 2 of 2 Uniform delay, di 42.8 39.5 1 1 6.4 6.1 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 0.219 0.219 Delay calibration, k 0.23 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 4.8 0.5 0.1 0.1 Initial queue delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control delay 47.6 39.9 1.5 1.4 Lane group LOS D D A A Approach delay 47.6 39.9 1.5 1.4 Approach LOS D D A A Intersection delay 10,8 c = 0.37 Intersection LOS 8 HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1f file://C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \s2k83.tmp 4/10/2008 M *Denotes value different from FOOT "default". -Default non - signallzed values applied. For a description of report variables and values, please refer to the last page of the report. WTindale - Oliver and Associates Produced using: vTIMAS v1.163 Tampa, Florida Page: 50 0 • Arterial Area LOS LOS LOS MSV LOS LOS LOS MSV LOS LOS MSV Facility ID: 474 Length Class Type Method STD Mult Mult MSV Speed LOS ALT US 191 CLEARWATER -LARGO RD: (ROSERY RD -to- BELLEAIR RD) .809 2 2 AP -2002 D 1.00 1.00 2,220 32.97 B 2 2 MSV Base % % % LOS 920 24.26 5"' Lane # Fac 2 Sat Hvy No Excl Posted Arr Signal Cycl Physical Trav Seg Seg Se ment: Jur FIHS T eALF Len Si T AADT KFact DFact Volume Flow PHF Vhcl Pass Turns Speed T T Len /C Capacity v/c Time Speed LOS 4780 - ALT US 19 CLEARWATER -LARGO RD: (ROSERY RD -to- PONCE C SR N/O 4U .00 .513 1 SA 22,426 .095 .55 1,172 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 40 4 1 110 .58 2,211 0.53 53.8 34.30 B 4770 - ALT US 19 CLEARWATER -LARGO RD: (PONCE DE LEON -to- BELI SR NIO 4U .00 .296 1 SA 18,274 .095 .55 955 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 40 4 1 83 .54 2,032 0.47 34.5 30.9D B *Denotes value different from FOOT "default". -Default non - signallzed values applied. For a description of report variables and values, please refer to the last page of the report. WTindale - Oliver and Associates Produced using: vTIMAS v1.163 Tampa, Florida Page: 50 0 • Arterial Area Area LOS LOS LOS MSV LOS LOS MSV Facili ID: 477 Length Facility ID: 475 Length Class Type MSV Method STD Mult Mult Type MSV Speed LOS ALT US 19 1 EDGEWATER DR: (MYRTLE AVE -to- BROADWAY AVE) 2.091 2 2 MSV AP -2002 D 1.00 1.00 LOS 920 24.26 C 2 AP -2002 SIS/ Lane # Fac D 1.00 1.00 Base % % % 11,300 Excl Posted Arr Signal Cycl 1 Trav Seg SIS/ Lane # Fac C AADT KFact DFact Volume Flow PHF Vhcl Pass Sat Hvy No Excl Posted Arr Signal Cycl Physical Trav Seg Seg Segment: Jur FIHS TypeAUF Len Sig Typ AADT KFact DFact Volume Flow PHF Vhcl Pass Turns Speed Typ Typ Len /C Capacity v/c Time Speed LOS 2610 - ALT US 191 EDGEWATER DR: (MYRTLE AVE -to- SUNSET POINT R SR N/0 21.1 .00 .449 1 SA 16,322 .095 .55 853 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 35 4 2 75 .45 853 1.00 73.3 22.00 C 2600 - ALT US 19 ( EDGEWATER DR: (SUNSET POINT RD -lo- UNION ST) SR N/0 2U .00 .499 0 SA 16,322 .095 .55 853 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 35 See Note Below 51.6 34.80 B 1810 -ALT US 19 I EDGEWATER DR: (UNION ST -to- BELTREES ST) SR N/O 2U .00 .529 0 SA 16,322 .095 .55 853 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 35 _ See Note Below: 54.7 34.80 B 1800 - ALT US 19 EDGEWATER DR MAIN ST: (BELTREES ST -to- BROAI SR N/0 2U .00 .614 1 SA 18,884 .095 .55 987 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 35 4 2­100' .49 931 1.06 130.7 16.90 E *Denotes value different from FOOT "default". -Default non - signallzed values applied. For a description of report variables and values, please refer to the last page of the report. WTindale - Oliver and Associates Produced using: vTIMAS v1.163 Tampa, Florida Page: 50 0 • Arterial Arterial Area LOS LOS LOS MSV Facili ID: 477 Length Class Type Method STD Mult Facility ID: 476 MSV Length Class Type .097 Method 1 AP -2002 STD Mult Mult 1.00 1,080 6.94 MSV Speed LOS ALT US 191 FT HARRISON AVE: (BELLEAIR RD -to- CHESTNUT ST) % % 1.5513 2 AP -2002 SIS/ Lane # Fac D 1.00 1.00 Sat 11,300 Excl Posted Arr Signal Cycl 1 Trav Seg 20.59 C AADT KFact DFact Volume Flow PHF Vhcl Pass Turns Speed Typ Typ Len /C Capacity v/c Time Speed Base 2650 - ALT US 191 FT HARRISON AVE: (CHESTNUT ST -to- COURT ST) SR N/0 2D .00 .097 1 SA % % % .095 .55 1,110 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 0.00 30 4 1 100 .60 1,057 1.05 50.4 6.90 F SIS/ Lane # Fac Sat Hvy No Excl Posted Arr Signal Cycl Physical Trav Seg Seg Segment: Jur FIHS TypeALF Len Sig Typ AADT KFact DFact Volume Flow PHF Vhcl Pass Turns Speed Typ Typ Len /C Capacity vlc Time Speed LOS 2690 - ALT US 191 FT HARRISON AVE: (BELLEAIR RD -to- BELLEVIEW BL SR N10 2D .00 .291 1 SA 23,604 .095 .55 1,233 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 16.00 40 4 1 120 .60 1,258 0.98 47.6 22.00 C 2680 - ALT US 191 FT HARRISON AVE: (BELLEVIEW BLVD -to- LAKEVIEW SR N/0 2D .00 .383 1 SA 23,604 .095 .55 1,233 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 16.00 40 4 1 120 .60 .1,258 0.98 55.7 24.80 B 2670.1- ALT US 191 FT HARRISON AVE: ( LAKEVIEW RD -to- PINELLAS Sl SR N/0 2D .00 .249 1 SA 19,869 .095 .55 1,038 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 16.00 40 4 1 120 .60 1,251 0.83 35.9 25.00 B 2670.2 - ALT US 191 FT HARRISON AVE: ( PINELLAS ST -to- JEFFORDS Sl SR N/0 2D .00 .125 1 SA 19,869 .095 .55 1,038 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 16.00 30 4 1 120 .60 1,251 0.83 29.2 15.40 D 2670.3 - ALT US 191 FT HARRISON AVE: ( JEFFORDS ST -to- DRUID RD) SR N/0 2D .00 1 SA 19,869 .095 .55 1,038 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 16.00 30 4 1 120 .60 1,251 0.83 44.3 20.50 C 2660.1 - ALT US 191 FT HARRISON AVE: (DRUID RD -to- TURNER