The URL can be used to link to this page

FLD2012-09016 . , � COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD � r �learwater � PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT � STAFF REP�RT MEETING DATE: ��uary 15,zoi3 AGENDA ITEM: ��• CaSE: F[,D2012-09016 REQUEST' Flexible Development application to permit a restaurant with a height of 22 feet, a � front(west) setback of three feet(to drive-thru lane) and l6 feet(to building), a front (south) setback of l0 feet (to drive-thru lane) and 39 feet (to building), a side (east) setback of one foot(to parking) and 48.5 feet(to building), a side (north) setback of 10 feet(to parking and dumpster enclosure)and 149 feet(to building)and 28 parking spaces(8.81 spuces per I,Q00 squpre fcct of Gross Floor Arca) in thc Commcrcial(C) District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-704.C. and to reduce the front (west) landscape buffer from 10 feet to three feet(to drive-thru lane), reduce the front (south) landscape buffer from 15 feet to 10 feet (to drive-thru lane), reduce the side (east) landscape buffer from five feet to one foot, increase the number of parking spaces in a row from 10 spaces to 11 spaces and eliminate the required foundation plantings along the front (west) fa�ade of the proposed building as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of CDC Section 3-1202.G. GENERAL DATA: Agent........................... Robert W. Case; LIS Engineering, LLC , '�"' Applicant/Owner............. Haddad Florida Realty,LLC. - �� LOCetion... .................... 1960 Gulf to Bay Boulevard; northeast , �� ; � � '�� , ��.. ... f:.; '�:• � „`. . �: ,lir`: corner of Gulf to Bay Blvd. and S. � �� 11..r �• Comet Ave. . � -�, , . Property Size.................... 0.75 acres : • + ' ~. Future Land Use Plan...... Commercial General(CG) � � � � � r- r � �� ,� �� , Zoning.......................... Commercial(C)District � ` � � i ; ., � `r - . Special A/ea Plan.............. None " -: ' "'� `� r s . -� , AdjaCenf Zoning.... North: High Uensity Residential(HUR) Uistrict ';� ' `� '„ ,a ,,, �� South: Institutiui►al(I)District �'=� _ ..*•► -� ,� J „ , � " ��; .��,� East: Commercial(C)District � �. ' , � .. Y.r.... + , '� West: Commercial(C)District � �=t'i +•��'-z:;+ �-�.�1� --. � _ '-� � � �"��Z�L� 1L�1�F.�I:iL�"• � 1 Existing Land Use............. Restaurant (fast food); detached � ...,;, . . . .. dwelling; mixed use (retail sales and service and attached dwellings; currently � �' �,_�--,; vacant) ��'� �' .�z Proposed Land tlse......... Restaurant(fast food) ' , � � , � �: �1{, _ ,�►�tr� '� _ P��. ,IlriMw , . ' ViL[f�l►��al\.l level II Flex�le Devebpment Appkadon Review PLANNING d DBVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW D1YfS10N ANALYSIS: � � �� , � :_. . ��,� 3� ,w , +. Site Location and Existing Condition�: , ' � �'�� ' ' �`�' ' #' J �,Y_ � � � ��t >. z 1 The 0.75 acre site is located at the northeast ��,;( � �� ,�� ! ��) : ,` s � , , � ' � - � i� ' � ' , � i �,` �� eorner of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and South (�� i i ' i � f , � . � , Comet Avenue. The subject site will be �� , � � i � �I I � ' ' i � i � comprised of three properties, required to be �: �e �� ! � � ' �' j) � ! I� �� '� �I �'' joined together through t� Unity of Title prior to �� ' ;G�, �� ' �� '� ��, ��r� �,!�. �,�� _� the issuance of any permits, w�th appraximately ,x i �� , � � �,�) , 100 feet of frontage along Gulf to Bay ( � � '� � Y� ; i j � °~�,�; � Boulevard and 284 feet of frontagc along South , � °"""' `°" �� - Comet Avenue. A detached dwelling is located (� �� ,'� ��, i� '�� :E within a single, 2,332 square foot one-story �,� �,r �, �� .�;�� , ` *, ,� ~� ; ` a.�� building on the northern parcel. This site is ��,_'�� ! (�I � � ;�; � � i�� w>� accessed from South Camet Avenue via a �� , �� :��i°'� ;� ,��s"°�� _�, �� a� @�-�� -.��,,,� �- driveway and a narrow walkway. The central � {`'�� `�` ' ' I I ' �-- �.� ° � ; �a, parcel contains a single-story building with a �ATION MAP retail sales and service use and a two-story building with office and retail sales and service � »R � „ �LN�DR � � � i. ; S� uses on t hc b ottom floor an d two dwc l ling units on the second floor. The two buildings are '� ° ' � �;�g��'�� ' attached to each other and total approximately " = �R ° .� " � 2,335 squarc fcct. This sitc is acccsscd via a �� '� � � � �� p, " a .� _ � ,. ... m short driveway at the southwest corner of the '"' site atong South Comet Avenue and a longer ` n ; ••� ` ..� �. , .,p �. � driveway at the northwest corner of the sitc. �i "' � Please note that existing uses and building �; ~ : � r '• ; , � " �� Gf/lF-TPBAYBtVE� �� square footages, based. on site visits and City OULICTO.MYN,VD and Pincllas County Property Appraiscr � ��t�;: records,are made to the best of Staff ability. i The southern parcel contains a KFC restaurant � within a 3,102 square foot one-story building. zON�NG MAP The building is located directly at the suuthwest corner of the site along the south property line of the site and includes a drivc-through component located on the east side of the building. Access ta the site is provided via a two-way driveway at the southeast corner of the site along Gulf to Bay Boulevard. A two-lane egress-only driveway is lacated at the northwest corner of the site along South Comet Avenue. A total of 19 parking spaccs are on the site including seven angled parking spaces along the west side of the site which exist partially within and back out into the South Comet Avenue right-of-way. The remaining 12 parking spaces aze along the east side of the parccl. While an enclosed dumpstcr pad is located at the northeast corner of the parcel the dumpster is actively stored and serviced in the open directly along South Comet Avenue just south of the aforementioned out-bound driveway. As mentioned a drive-through lane cxists on the east side of the building and continucs along thc north sidc of the building where it exits ta South Comet Avenue via the western driveway. Community Development Board January 15,2013 FLD2012-09016-Page 1 af l4 � : lilE�Nat nKl�level]I Flex�le Devel PLANNINGd�DEVEIAPMENT OpfllBflt I�IIC8t10f1 REV�EVJ DIiVELOP4fE�?T RF.VIF.W I)IVISION All three properties are within the Commercial '" y -- " " "-""-� (C) District the intent and purpose of which is to o •� ° � 3�= w� o��+ i _ .— provide the citizens of the City of Clearwater '""`""°" """"'°"'°" � .. � . � „ , with convenient access ta goods and services ' ' " � '� __'_: '_ throughout the city without adversely impacting ! , ,„ �� ,- ' the integrity of residential neighborhoods, �, � � �-- ' ��` p� ; � r ' j diminishing tl�e scenic quality of the city or ` �, � �°• � '"' - negatively impacting the safe and efficient " "" �� w w wi movement of people and things within the City of « "� � � a Clearwater. The existing residential uses exc�pt ' ' � - � � � - �! " ewF�o.r�ra for the apartment units on the second floor of the °"'��'°'"�•�"° ' retail use are nonconforming uses within the C �oo� � District. The buildiiig which appears to contain EXISTING SURROUNDING USES MAP � two apartment units on the second floor with retail and office on the first floor is considered Mixed Use which is a conforming use within the C District. The immediate vicinity is characterized by a variety of non-residential uses including Clearwater High School across Gulf t� Bay Boulevard tu tlie suuth, a ChCC;kCr� fa5t fuod reslaurant lo the east and a furniture store to the west. A vaziety of other fast food restaurants,offices, automotive service stations and other retail sales and service establishments are located farther to the east air�l west aluiig Gulf lu Bay BaulCVard. Th� nei�hburhood t� the north is within the High Density Residential (HDR) district and consists primarily of attached dwellings (mostly duplex and triplex units). Farther to the north, across Rainbow Drive, the zoning changes to Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district wtiere the neighbvrhouc! consisls primarily nf detach� dwellings. South Comet Avenue runs between Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Drew Street. Development Proposal: The proposal is to join all three properties together into a single parcel through a Unity of Title and rem�ve all the buildings and other structutes with the exception of a few light poles. The northem two lots will be redeveloped with 17 parking spaces, a dumpster and a stvrmwater facility. A 3,180 square foot, single-story restaurant is proposed to be constructed in the s�authwest camer of the southern lot at the corner of South Comet Avenue and Gulf to Bay Boulevazd in roughly the same location and orientation as the existing restaurant. Eleven parking spaces will be located along the east side of the site and the two-way driveway will be mainlainecl atung C3ulf to Bay Boulevard. The egress lane of the existing driveway will be a right-in/right-out only. A second two-way driveway will be located at the northwest corner of the site along South Comet Avenue. A drive-through lane will be located on the west side of the building along South Comet Avenue. A walkway will connect the sidewalk within the Gulf to Bay Boulevazd right-of-way ta entrances on the south and east sides of the building. A bike rack is proposed at the southeast corner of the building. 4ne freestar►ding sign is proposed at the southwest corner of the site in addition to a preview menu board and an order menu board along the north side of the building in conjunction with the drive-through lane. The latter two signs shauld not be readily visible from off-site and do not count against the permitted number of signs for the site. It should be mentioned that the proposed freestanding tocated at the southwest Community Development Ba►rd January 15,2013 FLD2012-09016—Page 2 of 14 � � �.�l��dlC�Lerel II Flettible Oevelopment AppHcation Review PLANNING J�DEVELOPMENT DP.VEI.OPMENT RE4'lEN'DIViSIpN a._w��r _ .. corner of the site is located approximately two feet fro�n the frvnt (south) property which does not meet the minimum five foot setback required by Community Devclopment Code (CDC) Section 3-1807.B.1.c. In addition drawings of the sign which would otherwise provide such details as dimensions, area, materiais color(s) and hcight are not included with the submittal. While attached signs aze shown on the elevations on the south, east and west facades none of the attached signs shown on the elevations are dimensioned allowing their areas to be determined. In short, a sign paekage has not been submitted with this application acid sigc�age whether indicated or not should not be considered as part of the request nor would any approval of this proposal in any way imply approval of any sign. While landscaping is proposed atong all pmperty lines of the site the buffer widths however, do not meet the provisions of CDC Article 3 Division 12 with a three foot buf�'er along South Comet Avenue where 10 feet is required, a onc fvot buffer more than haif of the east side of the south pazcel where tive feet is required and a 10 foot-wide landscape buffer along the ftont (south) property line where 15 feet�is required. The applicant has mitigated the dimensional deficiency with rcgard to buffer width through the provision of lacidscape cnaterial iri excess �F tt�e minimum otherwise required by the CDC. In addition,the applicant is proposing to incorporate seven Feet of right-of-way along South Comet Avenue adjacent to the proposed drive-through laue in addition to three feet of width oii the property itself for a total landacape buffer widlh vC 10 feet. The landscape plan includes a variety of shade, ornamental and palm trees (live oak, crepe myrtle,"Littte Gem" magnolia, bald cypress and sabal palm),as well as shrubs and ground cav�rs(viburnum, Indian hawlhorn, hibi5cu5, crinum lily, liri�pe an�l Ilax lily). The buf�'er� will be planted in such a manner as to create a tiered effect providing adeyuate buffers between the subject property and adjacent rights-of-way and properties. Special Area Plan: None Development Parameters Floor Area Ratio (FAR,�: PurSUant lu the Counlywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-701.1, the maximum FAR for properties with a Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) designation of Commercial Generat (CG} is 0.55. The proposed FAR is 0.10,which is consistent with Code provisions. Impervious Sur�'ace Ratio(ISRZ. Pursuant to CDC Section 2-701.1, the maximum allowabte ISR is 0.90. The overall proposed ISR i� 0.62, which i�cunsiytent with Ccxie provisions. Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursufu►t ta CDC Table 2-7U4, there is no minimum rec�uired lot area or lot widih for a Cornprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to GDC Table 2-702, Minimum Standard Development Standards, the required lot area and lot width are to be a minimum of 10,000 square feet and 1Q0 feet, respectively. The lot area is 32,539 square feet and the lot width is 100 feet exceeding and/or meeting the otherwise minimum area and wictth required by Code. Community Development Board]onuory 15,2013 FLD2012-09016—Page 3 of 14 . � 4�1�T�iRtbi Level II Fle�cible Development AppNcaUon Review P�N�NG d DEVELOPMENT DEVEIAPMNF,\T REYIEW DIVISIOY Minimu►n Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there are no minimum required setbacks for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. Hawever, for a point of comparison, pursuant to CDC Table 2- 702, front and side setbacks to pri�7�ary structures ac� 25 �►�l 10 feel, respectively. SClb�u:ks lo parkinA are based upon the required landscape buffers which for the front(south and west) aze 15 and 10 feet, respectively and 10 and five feet for the side (north and east), respectively. Rear setbacks do not apply to tlie subject sit� as it is a corner lot with lwn frunt anei two Sicie�tbacks under the provisions of 3-903.D. The proposal includes front (south and west) setbacks to the building of 39 and IS feet, respectively. The proposed side (north and east} setbacks to building are 149 and 48 feet, respectively. The propused seiback to parking or other like vehicular use areas along the front(south and west)are proposed to ten feet and three feet, respectively and ten feet and one foot along the side (north and east) setbacks, respectivety. The proposal does not meet the minimiun standards for setbacks to building oii the front (west) ur tu parking or olhrr like vehicular use areas on the front(south and west}and side(east). Mcxacirnum Buildirrg Neeght: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-703, there is no maximum height Far a Comprehensive Infill Redevetopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to the aforementioned CDC Table 2-702, the cnaximuin altowablc hei�ht fur restaurant uses is 25 feet. The proposed building height of 22 feet which is less than this altowabte height and is therefore consistent with the CDC. Mcnimum O,,�Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-703, there is no rninimum off-street parking requirement for a Cumpreliensive Iiifill Redeveluptnent Prc�jee:t. However, fvr a puinl of comparison, pursuant to CDC Table 2-702, the minimum required parking for restaurants is 12 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. This results in a requirement of 38 parking spaces for a 3,180 ��{uarc fuc�t re�laur�tnt. The propc�sal prc�vides 28 parking spaces or 8.8 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. While this will constitute a net increase of nine parking spaces (47 percent)over what is currently provided on site it is still less than what is otherwise required by the CDC. The �unount of square footage of the restaurant will increase with the proposal by 78 square feet(0.25 percent) from 3,102 square feet to 3,180 square feet. The applicant submitted a Parking Demand Study that indicates that one parking space per two seats and one parking space per employee is an adequate parking ratio which has met the needs of other (ike restaurants within the franchise. The proposal includes 44 seats (22 spaces) and there will a maximum of six ernployees (six spaces} on site at any given time. This means that the 28 proposed pazking spaces will adequately serve the site. It should also be considered th�t the restaurant has operated for years without incident with 19 parking spaces. The proposal will resutt in a building with virtually the same amount of gross tlaor area as currently exists. If it is accepted that the existing 19 parking spaces have adequately served the site for years and that the 78 square foot increase in Eloor area constitutes a de minimus change of less than one percent then it is reasonable to assume that a 47 percent increase in the number of parking spaces will more than adequately serve the redevelopment. Community Development Botvd January 15,2013 FLD2012-09016—Page 4 of 14 ' �.+a�lu n tisl�LevN II Flexible Deve nt lication Review PLANNING�DEVELOPMENT � � DEVELOPA�NT REV�W DIVISION Mechunical Equi�ment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-201.D.1, all outside mechanical equipment must be screened so as not to be visible from pubtic streets and/or abutting properties. Mechanicai equipment will be locateci on the rcwf of the proposed building and will be concealed with parapet walls on all sides. Sigh� Yisibili Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the proposed driveways on Gulf to Bay Baulevard and South Comet Avenue and at the intersection of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and South Comet Avenue, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 24-foot sight visibility triangles. This propasal has beea reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineering Department and been fvuna to be acceptable. S�u�ubbery planted within the sight visibility triangles will need to be maintained to meet the Code requirements. Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-912, for development that does not involve a subdivision, all utilities including individual distribution lines must be installed underground unless such undergrounding is not practicabte. Al( utilities which serve the site are currently underground. LandscapinF: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, required perimeter buffers are based on adjacent uses andfor street types. The required landscape buffers are 15 feet (south- arterial street}, 10 feet (west - lo�al street), 10 feet (north - attached dweliings) and five feet (east - non-residential). In additian, Section 3-1202.E provides that interior landseaping must be provided which is equal to or greater than 10 percent of the vehicular use area. The proposed vehicular use area is 15,425 square feet requiring 1,543 square feet of interior landscaped area. Section 3-12U2.F, also provides that no more than t0 parking spaces may be in a row. Finally, Section 3-1202.E requires that all facades facing a street must inctude a foundation planting a.rea of at least five feet of depth along the entire fa�ade excluding areas necessary for ingress/egress. This proposal provides buffer widths along the south (10 feet), west (three feet on the gubject property and seven feet within the South Comet Avenue right-of-way) and east(one foot) which do not meet the requirements af Section 3-1202.D. The proposal does not meet the requirements of Section 3-1202.E in that 11 parking spaces in row are pm�sed and foundation plantings along the west fa�ade are not provided. The proposal otherwise meets the remaining requirements of Article 3 Division 12 of the CDC. It should be mentioned that the one and three foot buffers along the east and west property lines, respectively, extend for a�prnximately 14S feet narth from the south property line with the remainder of each buffer being approximately 35 feet in width. As noted, landscape buffer widths do not meet the pcovisions of CDC Article 3 Division 12. The applicant has mitigated the dimensional deficiency with regard to buffer width through the provision oF landscape material in excess of the minimum otherwise required by the CDC. In addition, the applicant is proposing to incorporate seven feet of right-of-way along South Comet Avenue adjacent to the proposed drive-through lane in addition to three feet of width on the Communiry Dovelopment Doard January 15,2013 FLD2012-09016-Page 5 of 14 ' V��al�Level I[Flexibk P�A��+��1.OPMENT �I�f1lEflt A�Gd1 REYIlW DEVELOPMENT REV�.W DIVISION property itself for a total landscape buffer width of 10 feet. The tandscape plan includes a variety of shade, ornamental and palm trees (live oak, crepe myrtle, "Little Gem" magnolia, bald cypress and sabal palrn), as well as shrubs and ground covers (viburnum, Indian hawthorn, hibiscus, crinum lily, liriope and fla�c lily), The buffers will be planted in such a manner as to create a tiered effect providing adequate buffers between the subject property and adjacent rights-of-way and properties. It should be noted that where the east bufFer is one foot in width the adjacent use consists af parking far the Checkers fast-food restaurant. There are also several trees along the east property line but located on the adjacent property. Staff believes that relocating the existing curb would possibly damage the root systems of those trees. Solid Waste: A dumpster is proposed at the northeast corner of the site. The dumpster area will be screened by a solid wall with a stucco finish to match the primary exterior color of the restaurant. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City's Solid Waste and Fire Departments. Sf�age: The proposal includes a &eestanding sign as indicated on Sheet C2 of the site plan. In addition, the submitted etevations indicate attached signage on the south, east and west facades. However a formal signage package has not been presented at this time. Any forthcoming signage package must meet Code requirements. Comprehensive Plan: The proposat is in support of the following Goals, Objectives and/ar Policies of the City's Comprehensive P(an as follows. Fi�ture Land Use Plan Element Policy A.2.2.3 Commercial land uses shall be located at the intersection ojarterial or collector streets and should be sited in such a way as to minimize the intrusinn of�f,�'=site impacts intn residentia! neighborhvods. New pfats and site plans shall discourage the creation of "strip commercial" zones by insuring that adequate lot depths ure maintained and by zoning for commercial development at major inter.rection,s. T'he proposal includes a commercial use located at the intersection of an arterial street and is designed to minimize any impacts to the residential neighborhood to the north by locating the bulk of the active use �n the site at the southwest cnrner of the property at the intersection of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and South Comet Avenue. The proposed drive-through exits to the two- way drive at the south side of the site along Gulf to Bay Boulevard. A secondary access point is located at the northwest corner of the site but is not expected t� negatively impact the adjacent residential neighborhood. The proposal is largely consistent with this Policy. Ubjeclive A.3.2 - All development or redevelopment initiatives within the City of Clearwater shall meet the minimum landscaping I tree protection standards of the Community Development Code in order to promote the preservation of existing tree canopies, the expansion of that canopy, and the overall quality of development within the City; and Policy A.3.2.1 All new development or redevelopment of property within the City of Clearwater shall meet all landscape requirements of the Communiry Development Code. Community D�vclopmcnt Board January I 5,2013 FLD2012-09016—Page G of 14 � Cl�rwater�I[Fle�able Development Application Review PLANN(NG k DEVELOPMENT DBYELOP�NT REYIEW DIViS10N Gulf to Bay Boulevard is designated as a Primary Scenic Corridor within Section 3-1203 of the CDC and within the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Primary scenic conidors are those roadways expected to have enhanced landscape standards applied to properties along them. Furthermore, Gulf to Bay Boulevard is specifically lisied as a "Corridor to Redevetop" within the Linkages section of the FLUE of the Comprehensive Plan. While the proposal does not provide the required foundation landscaping along the west fa�ade of the building facing South Comet Avenue,the requisite buffer width along the front (south and west) property lines of the site along Gulf to Bay Boulevard and South Comet Avenue, respectively, nor along a portion of the side (east) property line the landscape design is demonstrably better than that as required by the minimum standards of Article 3 Division 12 of the CDC. The minimum buffer landscaping consists of a hedge and one shade tree every 35 feet. As mentioned previously, the proposed landscape ptan provides for a tiered effect along the south and west sides of the site consisting of a mix af groundcovers, tow- to medium-sized shrubs as well as shade, palm and ornamental trees. Therefore, the submittal supports this Objective and Policy. Policy A.S.S.I Development should be designed ta maintain and support the existing or envisioned character of the neighborhood. The proposal provides for a use permitted as a minimum development standard within the C District and a site design generally consistent with other development in the area along Gulf to Bay Boulevard. Specifically, the proposal with regard to landscaping is consistent with other properties which have been subject of Level I and Level II site plan approvals. In addition the site design is consistent with the intent of the development parameters set by the Community Development Code with regard to setbacks and landscaping. These development parameters were specitically created because many azeas of the City were inconsistent with the appeazance and character desired by the citizens of Clearwater as evidenced by the creation and subsequent adoption of the City's current Community Development Code. Therefore, the proposai supports this Policy. (ioal A.6- The City of Clearwater shall utilize innovative and flexible Planning and engineering practices, and urban desiRn standards in Order to protect historic resources, ensure neighborhood Preservation, redevelop blighted areas, and encourage infill Development; and Objective A.6.� - Due to the built-out character of the city of Clearwater, campact urban devefopment within the urban servrce area shall be promoted through apptication of the C'learwater�'nmmuniry 1)evelnnment Cnde; and Policy A.6.4.1 - The devefopment or redevelopmerrt of smuld parcels [less than onc (1) acreJ which are currently receiving an adeguate level of service shatl be specifically encouraged by administration of land development and concurrency management regulatory systems as a method af promoting urban infill. Due to its relativety narrow width the site is challenging to redevelop with a restaurant with a drive-through lane. The continuation of the �xisting use within a new building and with an updated and improved site plan including extensive landscaping is an appropric�te reuse of the site. The proposal, which makes an efficient use of the site while emphasizing enhanced aesthetics (landscaping) and safety (appropriate separation of pedestrian, travel and drive- through lanes), is the sort of project envisioned as an AppropriAte recipient of flexibility from the minimum development parameters as provided by the above Goal, 4bjective and Policy with Communiry Dcvelopment Boai�d January 15,2013 FLD2012-09016-Page 7 of l4 ' Vlbfu nµler Level II Plexiele nt ication Revlew PLANNING lt DEVE[APMENi � � DEVEIOPMENTAEVIkWPIVIStON . .er�-�..t„ , .. . . re�ard lo lhe sice of lhe Site(less than one acre), its location within the urban service area and an attractive, compact redevelopment plan. Therefore, the proposal supports this Goal, Objective and Policy. Community Developmeat Code: The proposat supports the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code as r�linWS: ,�ection 1-tU3.B.1. Allowing property owners to enhance the value of their property through in�ovative arrd cr�ative redevelopment. The size, location and shape of the parcel are sirnilar to other parcels in the area. The proposed restaurant is consistent with the character of the azea along C.iutf to Bay Boulevard with regard to use and the proposal will result in a project consistent with elements of the Comprehensive Plan, as proveded above. The proposed devetopment is similar to the treatment other sites have received in the area vis-�-vis landscaping and other site improvements as mitigation to justify tlexibility from certain the CDC requirements such as buffer width, setbacks and the permitted number of parking spaces in a row. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. Section 1-103.B.2. Ensuring that development and redevelopment will not have a negative impact on the value of surrounding properties and wherever practicable promoting develapment and redevelopment which wr'll enhance the value of surrounding properties. Surrounding properties to the north include attached dweltings. Uses to the east and west include fast-fc>od restaurants, offices and retail sales and service. Clearwater High School is Located farthcr to thc south across Gulf to Bay Boulevard. The proposcd development provides not only for a much greater amount of landscaping than exists but a landscage ptan which provides for an appearance which will be demonstrably better than the minimum otherwise required by the CDC. it is likcly that surroundin� properties will havc their values enhanced. It should bc noted that several other properties in the azea along Guif to Bay Boulevard have incorporated upgrades to their sites such as new facades and landscaping, including sites located at 2094, 1996, 1928, 1916 and 1765 Gulf to Bay Boulevard. The proposal is consistcnt with the level of design(both site and building) as applied to the aforementioned properties and others throughout the City. It is anticipated that the pmpasal will result in a positive impact on those surrounding properties. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. Section 1-103.B.3. Strengthening the city's economy and inereasing its tax base as a whole. The proposal includes the redevelopment of an existing fast-fcx�d restaurant with a new fa5t-foc►d restaurant. The proposat witl be consistent with the character of the area with regard to size, scope and scale as compared with other properties in the neighborhood. While the pmposal is expected to have no net increase in the tax base as a whole the overall result will he the demolition of a dated and absolete buitding and the construGtion of a new rnore attractive building and the provision of landscaping in excess of the intent of the minimum standards of the CDC. [t is largely beyond dispute that the City of Clearwater is largely huilt-out where the primary option for improvement is the redevelopment and/or refurbishing of existing sites and buildings. Improving a property typically results in an increase in its vatue thereby positively contributing to the City's tax base and overall econnmy_ The net result of the prapasal wiil t�e another attractive redevelopment in the community which can only further interest in the improvement of sunounding praperties. 1'herefore,the pmposat supports this Code section. Community Dovelopmcnt Doard January 15,20(3 FLD2012-09016—Page 8 of 14 : Clearwater��;� cadon Review PI.ANNMGdc DEVELOPt�NT oe�e�o�,e�c Ma� ��w��w oN�s�oN �,:,�,,�. .... �.�. ��. _ Sectton 1-103.D. It is the further purpose of thfs Developm�nt Code to make the beauti�icatlon oJ' the city a matter of the highest priority and to reguire that existing and future uses anc!'structures in the city are attractive and we11-maintained to the mazimum extent permitted by law. The praposal includes a new fast-food restaurant with landscape buffers or portions thereof that are less than the otherwise minimum required width. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed building and site plan are rnore attractive than what is cwwrcentty on the site and that the site and landscape plans are better that what would otherwise be required by the CDC. The proposal with regard to site, landscape and building design is consistent with other beautification efforts undertaken, encouraged and installed by the City and private property owners in the City as a whole and along Gulf to Bay Boulevazd specifically. As discussed above, Gulf to Bay Boulevard is a designated Primary Scenic Corridor. While a specific Corridor Plan has not been adapted the intent is clear in that properties along designated Scenic Corridors such as Gulf to Bay Boulevard are expected to provide landscaping at least consistent with the minimum standards set forth by the CDC if not more. The praposal includes a landscape design which is more attractive that that as required by the minimum standards of the CDC with regard to the numbers and arrangements of plant material. As mentioned previously, the proposed landscape plan provides for a tiered effect along the south and west sides of the site cansisting of a mix of groundcovers, law- to medium-sized shrubs as well as shade, palm and ornamental trees. Therefore, the pmposal supports this Code section. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no active Code Compliance cases for the subject property. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The foltowing table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards for restaurant as per CDC Tables 2-701.1 and 2-704: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconaistent Floor Are�Ratio 0.55 0.10 X Irnpervious Surface 0.90 0.62 X Ratio Minimum Lot Area tVA 32,539 square feet(0.75 acres) X Minimum Lot Width NA l00 feet X Minimum SetbACks(feet) Front: South:NA 39 feet to buildingll0 feet ta paving X' West:NA IS fect to building/3 teet to paving X' Sidc: North:NA l49 feet to building/10 fat to paving X East:NA 48 feet to building/1 foot to paving X� MAximum Hei�ht(icet) NA 22 X Minimum NA 8.81 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft.4FA(2$ X� Off-StreN Psrkin aces � See�aralysia in Sta,;(�Report Community Devtlopment Board Ja»ua�y 15,2013 �LD2012-09016—Page 9 of l4 `_ �VRl�WS LCl/QI II FIPJfIWE DEV�Opf11E11t A�IICat10I1 RCVICW PLANNIN(i d�DEVELOPMENT ..rtir+�.�..nu•�.. +a�r a,�� , . . DEVEUOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION CUMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-704.C. (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Froject): Consistent Inconsiatent 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X the use and/or development standards set forih in this aonit�g districf. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X� the Comprehensive Ptan, as wall 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 redevetopment will not impede the normal and orderiy X" development and irnprovement ot surrounding propertics. 4. Adjoining pmperties will nnt suffer suhstantial Aelriment as a result of Ihe propased X� development. �. The proposed use shall otherwise bc permitted by [he underlying fLcure land use X' category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially altcr the essential use charactcristics of'the ncighborhood;and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. 'Che proposed use Is perrnitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use woutd be a significant economic contributor to thc City's economic base by divcrsifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommadates the expansion or redevelopment oF an cxisting economic contributor; d. 'fhe proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an a�ea that is charactenzed 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. 'fhe proposed use provides for thc development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterGont usc. 6. Flexibility with regard to use. lot width. rcquired 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 developrnent and improvement of the surrounding prq�erties&►r uses permined in this zoning district; b. The proposed development rnmpliec with applicable design guidelines adnrterl by the Ciry; c. The design> scale and intensity nf the pmpnsed develwpment �up�rts the established or emerging character of an area; d. In order to form a cnhesive,visualiy interesting and attractive appeamnce, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: ❑ Changes in horizontal building planes; 0 IJse of architectural details such aa columns, cnrnices, stringenurse�, pilasters,porticos,balconies,railings,awnings,etc.; O Variery in materiala,colnra and texturee; O Distinctive fenestration patterns; O Ruilding�tephackc;and 0 Distinctive roofs forms. e. The hmjx►�eA development pmvides for appmpriatr. 6uffers, enhenced landsca desi n and a 'ate distances between buildin . � See amrlysis iro SIa,B'Repor! Community Development Bourd January l 5,2013 F[.D2012-09016—Page l0 of 14 t ��Ivf1�1�►�►4�.1 L.evel II FlexiWer�,,�1,,,,mer►t PLANNINGJcDEVELOPMENT K•��W ��R�� DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION �°�, `,_ COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL APPLICABILITY STAIYDARD5: The following table depicts the consistency of the development pr��sal with the CTeneral Standards far Level One Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A: Consiat�nt Inconsistent l. 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 proposcd dcveloprr�nt will not hinder oc discourage development and use of X adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereot: 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or�nfery of persnns X residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The propuseJ drvetupment i�designed cn minimize traftte congestion. X 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediute vicinity. 6. The design of the proposcd dcvclopment minimizcs advcrsc cffccts, iucluding X visual,acoustic and olfacto and hours of ration im acts on ad'accnt ro ctics. � See m�alysis in Sta,�/'Reporl COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM STANDARDS: The following tab[e depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the C'om�rehensive T,andscape Program as per CDC. Section 3-1202.G: Consiatent Inconsistent 1. Architectural then:e. a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall be designed as a part of the architectural theme of the principal buitdinp,s proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for developmenr,or b. The design, chazacter, tocation and/ar materials of the landscape treatment X proposed in the comprehensive landscape program shall be demonstrably more attractive than landscapinR otherwise perntitted on the parcel proposed for developrnent under the minimum landscape standards 2. f,ighting. Any lighting proposed as a part of a comprehensive landxapc program is X automatically controlled so that the lighting is tumed off when the business is closed. 3. Community characten The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive X landscepe program will enhance the cammunity character of the City of Clearwater. 4. Property values.The Ivndscnpe treutment proposed in the comprehcnsivc landscapc X program will have a beneficial impact on the value of property in the immediate vicinity of the pnrcel proposed for dcvelopmcnt. S. Special area or scenic corridor plan. 'fhe landscape treatment proposed in the NA NA comprehensive landscape program is consistent with any special erea or scenic corridor plan which the City af Clearwater has preparcd and adoptcd for tho area in which the arcel ro sed for develo ment is located. Cummuni�y Deve(upment Board January t S,2013 FLD2012-09Q16—Page l 1 of 14 � \��►�Rl nAlLl Le�l II Flexibk Development Applitddon Review PLANN[NO dc DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION °L�v^��..-`�.� '��c..c�';a a- .. � . SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATI4N: The D�evelopment Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of December 6, 2012, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient, based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: Findings of Fact The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed att 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 0.75 acre site is tocated at the northeast corner of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and South Comet Avenue; 2. That the subject property is located within the Commercial (C) District and the Comrnercial General(CG)Future Land Use Plan category; 3. That the subject property is not located in a special plan area; 4. That the proposal is to construct a restaurrant and is subject to the requisite development parameters per Article 2 Division 7 of the CDC; 5. That the site is currently developed with a restaurant, two single-family dwellings and a retail sales and service establishment; 6. The subject property is comprised of three parcels with approxirnately 100 feet of frontage along Gulf to Bay Boulevard and 280 feet of frontage along South Comet Avenue; 7. The proposal includes a front (west) setback of three feet (to drive-thru lane} and 16 feet (to building), a front (south) setback of 10 feet (to drive-thru lane) and 39 feet (to building), a side (east) setback of one foot (to parking) and 4R.5 feet (to building), a cide {north) setk�ack af 10 feet (to parking and dumpster enclosure) and 149 feet (to building) and 28 parking spaces {8.81 spaces per 1,000 square feet of Gross Floor Area); 8. A &ont(south) landscape buffer of 10 feet (to drive-thru lane}, a side (east) landscape buffer of one foot, up to 11 parking spaces in a row without a landscape island and no foundation plantings along the front(west)fa�ade of the proposed building;and 9. There are no active Code Compliance ca.ses for the subject pr�perty. Conclusions of Law The Planning and Development Department, having made the al�c�ve findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law: l. 