ST) SR N/0 2D .00 MZ81 1 SA 19,869 .095 .55 1,038 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 16.00 30 4 1 120 .60 1,251 0.83 33.1 17.20 D 2660.2 - ALT US 191 FT HARRISON AVE: (TURNER ST -to- CHESTNUT ST SR NIO 2D .00 .092 1 SA 19,869 .095 .55 1,038 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 16.00 30 4 1 120 .60 1,251 0.83 25.2 13.20 E *Denotes value different from FOOT "default". -Default non - signallzed values applied. For a description of report variables and values, please refer to the last page of the report. WTindale - Oliver and Associates Produced using: vTIMAS v1.163 Tampa, Florida Page: 50 0 • Arterial Area LOS LOS LOS MSV Facili ID: 477 Length Class Type Method STD Mult Mult MSV Speed LOS ALT US 19 1 FT HARRISON AVE: (CHESTNUT ST -to- COURT ST) .097 4 1 AP -2002 D 1.00 1.00 1,080 6.94 F Base % % % SIS/ Lane # Fac Sat Hvy No Excl Posted Arr Signal Cycl Physical Trav Seg Seg Se ment: Jur FIHS TypeALF Len Sig Typ AADT KFact DFact Volume Flow PHF Vhcl Pass Turns Speed Typ Typ Len /C Capacity v/c Time Speed LOS 2650 - ALT US 191 FT HARRISON AVE: (CHESTNUT ST -to- COURT ST) SR N/0 2D .00 .097 1 SA 21,239 .095 .55 1,110 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 0.00 30 4 1 100 .60 1,057 1.05 50.4 6.90 F *Denotes value different from FOOT "default". -Default non - signallzed values applied. For a description of report variables and values, please refer to the last page of the report. WTindale - Oliver and Associates Produced using: vTIMAS v1.163 Tampa, Florida Page: 50 0 • *Denotes value different from FDOT "default°. -Default non - signalized values applied. For a description of report variables and values, please refer to the last page of the report Tindale- Oliver and Associates Produced using: vTIMAS v1.163 Tampa, Florida Page: 110 • • Arterial Arterial Area LOS LOS LOS LOS MSV = I(�40 Length Class Type Method Facili ID: 919 Facility ID: 921 Length Class Type Class Method STD Mult Mult Rso - •S 1,320 MSV I MSV Speed LOS MYRTLE AVE: (LAKEVIEW RD -to- CHESTNUT ST) MYRTLE AVE: (CHESTNUT ST -to- DREW ST) .819 U 2 1 AP -2002 D 1.00 1.00 way 1,470 930 22.06 19.84 D C Jur FIHS TypeALF Len Sig Typ AADT KFact DFact Volume Flow PHF Vhci Pass Turns Speed Typ Typ Len Base % % % Base % % % CL N10 2U .00 .203 0 NA 6,800 .095 .55 460 1,700 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 35 0 0 0 1.00 1,700 SIS/ Lane # Fac B S'S' ! # Fac SIS/ Lane # Fac Sat Hvy No Excl Posted Arr Signal Cycl Sat Hvy No Excl Posted Arr Signal Cycl Cycl Physical Trav Sag Seg Se ment: Jur FIHS T eALF Len Si T AADT KFact DFact Volume Flow PHF Vhcl Pass Turns Speed Typ Typ Len /C Capacity v/c Time Speed LOS 4220.2 - MYRTLE AVE: (LAKEVIEW RD -to- JEFFORDS ST) CL N/0 41.1 .00 .254 1 SA 4,916 .095 .55 257 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 40 4 2 120 .42 1,606 0.16 40.7 22.30 C 4220.1 - MYRTLE AVE: ( JEFFORDS ST -to- DRUID ST) CL N/0 4U .00 31.3 1 SA 4,916 .095 .55 257 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 40 4 2 120 .42 1,606 0.16 45.2 24.80 C 25645.2- MYRTLE AVE: (DRUID ST -to- TURNER ST) CL N10 41.1 .00 .095 1 SA 4,916 .095 .55 257 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 40 4 2 120 .42 1,606 0.16 28.5 12.00 F 25645.1- MYRTLE AVE: (TURNER ST -to- CHESTNUT ST) CL N/0 4U .00 .157 1 SA 4,916 .095 .55 257 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 40 4 2 120 .42 1,606 016 33.5 16.80 E *Denotes value different from FDOT "default°. -Default non - signalized values applied. For a description of report variables and values, please refer to the last page of the report Tindale- Oliver and Associates Produced using: vTIMAS v1.163 Tampa, Florida Page: 110 • • Arterial Arterial Area LOS LOS LOS MSV Facili ID: 922 Length Class Type Method STD Mult Mult Facility ID: 921 Facili ID: 920 Length Length Class Type Method STD Mult Mult 1,320 MSV MSV Speed Speed LOS MYRTLE AVE: (CHESTNUT ST -to- DREW ST) .876 .500 4 1 AP -2002 D 1.00 1.00 1,470 1,640 22.06 C 17.30 C Jur FIHS TypeALF Len Sig Typ AADT KFact DFact Volume Flow PHF Vhci Pass Turns Speed Typ Typ Len Base % % % Base % % % CL N10 2U .00 .203 0 NA 6,800 .095 .55 460 1,700 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 35 0 0 0 1.00 1,700 SIS/ Lane # Fac B SIS/ Lane # Fac Sat Hvy No Excl Posted Arr Signal Cycl Sat Hvy No Excl Posted Arr Signal Cycl Trav Seg Physical Se ment: Trav Seg Seg Se ment: Jur FIHS TypeALF Len Sig Typ AADT KFact DFact Volume Flow PHF Vhcl Pass Turns Speed Typ Typ Len /C Capacity v/c Time Speed LOS 4200 - MYRTLE AVE: (CHESTNUT ST -to- COURT ST) CL N/0 41.1 .00 .070 1 SA 6,284 .095 .55 328 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 30 5 2 120 .42 1,562 0.21 19.8 12.80 D 4190.2 - MYRTLE AVE: (COURT ST -to-,PIERCE ST) CL N/0 4U .00 .122 1 SA 7,652 .095 .55 400 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 30 5 2 120 .42 1,600 0.25 25.9 17.00 C 4190.1 - MYRTLE AVE: (PIERCE ST -to- CLEVELAND ST) CL NIO 41.1 .00 .133 1 SA 7,652 .095 .55 400 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 30 5 2 120 .42 1,600 0.25 27.1 17.70 C 4180 - MYRTLE AVE: (CLEVELAND ST -to- DREW ST) CL N/O 4D .00 .174 1 SA 8,226 .095 .55 430 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 30 5 2 120 .42 1,593 0.27 31.3 20.10 B *Denotes value different from FDOT "default°. -Default non - signalized values applied. For a description of report variables and values, please refer to the last page of the report Tindale- Oliver and Associates Produced using: vTIMAS v1.163 Tampa, Florida Page: 110 • • Arterial Arterial Area LOS LOS LOS MSV Facili ID: 922 Length Class Type Method STD Mult Mult Facility ID: 921 Speed Length Class Type Method STD