'I'hat the development proposal is consistent with the pattern of development of the surrounding neightx�rh�d; 2. That the proposal is consistent with applicable portions of the Comprehensive Plan including Future Land Use Ptan Element Goal A.6, Objectives A.3.2 and A.6.4 and Policies A.2.2.3, � A.3.2.1,A.5.5.1 and A.6.4.1; -• 3. That the propasal consistent with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of the Community Development Code Sections 1-103.B.1 —3 and D; 4. That the devel�pment pro�sal is inconsistent with the Standards as per Table 2-702 of the Community Development Code with regard to setbacks to building and pavement and the number of parking spaces; 5. That the develc�pment propasal is cansistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Sectian 2- 704.0 of the Community Development Code; Communiry Development Board January 1 S,2013 FLD2012-09016—Page 12 of 14 ^_ W1�f�i n�all.l Level II Flexible IY1211t b0f1 RCVIeW PLANNMG k DEVELOPMENT �bP � DEVELOPAfEN'f RF.YIEW D1VIS10N � .... .. ... xre.,e,a;.. .�._�. . . 6. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level �ne Approvals as per Section 3-914.A of the Community Development Code; and 7. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria for a Comprehensive Landscape Program CDC Sectian 3-1202.G. Based upon the above,the Planning and Development Department recommends APPROVAL of the Flexible Development application to permit a fast-food restaurant with a height of 22 feet, a front (west) sethack of three feet (to drive-thru lane) and 16 feet (to buiiding), a front (south) setback of 10 feet (to drive-thru lane) and 34 feet(to building), a side (east) setback of one foot (to parking)and 48.5 feet(to building), a side(north)setback of 10 feet(to parking and dumpster enclosure) and 149 feet(to building)and 28 pazking spaces (8.81 spaces per 1,0(}0 square feet of Gross Floor Area) in the Commercial District (C) as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-704.C. and to reduce the front(west) tandscape buffer from 10 feet to three feet(to drive-thru lane}, reduce the front (south) landscape buffer from 15 feet to 10 feet(to drive-thru lane), reduce the side (east) tandscape buffer from five feet to one foot, increase the number of parking spaces in a row from 10 spaces to 11 spaces and eliminate the required foundation plantings along the front (west) fa�ade of the proposed building as part af a Comprehensive C,andscape Program under the provisians of 3-1202.G subject to the following conditions: Conditions of A�provaL• General/Miscellaneous Conditions 1. That the tlnal design and color of the building be consistent with the elevati�ns appmved by the CDB; 2. That, should the fence along the north property line be removed or destroyed, a solid fence six feet in height (within the limitations of the CDC) be installed along the north side of the subject site except in the case of a letter of opposition by the property owner of that adjoining property to the north; 3. That all signage be reviewed and approved pursuant to the City's sign ordinance and that the maximum square footage of any &eestanding signs be limited to the minimum permitted by the CDC with regard to area, height and number without the oppartunity to apply for a Comprehensive Sign Program; 4. That issuance of a development permit by the City of Clearwater does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and dnes not create any liability nn the part af the City for issuance af the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal ►aw; 5. T'hat all other applicable local, state andlor federal permits he c�htained liefore commencement of the development; Timing C.'nnditinns 6. That application for a building permit be submitted no later than January 15, 2014, unless time extensions are granted pursuant to CDC Section 4-407; 7. That prior ta the issuance of any building permits, the Fire Department may require the provision of a Water Study performed by a Fire Protection Engineer in order to ensure that an adequate water supply is avai(able and to determine if any upgrades are nequired by the Community Dcvelopmcnt Board]anuary l 5,2013 F[,D2012-�016—Page 13 of l4 : \�JlvNa R�l�,i Levt!II He�dble Devebpment Ap�ication R�eview PLANNiNG d DEVEI.OPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVfEW DIVISION u� .: Xa : . .. . developer due to the impact of the project. The water supply must be able to support the needs of any required itre sprinkler, standpipe and/or fire pump. If a fire pump is required, then the water supply must be able to supply l50 percent of its rated capacity; 8. That a Unity of Title and evidence of filing of same with the Pinellas County Clerk of the Court be submitted to Staff prior to the issuance of any permits; 9. That prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy that all required Transportation [mpact Fees be paid; 10. That prior to the issuance of any building permits the lacation and visibility of electric equipment (electric panels, baxes and meters) be reviewed and, if located exterior to the building where visible from any street frontage, be shown to be painted the same color as the portion of the building to which such features are attached; 11. That prior to the issuance of any permits a final landscape plan which cleazly shows all underground utilities on and adjacent to the site be submitted to and approved by Staff; 12. That Frior to the issuance of any permits a final landscape plan which includes an interior green space sheet which clearly indicates all azeas included as counting towards the interior green space requirements of the CDC be submitted to and approved by Staff; 13. That prior to the issuance of any permits, any appticable Public Art and Design Program Impact Fees t�e paid; 14. That prior to the issuance of any permits, any applicable Pazks and Recreation impact fees be paid; t S. That prior to the issuance of any permits all sub-standard sidewalks and sidewalk ramps adjacent to or a part of the project shail be shown on plans to be improved to meet the requirement of Local, State and/or Federal standards including A_n.A. requirements (truncated domes per FDOT Index#304}; and 16. That prior to the issuance of any permit, all requirements of the Generat Engineering, Traffic Engineering and Fire Departments be addressed. Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff %�� --�-�'"��_ Mazk T. Parry,AICP, Planner III A'fTAC[IMGN'CS: Gxisting Surrounding Uses Map and Photographs Community Dcvclopmcnt Board January 15,2013 FLD2012-09016—Page 14 of 14 MARK T. PARRY 1655 Linwood Drive Tei: (727)742.2461 Ciesirvva�sr, FL 33755 E-mail: rnparrya�Dtampabsiy.rr.com SUMMARY OF QUAL/F/CATIONS A dedicated, AICP certified p�ofessional Pl�nner focused an contributin$ to the field o� Urban Planning experienced in public and private sedor planning. An excellent communicator, able to effectively interact with clients, local government officials and business professionals at all leve�s. Experienced in variaus aspects of urban design and planning,zoning regulations and permitting. OBJECT/VE To secure a Planning position which will allow me to continue improving the bui� environment and my cammunity through svund and innovative planning and design principals. EDUCAT►ON COOK COLLEGE, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY, New 8runswick, NJ B.S. Landscape Architecture Major, Urban Planning Certification B.S. Environmental Planning and Design Certiflcate Urban Planning Golden Key National Honor Society; Sigma Lambda Alpha American Plannfng Association(Florida Chapter); member AICP#U20597 40-hour OSHA (Hazwoper) Training EXPERIENCE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, CITY OF CIEARWATER 04/12- Present 08/98-04/05 Lead Planner; Senior Planne�/Acting Development Review Manager . Responsible for nonresidential and single/multi-family site plan reuiew and permitting. • Assist in the implementation and subsequent review of the Community Development Code. . Responsible for assessing and writing Community Development Code amendments. . Land Devebpment Code de�elopment, interpretation and application. • Provide, inspect and direct landscape review/design. • Acting Development Review Maneger 9/99-11/99 and 01/05-03/05. • Manage and direct Associate Planners. • Review, proc�ss and present variancQ/conditional use, land use/zoning atlas amendment and annexation applications at in-house and public review meetings. . Principle Planner in creating and implementing Clearvvater's Downtown Design Guidelines. Assisted in the implementabon and application of the Clearvvater powntown Redevelopment Plan. DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRO�NMENTAL SERVICES, CARDNO TBE 04/05-04/12 Senior Planner � Planner of record fo�Cities of Indian Rocks Beach, Seminole and Clearwater and Town of Belleair. . Responsible for nonresidential and singlelmulti-family site plan review and permitting. . Perform site design and inspecdons. . Provide tech�ical planning support for engineering department. • Provide support for Zoning Code, Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Land Use Plan amendments. • Research and write Evatuation and Appraisal Reports. • Create and update&pecial Area Plans/Form-based Codes. • Provide CADD support. • Assist with creating redevelopment marketing material. • Perform technical environmental services including soil and groundwate�sampling. GREENSCAPES-GLD, MARLBORO, NJ 9/92—6/98 Designer/Owner . Founded and established a local garden and landscape business. • Plan and oversee installation of commercial and residential landscaping projects utilizing a va�iety of CADD and photo-manipulation programs. • Develop and imp�ement advertising programs, brochures and graphics • Estimate, bid and negotiate jobs. • Source and negotiate purchase of materials and equipment. � Manage, train and schedule installation crews. LONGSTREET FARM, MONMOUTH COUNTY PARK SYSTEM, HOLMDEL, NJ 6/87-8/93 Program Supervisor • Assisted in forrnulating and running children's summer program("Hayseed"). • Created and coordinated daify pragrams and schedules for 6-9 year old groups. • Supervised several othe�programs throughout the year. • Created a demand which was iwice the program's capacity after the first year. COMPUTER SK/LLS Access, Microsoft Office, Microsoft Works, ClarisWorks, MS Word, Land Designer Pro, Permit Plan, Excel, Cornerstone,AutoCADD, PowerPoint, Publisher I � � i 1 � � � _ �. � 1 r '� 3 a� � � j ��► �:: � _- __ . . ..�' � ._ ,��,, e�r �r�� -� �� , ` . . ��"�1" '�c � -•----- �-�� ' _ . . t,;�;";; _ ,..F_� ;;,: ,� . �,. - �"` _,,�.. • ,;��-. . ... � i -�. , � � ,. _ . __ � � 3 ; �'ii��ul norih p�u[cl l�_�uhiu��:»t i��u , : ��n,c� � i ,M.. ,, .,�ve, � _ � .,n� _h.� k 1 � � � �1, •.=��, u. `� � �� `� �L � *_ � .� �. . . . � _.._ � , __ ------.�.� �.�� ,� � � �1 __ � . ._. _--- . �., __ . I.00king NW from Gulf to[iay. I �,�,kin� S I�um th4?14V cnr�r i�l �hc,uulh F��urrl ,. . � � � , ... .,.�, �.,,r • _ <„ ; �__ ' i� � . _,.__... - t: � �` _"_- � t�sxi� _:F � f� t' . , .�,� �` �; _ . _� , ._ _ . . , � 1�NfI�, �► �:w;-:�_a�h.,.�e. ''!"��X .. � E�'� :.�. .�-�. . . - -_— � _� , . , � � . •. ' �_ _ t ...,. �� . , i ��.�t,in� �ti11� Fr�un `il��u n�r.,f,it�� I �,eikin�� I� IY�un ihr•\t4 cnmcr�il ti f'�i�nrl :nul(�nll�n R;�c 1960 Gulf to Bay Boulevsrd FLD2012-09016 71 216 y1 211 ?f 20! r 209 tt tl » � tt 11 tt it � 11 , A ,� a ,z ,D Ll NG 12� a,z 12� HED 12 � � a F F w w ,. �W EL NG RAINBOW DR RAINBOW DR w-F� g � -- — F � 'x d w��v°. �-r.�. � � i0 � � ° ZOf .i to 301 � � � t 1 8 302 i•l � - - - L - - 8 0 L p� 2 A �s � s A � — 2 g — W �oa �o s J W sos ,o ati � � , ; � � �: � 3� � ; 111 8 � 3� W 3 V �i � � 4 at w r V /+ �ot � � W 4� 0 �3 � qj �f �Q �vE �2 � � q� �♦ � fq � � S Q � � 102 e O �+ g C� IOb O �( � R� h � y .o� 5 Z s' � � �°' s � �iit S10 409 4f0 �if � h � � � ,smx � R � �� .� ,,,� � z.� S� R� � �^ � «� � ot � � ATIO p � � GULF-TO-BAY BLVD GULF-TO-BAY BLVD + � q 0 �A �� w �� S'� SCHOOL � C� r � �� , , Z 3 ,, - r � I $ I 12 � 11 10 � 9 � � � w � � b $ � .__ .__..____ ..___ s:s sas EXIST►NG COIVDlTIOIVS Owners: HADDA FLORIDA REALTY, LLC. Case: FLD2012-09016 ------_�._, ____ _--__ __ ._--------- Site: 1960 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Property Size: 0.747 acre site PIN: 13/29/15/00000/24Q/OSOfJ Atias Page: 289A-------- -------.____--- 13/29/15/82494/002/0050 13/29/15/82494/002/0051 i ; , � � � .. . .. - . �.:.. �: > ..»...�«...-.«- .-.--.•----�.-. ..x..�. Architecture—Engineenng—Land Surveying-Interiors December 6, 2012 City of Clearwater Planning&Development Department Attn: Mark Parry PO Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 33758-4748 RE: Case Number: FLD2012-09016 1960 GiJLF TO BAY BLVD(409&407 Comet Avenue) KFC REDESIGN Engineering Review—Prior to Community Development Board 1. As per Community Development Code section 3-1909, Easements, Section D,no permanent structures shall be located in an easement. Please show the existing easements on the plans. to verify that all construction will be located outside of the easements. If the easements shall be vacated,then please state this in writing. Al[easements are shown on the revised survey, no structures are shown within the easements. 2. As per Community Development Code Section 3-1908.B-Utilities, Generally; all utility facilities existing and proposed throughout the property served or to be served shall be shown on the construction improvement plans. Please show the existing and/or proposed water and sanitary sewer pipes on the plans. The existing above ground utilities are now shown on the revised survey and the master utility plan, sheet no. C4. 3. As per Community Development Code Section 3-1202,D.2 Perimeter buffers, front slopes of stormwater retention areas may comprise up to 50 percent of any required landscape buffer width,provided that the slope is 4:1 or flatter and all required shrub plantings are not more than six inches below the top of the bank and provided that the buffer width is at least five fees in width. Please provide more information on the landscaping in the proposed storm detention area. Please refer to the revised landscape and civil plans. SW Florida '� Central Florida 21430 Palm Beach Blvd. 2572 W. State Road 426 Alva,FL 33920 ��` Suite 2064 Oviedo,FL 32765 Ph:(239)693-9244 ��- Ph:(321)244-0402 Fax:(239)693-9828 � � �� Fax:(321)244-9419 , �,� - _�:' LIS-Engineering,LL.0 Haddad Florida Realty LLC FLD2012-09016—1960 GULF TO BAY BLVD> KFC09 Page 2 of 14 Engineering Review—Prior to Building Permit: 1. Applicant shall bring all sub-standard sidewalks and sidewalk ramps adjacent to or a part of the project up to standard, including ADA standards(raised detectable tactile surfaces or truncated domes per FDOT Index#304) All sidewalks abutting the site will be either new or removed and replaced These sidewalks will meet all ADA requirements and detectable warnings are now also provided. 2. Prior to any demolition,the following notes shall be included on the plans: -All utilities shall be cut and capped prior to demolition. The wastewater Supervisor shall be notified. -All existing utilities shall be protected during demolition. -Demolition shall not cause any service interruptions for other utility customers. -Water meters, double-detector checks and backflow preventers are owned by the City of Clearwater. The City shall remove and retain these items. These notes have been added to the demolition and master utility plans,sheet no's. CI and C4. 3. Contact Rob Powers(phone 727-642-6660x227)in industrial pretreatment for details and proper sizing of grease traps, if necessary. This shall be coordinated with Mn Powers at the time of building permitting. Engineering Review—Prior to Certificate of Occupancy: 1. The owner shall submit one set of as-built drawings signed and sealed by a State of Florida Registered Professional Engineer for the installation of all water, sanitary sewer, and storm structures installed at the site. These drawings shall be sent to the Engineering Department, Municipal Services Building 100 South Myrtle Avenue,Room 220. The City inspector will field verify the submitted as-builts for accuracy. Once the Owner has a set of City approved as-builts,the Owner shall provide a total of five sets of as-builts to the City and a Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued. This is now noted on sheet no. C2. Engineering Review -General Note: 1. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review. Additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. This is so noted. Environmental Review -General Note(s): 1. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review. Additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. This is so noted. LIS-Engineering,LLC Haddad Florida Realry LLC FLD2012-09016—1960 GULF TO BAY BLVD> KFC09 Page 3 of 14 Fire Review: 1. Plan show dumpster,what is the relationship between dumpster and structure(s)to the North and East must meet the requirements of NFPA-a 2009 Edition Chapter 19 19.2.1.4 Rubbish within Dumpsters. Dumpsters and containers with an individual capacity of 1.Syd3 [40.5 ft3 (1.15 m3)) or more shall not be stored in buildings or placed within 10 ft (3 m) of combustible walls,openings,or combustible roof eave lines, it appears that these structures are to be razed. Provide Clarity. ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO C.D.B. The dumpster enclosure is located to the rear of the property in a CMU enclosure, which shall have stucco and paint to match the building. This is noted on sheet no. C2. 2. Plan shows Exterior Finish Schedule,must meet the requirements of Florida Fire Prevention Code and City Ordinance 4138-86 All non-residential properties must have an address and number must be at least 6 (six)inches in height(contrasting colors)not shown on plan. ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO C.D.B. This is now noted on the revised elevations. Land Resource Review: 1. DRC Review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review. Additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. This is so noted. 2. The trees on the site plan have not been graded by a Certified Arborist. Until the trees are graded a tree deficit cannot be calculated. Refer to attached arborist report. The grading system utilized for trees is for nursery stock only. No actual numerical grading system (ie:Florida#I) is utilized for existing trees. The one lone canopy tree scheduled for removal has been damaged and is in poor condition per the arborist report 3. There are no root prune limits shown on the plan. Root pruning limits are now shown on the revised landscape plans and match the civil plans, sheet no. C3. 4. The tree barricades depicted on the site plans do not meet the City of Clearwater minimum standards for tree protection. The City's standards for tree protection have been added to the plans. 5. Hay bales are not an acceptable method of erosion control. The revised erosion control plan reflects synthetic hay bales. 6. Retention pond bordering the North-East perimeter of the site needs to be redesigned so the top of bank is at 2/3 the drip line of the tree bordering the pond to the east. LIS-Engineering,LLC Haddad Florida Realty LLC FLD2012-09016—1960 GULF TO BAY BLVD> KFC09 Page 4 of 14 The detention pond in this area has been revised,please see sheet no. C3. 7. Trees on the adjacent property along the South-West property line need to be considered when designing the curbline. If replacing the curb extruded pin curb must be used. No curb is proposed abutting the southeast property line. Planning Review—Site Plan and Application Comments 1. The stated request is incorrect. Please update the application with the following request: Flexible Development application to permit a fast food restaurant with a height of 22 feet, a front(west)setback of three feet(to drive-thru lane) and 16 feet(to buildinp,J, a front(south) setback of IO feet(to drive-thru lane)and 39 feet(to buildin�, a side(east)setback of one foot(to parkin�and 48.S feet(to building�, a side (north)setback of IO feet(to parking and dumpster enclosure)and 149 feet(to buildin�and 28 parking spaces (8.81 spaces per 1,000 square fees of Gross Floor Area) in the Commercial District(C) as a Comprehensive Infill redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-704.C. and reduce the front(west)landscape buffer from 10 feet to 3 feet(to drive- thru lane)reduce the side(east) landscape buffer from five feet to one foot, reduce the interior landscape area from 10 percent(1,682 square feet) of the vehicular use area to 4.10 percent(690 square feet), increase the number of parking spaces in a row from 10 spaces to 11 spaces and eliminate the required foundation plantings along the front(west)fa�ade of the proposed building as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of 3-1202.G. The request has been revised accordingly. - • 2. Clarify the species of all indicated off-site trees. � Off site tree species are now indicated on the revised landscape plans. 3. Clarify the amount of vehicular use space and the amount of interior landscape space. The application states that there is 16,189 square feet of vehicular use space and 500 square feet of green space provided within the vehicular use area where Sheet L-1 provides that there is 14,915 square feet of vehicular use area and 4,900 square feet of interior green space provided. Please note that interior green space must be surrounded by vehicular use area on at least three sides and that buffer landscaping does not count towards the interior landscape area. Vehicular space has been coordinated. 4. Clarify the height and type of fence proposed along the east side of the site. Please keep in mind that any fencing which extends beyond the front fa�ade of the building cannot exceed three feet in height. The fence is existing and is just north of the property line. This is a 6'high wood fence. LIS-Engineering,LLC Haddad Florida Realty LLC FLD2012-09016—1960 GULF TO BAY BLVD> KFC09 Page 5 of 14 5. A Unity of Title is required prior to the issuance of any permits. A Unity of Title shall be provided prior to permit issuance. 6. Clarify how mechanical equipment will be placed and screened on the site. Mechanical equipment shall be roof top units and shall be screened with a roof parapet. 7. Provide required sight visibility triangles on the site plan(sheet C2) Site visibility triangles have been added to sheet number C2. 8. Clarify that adjacent utilities are currently underground. If there are any aboveground utilities they will need to be placed underground with this proposaL All existing above ground utilities are now shown,below ground locations are also identified.All proposed utilities shall be underground. 9. Clarify how the dumpster will be screened. Include details such as material,color, fit, and finish. The dumpsters shall be screened with a CMU enclosure that shall have stucco and paint to match the existing building. 10. Christmas palms are not a one to one substitute for shade trees and are not reliably cold hardy in this area and are unacceptable within any required landscape area. Species have been changed on the landscape plans. 11. Please include all underground utilities on the landscape plan. Utilities have been shown on the landscape plans. 12. Little gem magnolias are considered ornamental trees and may substitute for shade trees at a two for one ratio. Species have been changed on the landscape plans. 13. The total number of trees required on the site is 33. Four trees along the north,two along the south,nine along the east and seven along the west. Up to 25 percent(eight)may be ornamental trees. A two for one ratio that would be 16 ornamental trees may replace eight shade trees. In addition up to 25 percent of the shade trees may be replaced with palm trees at a ratio of three for one. That would be eight shade trees replaced with 24 palm trees. What has been shown(at the appropriate ratios) is 2.3 trees along the north, one along the south, 7.5 along the east and 3.5 along the west. The landscape plans are short the requisite number of trees. LIS-Engineering,LLC Haddad Florida Realty LLC FLD2012-09016—1960 GULF TO BAY BLVD> KFC09 Page 6 of 14 Species have been changed on the landscape plans and appropriate ratios have been uti[ized to exceed the overall tree requirements. In addition, additional comments made by the City via email correspondence have been incorporated into the plans. 14. Please be aware that the attached signage shown on the elevations doe not meet the requirements of Code and will specifically be addressed by Planning Staff as such and will not be included as part of any approval which may or may not be forthcoming as a result of this application. In other words, should the site plan be approved,unless the signage is specifically requested to be approved as party of an accompanying Gomprehensive Sign Program, any signage shown will be considered as for illustrative purposes only and that in no way should any shown signage be considered as approved by the City. In addition,the proposed free standing sign does not meet the required five foot setback. It is understood that the sign will require a separate permit;however, the approximate location on the site plan has been revised to reflect the S'setback. 15. Please ensure that all elevations are labeled with the appropriate cardinal direction(north, south, east, and west)rather than front,rear,right, and left. All building elevations now reflect the directions. 16. As a point of historical interest,Pinellas County split from Hillsborough County in January 1, 1912. The area map on the coversheet should probably be updated to indicate the current extents of Pinellas County and include the corrected name. The cover sheet has been revised accordingly. Planning Review—General Applicability Criteria Comments � 17. Criterion 1 —the response includes the statement that the removal of the structure on Comet will increase lot size. I think what was meant was that the removal of all structures on the original KFC site as well as the two adjacent properties to the north and by joining them with the original parcel through a Unity of title. The total lot area was increased from original single lot to include the two adjacent northerly residential lots with the existing houses to be demolished and the land area to be utilized for additional parking and stormwater management. 18. Criterion 2—Clarify what elements of the proposal will specifically increase the value of adj acent properties. The value of adjacent properties along Gulf to Bay Blvd will be improved overall by the increased aesthetics of the redeveloped site and new building architecture. The nearby residential properties will recognize same as above but with the additional enjoyment of less residential density on the street and more open space on the converted lots to commercial. There is one commercial property located on the residential street which will also enjoy all of the above which will increase property values all around and LIS-Engineering,LLC Haddad Florida Realty LL,C FLD2012-090]6—1960 GULF TO BAY BLVD> KFC09 Page 7 of 14 at the same time redirected traffic to defined access points will�also benefit all surrounding properties. 19. Criterion 3—No Comments 20. Criterion 4—No Comments 21. Criterion 5—The statement that the proposal would be seamless with any community character is probably sweeping. Perhaps clarify how specific elements of the proposal are consistent with this community's character. The value of adjacent properties along Gulf to Bay Blvd will be improved overall by the increased aesthetics of the redeveloped site and new building architecture. The nearby residential properties will recognize same as above but with the additional enjoyment of less residential density on the street and more open space on the converted [ots to commercial. New landscaping and planted buffers make the redevelopment blend into the surroundings and reduce noise and light transmissions offsite. There is one commercial property located on the residential street which will also enjoy all of the above which will increase property values all around and at the same time redirected traffic to defined access points will also benefit all surrounding properties. 22. Criterion 6—It is suggest that it should be pointed out that the restaurant use is separated from the residential uses to the north by the proposed parking area thereby minimizing any operation conflicts between the two types of uses(residential and non-residential). The redevelopment of and existing restaurant to same use with site expansion to address current land use regulations is a substantial benefit in itself to the community as a whole and more particularly to the adjacent properties both residential and commercial. The nearby residential properties will recognize same as above but with the additional enjoyment of less residential density on the street and more open space on the converted lots since the restaurant use is separated from the residential uses to the north by the proposed parking area thereby minimizing any operation conflicts between the trvo types of uses (residential and non-residential). New landscaping and planted buffers make the redevelopment blend into the surroundings and reduce noise and light transmissions offsite. There is one commercial property located on the residential street which will also enjoy all of the above which will increase properry values all around and at the same time redirected traffic to defined access points will also benefit all surrounding properties. Residential density on the street and more open space on the converted lots to commercial. There is one commercial property located on the residential street which will also enjoy all of the above which will increase property values all around and at the same time redirected traffic to defcned access points will also benefit all surrounding properties. i L[S-Engineering LLC Haddad Florida Realty LLC FLD2012-09016—1960 GULF TO BAY BLVD> KFC09 Page 8 of 14 Planning Review—Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project(CIRP)Criteria Comments 23. Criterion 1 —Although the submittal includes a succinct outline of the proposal, it does not clarify why the requested variations from code are necessary in order to redevelop the site. Response: This site has increased in size through land aggregation conversion from residential to commercial use by acquiring two residential homesites in the Commercial General /Commercial districts and converting to conzmercial use with no additional increase in commercial floor area in this redeveloped restaurant site. Though land area has increased, the restrictive net developable area after providing efficient parking and stormwater treatment requires some leeway in the variances are required to complete the redevelopment of same net area restaurant by providing new building architecture and updated site design. Previous design provided no landscape buffers on rear and side of property, just a fence. Elimination of the fence did not in and of itself provide the required width for code compliant buffers. Parking design is most efficient of pavement when trvo parking modules can utilize a single backout aisle as proposed. The overall length of the parking modules plus landscaping buffers and turning radius requires some reduction. The existing parking and drive-thru window do not provide the stacking and parking spaces now required by code. Even with the substantial increase in land aggregation and no increase to building size the number of stacking and parking spaces are less than code, but adequate to serve based upon the parking study provided. A uniry of title of all parcels and the updated site design for this similar sized restaurant will be of great benefit on this scenic corridor which has been blighted by outdated building and site layout. 24. Criterion 2—It may be worthwhile to provide any pertinent examples from the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the City Comprehensive Plan which support the requested variations from the Code. See attached response to this item 25. Criterion 3—The statement that the proposal meets current codes is inaccurate in that a variety of variations from the code are integral to the reason for the submitted Flexible Development Application. This criterion should be reexamined. Response: This project is an infill redevelopment with land aggregation conversion from residential to commercial use along a scenic corridor in a blighted commercial area with no increase in floor area of an existing restaurant use. This redevelopment with land aggregation of two existing residential homes being demolished and land utilized for parking and open space in the commercial use will reduce the total impacts from pre- redevelopment rates due to elimination of the two single family units and no net increase LIS-Engineering,LLC Haddad Florida Realry LLC FLD2012-09016—1960 GULF TO BAY BLVD> KFC09 Page 9 of 14 from replacement of existing restaurant building with new restaurant building of same existing floor area. This project "will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties". This project is leading the way for orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties". 26. Criterion 4—Clarify how the variations from Code and the proposal as a whole will not be detrimental to adjoining properties. The statement provided which discusses the increase in land area does not really address this. The statement also mentions the relocation of access points. Clarify how this will constitute an improvement to the current site configuration. Response: This project is an infill redevelopment with land aggregation conversion fro�n residential to commercial use along a scenic corridor in a blighted commercial area with no increase in floor area of an existing restaurant use. This redevelopment with land aggregation of two existing residential homes being demolished and land utilized for parking and open space in the commercial use will reduce the total impacts from pre- redevelopment rates due to elimination of the two single family units and no net increase from replacement of existing restaurant building with new restaurant building of same existing floor area. Therefore, "Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development'; they will benefit from the redevelopment and improvement of the commercial property by increased land valuations, landscaping, additional stormwater attenuation and pre-treatment, on right-of-way parking spaces eliminated, and traffic access points relocated to be code compliant. 27. Criterion 5—If an increase in jobs is expected clarify how many jobs. The proposed use is same as existing use and could possibly create an additional job thru increased business activity expected due to new building 3%increase in size but much more efficient interior layouz No projection is stated, but was offered as a possibility. � 28. Criterion 6—The proposal,as mentioned above,does not meet Code and that statement is inaccurate and should be removed. There are no design guidelines adopted for this area of the City so subsection"b"is not applicable. For subsection"c"clarify how the proposal specifically supports the emerging character of the area keeping in mind that the intent of the code is to bring new development and redevelopment into compliance with all applicable portions of the Code. For subsection"e"clarify exactly how the proposed landscaping is otherwise better than the landscaping otherwise required by Code. The proposed development meets with the intent of the redevelopment codes through the use of extensive landscaping, architectural, signage unification and safety improvements which meet or exceed, except for horizontal buffer widths, current codes. For landscape clarification, refer to Criterion I and 3 below Planning Review—Comprehensive Landscape Program Criteria Comments 29. Criterion 1 —Clarify how the proposed landscaping supports the architecture of the building OR clarify how the proposed landscaping is better than that required by Code. Addressing this criterion by stating that the proposed landscaping exceed the minimum required except LIS-Engineering,LLC Haddad Florida Realty LLC FLD2012-09016—1960 GULF TO BAY BLVD> KFC09 Page 10 of 14 for the deviations to three out of the four buffers,quantities of plant material, foundation landscaping and amount of interior landscaping does not appear to fully support the request. The proposed landscape plans provide for a cohesive landscape design compatible with the building architecture while meeting or exceeding the quantitative numbers of buffer plantings and tree canopy requirements within the constraints of a redevelopment project. The plantings highlight the appropriate architectural elements without conflicting with signage, while providing safe visibility for crime prevention through environmental design. The plans provide for a unified streetscape including areas within the Comet Avenue right of way at no cost to the City for future maintenance and utilize the City's signature shrubs. 30. Criterion 2—No Comments 31. Criterion 3 - Stating that the proposal requires landscaping where none or little exists does not really address this criterion. Clarify how the proposed landscape plan will enhance the community character. Discuss how the landscaping proposed is better that that as otherwise required by Code. For example,the Code requires, along Gulf to Bay Boulevard,a landscape buffer of 15 feet in width with a contiguous hedge and one canopy tree every 35 feet. If the proposal includes a landscape buffer 10 feet in width perhaps the landscape plan will include not only a contiguous hedge and one canopy tree every 35 feet but lower shrubs and ground cover providing an attractive tiered effect along the street which would be more attractive than a simple hedge. The proposed landscape plan provides quantities at or above the tree and hedge requirements of the code, within the constraints of a redeve[opment projec� The Code does not recognize groundcovers or accent shrubs as an integral part of a landscape design. The proposed plan utilizes groundcovers and accent shrubs/palms to provide a diversity of species along with a layered appearance that enhances the aesthetics of the landscaping well beyond the linear engineered appearance of a hedge only landscape plan. This layering continues into the CometAvenue right of way, which further enhances the streetscape appearance of Comet Avenue. The turf areas of the site have been limited to the water management areas only. The landscape plan has taken into consideration the existing canopy trees both on and off site in the overall design of the project. Species have been selected based on both code requirements and future growth habits within each planting area thereby providing for a sustainable landscape. Low volume drip irrigation has been incorporated into the project. 32. Criterion 4—Clarify how the landscaping will be better than that otherwise required. Simply stating that comprehensive signage and landscaping will be provided does not really say anything. The proposed landscaping expands on the minimum linear code requirements of 1 tree per 25 lf and a continuous hedge. Refer to comments for Criterion 3 above. 33. Criterion 5—This actually not applicable as the City does not have a Scenic Corridor in place for this area. L15-Engineering,LLC Haddad Florida Realty LLC FLD2012-09016—1960 GULF TO BAY BLVD> KFC09 Page 11 of 14 Planning Review—Parking Demand Study Review 34. The adjacent properties to the north include two single-family dwellings and a closed retail establishment(Florist). The parking demand study should reflect all existing or recent uses. This will probably add support to an argument in favor of a parking reduction. It may end up showing that the proposal will result in less parking than that of all the uses on all three parcels. The parking demand study has been revised accordingly. Solid Waste Review A double enclosure will be required for this location 24'x10' and up to specifications. A double CMU dumpster enclosure(IO'x24'), that shall have stucco and paint to match the building is now included.Please see sheet no. C2 and C6. Stormwater Review: The following shall be addressed prior to Community Development Board: 1. It appeared that portion of the existing KFC site sheet flows to Gulf to Bay right-of-way. However,proposed design shows all runoff from the site routed to Comet Ave. Please demonstrate that post development flow rate to Comet Ave. is no more than pre development flow rate. Please refer to the attached drainage calculations. 