Mult Mult D 1.00 1.00 1,320 MSV B Speed LOS MYRTLE AVE: (DREW ST -to- MARSHALL ST) Base .876 2 2 AP -2002 D 1.00 1.00 SIS / Lane # Fac 1,470 Hvy No Excl Posted Arr Signal Cycl 22.06 C Seg Segment: Jur FIHS TypeALF Len Sig Typ AADT KFact DFact Volume Flow PHF Vhci Pass Turns Speed Typ Typ Len Base % % % LOS 4150- MYRTLE AVE: (MARSHALL ST -to- EDGEWATER DR) CL N10 2U .00 .203 0 NA 6,800 .095 .55 460 1,700 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 35 0 0 0 1.00 1,700 SIS/ Lane # Fac B Sat Hvy No Excl Posted Arr Signal Cycl Physical Trav Seg Seg Se ment: Jur FIHS TypeALF Len Sig Typ AADT KFact DFact Volume Flow PHF Vhcl Pass Turns Speed Typ Typ Len IC Capacity v/c Time Speed LOS 4170.1 - MYRTLE AVE: (DREW ST -to- SEMINOLE ST) CL N/O 4U .00 .374 1 SA 8,800 .095 .55 460 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 35 4 1 120 .42 1,586 0.29 55.2 24.40 C 4170.2 - MYRTLE AVE: ( SEMINOLE ST -to- PALMETTO ST) CL N/0 41.1 .00 .127 1 SA 8,800 .095 .55 460 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 35 4 1 120 .42 1,586 0.29 32.6 14.00 E 4160 - MYRTLE AVE: (PALMETTO ST -to- MARSHALL ST) CL N/0 41.1 .00 .375 1 SA 8,800 .095 .55 460 1,900 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 35 4 1 120 .42 1,586 0.29 55.2 24.40 C *Denotes value different from FDOT "default°. -Default non - signalized values applied. For a description of report variables and values, please refer to the last page of the report Tindale- Oliver and Associates Produced using: vTIMAS v1.163 Tampa, Florida Page: 110 • • Arterial Area LOS LOS LOS MSV Facili ID: 922 Length Class Type Method STD Mult Mult MSV Speed LOS MYRTLE AVE: (MARSHALL ST -to- EDGEWATER DR) .203 2 2 Conceptual D 1.00 1.00 1,320 40.00 B Base % % % SIS / Lane # Fac Sat Hvy No Excl Posted Arr Signal Cycl Physical Trav Seg Seg Segment: Jur FIHS TypeALF Len Sig Typ AADT KFact DFact Volume Flow PHF Vhci Pass Turns Speed Typ Typ Len /C Capacity v/c Time Speed LOS 4150- MYRTLE AVE: (MARSHALL ST -to- EDGEWATER DR) CL N10 2U .00 .203 0 NA 6,800 .095 .55 460 1,700 .925 0.00 0.00 12.00 35 0 0 0 1.00 1,700 0.31 32.2 40.00 B *Denotes value different from FDOT "default°. -Default non - signalized values applied. For a description of report variables and values, please refer to the last page of the report Tindale- Oliver and Associates Produced using: vTIMAS v1.163 Tampa, Florida Page: 110 • • s APPENDIX B • Drive -in Bank (912) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area On a: Weekday Number of Studies: 19 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 4 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 246.49 68.23 - 817.00 140.03 Data Plot and Equation 4,000 3,000 c W '.7% U L 2,000 N N Q a 1,000 0 'X X X ,X .......... - X - --- ---- ---- - - -- -- -- X X . X 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: T = 182.34(X) + 256.87 - - - - -- Average Rate R2 = 0.59 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 1685 Institute of Transportation Engineers Drive -in Bank (912) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, ' One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Number of Studies: 23 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 4 Directional Distribution: 56% entering, 44% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 12.34 3.00 - 45.39 10.68 Data Plot and Equation 170 160 150 140 130 120 W 110 Q F= 100 r 90 N > 80 a� rn 70 I I 60 F- 50 40 30 20 10 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - -, - -- ;--- -y -- -X -- . - - - X' ... .... - - - - - - - - - - - -- X X . -- - - - - X - - - -- - -- - ---- -1 - - - - - - - X .X 'X X; ----- --- -- --- -; ---- - -- ............ - ; - - - -- X X XX X----- - --- X X X--- - -- ---- -. - - -- - -- --- - -; - -- --- . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve. Equation: Not given - - - - -- Average Rate R2 = * * ** ' Trip Generation, 7th Edition 1686 Institute of Transportation Engineers Drive -in Bank (912) ' Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, ' One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: 47 IAverage 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 3 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting ITrip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 45.74 3.00 - 242.50 43.52 Data Plot and Equation a c W d H N U L N c� Q 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 x. . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ X X; - X - -;- - - - -... ..- --- - ----^ ---- -- --- ----•----- - - -- .X X X X X ;X X; x X ;X X ---------- X` >= --- X X X. X X x. X X .. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Equation: Not given - - -"' Average Rate R2 _ * * ** ' Trip Generation, 7th Edition 1687 Institute of Transportation Engineers Medical- Dental Office Builc?ing (720) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area On a: Weekday Number of Studies: 10 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 45 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 36.13 23.16 - 50.51 10.18 Data Plot and Equation 5,000 4,000 U) a c W Q 3,000 N U L N d (d > 2,000 Q I F- 1,000 0 X .X_ _ ____ ___. ... _._ _._ .... X - -- , -- (' X : -X-- - ----- - - - - -• --- ...... -• ... 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve - - - - -- Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: T = 40.89(X) - 214.97 R2 = 0.90 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 1190 Institute of Transportation Engineers 0 01 Medical - Dental Office Building (720) ' Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Number of Studies: 21 ' Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 39 Directional Distribution: 79% entering, 21 % exiting Trin Generation per 1000 Sa. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 2.48 0.85 - 4.79 1.94 Data Plot and Eauation Cn a c. W Q H N U L N N OI a> Q I� 300 200 100 0 X' X X X X ----- ...- ... -r /--- --- - --- ---- --- -- ----- --- -- - ----. X /X X X X ! X X X r X X X . x X 0 10 20 30 X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Equation: Not given 40 50 60 70 X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area 80 90 100 110 120 -- - - -- Average Rate R2 = * * ** ' Trip Generation, 7th Edition 1191 Institute of Transportation Engineers Mecal- Dental Office Buil�ng (720) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: 41 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 30 Directional Distribution: 27% entering, 73% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 3.72 0.97 - 8.86 2.50 Data Plot and Equation 500 0) c w CL d U L N d t� N Q F- 400 300 200 100 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve - - - - -- Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.93 Ln(X) + 1.47 R2 = 0.77 X-; - - -X - ;- - - - - -, - - - - - , - - - - - - X X X X - -------------- X ; - - -- - -; - - - X . X X , XX --- --- X /- x XX-X - -- - -- • - - -- ----- X X X)` X X X X X X X XX X X X Trip Generation, 7th Edition 1192 Institute of Transportation Engineers Detailed Report • • Page 1 of 2 HCS2000 DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RP Agency or Co. GCC Date Performed 411612008 Time Period PM PEAK Intersection FT. HARRISONI JEFFORDS Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Analysis Year FUTURE WITH PROJECT Project ID Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, Ni 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group LTR LTR L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 62 74 20 37 44 20 15 502 22 23 696 44 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 13 13 13 7 7 7 2 2 2 2 2 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start -up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 4 3 4 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 4 0 6 0 1 0 3 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 27.0 G= G= G= G= 85.0 G= G= G= Y= 4 IY= Y= Y= IY= 4 Y= Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 164 103 16 569 25 802 Lane group capacity, c 314 331 460 1311 594 1308") v/c ratio, X 0.52 0.31 0.03 0.43 0.04 6O.fi1 file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \s2kCA.tmp 4/16/2008 Detailed Report Page 2 of 2 Total green ratio, g/C 0,22 0.22 0.71 0.71 0.71 X0.71 Uniform delay, d, 40.8 38.8 5.2 7.4 5.3 '9-0 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.219 1.000 0.219 Delay calibration, k 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.20 Incremental delay, d2 1.6 0.5 0.0 0.2 10.0 0.9 Initial queue delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control delay 42.4 39.3 5.3 1.8 5.3 2.8 Lane group LOS D D A A A A Approach delay 42.4 39.3 1.9 2.9 Approach LOS D D A A Intersection delay 8.7 Xc = 0.59 Intersection LOS A HCS2000TM Copyright m 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1f file://C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \s2kCA.tmp 4/16/2008 Two -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 Rights Reserved file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \u2k10E.tmp 4/16/2008 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period RP GCC 411612008 PM PEAK Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year FT. HARRISONI MAGNOLIA CLEARWATER FUTURE WITH PROJECT Project Description t/West Street: MAGNOLIA DRIVE North /South Street: FT. HARRISON AVENUE rsection Orientation: North -South Stud Period hrs : 0.25 kEa hicle Volu mes and Adjustments or Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 2 546 52 50 687 7 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 2 606 57 55 763 7 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- — 2 -- -- Median Type Two Way Left Turn Lane RT Channelized 0 0 es 1 1 0 1 1 0 figuration L TR L TR kLa tream Si nal 0 0 or Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 51 1 45 4 0 9 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 56 1 1 50 4 0 1 10 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 2 2 2 2 2 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Delay, Queue Len at and Level of Service Approach NB SB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LTR LTR (vph) 2 55 107 14 C (m) (vph) 844 926 284 304 lc 0.00 0.06 0.38 0.05 95% queue length 0.01 0.19 1.69 0.14 Control Delay 9.3 9.1 25.1 17.4 LOS A A D C Approach Delay -- -- 25.1 17.4 ,Approach LOS -- -- D C Rights Reserved file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \u2k10E.tmp 4/16/2008 Detailed Report 1 0 Page 1 of 2 HCS2000 DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RP Agency or Co. GCC Date Performed 411612008 Time Period PM PEAK Intersection FT. HARRISON /DRUID Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Analysis Year FUTURE WITH PROJECT Project ID Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, Ni 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group LTR LT R L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 16 53 10 74 31 33 15 473 120 42 596 12 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 1 I 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 3 0 21 0 3 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 24.0 JG= G= G= G= 88.0 G= G= G= Y= 4 IY= Y= Y= IY= 4 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 80 111 13 16 621 44 640 Lane group capacity, c 348 280 317 576 el- 325? 