2. Please utilize City of Clearwater's Stormwater Criteria located at: http://www.myclearwater. com/�ov/depts/pwa/en�in/StormwaterM�t/StomDrainageDesipnCriteria.as�. To design the storm water management system. A meeting with the reviewer can be arranged, if needed. Please refer to the revised sheet no. C3 and the attached drainage calculations. 3. Need additiona135' topography beyond property lines. Delineate off-site basins that drain onto subject site and determine the bypass drainage swale accordingly to route offsite runoff to the right-of-way properly. Additional survey work is in process and shall be provided shortly. 4. Private storm pipe and structures connecting S-1 and S-3 shall not be located in the City's right-of-way. These structures have been removed. 5. Cross sections shall be drawn to scale both horizontal and verticaL All cross sections have a 1"=3'scale in both the horizontal and vertical plans. 6. Provide drainage calculations for water quality and quantity meeting City's of Clearwater criteria. The drainage calculations are attached. � LIS-Engineering,LLC Haddad Florida Realty LLC FLD2012-09016—1960 GULF TO BAY BLVD> ICFC09 Page 12 of 14 7. Per City's retrofit requirement, existing impervious areas are only given '/2 credit when undergone redevelopment. This is so noted. 8. Submit stage and storage table showing ponds have sufficient capacity. A stage/storage table is included in the drawing calculations. 9. Provide cross sections for all ponds and slope of proposed pipes and trench drains. All detention areas and pipe elevations are noted on the revised plans. 10. Ponds shall: a. Be designed for 50-year event(if control structures do not tie into a storm sewer system). The proposed storm sewer does tie into an existing storm sewer system. b. Have 6"vertical clearance between SHWT and pond bottom. I have estimated the SHWT to be at least S'below the existing grade due to the grades sloping dramatically to the wes� c. Have 6"freeboard(between top of control structure and top of bank) A 6"freeboard is nowprovided. d. Draw down the entire water quality by attenuation voluxne within 24 hours or less based on geotechnical double ring infiltormeter test. The storm-water systefn is designed as a detention system.A geotechnical investigation is on going and should be completed shortly. e. Be designed to have side slope no steeper than 4:1. All side slopes are now shown as 4:l maximum. 11. Submit soil report,double ring test, and established SHQT evaluation. The double ring infiltrator test is attached. 12. As per Community Development Code Section 3-1202,D.2 Perimeter Buffers, front slopes of stormwater retention areas may comprise up to 50 percent of any required landscape buffer width,provided that the slope is 4:1 or flatter and all required shrub plantings are not more than six inches below the top of the bank and provided that the buffer width is at least LIS-Engineering,LLC Haddad Florida Realty LLC FLD2012-09016—1960 GULF TO BAY BLVD> KFC09 Page 13 of 14 five feet in width. Revised landscaping plans within the proposed stormwater detention areas shall meet the above requirements. The revised plans now comply with this requiremen� The following shall be addressed prior to Building Permit: 1. Show how the southwest detention area connects to the 32 LF trench drain? Please refer to the revised sheet no. C3. 2. Sheet CS shows details of existing outfall structure. Is there an existing outfall at this site? No, the outfall structure is proposed. 3. Indicate whether proposed pond is wet or dry. The storm-water system utilizes a "dry"detention system. The following shall be addressed prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy Submit a copy of the approved SWFWMD permit or letter of exemption A copy of the SWFWMD permit modifications will be provided as soon as it becomes available. General Notes: 1. All resubmittals shall be accompanied with a response letter addressing how each department condition has been met. This is so noted. 2. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. This is so noted. 3. Approval from Stormwater Division does not relieve the applicant from the obligation to obtain all other required permits and authorizations. This is so noted. Traffic Engineering Review - Prior to Community Development Board 1. Show 20'x20' sight visibility triangles at the driveway(s). There shall be no objects in the sight triangle over 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). This is now shown on sheet no. C2. LIS-Engineering,LLC Haddad Florida Realty LLC FLD2012-09016—1960 GULF TO BAY BLVID KFC09 Page 14 of 14 2. Drive-thru facilities for restaurants shall provide sufficient stacking distance to accommodate eight vehicles as measured from the first point of transaction(Section 3- 1406.B.2—OffOstreet loading and vehicle stacking spaces). 7 are provided, we are seeking relief from the 8 car requiremen� General Notes: 1. Applicant shall comply with the current Transportation Ixnpact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule and paid prior to a Certificate of Occupancy(C.O.). The owner/contractor shall be notified accordingly. 2. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. This is so noted. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or require any additional information. I greatly appreciate your assistance in this matter. Sincer , (J"" � Robert W. Case, P.E. FL PE No: 44643 . , LL o Planning&Development Department � � ��rwater Flexible Develo men p t Application " Attached Dwellings, Mixed-Uses or Non-Residential Uses IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT COMPLETE AND CORRECT INFORMATION. ANY MISLEADING, DECEPTIVE, INCOMPLETE OR INCORRECT INFORMATION MAY INVALIDATE YOUR APPLICATION. ALL APPLICATIONS ARE TO BE FILLED OUT COMPLETELY AND CORRECTLY,AND SUBMITTED IN PERSON(NO FAX OR DELIVERIES) TO THE PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY NOON ON THE SCHEDULED DEADLINE DATE. A TOTAL OF 11 COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS(1 ORIGINAL AND 10 COPIES)AS REQUIRED WITHIN ARE TO BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE. SUBSEQUENT SUBMITTAL FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD WILL REQUIRE 15 COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS(1 ORIGINAL AND 14 COPIES). PLANS AND APPLICATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COLLATED,STAPLED AND FOLDED INTO SETS. THE APPLICANT, BY FILING THIS APPLICATION, AGREES TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. FIRE DEPT PRELIMARY SITE PLAN REVIEW FEE: $200 APPLICATION FEE: $1,205 Haddad Florida Realty LLC To be purchased by: KBP Foods, Inc. PROPERn owNEtt(PEtt�EE�): Attn: Zancanelli Management 8900 Indian Creek Pkwy#100 nnaiuN�a��RESS: 11879 W 112st St. Overland Park KS 66210 Overiand Park, KS 66210 PHONE rvuMSER: (additional lots ownership info attached) Leland Hicks: 913-238-0081 Ennai�: LHICKS@Nanshegroup.com AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE: ROBERT W.CASE -LIS ENGINEERING, LLC MAIUNG ADDRESS: 21430 PALM BEACH BLVD.ALVA, FL 33920 PHONE NUMBER: 239-693-9244 EMAIL: gOBCCa�LISENGINEERING.US ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1960 GULF TO BAY BLVD.; 405+409 COMET AVE PARCEL NUMBER(S): 13-29-15-00000-240-0500; 13-29-15-82494-002-0051; 13-29-15-82494-002-0050 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (FROM SE COR OF NW 1/4TH N01DW 50.1FT TH N89DW 524.82FT ALG N R/W OF GULF TO BAY BLVD. FOR POB TH N89DW 100FT TH N01 DW 150FT TH S89DE 100FT TH S01 DE 150FT TO POB) (SKY CREST UNIT NO 7 BLK B LOT 5) PROPOSED USE(S): 2226- FAST FOOD RESTAURANT- DRIVE IN, DINER DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: SEE ATTACHED SHEET Specifically identify the request (include all requested code flexibility; e.g., reduction in required number of parking spaces, height, setbacks, lot size,lot width,specific use,etc.): Planning 8�Development Department,700 S.Myrtle Avenue,Clearwater,FL 33756,Tei:727-562-4567;Fax:727-562-4865 Page 7 of 8 , Revised 01/12 r , a, � �� .. .._... ,..�,_ �;i��. Architecture—Engineering—Land Surveying-Interiors KFC 1960 Gulf to Bay Blvd. Clearwater, FL City of Clearwater Flexible Development Application Description of Request: Flexible Development application to permit a fast-food restaurant with a height of 22 feet,a front (west) setback of three feet(to drive-thru lane)and 16 feet(to building), a front(south) setback of 10 feet(to drive-thru lane)and 39 feet(to building), a side(east)setback of one foot(to parking)and 48.5 feet(to building), a side(north) setback of 10 feet(to parking and dumpster enclosure)and 149 feet(to building)and 28 parking spaces(8.81 spaces per 1,000 square fees of Gross Floor Area)in the Commercial District(C)as a Comprehensive Infill redevelopment Project,under the provisions of Community Development Code(CDC) Section 2-704.C. and reduce the front(west)landscape buffer from 10 feet to 3 feet(to drive- thru lane)reduce the side(east)landscape buffer from five feet to one foot, reduce the interior landscape area from 10 percent(1,682 square feet)of the vehicular use area to 4.10 percent(690 square feet), increase the number of parking spaces in a row from 10 spaces to 11 spaces and eliminate the required foundation plantings along the front(west) fa�ade of the proposed building as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of 3-1202.G. SW Florida Central Florida 21430 Palm Beach Blvd. 2572 W. State Road 426 Alva,FL 33920 Suite 2064 Oviedo,FL 32765 Ph: (239)693-9244 Ph: (321)244-0402 F�:(239)693-9828 F�:(321)244-9419 � ' o Planning&Development Department ? ��rwa � �� er Flexible Develo ment A lication _ , p pp � Data Sheet PLEASE ENSURE THAT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS FILLED OUT, IN ITS ENTIRETY. FAILURE TO COMPLETE THIS FORM WILL RESULT IN YOUR APPLICATION BEING FOUIVD INCOMPLETE AND POSSIBLY DEFERRED UNTIL THE FOLLOWiNG APPLICATION CYCLE. ZONING DISTRICT: C FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION: CG EXISTING USE(currently existing on site): 2226. 0110. 1227 PROPOSED USE(new use,if any;plus existing,if to remain): 2226 SITE AREA: �2,52g sq.ft. 0.75 acres GROSS FLOOR AREA(total square footage of all buildings): Existing: g gq� sq.ft. Proposed: 3.180 sq.ft. Maximum Allowable: 17,890 sq.ft. GROSS FLOOR AREA(total square footage devoted to each use,if there will be multiple uses): First use: N/A sq.ft. Second use: sq.ft. Third use: sq.ft. FLOOR AREA RATIO(total square footage of all buildings divided by the total square footage of entire site): Existing: 31% Proposed: 10% Maximum Allowable: 55% BUILDING COVERAGE/FOOTPRINT(15t floor square footage of all buildings): Existing: 9,947 sq.ft. ( 31 %of site) Proposed: 3,202 sq.ft. ( 10 /o of site) Maximum Permitted: 17,890 sq.ft. ( 55 %of site) GREEN SPACE WITHIN VEHICULAR USE AREA(green space within the parking lot and interior of site;not perimeter buffer): Existing: p sq.ft. ( p %of site) Proposed: 500 sq.ft. ( �,5 %of site) OR 6167 INC. BUILDING PERIMETER VEHICULAR USE AREA(parking spaces,drive aisles,loading area): Existing: 11855 sq.ft. ( 37 %of site) Proposed: 16819 sq.ft. ( 52 %of site) Planning&Development�Department,100 S.Myrtle Avenue,Clearwater,FL 33756,Tel:727-562-4567;Fax:727-562-4865 Page 2 of 8 Revised 01/72 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO(total square footage of impervious areas divided by the total square footage of entire site): Existing: 67% Proposed: 62% Maximum Permitted: 90% DENSITY(units, rooms or beds per acre): BUILDING HEIGHT: Existing: N/A Existing: 25' Proposed: Proposed: 22' Maximum Permitted: Maximum Permitted: 50� OFF-STREET PARKING: Existing: 10 Proposed: 26 ' Minimum Required: 23 WHAT IS THE ESTIMATED TOTAL VALUE OF THE PROJECT UPON COMPLETION? $ 1,500,000.00 ZONING DISTRICTS FOR ALL ADJACENT PROPERTY: North: R South: I East: C � West: C STATE OF FLORIDA,COUNTY OF PINELLAS I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of representations made in this application are true and .to me and/or by accurate to the best of my knowledge and authorize City representatives to visit and photograph the who is personally known has property described in this application. pro.duced as identification. Signature of property owner or representative Notary public, My commission expires: Planning 8�Development Department,100 S.Myrtle Avenue,Clearwater,FL 33756,Tel:727-562-4567;Fax:727-562-4865 Page 3 of 8 Revised 01/12 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO(total square footage of impervious areas divided by the total square footage of entire site): Existing. ('p� �Jp Proposed: (,p� `�j p Maximum Permitted: QQ �d DENSITY(units,rooms or beds per acre): BUILDING HEIGHT: a� � Existing: Existing: Proposed: Proposed: o} a � Maximum Permitted: Maximum Permitted: �Q � OFF-STREET PARKiNG: � Existing: � 0 Proposed: a CD Minimum Required: a �j WHAT IS THE ESTIMATED TOTAL VALUE OF THE PROJECT UPON COMPLETION? $ I F,� Q Q�QCJC) . a� ' ZOMNG DISTRICTS FOR ALL ADJACENT PROPERTY: North: `R south: � East: L WeSt: L STATE Of FLORIDA,COUNTY OF PINELLAS � I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all S o a d subscribed before me thi ` � day of representations made in this application are true and , � accurate to the best of my knowledge and authorize � ` � .to me and/or by City representatives to visit and photograph the �,who is personally known has property described in this application. produced �� 1�..� as identification. Signature of property owner or representative Notary pub�ic� � �� My commission expires: �� ' y pU� ANGELA BAER ==o�Pg...6G�; My Commission Expi�es =*��*= April 17,2016 • SEAL,�: St.LOUis Counry '��OF tJ��'` ComrtNSSion�k12537451 '�� , Planning&Development Oepartment,100 S.Myrtle Avenue,Clearwater,FL 33756,Tel:727-562-4567;Fax:727-562-4865 Page 3 of 8 Revised 01/12 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RP�TIO(total square footage of impervious areas divided by the total square footage of entire site): Existing:. • �y-) Q a Proposed: (.Q�g� Maximum Permitted: 9'O 5 a DENSITY(units,rooms or beds per acre): BUfLDlfd6 H�l�HT: � Existing: /V `� Exisfing: 02� Proposed: Proposed: �a � Maximum Permitted: Maximum Permiited: �Q � OFF-STREET PARKING: Existing: �U Proposed: a(P � Minimum Required: q� �j WHAT IS THE ESTIMATED TOTAL VALUE OF THE PROJECT UP(}N C�MPLETIpN? $ 1 s��OOG, a� ZONING DISTRICTS FOR ALL ADJACENT PROPERTY: North: `� South: ^1 East: C west: G STATE OF FlORlD,4,COUNTY QF PIINELLAS j I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all Sw�rn to a�d subscribed aefo�e me this / day of representations made in this ap�lication are true an� r'� J.�� LS � /�to me and/or by accurate to the best of my knowledge ar�d authorize m�� City representatives to visit and photograph the � i�`�"a ��-��rJ ,� � who is personally known has property described in this application. produced I' �� 1 � as identification. � Y Sig ure of property owner or repr entative Notary pub[ic, My commissi�n expires: / �(1l GJ i �'�, A�LBERT J BORt3 ': +*= MY COI�thA1SStON�t EE838829 ' � . EXPlRE3 8eptembsr 19,2d16 IM �09�01� . a�n Planning&Development Departrnent,100 S.�Ayrtle Rvenue,Ciear�ater,FL 33756,Tel:727-�62-4567; Fax:727-5S2-d865 Pagg 3 of 8 Revised 01/12 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO(total square footage of impervious areas divided by the total square footage of entire site): Existing:, �n'�Qo Proposed: (�o?5 0 Maximum Permitted: 9'Q`�o DENSITY(units,rooms or beds per acre): BUILDING HEl�NT: Existing: N � __ Existing: �S � Proposed: Proposed: �o� � Maximum Permitted: Maximum Permitted: �G' � . OFF-STREET PARKING: Existing: �Q Proposed: a (p Minimum Required: � GO WHAT IS THE ESTIMATED TOTAL VALUE pF THE PRQJECT UPON CQMPLETION? $�,�jC�j�OQ'O . 20NING Df5TR1CT5 FOR ALL ADJACENT PROPERTY: North: t� South: � East: L west: L STATE OF FLQR!QA,COUNTY OF PtNELlAS J I, the undersigned, acknowledge that al{ Sworn to and subscribed befo�e me this / day of representations made in this application are true and �'�C1.�� LS � �to me and/or by accurate to the best af my knowledge and authorize 1 lY1p C c' City representatives to visit and photograph the �.J ►�w� L�1�1�t�c`r� .(� .J who is personally known has property described in this application. produced !�� 1 � as identification. � � � Sig ure of property owner or repr entative Notary pubfic, My commissi�n expires: �Cl �J ��`'y ALBERT J BORO °': �� MY Ct?MIIAISSlON�f�838f2� � EXPlRES 8e�embsr 19.2816 •., � �� Planning&Development Departr.eent,104 S.Myrtle Avenue,G{earwater,FL 33756,Tel:727-562-4b67;Fax:727-562�865 Page 3 of 8 Revised 01/72 o Planning&Development Department � � ��r Flexible Develo ment A lication P pp � Site Plan Submittal Package Check list IN ADDITION TO THE COMPLETED FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT(FLD)APPLICATION,ALl FLD APPLICATIONS SHALL INCLUDE A SITE PLAN SUBMITfAL PACKAGE THAT INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION AND/OR PLANS: f�'r Responses to the flexibility criteria for the specific use(s) being requested as set forth in the Zoning District(s) in which the subject property is located. The attached Flexible Development Application Flexibility Criteria sheet shall be used to provide these responses. • LY Responses to the General Applicability criteria set forth in Section 3-914.A. The attached Flexible Devefopment Application General Applicability Criteria sheet shall be used to provide these responses. C+Y A signed and sealed survey of the property prepared by a registered land surveyor including the location of the property, dimensions, acreage, location of all current structures/improvements, location of all public and private easements including official records book and page numbers and street right(s)-of-way within and adjacent to the site. �i7' If the application would result in the removal or relocation of mobile home owners residing in a mobile home park as provided in F.S.§723.083,the application must provide that information required by Section 4-202.A.5. f� if this application is being submitted for the purpose of a boatlift, catwalk, davit, dock, marina, pier, seawall or other si milar marine structure, then the application must provide detailed plans and specifications prepared by a Florida professional engineer, bearing the seal and signature of the engineer, except signed and sealed plans shall not be required for the repair or replacement of decking, stringers, railing, lower landings, tie piles, or the patching or reinforcing of existing piling on private and commercial docks. l�d A site plan prepared by a professional architect,engineer or landscape architect drawn to a minimum scale of one inch equals 50 feet on a sheet size not to exceed 24 inches by 36 inches that includes the following information: rd" Index sheet of the same size shall be included with individual sheet numbers referenced thereon. � North arrow,scale,location map and date prepared. C� Identification of the boundaries of phases,if development is proposed to be constructed in phases. Gd� Location of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL), whether the property is located within a Special Flood Hazard - Area,and the Base Flood Elevation(BFE)of the property,as applicable. C� Location,footprint and size of all existing and proposed buildings and structures on the site. fsd' Location and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems, both on-site and off-site,with proposed points of access. d Location of all existing and proposed sidewalks, curbs, water lines, sanitary sewer lines, storm drains, fire hydrants and seawalls and any proposed utiliry easements. C�i` Location of onsite and offsite stormwater management facilities as well as a narrative describing the proposed stormwater control plan including calculations. Additional data necessary to demonstrate compliance with the City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria manual may be required at time of building construction permit. C� Location of solid waste collection facilities,required screening and provisions for accessibility for collection. � Location of off-street loading area, if required by Section 3-1406. f� All adjacent right(s)-of-way, with indication of centerline and width, paved width, existing median cuts and intersections and bus shelters. l� Dimensions of existing and proposed lot lines, streets, drives, building lines, setbacks, structural overhangs and building separations. � Building or structure elevation drawings that depict the proposed building height and building materials. Planning&Development Department,700 S.Myrtle Avenue,Clearwater,FL 33756,Tel:727-562-4567;Fax:727-562-4865 Page 4 of 8 Revised 01/12 O'� Typical floor plans,including floor plans for each floor of any parking garage. C� Demolition plan. Id Identification and description of watercourses, wetlands, tree masses, specimen trees, and other environmentally sensitive areas. � If a deviation from the parking standards is requested that is greater than 50% (excluding those standards where the difference between the top and bottom of the range is one parking space), then a parking demand study will need to be provided. The findings of the study will be used in determining whether or not deviations to the parking standards are approved. Please see the adopted Parking Demand Study Guidelines for further information. C� A tree survey showing the location, DBH and species of all existing trees with a DBH of four inches or more, and identifying those trees proposed to be removed,if any. CN�A tree inventory, prepared by a certified arborist, of all trees four inches DBH or more that reflects the size, canopy, and condition of such trees may be required if deemed applicable by staff.Check with staff. � A Traffic Impact Study shall be required for all proposed developments if the total generated net new trips meet one or more of the following conditions: ■ Proposal is expected to generate 100 or more new trips in any given hour(directional trips, inbound or outbound on the abutting streets)and/or 1,000 or more new trips per day;or ■ Anticipated new trip generation degrades the level of service as adopted in the City's Comprehensive Plan to unacceptable levels;or ■ The study area contains a segment of roadway and/or intersection with five reportable accidents within a prior twelve month period, or the segment and/or intersection exists on the City's annual list of most hazardous locations, provided by the City of Clearwater Police Department;or ■ The Traffic Operations Manager or their designee deems it necessary to require such assessment in the plan review process. Examples include developments that are expected to negatively impact a constrained roadway or developments with unknown trip generation and/or other unknown factors. la' A landscape plan shall be provided for any project where there is a new use or a change of use; or an existing use is improved or remodeled in a value of 25% or more of the valuation of the principal structure as reflected on the property appraiser's current records, or if an amendment is required to an existing approved site plan; or a parking lot requires additional landscaping pursuant to the provisions of Article 3, Division 14. The landscape plan shall include the following information,if not otherwise required in conjunction with the application for development approval: C�L Location, size, description, specifications and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, including botanical and common names. � Existing trees on-site and immediately adjacent to the site,by species,size and location,including drip line. � Interior landscape areas hatched and/or shaded and labeled and interior landscape coverage, expressed both in square feet, exclusive of perimeter landscaped strips, and as a percentage of the paved area coverage of the parking lot and vehicular use areas. C� Location of existing and proposed structures and improvements, including but not limited to sidewalks, walls, fences, pools, patios, dumpster pads, pad mounted transformers, fire hydrants, overhead obstructions, curbs, water lines, sanitary sewer lines, storm drains, seawalis, utility easements, treatment of all ground surfaces, and any other features that may influence the proposed landscape. l� Location of parking areas and other vehicular use areas, including parking spaces, circulation aisles, interior landscape islands and curbing. C�Y Drainage and retention areas, including swales,side slopes and bottom elevations. 0� Delineation and dimensions of all required perimeter landscaped buffers including sight triangles,if any. Planning&Development Department,100 S.MyRle Avenue,Clearwater,FL 33756,Tel:727-562-4567;Fax:727-562-4865 Page 5 of 8 Revised 01/72 o :(� + Planning&Development Department } ��at�er Develo ment A lication � U ,. :. Flexible p pp " General Applicability Criteria. PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO EACH OF THE SIX(6)GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA EXPLAINING HOW, IN DETAIL,THE CRITERION IS BEING COMPLIED WITH PER THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. The a�pearance and size of the new look of this building was designed to be in harmony with all surrounding properties. The total lot area was increased from original single lot to include the two adjacent northerly residential lots with the existing houses to be demolished and the land area to be utilized for additional parking and stormwater management. 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 or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. The re-design will in no way affect the health or safety of persons in the neighborhood There is no chanqe in use or operation of this site. The structure being removed is an additional benefit in this regard. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. The re-design will locate the driveway on Comet to the north to increase intersection separation, and the existing parking directly on Comet Ave. wifl be eliminated. A drive-thru lane will also be provided. 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. There are no adverse effects of the proposed re-design The visual aspect will be an improvement to this site and the surrounding properties, including the removal of the structure on Comet. No changes shall occur in the acoustic, olfactory and hours of operation. SEE ATTACHED Planning&Development Department,100 S.Myrtle Avenue,Clearwater,FL 33756,Tel:727-562-4567;Fax:727-562-4865 Page 6 of 8 Revised 01N2 � � ��,Y,j�S�'LLm Architecture—Engineering—Land Surveying-Interiors KFC 1960 Gulf to Bay Blvd. Clearwater,FL City of Clearwater Flexible Development Application General Applicability Criteria—continued from application 1.The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale,bulk,coverage,density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. The total lot area was increased from original single lot to include the trvo adjacent northerly residential lots with the existing houses to be demolished and the land area to be utilized for additional parking and stormwater management. 2.The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof The value of adjacent properties along Gulf to Bay Blvd will be improved overall by the increased aesthetics of the redeveloped site and new building architecture. The nearby residential properties will recognize same as above but with the additional enjoyment of less residential densiry on the street and more open space on the converted lots to commercial. There is one commercial property located on the residential street which will also enjoy all of the above which will increase property values all around and at the same time redirected traffic to defined access points will also beneft all surrounding properties. 3.The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety or persons residing or working in the neighborhood ofthe proposed use. The re-design will in no way affect the health or safety of persons in the neighborhood. There is no change in use or operation of this site. The structure being removed is an additional benefit in this regard. 4.The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. The re-design will locate the driveway on Comet to the north to increase intersection separation, and the existing parking directly on Comet Ave. will be eliminated. A drive- thru lane will also be provided. SW Florida Central Florida 21430 Palm Beach Blvd. 2572 W. State Road 426 Alva,FL 33920 Suite 2064 Oviedo,FL 32765 Ph:(239)693-9244 pn:(32 i�2aa-oao2 Fax:(239)693-9828 F�:(321)2aa-9419 LIS-Engineering Page 2 of 2 5.The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The value of adjacentproperties along Gulf to Bay Blvd will be improved overall by the increased aesthetics of the redeveloped site and new building architecture. The nearby residential properties will reeognize same as above but with the additional enjoyment of less residential density on the street and more open space on the converted lots to commercial. New landscaping and planted buffers make the redevelopment blend into the surroundings and reduce noise and light transmissions offsite. There is one commercial property located on the residential street which will also enjoy all of the above which will increase property values all around and at the same time redirected traffic to defined access points will also benefit all surrounding properties. 6.The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual,acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts,on adjacent properties. The redevelopment of and existing restaurant to samze use with site expansion to address current land use regulations is a substantial benefit in itself to the community as a whole and more particularly to the adjacent properties both residential and commercial. The nearby residential properties will recognize same as above but with the additional enjoyment of less residential density on the street and more open space on the converted lots since the restaurant use is separated from the residential uses to the north by the proposed parking area thereby minimizing any operation conflicts between the trvo types of uses (residential and non-residential). New landscaping and planted buffers make the redevelopment blend into the surroundings and reduce noise and light transmissions offsite. There is one commercial property locate�l on the residential street which will also enjoy all of the above which will increase property values all around and at the same time redirected traffic to defined access points will also benefit all surrounding properties. Residential density on the street and more open space on the converted lots to commercial. There is one commercial property located on the residential street which will also enjoy all of the above which will increase properly values all around and at the same time redirected traffic to defined access points will also benefit all surrounding properties. LL . o `' Planning&Development Department � � �a�rwater Flexible Develo ment A lication p pp � Flexibility Criteria PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO THE APPLICABLE FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR THE SPECIFIC USE(S)BEING REQUESTED AS SET FORTH IN THE ZONING DISTRICT(S)IN WHICH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED. EXPLAIN HOW,IN DETAIL, EACH CRITERION IS BEING COMPLIED WITH PER THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL(USE SEPARATE SHEETS AS NECESSARY). 1. The existinq use (2226 - Fast Food Restaurant, Drive In, Diner) is to be unchanqed. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Planning&Development Department,100 S.Myrtle Avenue,Clearwater,FL 33756,Tel:727-562-4567;Fax:727-562-4865 Page 7 of 8 Revised 07/12 o :(''� � Planning&Development Department � 4,,��l�arwater Flexible Develo ment A lication P pp " �Affidavit to Authorize Agent/Representative 1. Provide names of all property owners on deed—PRINT full names: -��,1. i� L�t��l ��r ��a�'�aG� �C�`'��2 '�iea.�-�-tv , L C.CC 2. That(I am/we are)the owner(s)and record title holder(s)of the foilowing described property: �9C�6 C�t��' `�'G �� 1vd � ti�-a�?'-t�-�o-�t� -c�do) 3. That this property constitutes the property for which a request for(describe request); __°�1 . �t�CV��C7�(1i1QYl,�" 4. That the undersigned(has/have)appointed and(does/do)appoint: ��L�,1d('� � � C.�-� � as(his/their)agent(s)to execute any petitions or other documents necessary to affect such petition; 5. That this affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act on the above described property; 6. That site visits to the property are necessary by City representatives in order to �rocess this application and the owner authorizes City representafives to visit and photograph the property described in this application; 7. That(I/we),the undersigned authority,hereby certify that the foregoing is true and ect. � ��Q � l�-�� - ' Property Owner Property Owner Property Owner Property Owner STATE OF�69�R�BA,COUNTY OF W#�A-S ` �,I,�-ZL� S �,1��.-�..� BEFORE ME TH�UNDERSIGNED, N OF ICER QULY��(�',�(�SlONED BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FE-�RlQ61,ON R THIS r DAY OF C7� ,PERSONALLY APPEARED _ �GQ�a,��,Q WHO HAVING BEEN FIRST DULY SWORN DEPOSED AND SAYS THAT HE/SHE FULLY UNDERSTANDS THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT THAT HE/SHE SIGNED. ,o�`�y p��G, ANGELA BAER ,,�;.�T�,{,_ . My Commission Expires _., *= April 17,2016 ' ;�•, SEAL.�, g�.�o��ounty ota Public S'gnature �,�;'OF�A\`�'. ComMissbn#12537451 Notary Seal%Stamp My Commission Expires: � � I ! /� ` Planning&Development Department,100 S.Myrtle Avenue,Clearwater,FL 33756,Tel:727-562-4567;Fax:727-562-4865 Page 8 of 8 Revised 01/12 o �` Pianning&Development D�partment � la ��.�� xil�l� D�velo �e�t A lication � �'� � Affid�.vit �o Authorize �4g�n��presentative 1. Provide names of a!i property owners on deed—PRiNTfulk names: J Aaw'�e5 �CkU tq-�P b 2.v�/� -s�' .. 2. That(I am/we are)the owner(s)and record title holder(sj of the folfowing described praperty: �Q� �� _ ��1�� IVF � 13'��'��'�5��t'� - C�O��-OC7��> 3. That this property cons�itutes the property for which a request for(describe request): �r�--� , �e �Ve_C�►��...y'�-f' 4. That the undersigned(has/have}appointed and(does/do)appoint: �.el.a�� N--i�! ks as(his/their)agent(s)to execute any petitions or other documents necessary to affect such petition; 5. That this affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, F(orida to consider and act on the above described property; 6. That site visits to the propErty are necessary by City representatives in order tc process this application and the owner authorizes City representatives to visit and photograph the property described in this application; 7. That(I/we),the undersigned authority,hereby certify that the foregci�g is true and c�rrect. �� Praperty Owner Property Owner Properiy Owner Property Owner STATE OF FLQRIi1A,�OUNTY OF PIl`IEi LAS BEFORE ME THE UNDERSIGNED,AN OFFICER DULY COMMlSSIONED BY 7HE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ON THIS l DAY OF �� : PERSONALLY APPEARED � ��`�. ��V��V.I� G�'Yl J f ' WHO HAVING BEEN FlRST DULY SWORN DEPOSED AND SAYS THAT HE/SHE FULLY UNDERSTANDS THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT THAT HE/SHE SIGNED. ,y�i'"^•� ALBERT J BORO ='i ;`: MY COMM1SSfQN#EE836829 � '•,,�,,��,. EXPIRE3 9eptembar 19.2016 �4ofan,l Public gnature �07 398-Ots3 FluriCtl� can Notary Seal/Stamp My Commission Expires: Planning 8�Devefopmerrt Department,400 S.Myrtle Avenue,Clearwater,FL 33756,Tel:727-552-4567;F�:727-562-4865 Page 8 of 8 Revised 01/12 � o �le��.�� Ptanning&Development Department �i�x�bie ��c��.�� App��catio� U A�ficia�it to A�.�I�oriz� Ag��t/l�epresentative 1. Provide names of a8 praperty owners on deed-PRINT fulf names: ��1�f�� I.�-=�-1� ��3 l� �' 2. That(1 am/we are)the owner{s)and record title holder(s)of the foilowing described property: '��'9 �. C�oM-�TFrV� � i3 -�q ^ t� - �3 �-�t��i --�oa- c�> 3. That this property cons��utes the pr�p�rty for v,�hi�h a request for(�escribe request�: `��fie !�t e� uC�'-�Y��`� 4. That the undersigned(has/have)appainted and(does/do)appoint: � ►��' k� S as(his/their)agent(s)to execute any petit�ns er other documents necessary to afFect such petition; 5. That this affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act on the above described property; 6. That site visits to the proaerty are necessary by City representatives in order to process this applicatian and tre owner authorizes City representa�ives to visit and photograph the property descri�ed in this applicatior; 7. That(1/we),the undersigned authority,hereby cert{�,�that the feregoing is true and correct. C Praperty Owner Praperty C�nrner Properry Owner Property Owner STATE OF FLORI�JA,COUIITTY OF PIAtF�LAS BEF�RE ME THE UNDERSIGNED,AN OFFICER DULY COMMISSIONE�BY THE LAWS OF THE STA7E OF FLORIDA, ON THIS ( DAY OF ��r-Y`��-r , !J� � � , PERSONALLY APPEARED � �Q� �� ' ' WHO HAVING BEEN FIRST DULY SWORN D Y UNDERSTANDS THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVI7 THAT HE/SHE SIGNED. ,��'"'•'�;.+ ALBERT J BOfdG ''' •''� MY COMMIS510N#EE836829 '�,, ..� ' EXPlRE3 Sept�mber 19.2016 � ,0 �'� �or1ds C°'" Netary Pu ic Sr ure Notary Seal/Stamp My Commission Expires: Planning&Development Departmsnt,10b S.IWyrtle Avenue,Ciearwater,rL 33756,Tei:727-562-4567; Fax:727-562-4865 Page 8 of 8 Revised 01/12 � • Flexibility criteria for Comprehensive In�ll Redeve%pment Projects Flexibility Criterion #1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district; Response: This site has increased in size through land aggregation conversion from residential to commercial use by acquiring two residential homesites in the Commercial General /Commercial districts and converting to commercial use with no additional increase in commercial floor area in tlus redeveloped restaurant site. Though land area has increased, the restrictive net developable area after providing efficient parking and stormwater treatment requires some leeway in the variances are required to complete the redevelopment of same net area restaurant by providing new building architecture and updated site design. Previous design provided no landscape buffers on rear and side of property,just a fence. Elimination of the fence did not in and of itself provide the required width for code compliant.buffers. Parking design is most efficient of pavement when two parking modules can utilize a single backout aisle as proposed. The overall length of the parking modules plus landscaping buffers and turning radius requires some reduction. The e�sting parking and drive-thru window do not provide the stacking and parking spaces now required by code. Even with the substantial increase in land aggregation and no increase to building size the number of stacking and parking spaces are less than code, but adequeate to serve based upon the parking study provided. A unity of title of all parcels and the updated site design for this similar sized restaurant will be of great benefit on this scenic corridor which has been blighted by outdated building and site layout. Flexibility Criterion #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; A.2.2.3 "Commercial land uses shall be located at the intersection of arterial or collector streets and should be sited in such a way as to minimize the intrusion of off-site impacts into residential neighborhoods. New plats and site plans shall discourage the creation of"strip commercial"zones by insuring that adequate lot depths are maintained and by zoning for commercial development at major intersections." Response: This site has increased in size through land aggregation conversion from residential to commercial use by acquiring additional residential homesites in the Commercial General /Commercial districts and converting to commercial use with no additional increase in commercial floor area in this redeveloped restaurant site. A.3.2.1 "All new development or redevelopment of property within the City of Clearwater shall meet all landscape requirements of the Community Development Code." Response: The proposed site plan addresses all landscape requirements and requests appropriate variances by providing adequate alternatives to enhance the aesthetics and protect the surrounding properties with this redevelopment of an ea�isting restaurant with no increase in floor area. � � Flexibility criteria for Comprehensive In�ll Redevelopment Projects A.4.1.1 "No new development or redevelopment will be permitted which causes the level of City services (roads, recreation and open space, water, sewage treatment, garbage collection, public school facilities, and drainage)to fall below minimum acceptable levels." Response: This proposed redevelopment is an existing restaurant of same intensity and is vested with no increase in impacts. A.5.4.5 "Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard east of U.S. Highway l9. Amendments to the Future Land Use Plan and Zoning Atlas may be considered to promote redevelopment and land assembly. Annexations and the installation of appropriate