593 137§ v/c ratio, X 0.23 0.40 0.04 0.03 0.471 0.07 .4-7 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.73 0.73 0.73 10.73 file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \s2kD5.tmp 4/16/2008 Detailed Report 1 0 Page 2 of 2 Total green ratio, g/C Uniform delay, d, 40.3 41.7 38.7 4.4 6.5 4.5 6.5 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.216 1.000 0.216 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 0.3 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.3 Initial queue delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control delay 40.6 42.6 38.8 4.4 1.7 4.6 1.6 Lane group LOS D D D A A A A Approach delay 40.6 42.2 1.7 1.8 Approach LOS D D A A Intersection delay 7.9 X c = 0.45 Intersection LOS A HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1f file://C:\Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \s2kD5.tmp 4/16/2008 Detailed Report Page 1 of 2 HCS2000 DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RP Agency or Co. GCC Date Performed 411612008 Time Period PM PEAK Intersection FT. HARRISON /TURNER Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Analysis Year FUTURE WITH PROJECT Project ID Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 Lane group LT R LT R L TR L TR Volume, V (vph) 15 75 45 47 54 34 18 551 41 38 581 23 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 30 0 24 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Per 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 22.0 G= G= G= G= 90.0 IY= G= G= G= 1Y= Y= 4 Y= Y= Y= 4 Y= Y= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 104 17 118 12 21 689 44 703 Lane group capacity, c 327 293 276 293 561 (1397 569 1403 v/c ratio, X 0.32 0.06 0.43 10.04 0.04 0.49 0.08 0.50 0.18 0.18 1 0.18 0.18 0.75 `0.75 10.75 10.75 file://C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \s2kEl.tmp 4/16/2008 Detailed Report Page 2 of 2 Total green ratio, g/C Uniform delay, di 42.5 40.4 43.4 40.3 3.9 6.0 4.0 6.0 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.230 1.000 0.230 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 0.6 0.1 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.3 Initial queue delay, d3 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control delay 43.1 40.5 44.5 40.4 3.9 1.6 4.0 1.7 Lane group LOS D D D D A A A A Approach delay 42.7 44.1 1.7 1.8 Approach LOS D D A A Intersection delay 7.9 X,� = 0.49 Intersection LOS A HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1f file://CADocuments and Settings\rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \s2kEl.tmp 4/16/2008 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Detailed Report E I* Page 1 of 2 HCS2000 DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RP Agency or Co. GCC Date Performed 411612008 Time Period PM PEAK Intersection MYRTLE /JEFFORDS Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Analysis Year FUTURE WITH PROJECT Project ID Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, Ni 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 Lane group LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume, V (vph) 92 72 32 3 18 15 16 382 5 5 343 26 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, 11 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 4 4 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, I 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 12 0 12 0 0 0 3 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 1 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 1 08 Timing G= 25.0 JG= G= G= G= 86.0 G= G= I G= Y= 4 IY= Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 204 26 448 413 Lane group capacity, c 320 376 2383 2397 v/c ratio, X 0.64 0.07 0.19 Total green ratio, g/C 0.21 0.21 1 0.72 0.72 file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \s2kEF.tmp 4/16/2008 Detailed Report Page 2 of 2 Uniform delay, d, 43.4 38.2 1 1 5.6 5.5 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 0.203 0.203 Delay calibration, k 0.22 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 4.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 Initial queue delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control delay 47.6 38.2 1.2 1.2 Lane group LOS D D A A Approach delay 47.6 38.2 1.2 1.2 Approach LOS D D A A Intersection delay 10.7 X = 0.29 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1f file://C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \s2kEF.tmp 4/16/2008 Detailed Report 0 1* Page 1 of 2 HCS2000 DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RP Agency or Co. GCC Date Performed 411612008 Time Period PM PEAK Intersection MYRTLE /DRUID Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Analysis Year FUTURE WITH PROJECT Project ID Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, N, 1 I 1 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 Lane group L TR L TR LTR LTR Volume, V (vph) 104 1184 7 36 106 36 7 449 51 69 331 28 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 1 1 1 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 3 3 4 4 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 2 0 17 0 13 0 3 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 1 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 15.0 IY= G= G= G= I G= 36.0 G= G= G= 4 Y= Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 60.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT I TH RT LT TH I RT Adjusted flow rate, v 114 207 40 137 543 46.7,` Lane group capacity, c 315 469 249 442 1201 v/c ratio, X 0.36 0.44 0.16 0.31 0 2 0.27) 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 60 0.60 file://C: \Documents and Settings\rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \s2kFA.tmp 4/16/2008 Detailed Report Page 2 of 2 Total green ratio, g/C Uniform delay, di 18.6 19.0 17.6 18.3 5.7 5.7 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.575 0.575 Delay calibration, k 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.4 10.1 0.1 Initial queue delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control delay 19.3 19.6 17.9 18.7 3.4 3.4 Lane group LOS B B B B A A Approach delay 19.5 18.5 3.4 3.4 Approach LOS B B A A Intersection delay 8.6 X = 0.32 Intersection LOS A HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1f file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \s2kFA.tmp 4/16/2008 Detailed Report Page 1 of 2 HCS2000 DETAILED REPORT General Information Site Information Analyst RP Agency or Co. GCC Date Performed 411612008 Time Period PM PEAK Intersection MYRTLE /TURNER Area Type All other areas Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Analysis Year FUTURE WITH PROJECT Project ID Volume and Timing Input EB WB NB SB LT I TH RT LT TH I RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Number of lanes, Ni 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 Lane group LTR LTR LTR LTR Volume, V (vph) 74 84 46 9 80 47 30 523 20 32 388 40 % Heavy vehicles, %HV 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 1 1 1 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Pretimed (P) or actuated (A) A A A A A A A A A A A A Start-up lost time, I, 2.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 Extension of effective green, a 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Arrival type, AT 3 3 4 4 Unit extension, UE 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Filtering /metering, 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 Initial unmet demand, Qb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ped / Bike / RTOR volumes 0 20 0 24 0 0 0 0 Lane width 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 Parking / Grade / Parking N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N N 0 N Parking maneuvers, NM Buses stopping, NB 0 0 0 0 Min. time for pedestrians, G 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Phasing EW Perm 02 03 04 NS Perm 06 07 08 Timing G= 26.0 IY= G= G= G= G= 85.0 G= G= G= 4 Y= Y= Y= IY= 5 Y= Y= IY= Duration of Analysis, T = 0.25 Cycle Length, C = 120.0 Lane Group Capacity, Control Delay, and LOS Determination EB WB NB SB LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Adjusted flow rate, v 217 132 674 541 Lane group capacity, c 301 389 2248 2165 v/c ratio, X 0.72 10.34 1 J0.,30 0.25 Total green ratio, g/C 0.22 0.22 1 F0.71' , 0.71 file://C:\Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \s2k105.tmp 4/16/2008 Detailed Report t• Page 2 of 2 Uniform delay, di 43.6 1 39.7 1 1 6.5 6.2 Progression factor, PF 1.000 1.000 0.219 0.219 Delay calibration, k 0.28 0.11 0.11 0.11 Incremental delay, d2 8.2 0.5 0.1 0.1 Initial queue delay, d3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control delay 51.8 40.3 1.5 1.4 Lane group LOS D D A A Approach delay 51.8 40.3 1.5 1.4 Approach LOS D D A A Intersection delay 11.7 X = 0.40 Intersection LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2000 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1 If file://C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \s2k105.tmp 4/16/2008 Two -Way Stop Control . Page 1 of 2 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst RP Intersection MAGNOLIA /DRIVEA Agency/Co. GCC Jurisdiction CLEARWATER Date Performed 411612008 Analysis Year FUTURE WITH PROJECT Analysis Time Period PM PEAK 5 6 Project Description East/West Street: MAGNOLIA DRIVE North /South Street: DRIVE Intersection Orientation: East -West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 0 5 97 0 7 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate veh /h 0 5 107 0 7 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 0 -- -- 2 -- -- Median type Undivided RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration TR LT U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume veh/h) 90 0 0 0 0 0 Peak -hour factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate veh /h 100 0 0 0 0 0 Proportion of heavy vehicles, PHV 2 0 2 0 0 0 Percent grade ( %) 0 0 Flared approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized? 0 0 Lanes 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration I LR Control Delay, Queue Length, Level of Service Approach EB WB Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR Volume, v (vph) 0 100 Capacity, cm (vph) 1478 941 /c ratio 0.00 0.11 Queue length (95 %) 0.00 0.36 Control Delay (s /veh) 7.4 9.3 file://C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \u2kl08.tmp 4/16/2008 Two -Way Stop Control 0 Is Page 2 of 2 LOS A A pproach delay s /veh 9.3 pproach LOS -- -- A HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1f file: / /C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \u2kl08.tmp 4/16/2008 Two -Way Stop Control Page 1 of 2 Rights Reserved file: / /C:\Documents and Settings\rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \u2k10B.tmp 4/16/2008 TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Agency/Co. Date Performed Analysis Time Period RP GCC 411612008 PM PEAK Intersection Jurisdiction Analysis Year FT. HARRISON /DRIVE B EXIT CLEARWATER FUTURE WITH PROJECT Project Description East/West Street: DRIVE 8 EXIT ONLY North /South Street: FT. HARRISON AVENUE Intersection Orientation: North -South IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume 0 584 0 0 747 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 648 0 0 830 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 — — 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration L T T U stream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Westbound Eastbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume 16 0 16 0 0 0 Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 17 0 17 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 0 2 0 0 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Len th, and Level of Service Approach NB SIB Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR (vph) 0 34 (m) (vph) 802 215 lc 0.00 0.16 95% queue length 0.00 0.55 Control Delay 9.5 24.9 LOS A C pproach Delay — — 24.9 pproach LOS — — C Rights Reserved file: / /C:\Documents and Settings\rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \u2k10B.tmp 4/16/2008 URBAN STREET WORKSHEE1 Page 1 of 1 URBAN STREET WORKSHEET #1 General Information Site Information Analyst RP gency /Co. GCC Date Performed 411612008 Time Period PM PEAK Urban Street FT. HARRISON (TURNER - JEFFORD Direction of Travel North -bound Jurisdiction CLEARWATER nal sis Year FUTURE WITH PROJECT Project Description: Input Parameters Analysis Period(h) T = 0.25 Segments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cycle length, C (s) 120.0 120.0 Eff. green to cycle ratio, /C 0.730 0.750 /c ratio for lane group, X 0.470 0.490 Cap of lane group, c veh/h) 1325 1397 Pct Veh on Gm., PVG Arrival type, AT 4 4 Unit Extension, UE sec 0.0 0.0 Length of segment, L mi 0.25 0.16 Initial Queue, Qb (veh) 0 0 Urban street class, SC 2 2 Free -flowspeed, FSS mi /h 35 35 Running Time, TR s 29.8 20.0 Other delay, s 0.0 0.0 Delay Computation Uniform delay, d1 (s) 6.7 5.9 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 Incremental delay adj, k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Upstream filtering ad' factor, 1 1.000 0.880 Incremental delay, d2 (s) 1.2 1.1 1 3.8 Initial queue delay, d3 (s) 0 0 Progression adj factor, PF 0.115 0.001 0.256 0.256 0.256 0.256 0.256 0.256 Control delay, d s 2.0 1.1 Segment LOS Determination Travel time, ST (s) 31.7 21.1 ravelspeed, SA mi /h I 28.4 27.3 Se ment LOS 8 C Urban Street LOS Determination Total travel time (s) 52.8 Total length (mi) 0.41 Total travel speed, SA (mi /h) 28.0 Total urban street LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1f file://C: \Documents and Settings \rpergolizzi.GCC \Local Settings \Temp \a2k115.tmp 4/16/2008 URBAN STREET WORKSHEEJ Page 1 of 1 URBAN STREET WORKSHEET #1 General Information Site Information Analyst RP gency /Co. GCC Date Performed 411612008 Time Period PM PEAK Urban Street FT. HARRISON (TURNER - JEFFORD Direction of Travel South -bound Jurisdiction CLEARWATER nal sis Year FUTURE WITH PROJECT Project Description: Input Parameters Analysis Period(h) T = 0.25 Segments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cycle length, C (s) 120.0 120.0 Eff. green to cycle ratio, /C 0.730 0.710 /c ratio for lane group, X 0.470 0.610 Eap of lane group, c veh/h) 1375 1308 Pct Veh on Gm., PVG Arrival type, AT 4 4 Unit Extension, UE sec 0.0 0.0 Length of segment, L mi 0.16 0.25 Initial Queue, Qb (veh) 0 0 Urban street class, SC 2 2 Free -flowspeed, FSS mi /h 35 35 Running Time, TR s 20.0 29.8 Other delay, s 0.0 0.0 Delay Computation Uniform delay, d1 (s) 6.7 8.9 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 Incremental delay adj, k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Upstream filtering ad' factor, 1 1.000 0.880 Incremental delay, d2 (s) 1.2 1.9 3.3 Initial queue delay, d3 (s) 0 0 Progression adj factor, PF 0.115 0.212 0.256 0.256 0.256 0.256 0.256 0.256 Control delay, d s 1.9 3.8 Segment LOS Determination Travel time, ST (s) 21.9 33.5 ravelspeed, SA mi /h 26.3 I 26.9 Secament LO C C Urban Street LOS Determination Total travel time (s) 55.4 Total length (mi) 0.41 Total travel speed, SA (mi /h) 26.6 otal urban street LOS C HCS2000TM Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1f file: //C:\Documents and Settings \\rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \a2kl15Amp 4/16/2008 URBAN STREET WORKSHEET #1 0 • Page 1 of 1 URBAN STREET WORKSHEET #1 General Information Site Information nalyst RP gency /Co. GCC Date Performed 411612008 Time Period PM PEAK Urban Street MYRTLE AVE/ (JEFFORDS- TURNER) Direction of Travel North -bound urisdiction CLEARWATER nal sis Year FUTURE WITH PROJECT Project Description: Input Parameters Analysis Period(h) T = 0.25 Segments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cycle length, C (s) 60.0 120.0 Eff. green to cycle ratio, /C 0.600 0.710 /c ratio for lane group, X 0.270 0.300 Cap of lane group, c veh/h) 2015 2248 Pct Veh on Gm., PVG Arrival type, AT 4 4 Unit Extension, UE sec 0.0 0.0 Length of segment, L mi 0.31 0.10 Initial Queue, Qb (veh) 0 0 Urban street class, SC 2 2 Free -flowspeed, FSS mi /h 35 35 Running Time, TR s 33.9 12.5 Other delay, s 0.0 0.0 Delay Computation Uniform delay, d1 (s) 5,.7 6.