streetscape improvements should be encouraged." ResUOnse: This is redevelopment and land assembly with no increase in restaurant floor area. The driveway access and landscaping along Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard has been enhanced with the proposed design. A.6.1 Objective— "The redevelopment of blighted, substandard, inefficient and/or obsolete areas shall be a high priority and promoted through the implementation of redevelopment and special area plans, the construction of catalytic private projects, city investment, and continued emphasis on property maintenance standards." Response: This project is an attempt to update by " redevelopment of blighted, substandard, inefficient andlor obsolete areas"with no increase in floor area of same use. A.6.2.1 "On a continuing basis, the Community Development Code and the site plan approval process shall be utilized in promoting infill development atzd/or planned developments that are compatible." Response: This project is an infill redevelopment with land aggregation conversion from residential to commercial use along a scenic corridor in a blighted commercial area with no increase in floor area of an ea�isting restaurant use. A.6.2.2 Encourage land use conversions on economically underutilized parcels and corridors, and promote redevelopment activities in these areas. Response: This project is an infill redevelopment with land aggregation conversion from residential to commercial use along a scenic corridor in a blighted commercial area with no increase in floor area of an existing restaurant use. A.6.2.3 Identify areas where land assembly opportunities exist and target redevelopment activities in these areas. � Resnonse: This project is an infill redevelopment with land aggregation conversion from residential to commercial use along a scenic corridor in a blighted commercial area with no increase in floor area of an existing restaurant use. B.I.4 Objective - The City shall specifically consider the eristing and planned LOS the road network affected by a proposed development, when considering an amendment to the land use map, rezoning, subdivision plat, or site plan approval. Response: This project is an infill redevelopment with land aggregation conversion from I'esldential to commercial use along a scenic corridor in a blighted commercial area with no Flexibility criteria for Comprehensive In�ll Redeve/opment Projects increase in floor area of an e�usting restaurant use. No proposed increase in traffic impacts. Access points redefined to conform with current codes. This will result in a net reduction in trips. D.l GOAL - TO PROVIDE HIGH QUALITY,RELIABLE,AND EFFICIENT SANITARY SEWER SERVICE INANENVIRONMENTALLYSOUND MANNER WHICH WILL PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTHAND SAFETY. D.I.1 Objective- To maintain adequate Levels of Service for eacisting and future populations through the year 2020. Response: This project is an infill redevelopment with land aggregation conversion from residential to commercial use along a scenic corridor in a blighted commercial area with no increase in floor area of an existing restaurant use. No proposed increase in sanitary sewer impacts. This redevelopment with land aggregation of two e'sting residential homes being demolished and land utilized for parking and open space in the commercial use will reduce the total flows from pre-redevelopment rates due to elimination of the two single family units and no net increase from replacement of ea�isNng restaurant building with new restaurant building of same existing floor area.This will result in a net reduction in demand. D.2 GOAL - TO PROVIDE THE MOST RELIABLE, COST EFFECTIVE AND ENERGY EFFICIENT METHOD OF COLLECTING, RECYCLING, AND DISPOSING SOLID WASTES THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF CLEARWATER IN AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND MANNER WHICH WILL PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTHAND SAFETY. D.2.1 Objective - Continue To maintain adequate levels of service for existing and future populations through the year 2020. Response: This project is an infill redevelopment with land aggregation conversion from residential to commercial use along a scenic corridor in a blighted commercial area with no increase in floor area of an existing restaurant use. No proposed increase in solid waste impacts. This redevelopment with land aggregation of two ea�isting residential homes being demolished and land utilized for parking and open space in the commercial use will reduce the total amount from pre-redevelopment rates due to elimination of the two single family units and no net increase from replacement of existing restaurant building with new restaurant building of same e�sting floor area. This will result in a net reduction in demand. D.3 GOAL-PROVIDE THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT PROVISION OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT INCL UDING THE IMPROVEMENT AND ENHANCEMENT OF STORMWATER QUALITYDISCHARGING INTO LOCAL RECEIVING WATERS,AND PROVIDE MAXIMUM PRACTICAL PROTECTION TO PERSONS, PROPERTY, AND THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. D.3.I Objective- To maintain adequate levels of service for existing and future populations through the year 2020. Response: This project is an infill redevelopment with land aggregation conversion from residential to commercial use along a scenic corridor in a blighted commercial area with no increase in floor area of an ea�isting restaurant use. No proposed increase in stormwater runoff impacts. This redevelopment with land aggregation of two e'sting residential homes being demolished and land utilized for parlang and open space in the commercial use will reduce the total flows from pre-redevelopment rates due to elimination of the two single family units and no net increase from replacement of ea�isting restaurant building with new restaurant building of same existing floor area. The lot area will have less impervious cover on the total site and increased attenuation and detention prior to discharge to the adjacent public drainage system. ' Flexibility criteria for Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects D.5 GOAL - PROVIDE, DEVELOP, AND MAINTAIN A PERMANENT POTABLE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM TO MEET ANTICIPATED DEMAND WHILE PROVIDING MAXIMUM PRACTICAL PROTECTION TO THE ENVIRONMENT AT A COST CONSISTENT WITH THE PUBLIC'S ABILITYAND WILLINGNESS TO PAY. D.S.1 Objective- To maintain adequate Levels of Service for existing and future populations through the year 2018. Response: This project is an infill redevelopment with land aggregation conversion from residential to commercial use along a scenic corridor in a blighted commercial area with no increase in floor area of an existing restaurant use. No proposed increase in potable water demand. This redevelopment with land aggregation of two e�usting residential homes being demolished and land utilized for parking and open space in the commercial use will reduce the total flows from pre-redevelopment rates due to elimination of the two single family units and no net increase from replacement of e�sting restaurant building with new restaurant building of same e'sting floor area.This will result in a net reduction in demand. G.1.4.1 To maintain adequate open space in the City's neighborhoods and commercial areas, the City will continue to administer landscape, drainage and impervious surface regulations in the Community Developnaent Code. Response: This project is an infill redevelopment with land aggregation conversion from residential to commercial use along a scenic corridor in a blighted commercial area with no increase in floor area of an existing restaurant use. A net increase in percentage of open space and green area is proposed. This redevelopment with land aggregation of two existing residential homes being demolished and land utilized for parking and open space in the commercial use will reduce the total impervious area from pre-redevelopment rates due to elimination of the two single family units and no net increase from replacement of e�usting restaurant building with new restaurant building of same existing floor area. This will result in a net reduction in impervious area,with increased stormwater treatment over the total site. I.1.3 Objective-No development arder shall be approved where the development would increase the demand on essential public facilities to the point that the level of service provided by an essential public faci[ity is reduced to below the minimum level of service standard for that facility as described herein. Response: This project is an infill redevelopment with land aggregation conversion from residential to commercial use along a scenic corridor in a blighted commercial area with no increase in floor area of an ea�isting restaurant use. This redevelopment with land aggregation of two e�sting residential homes being demolished and land utilized for parking and open space in the commercial use will reduce the total impacts from pre-redevelopment rates due to elimination of the two single family units and no net increase from replacement of existing restaurant building with new restaurant building of same e�sting floor area. This will result in a net reduction in demand and overall impacts. Flexibility Criterion #3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties; Response: This project is an infill redevelopment with land aggregation conversion from residential to commercial use along a scenic corridor in a blighted commercial area with no Flexibility criteria for Comprehensive Infill Redeve/opment Projects increase in floor area of an eacisting restaurant use. This redevelopment with land aggregation of two ea�isting residential homes being demolished and land utilized for parking and open space in the commercial use will reduce the total impacts from pre-redevelopment rates due to elimination of the two single family units and no net increase from replacement of e�sting restaurant building with new restaurant building of same existing floor area. This project "will not impede the normal and orderly deve/opment and improvement of surrounding properties". This project is leading the way for orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties". Flexibility Criterion #4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development; Response: This project is an infill redevelopment with land aggregation conversion from residential to commercial use along a scenic corridor in a blighted commercial area with no increase in floor area of an existing restaurant use. This redevelopment with land aggregation of two existing residential homes being demolished and land utilized for parking and open space in the commercial use will reduce the total impacts from pre-redevelopment rates due to elimination of the two single family units and no net increase from replacement of existing restaurant building with new restaurant building of same euisting floor area. Therefore, "Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a resu/t of the proposed development'; they will benefit from the redevelopment and improvement of the commercial property by increased land valuations, landscaping, additional stormwater attenuation and pre- treatment, etc. Flexibility Criterion #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; Response: Fast food restaurant is an allowed use which currently e�eists and is proposed to continue with this redevelopment. 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; Response: The proposed use is same as existing use and could possibly create an additional job thru increased business activity expected due to new building 3% increase in size but much more efficient interior layout. c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; Response: The proposed use is same as existing use,therfore is a redevelopment of an existing economic contributor. d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; � � Flexibility criteria for Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects Resuonse: This does not apply to this redevelopment. 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 Response: Fast food restaurant is an allowed use which currently e�usts and is proposed to continue with this redevelopment.This is adjacent to another restaurant on a multi-lane highway. f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. Resuonse: This does not apply to this redevelopment. Flexibility Criterion #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; Response: The proposed redevelopment is an updated compact commercial site which replaces the e�sNng building with a new building of approa�imately same floor area as existing but redesigned based upon current codes and is not "diminishing the scenic quality of the city or negatively impacting the safe and efficient movement of people and things within the City of Clearwater". b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the city; Response: Not applicable. c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; Response: The proposed development meets with the intent of the redevelopment codes through the use of extensive landscaping, architectural, signage unification and safety improvements which meet or exceed, except for horizontal buffer widths, current codes. For landscape clarification,refer to Criterion 1 and 3 of the Comprehensive Landscape Program Criteria. 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; � Flexibility criteria for Comprehensive lnfill Redevelopment Projects • Building stepbacks; and • Distinctive roofs forms. Response: The redevelopment has changed the architectural features from the existing building, and utilized a variety in materials, colors and textures, building stepbacks, and revised the roof line to be more distinctive. � e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. Response: The proposed development meets with the intent of the redevelopment codes through the use of extensive landscaping, architectaral, signage unification and safety improvements which meet or exceed, except for horizontal buffer widths, current codes. For landscape clarification,refer to Criterion 1 and 3 of the Comprehensive Landscape Program Criteria. � � P�anning&Dev�Iapment Department } � � ` . � �om�pr�ehensive L�ndsca�ing App�i�cati�� U 1T IS ildCiiMB�NT UFON TNE APPLICAl�T'f0 5t18MIT COMPCET�AND CORRECT IN�O[tMATIt3N. ANY iti+11SlEARING,DECEPTIVE, INC41�tPtETE hR lNCQRRECT 1NFt?RMATIGIN MAY IN1tALtpA'T�YOUR APPLlGATi{}ht, AlL,4PPLiCAT10NS ARE TO��FIt,I.ED 0#JT COMPLETEL.Y ANt�CORRECTLY,ANO SUBMITTEt�IN PE�SON(Nt3 FAX t3R[}EI.11lERlESJ TO THE RLANN(11�G&[3EVELOPMENT DEPt1FtTM�NT BY Nt�N ON THE SCHED�LEQ DEADLiNE DATE. A fiOTAI OF li.GOMPL€#"E S�T'S UF PLAN5 ANC►APPttCATi�}N MATERlALS�10�tIGiNAi A�1d 1t?CC}PIESj AS REqUIRED WITNtN ARE �0 BE SUB[NlTTEp FOIt REYlE1N BY TNE f3EltELt7PMENT REV#EiIV CQMMl1T�E. SUBSEQUENfi SU$MITTAL FC�R THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 84ARt3, IF NEGES5AitY, Wltl R�L1UlRE 15 Cf?MPLE'i'E SETS OF P1ANS AND AppLICA7IQN MATER1AtS(10RlGiNAC ANR 14 CUP#ESj, FtRNS A�1D ApPL1�ATiC1NS ARE REQtlIRED TO BE Ci�ELA?Et�,SfiAPI�U ANQ FQLDED }lVTt?SETS. THE APPUCANTt BY F!L#N� THiS AFPtlG�iT1C)N, AGREES T{? CqMP1Y W1TH ALl APPLICABLE REClUIREMENTS OF THE COMMUNCTY i3EVElOPMENT GODE. Ali properties under contraek for purchase by MBA FOQ17S,1NC. Refer to atiached exhibit A PRORER71'CJWN�R{P�R D�f�j: MAiLlNG Ad��ESS: 89oa i� tA eR� a K a FH(2NE NUMBER: OVERLANDPARK,KS6621Q EMAIL: , A��g�p�{�,��y�. Oav3d M.Jones,Jr.and Assaciates,lnc.,Gregory l.Diserio,RLA Vice President MAILIPIG ADDRESS: �2z7 Mc6regar Boulevard,Fart Myers,florida 33901 PHONf NUMB��t: 239-337-5525 EMAIt: diserio drn°afl.com 1960 Gulf.ia Bay BouEevard/4�9&447�outh Gomet Avenue ADDRESS OF 5UB1EC1'PROPERIY; Request to deviate from Eands�ape buf�er widths due#o redevelopment of an existing site with existing QE�CRIP7(ON OF REQUEST: nan-compiiant sethacks. tSection 3-1201(b) Specificaliy identiJy the request Referto attached for requested informatlan. (include aif requested eode ftexibility; e.g.,reductian in required number of parktng spoces, height, setbacks. !oc size,latwldth,sper'�"icuse,etc): STATE t}F FtORIt�A,COUN7Y QF PIN�ILAS � i, the un��rsigned, acknoarledge that all Swom to an�subscri6ed before:me this ��'� day nf representatians made in thls appiicatian are tru� and '�'``�„r�� + ,�(�� ,ta me and/Qr by F Nf accurate #o th� best of my knowiedge and authorize City representatives to visit and phptagraph the ��;�--�,��(-5,�, - .who is personally knuwn has pioperty d ribed in this ap ica#ion. p�qduced , `� �yr4 MI�,HEl,LE.l.GQX j r°f . .`,`�r MY GQ�I►�tSSIAN#RD916423 .+��t,��'/-t___/ IXp�RES:RuG i z��Qi3 Signature af property owner or represer�tative N ry pubi�c - . . . o �� Planning&Development Department a Comprehensive Landscaping Appiication ° � Flexibility Criteria PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPQNSES TO EACH Of THE FlVE(5)FLEXIBIClTY CRITERIA ExPtAlNING HOW,tN DETAtI,THE CRtTER10N IS BEIIVG COMPUED WITH PfR THIS COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPIPiG PROPUSAI. 1. Architedural Theme: a. The landscaping in a Comprehensive Landscaping pragram sha{i he designed as a part of the architectural theme of the principa!buiidings p�aposed ar devetoped on the parcei proposed for the development Refer to attached for respanses. o� b. The design,character,location andJor materials of the landscape treatment proposed in the Camprehensive Landscaping program shali be demanstrably more attractive than landscaping atherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for devetopment underthe minimum landscape standards. Refer to attached for responses. 2. Lighting. Any lighting praposed as a part of a Comprehensive Landscaping program is automatically controlled so that the lighting is tumed off when the bustness is dosed. Refer to attached far res�onses. 3. Community Charucter. The tandscape treatment proposed in the Camprehenslve Landscape Program wilf enhance the community character of the City af Clearwater. Refer to attached for res�onses. 