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 Incremental delay adj, k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Upstream filtering ad' factor, 1 1.000 0.973 Incremental delay, d2 (s) 0.3 0.3 4.2 Initial queue delay, d3 (s) 0 0 Progression adj factor, PF 0.576 0.212 0.256 0.256 0.256 0.256 0.256 0.256 Control delay, d s 3.6 1.7 Segment LOS Determination Travel time, ST (s) 37.6 14.2 ravelspeed, SA mi /h 29.7 25.4 Segment LOS B C Urban Street LOS Determination Total travel time (s) 51.8 Total length (mi) 0.41 otal travel speed, SA (mi /h) 28.5 otal urban street LOS B HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1f file://C:\Documents and Settings\rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \a2k11B.trap 4/16/2008 URBAN STREET WORKSHEET #1 Page 1 of 1 URBAN STREET WORKSHEET #1 General Information Site Information Analyst RP gency /Co. GCC Date Performed 411612008 Time Period PM PEAK Urban Street MYRTLE AVE/(JEFFORDS- TURNER) Direction of Travel South -bound Jurisdiction CLEARWATER nal sis Year FUTURE WITH PROJECT Project Description: Input Parameters Analysis Period(h) T = 0.25 Segments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cycle length, C (s) 60.0 120.0 Eff. green to cycle ratio, /C 0.600 0.720 /c ratio for lane group, X 0.270 0.170 Cap of lane group, c veh/h) 1718 2391 Pct Veh on Gm., PVG Arrival type, AT 4 4 Unit Extension, UE sec 0.0 0.0 Length of segment, L mi 0.10 0.31 Initial Queue, Qb (veh) 0 0 Urban street class, SC 2 2 Free -flowspeed, FSS mi /h 35 35 Running Time, TR s 12.5 33.9 Other delay, s 0.0 0.0 Delay Computation Uniform delay, d1 (s) 5.7 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.4 Incremental delay adj, k 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Upstream filtering ad' factor, 1 1.000 0.973 Incremental delay, d2 (s) 0.4 0.1 4.4 Initial queue delay, d3 (s) 0 0 Progression adj factor, PF 0.576 0.165 0.256 0.256 0.256 0.256 0.256 0.256 Control delay, d s 3.7 1.0 Segment LOS Determination Travel time, ST (s) 16.2 35.0 ravelspeed, SA mi /h 22.2 31.9 Segment LOS C 8 Urban Street LOS Determination Total travel time (s) 51.2 Total length (mi) 0.41 Total travel speed, SA (mi /h) 28.8 Total urban street LOS 8 HCS2000TM Copyright ® 2003 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved Version 4.1f file://C:\Documents and Settings\rpergolizzi.GCC\Local Settings \Temp \a2k11B.tmp 4/16/2008 • 700 1400 E. = cC7 VUlV1�� 1012— ?z;.fZ-T Lar, e NaT Wlftf?AAWTEms' 64 2 — LANE HIGHWAYS 100 FULL- WIDTH TURN LANE > cc so O TAPER 2 Q w a- 60 z ' z RADIUS O LY REQUIRED 40 C7 cc 20 1 NOTE: For posted speeds at or under 45 mph, peak hour right turns greater than 40 vph, total peak hour approach less than 300 vph, and adjust right turn volumes. Adjust peak hour right turns = i, Peak hour right turns ­20 100 200 300. 400 500 600 TOTAL PEAK HOUR APPROACH VOLUME (VPH) I, 120 4 — LANE HIGHWAYS = 100 FULL -WIDTH TURN LANE CL 1 Cr D O = 80 ul TAPER CL Z z 60 H c? X. 40 RADIUS 7.7 . .20 Y •' ' NOTE: For application on high: speed. highways 400 600 800 1000 1200 �i+ink +S 200 �j , a i 3Ji 411 TOTAL PEAK HOUR APPROACH VOLUME (VPH) ?raff c -turn lanes. (Source: Ref. 4 -11) volulna • 700 1400 E. = cC7 VUlV1�� 1012— ?z;.fZ-T Lar, e NaT Wlftf?AAWTEms' .t C-71— —t—, Florida SD' :2� -HII!L I I ili ,'1. - I.i t — ct -c 1' I _..-. .� a .- x I .. t c ■- i — .- 1 -)0 c -c G t- .. c .- -c ��. FISRER ffil? ARCHITECTS loos 6_13 -118 rLt,,.N rr \D�I'M ! k¥ © ¢2 GNl �» § «�IQ2� . 3: • • V. CD 0 0 m 6' -6* n,-r Vr-r — - — - — - — - — --- — - — - — - — - — - — - — - - -------------- t - — - — - — - — - - - — -- - ___________ -- - 21-1- — - — - — - — -- - — - — - — - — -- - — - — - — - — - - — - — - — - — 7 7 RLL s PLAMMS ERIOR FORT HARRISON AVE AND MAGNOUA DRIVE AA INT DE's 000DU --WIT — - — - — - — -- I LL N u u u 0 1 1 31- "Q 2'f-6* .'-6- 22 V. CD 0 0 m FLOOR PLAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ARBOR OAKS MEDICAL CENTER ARCHMCIS -!a s PLAMMS ERIOR FORT HARRISON AVE AND MAGNOUA DRIVE AA INT DE's 000DU --WIT CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 235 CLEMATM FL 3W P016PW6 n T� r la rOR FLOOR PLAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. =g ' OAKS MEDICAL CENTER AP04TEM o $ 8= SON AVE. AND MAGNOLIA DRRIE DE6gl1� m .�a� R, FLORIDA ms,w�pr�us�hg rimappi�oree r � •." w . � 11' 19 MW PARCEL=49 277 S.F. NORTH PARCEL=6,018 S.F. S.F. ALLEN OLIA DAIV. w W— M dr4r45' E HE II z o.; POW xv Cox- inue Date 03/25108 Revisions Imnuiv L05- 49 �hl. cc LAJ LLI 2 to CIO uj U- Cn z < o .e C) SCALE: I'm20' w a 20 41 Lai u Medical F ANS76 * '037 _j! - ul 4w --a j IW- 7.3— S BMW' V n. M dr4r45' E HE II z o.; POW xv Cox- inue Date 03/25108 Revisions Imnuiv L05- 49 �hl. cc LAJ LLI 2 to CIO uj U- Cn z < o .e C) SCALE: I'm20' w a 20 41 Lai u jjyo4 A � {}a 1.1 •21.1 'aA 'aA '2IA '2i/ 'ZIA '22.4 '71d '77.1 'n5 'ad '22.8 21,/ •21A '1AA •11 P......`......... D......... C............................1. _........,........,...._.. .._....!... .... rf. j.12A._14d.._71A..nd....ad....a .yt]A.,�Atd. 'A.1A.. �A1A A....77A....714 ...2pd....U1d, .fA,A...11.� .... .............. ............ '1]A 'WA '22A'213'211'a 21A715115a.02]5 210 ''2A'n.7' a.1 ' 717 ' 22A *NA '1]t ' ]W '73A 'a.2 ' •a 'i]A '2]�Y 'aA '2]5 'io 'ri0 ']�A 'S]�,l 'I]d 'n.l •]] ( 1].1 18.1 tt,l 20.1 27.7 a 71,] •7].1 'nA '!tA 211 73.1 '7 5 21.0 'nA X10,1 '41.1 10.1 'Ill ...........__ ................. .. ......... ............... ......... _ ..........i ' 17. 1 '18./'nA 'MA 'a.f'aA'71A'72D'7].1 'tld '710 '210 'tA'a.8 '211 '701 711 '18./'1]1 / \ '1]A 1pp '41A ',,A '26 'n.l ']1A 'n�] 'n] '2t.e '?tit 'n1 '9�A '>� 'FA ']IA 'NSA 'IBA 21,1;1;;.,`\ '. � �•• ................:.:' iQb ';S6 %;;.�.11D::��JR:.�rti�.:'.i �.. �.1 &'7::'.tljC`''.LT.A': =.N 'YF, 2.iFA' AtIT,4,'L{i�b��l�irY�..'1. �.1.��� ..._l� I r , 1 FUTURE SCHEDULE r1luCai71B ��I�� By81w ��B ��]OUV�19 �Ilw��wALlld�ogn ]IRFlItlYM ' I.nWDe I1f11N MFq+IgY 1pllWMBgAUCignM WY1IPFU�iNI01BOWwDM14 �RWYI 'AMHMUMICP1119YDF2GVwmWOUt1 MY�g11tlY010] WCllgigrtwrt�iwrtWWt gMAWWYAO.wr YOYYYWWIIACAOIY ' M1IOfKBMf IYT]YCCMIYa1D FCCCVUC]ggOpwi�p 2MIOBOtiN1ANIDUM WC111UCf1pdYWCrtM14W.Vt uwOVYY WUUInC1011�Y ' 4 w1M1WggNilw ']w11quCM1lwgtHlMlAUOMIFCl I,N22A. PHOTOMETRIC SITE SUMMARY 0000 N. CANOPY PHOTOMETRIC PLAN Ada d SYWIM E *MlFp, Uw ' neatBm .. Ww cAOO �w 1 r. • � O Q � � x O � � O h � r� O w I ALLEN (P) MAGNOLIA DRIVE CW ..,.gyp N 89'48'45' E I cw m"4 Q I� W 2 a I. N RETEN ION POND O,q;e * i-u rvr IT • r L-1