4. Property Values.The iandsrape trestment proposed in the Compret�►ensive Landscaping pr�ram will have a beneficial impact on the vatue of the property€n the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. Refer to attached for res�ons�s. S, Special Area or Scenir Carridor Plnn. The iandscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive landscape Pragram is consisteni wIth any special area or scenic corridor plan which the City af Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in which the parcel proposed far develapment is located. Re er to attac e or responses. Plan�ing&Devetoprttent deparhnerrt,iD0 S.Mlyrtte Avenue,Clearwater,Fl 33t5fi,Tst:727-562-4567;Fax:T27-362-4865 Page 2 of 2 Revised D9112 r � . _ , . : � - _-._��=�{ David 11�. Jones� ,��. and Associates, 1nc. � � ' Landscape Arehitects and Plar�ners Date: December 13,2412 From: Gregory J.Diserio,ItLA , `r To: City of Clearwater Planning and Development Department Cnmprehensive Landscaping Application. Re: 1960 Gulf to Bay/409&407 South Comet Avenue, KFC Clearwater Subject: Responses ta Comprehensive Landscaping Application DESCRIPTION QF REQUEST: Request ta deviate from landscape buffer widths due to redevelopment of an existing cammercial site with existing non-campliant setbacks. (Section 3-12Q1 {D). The proposed project consists of the redevelopment of an existing commercial property thraugh the demolition of the existing building and the demolition af buildings an two adjacent properties (409 &407 S. Comet}Tiie adjacent paxcels are being incorporated into the development to provide a safe and aesthetically pleasing and viable commercial,site aneeting the requirements of the City of Clearwater with tl�e deviations Iisteci below. The existing commercial development and the adjacent properkies are outdated due to age and condition of tiie structures. The existing development has very limited existing landscaping. The proposed impro�ements to the development are propQSed by the developer to maintain the carporate irnage vf the commercial property while providing for enhancements to the surrounding properties. Deviation far Norfih Buffer North Buffer: The north buffer(COM to RESIDENTIAL DETACHED)require a 12' buffer width with 1 tree per 351ineai feet and 10�%shrub coverage at a 6' height within 3 years. A deyiation to request an average buffer width of 12' with a minimum of 10' in width. The deviation is required ta do the site constraints of a redeveioped site. The proposed landscaping meets the mini.mum requirements of#he cade. 2221 McGregor Boulevard LCOOQ063 Phone: (239}337-5525 Fort Myers,FL 33441 Fax: (239)337-4444 � 2705 Tamiami Trail Unit 415 ; Punta Gnrdu,F}orida 33950 Phone:{44 i)235-2217 = i � : . � � , , � � City of Clearwater Planning and Development Depariment Comprehensive I,andscaping A.pplication l�esponses Page 2 East Buffer#1: The east buffer(COM ta RESIDENTIAL DETACHED}require a 12' buffer width with 1 tree per 35 Iineal feet and 104°lo shrub caverage at a 6' height within 3 years. This buffer zequirement is being exceeded with a 23' wide buffer and with i tree and 8 shrubs more than the required bufFer requirements of the cade. Deviation for East Buffer#Z East Buf#'er#2: The east buffer(COM to COM)reqezires a 5' huffer widtli with 1 tree per 35 lineal fee#. The existing development only has a 2' buffez width between the parking curb and the property line. The proposed development will remove the existing curb edge and maintaining approximately a 1' buffer width. The reqnired 5 trees are being pravided where possible withaut conflicts with the existing tree canopy coverage from off-site trees. The proposed develapment is providing the required shrubs alang the entire buffer length. Deviation for South Buffer South Buffer: The sauth buffer(COM ta ROW)requires a 15' buffer width with 1 tree per 35 lineal feet and 10{}%slzrubs. The existing development has no Iandscape buffer setback. The South Buffer is proposed to be a minimum of 1 d' in width for a portion of the buffer ta permit � safe turning movements for the drive thru windaw. The minimum 15' requirement is heing exceeded in all other areas and the proposed landscaping excesds the minimum requirements of the code. Deviation for West Buffer West Buffer: The west buffer{COM to ROW)requires a 10' buffer width with 1 tree per 35 lineal fee# axzd 100%shrubs. The existing development has no iandscape buffer setback. The existing development also has back out angled parking within the South Cornet Avenu�Right of Way. Tb.e back out parking located in close proa�imiiy to the Gulf ta B�.y Bou.levazd poses a safety issue faz vehicles turning from Gulf#o Bay onto Sauth Comet Avenue. The proposed develapxnent rernoves all parking from the South Comet right of way thereby eliminating the traffic hazard. Given the narrow configuration of the site a request to deviate from the l0' buffer width to an S"buffer width, adjacent to the drive thru Iane. The Iandscape requirements have been exceeded through the planting of frangi�le street irees within the right of way and an additional 4 trees and 30 shrubs are groposed along South Com�t Avenue. All proposed plantings within the South Comet Avenue right of way will be maintained in perpetuity by the applicant. A pedestrian sidewalk is heing prapased along South Comet Avenue ta ensure pedestrian interconnect and safety. y 5 � � City of Clearwater Planning and Development Depamnent Comprehensive Landscaping Applicatian Responses Page 3 RESPONSES TO EACH OF THE FIVE{5}FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA � 1. Architectural Theme: a. The landscaping in a Comprehensive Landscaping program shall be designed as a part of the architectural therne�f the principal buildings proposed or developed on the parcel praposed for the development. Res,Qonse: The proposed development is replacin�three separate structures each with differin�architectural sivles and qualities with one aestheticallv pleasing;viable commercial structure. The propased landscape plans pravide for a cohesive laudsc�e desi�u cn_mpatibie�vith the buildin�architecture while meeting;ar exceeding the quantitative numbers of bufFer plantin�s and tree canap�uirements within the constraints of a redevelopment gmject. T'he nlantings highlight the appropriate architectural elements without conflicting with signage,whileprovidin� safe visibilitv€or crirue prevention thraugh environmental design. The plans provide for a unified . streetscape utcludin�areas within the Comet Avenue right af wav at no cost ta the City for future maintenance and utilize the Ci. 's signaitire shrubs. ox b. The design, character, location ancl/or materials of the Iandscape treatment propos�d in the Comprehensive Landscaping prc�gram shall be demc�nstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel propased for deveIopment under the rninimtun landscape standards. Respanse: The landsca.pe treatment for the pro oA Sed pro�ject will enhance the comununitv hYproviding for a cah.esive landsca.pe treatrnent,�vvithin the site Iimitations of the existin�lot configt�rations. Nan existin Iandscapin�on a11 the parcels proposed for redevelopment aze being replace vvstith a comprehensive landscape. The�roposed.landscaging exceeds the minimum requirements, exce�t for the deviations requested for buffer widths,for tl�e ZandscaQe quantities for buffers,parkini;and buildin�Lfoundation plantings. 2. Lighting. Any lighting proposed as a part of a Comprehensive Landscaping Program is automatically controlled to that the lighting is turned offwhen the b�siness is closed. Response: The lighting for the parldn�s and buildin�faces shall be automaticallv controlled to turn offthe lightin ,g except for lightin�necessary for security, when the business is closed. 3. Community Character. The landscape treatment praposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program wili enhance the community character af the City of Clearwater. t ,� . . � City of Clearwater Planning and Development Department Comprehensive Landscaping Applicatian Responses Page 4 Response: The Ianr�scape treatment will enhance the character of the Citv of Clearwater bv providin�for landscapin�where none currently exists. The landscaping will aIsa provide for roadwa r�landscape enhancements. The proposed landscaping is consistent with recent and existin�landscapin along the corridor and i.s consistent with the developers themes. The proposed lanciscape plan provides auantities at ar above the tsee and hedge requirements of the cade, within the constraints of a redevelopment project. The Code does�aot recognize Qroundcovers or accent shrubs as an inte r�al part of a landscape desi�n. The proposed plan utilizes groundcovers and accent sbxubs/palms to provide a diversity of species along with a layered appearance that enhances the aesthetics of the landscaping wel2 beyond the linear en�ineered appearance of a hedge only landscape plan_ Tlus layering aontinues into the Camet Avenue ri�ht of way,which further enhances the streetscape appearance of Comet Avenue.The turf areas of the site have been limited to the water manat�ement areas only. The landscape�lan has taken into consideration the existin� cano�,v trees both ou and off site in the overall desi�n af the project. Species have been selected based on both code requirements and future�xowth habzts_within_each planting area thereby providi.n�for a sustainable landscape. Low volume d�ip urigation has been incorporated into the ro'ect. 4. Property Values. The iandscape treatment proposeci in the Comprehensive Landscaping Program will have a beneficia] impact on the value of the property in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. Response: It is andcipated that propertv values in the immediate vicinitv will witness a beneficial impact due to the removal of oId struct�xres and the incarparation of the proposed architecture with its comprehensive signage and Iandscaping.The proposed landscaping expands on the uunimum linear code requirements of 1 tree per 25 lf and a continuous hedge. Refer to comments for Criterion 3 above. 5. Special Area or Scenic Corridar Plan. The landscape treatment proposecl in the Comprehensive Landscape Program is consistent with any special area or scenic corridor plan which ihhe City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in which the parcel proposed for development is Iocated. Response: Even thou�h there is no scenic corridar designation a#this location, the pro.posed landscape treatment is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Citv of Clearwater byprovidin�a camprehensive Iandscape treatment while providing for redevelo�ment of the site into a viable commercial develo�ment. I _ — ' • - r . �- : -��:��{� David M. Jones, Jr. and Associates, Inc. ` � � Landscape Architects and Pianners Date: August 28,2012,Updated December 10,2012 From: David M.Jones,Jr.,RLA FI-683, Cerdfied Arborist F1-0018 To: Robert Case, PE.LIS Engineering,LLC Re: KFC Clearwater, 19b0 GWf to Bay Boulevard Subject: Existing Tree Analysis Inspection of the subject site was performed to determine the location and conditions of the existing trees located on the property. The site is comprised of three separate parcels. The addresses of the parcels are as follows: • 405 South Comet Avenue with a single family structure constructed in 1955. • 409 South Comet Avenue with a store with an apartment constructed in 1956. • 1960 Gulf to Bay Boulevard with a drive thru restaurant constructed in 1963. In addition to the primary structures miscellaneous structures such as outdoor freezers and sheds exist on the Comet Avenue parcels. The proposed project includes the use of all three parcels for a single drive thru restaurant. All existing structures are proposed to be demolished. The survey that was provided locates the existing h�ees/palms on the subject property as well as the trees on adjacent properties One Oak with a 45"trunk diameter is proposed to be removed due to its location on the parcel and condition of the tree. It appears the tree was previously hit with lightning and or damaged from manmade abuse resulting in the death of'h of the tree. (Photo A) The condition of the tree is considered to be poor and should be removed to prevent the tree from becoming a safety hazard in the near future. The tree will not recover to become acceptable in the urban environment. In addition to the single Oak to be removed the site contains three additional trees. 2221 McGregor Boulevard LC000063 Phone: (239)337-5525 Fart Myers,FL 33901 Fax: (239)337-4494 2705 Tamiami Trail Unit 415 Punta Gorda,Florida 33950 Phonc:(941)235-2217 ,. . _ , KFC Clearwater Updated:Dec 10,2012 1960 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Page 2 Existing Tree Analysis These are a 42", 31"and 16"Oaks along the property boundary located in a platted easement. These trees are scheduled to remain. Maintenance pruning by a certified arborist is recommended to remove any dead or damaged limbs and perform the minor canopy reduction and lifting as well as root pruning that may be required to permit use of the property. The property to the south of the subject property is a commercial development with Laurel Oaks and Ear Tree canopy overlapping the subject property. (Photos B and C) The existing pavement line on the 1960 Gulf to Bay Parcel is proposed to be relocated slightly. Minor root pruning may be required to assist in the curb relocation. Given the paved areas on the subject property and the open areas of turf on the property to the south,the majority of the root structure for the offsite trees is anticipated to be on the northern, eastem and southern sides of the trees. The anticipated impacts to the trees should be considered insignificant if proper root pruning is provided. A single lone Washington Palm is located in the right of way of Comet Avenue at the Gulf to Bay Intersection. The Palm currently presents as a pedestrian and traffic hazard due to its close proximity to the intersection and proposed walk. The palm has no aesthetic value and is scheduled to be reznoved as part of the projects development. Given the age of the existing structures and location of the parcels,redevelopment of the parcels into a single unifying development meeting current building codes is justified. End of Report �•'�' � �'� �. �� .,�. �� • ;� . . s� � �� ' # �% � �£ � � i`�,. �`�.' .� `...�� ■IV ! r ' ` ,t s �.� ;f; ' E 9 . � ' . . _ � . 1 o� PHOTO B: Offsite Trees '`� ��g _ x j ,,r � �'`�_,f'. r ..�` j'� s� .,~� . T� �y„ !,a : !�,_S_ rt.! !' . ' • , 1 ';) .. ��, wX �Ke.3 a,� ��:3��. . ., � . . ' �.g�. ` � r .n��T�+ y � -� �,` �' .�, t'�. y:�',['r s��,�� _ }{ i f,� ,.', y�'` �' .�l�. • � �^k" - . " � :�� `�, ..� �, ..� s�r- ► ,. , �. �� PHOTO C: Offsite Trees PHOTO A: Damaged Oak a �a - � � �a- _ ' `��: �---�...� � � � � � �,� , _. ` ',�'"�,�a�'�� '�� `�� _, , • �� 4"��" � , � � ��,�,. ��/ A ,'� �� .s ......,^wm�,.:..�: ,m .e4.�. fS�� .� I f ��. � � i I Y�� "�� j �� .., . � - �t � � r '.�,,, , , � �,,�; � �. , r, . + �t�-��>�IF� -� ,��'� ��,�i� �� ii �•.��. '.irs�' '�„�;� ,., �.. ff,,tn� - s � ` , ,,,� , .�,. ._.� . � ;� .� ' ,�.-. �� ' '� � . } �� +., �� °t'�is•��».,+� +....+.' �.�.. �1�°�` � � ,,.,� ..�� .� #.,`.. � 1 � `,.� ;��, �'� .:.� 'W .6 �� ' � . �,. ' �� 1 ; � � t� � � N _ i a ��. . Yi-� . ,.,..� ��. . .�-. � �.... . ., � . � .:� �.,:: 1��.� �. # . � _�� s �: � , i �F � r ' � • � �� } � .� � � -� —..._.! ,.,.✓4�.} i� �"j�� ..� r. rs '� �/� �� . ��/ M. � �' I y� � 4 � f .` �, � . �; , � +, i p � , , , �..a �; �� - . � - � ,;�.� � . � �� __ �, -� � �.� , � � ! �' � �t �" ` � �* i *�'. • ! t t ' . 1' �. � �,,, � � . I - _ � E � _, _ _� � � - � �. . �� „F • • �' �� i � . : .. ..:, , . � � , '.._ . �.. � �.. .t r �: .. . .��♦ *,. � ..., �, .,;.. .� �� I � 0 0 N � � C�. _ �; „�,,. .�.. .� _ � - _ �, AM ��. . A�x.,`. �,,:a�,.,��.� �ww�:�:�;�,.�. � � ,.�..� ,., :",,.�r,". ,t � ,r_*� ,.... .»� � ,� :� '�1 r r e i -. .-�-�.. _�,.�a_,.`„�,�l�.��". � _,�.,_,.,, �,� .� __.. _... � ._.r.. �.- K.. . �*-�:�;-: ..'. .`. `.::. � .. .._..--... . •-�. . ... . . . . .. _ KFC Clearwater : 1960 Gulf to Bay Blvd. i Existing Site Aerial 1)�I j.� . � � ..,�.�........... ....�...... 8.28.12 - ,, � , I . j oaheen Nwy(�Ns.t 6k.t wq R,7ON �\'� I Mt..(N�1 ��w F.�. I �R�SE2-'�,Y � I FIND R�In i - - . ''2' � '`° � � i ROD EYb� �2' �I ��, . . (1NS _ _ _ - - I � . ,.� � '�'. ` : 1S Mls�(E!1) � � ,aj�,_ 4' �� 0'X 20' >4i . '��`'� - - E7tfstNM C�wo�1 LMw EIGNT /�3aM1 ta6n(1 Y�) F�on�A�AN � TRIAN6lE f'► � i } s" : � , �Y D�h000 Molly �.. r � I . (21NT) ! � . � � 7 (�d� fOfl�x �`C-.�.Tl'�a ,�-� I b Ar6erieW�([�) I y ~ �� 20 Dwl V � �t,-. �ht 16" , (1 q) _ � I. _ � ��_ (IM) I �I� i,il 11�t Vlbrrnum 1 �OS ---21 Dwf Fak 6ras(Wt) � ��j �f,� Y Cnp� • . ' ,3 Liw Oak(3 IMT► � - " �_- �� ( �) / . � . . �� 1 o,booe Nely(o �S IwN��wtl�oln�)8� � ��I,., 4 Dwf Fak 6rass(INT) _ ��e�) � . 75 Dwf VlMwnwn(IIfT) _ - A i �� 1Y RW NfNseu��1NT) �..�XISTIIG\ .SITE (2-W�l�_ 7• WOODEN FE �. 7 uw�alC(YY{) (S E�I 2 Ipn . TO REMAIN 14 Arborfeola(E 225 608TON FERN � 17 sWN� TYT( `� � � Exlst.efl Esr � � �. ��10 Dwf Vibunw�n(INT) ��' _ ,:.'�'�t�� ) .�� -_ • 1 Liv�Oak(1 � �r�!�+�� — — — y.,-� 8 Dwf Vfbumrm ' . \ ii .1+�1 � ��k�. mrc► 5'(� '�) -_` aM+..tes�� ""�: :ti,�[ oahoon Nay � �-� yy�� ,�(� .. ::lJ 1 II1T) S` Y _ �6re�I ,,,�s�� \ — -- /� '.. � Ginu�.. � � I3Saba1 `� r`.' ,.. RY � (g�� p Flax(1-INT) � 1 li wheon 11e1b(Et21 � ti' BLVD , I _ _.�.� 61tMX��a21'' 16' � '45 InN�w IbwtA�nl(MI�) � 6 Arr�ee�appp(�/) � . _ s�� ) �� IErINO OFFHTE . � �.. i TO REDMAIN MCE � / i O ��j� y; � � .-. � __ _ Fi.x J �� i % � � � � �� r- �� - �� ,�� h,s � .. i I�o,Ma.. �s�rrasea. � o�w (��.. �s � Po"E"� 'I = �' �� . :. � � +�` i'_ nrtu►�I XISTING CONC. + i �� \ �� ,� _ - ARKING AREA � ,�_ :;..� �-l� . , M (M�a1 : ;l �vaov e�.c ru ' --: . . � _ � - � � —17 IMlan N�rtl�om(Bld) _ 12 �,��w�ES2�) � �,- ' PROP , r 70 R�d - ��t � I , sicN �Z c NmiK�■�s�► ��:- -_�\ ' �., AlNO o_,Fa.cnn S GfN11 C1111Y111 I I J � �� MC'Ek �� 1- - � �A(N il0 �,�1 ri�111f� ��//� ,�^. ' �' �0 Fl�x� .. �22 Flaa , . �y� 6 Flaa ONC i. ,.� y ,�.]_ ��G-` . , /� .. � . ,,, .. \._... ,... .. .. as M�n N...enorn(u)... 1 ��/ I. ;,-. .... zo��e�,�M�a,n.om(ES) � . . ' °".,- 7 D�heen Molly(N) � _:-A��;. �� GWF TO BAY BLVD xsa (PAVEw1ENT MADTH VARIES) sw�neww�e (MIEST BOUI�D) KFC Clearwater Revised Landscape P1an 1)� I J�� .,�.,.,... . , 12.12.12 ,.�,�,.,,�.,,,,,,,. .,,,„,..,. �■.w�■�s � . 1 . �"' ' ' ' � .•r,,: � ��,,,� .��... :k �. `� j d � ,\ . . , ,'� ' J} •��i 4�x�..' � 'i . .�) �w � :� - �� .Y�• x�,^x.P^� � 4{"��t-�.N+��" ' ��,.. _ �. '�• r � �.�,�. -_ �, n r . . . . t 3 . _ : > +,, '+A�' --.�► ' �„, f :AI�• .}►'� ' ;A, �;;,�;° � .i . ,_... - . . �,.. •; +y� ; .... .�,. .' \�'...,, .e. r. M. �� '� .. ,.F ''" • '� � .,r 'r., ► I If`i�li�;i.. , , . . �-.. - '�- , _ . , � ;. � . , ..„ . . � �. .. , , . v,:. �.. r , ��/ ,.. y �� . ' � ' �j�e6"G, . . e�`� .� •'� ..C � , .,� �'. , .ya7.� . ♦ .�"l� i . r � � ''��- ti� .� +.� .,. . ` Y � , �- ..� . ' ! ' � �■,. .. .� � . r . ,y �•' _ '�.$� A �r` ' ,k'. , a, . � . �� ....r ,�'- . Ri�a . �. M�/�: t.,� �� q ,:" .. , .. � . _ . . • ,+� ��f. �k• . ' ' • '�'. t ' , . .':i"b�., ..' � :..A'.. •, �r'� ...*,' �� r , -. , . � ♦ .;! �':� !�q � y,a�,. .��;� �I. � � �� .a'.b unm ,.�� y r '�' 1�,� �. �w r t , �� "' a �,�,�� ;�. �� 4 , �� 'G Y;:<,, x �/� .aR.f } .. ' �R i � M � �.pd S ' i Np ��/ � � � �� - _ ' - � - �� / f:S_ � �x- ( / � �� _ . 4 ,I � �r . A,�� „��. <r 'rI; a ' � . "/�✓ ✓ �.��`yf �� • .� I'�✓"i ��'•� ,� -�� -. �x r3�- • . � . � �r � � � � . . . � � : ' � �.' ;� , � �y �` `� `� � '"� � "�'�'� '�`�}`' ` .:�a ��.,;�=.- �� r�'�`.�' e �� _ . - h�A0' :i Li �� ,i � . l � . � .y,�^i �i=.��^3.! " � . ,` .i,. ��iT�M 'k'^".7'-r+,T•,. 't . �1� �"C �1r :�!�1�� I,'F,VsI,. � ' .{.�1'C��• '1,. ' � , 1x �� 1 ��1'�,� �\ �S / ._ ' �� • � ' � � � � � � � � � w;g i��l�l��l�'� .1 nr . .. . � , � sn M� , .��. ,� - , � �,. � „ ,� �;.' � � 4y � �, •1�� ..G/ � fy � ,t. ��w � �//, � .1�,� . 5� . t . �e' 4 SL� ti�' �� 4.� y' � y.�•.�I�. 4 � .�- . , +�,� aY ..�' �� ' . yy.;.,..��♦. .s• .- ' . ' .. . � , '�. � , x . R` . � ��a �e• �, ,� �„ � � a �... � � „ �.. ��'"�` ' , �., .� � �.�. � . — t r�' �.... � . . ,� . - �� . .�� a� � °� � � �s � ��'�/ , '•w, '—�� v'•• c r �� ,�`_ *�"` �r.,::± `��/"""'.� � t ! ,e �� ..,�,. � �.. ��,�. � .: , .. :.� w . ��i �'' �w�'e .�. ..� ` .'"„� . • � ` . , � � y �y� ..'�, . .!f r „ Ia... � � '-- �� . -�+��.{`. . '"� �'R . - , . .,. . �. ... � . � . . . : f'�,� �.��"��y ,/�-''j'"/�„ .�'; ,�.'�'` ✓ -f�`�\,`: ,= n.�r�1F+A�`-.o„��,,y „r� � ,�T �?t• ',�r� r�;'` .' r.;� � ,�,. .,� �•, =;.� r :a.: KFC Clearwater : 1960 Gulf to Bay Blvd. 1��;1 J�� , South Elevation Store Frontage , 1212.12 „��,,,��,.�,.�.,,�,.��.��.�.� � I VIfM��I'�\M I/IIlCI\.�11{rl A\\�N� - U N 1 V E R S A L �FFICES IN: •Atianta •�aytona ENGINEERING SCIENCES •PortMyers '•Fort PiBrCe Ca�u�i�iit�atechnic��^�Ena�tn��En�onmental Saences '•Gainesviile ;C��nrs MAte�ials Te�»'1'�r�1d k1��ction•Pians Review '-Jacksomilie Pr3u�te Rrtraid��8�ilding In�e�an=Cea�k�eJ Services •Kisaimmee •leesburg •Miamf •Ocala , •Ortando(Headquarters) •Palm Goast '�Panama City December 19, �012 •Pensacola •Rackledge •SarasoW •Tampe LIS Engineering, LLC •West Palm Beach 21430 Paim Beach Blvd Alva, FL 33920 Attention: Robert Case Reference; Geotechnical Exploration Proposed KFC Development 1960 Gulf to Bay Blvd Clearwater, Florida UES Proposal No. 0830.1212.00009 Dear Mr. Case, Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc. (UES) has compteted a geotechnical exploration an the above-referenced site in Clearwater, Florida.Our scope of services was in general accordance with UES Proposal#0830.1212.00009, dated December 18, 2012. Two (2) hand auger borings designated A-1 and A-2 were advanced to a depth of 8.0 feet below existing grade. � One(1) Double Ring Infiltrometer(DRI)test designated DRI-1 was completed within the proposed pond area in general accordance with ASTM D-3385 guidelines, at the location shown on the Boring Location Plan attached. The test was completed at an approximate depth of 12 inches below the existing ground surface, using a fluid head ot 3 inches. The duration of the test was appraximately 2.0 hours. The resulting infiltration rate at the DRI-1 location was recorded at 15 inches per haur under the above stated conditions. The subsurface stratigraphy encountered at the hand auger boring locations consisted of sand,and sand with silt to a maximum explored depth of 8 feet below grade. Please refer to the boring logs attached to this report. The shallow water table was encountered at an approximate depth of 8 feet below existing grade at the boring location. Based upon our visual inspection of the recovered soil samples, review of information obtained from SWFWMD and the USDA Soil Survey of Pinellas County, and our knowledge of lacal and regional hydrogeology,our best estimate is thatthe seasonai high groundwater level could befinreen 5 to 6 feet below the existing grade at the test boring lacation. 9802 Palm River Road • Tampa, Florida 33619 • $13-740-$506 • Fax$13-74Q-8706 � We appreciate the opportunity to have worked with you on this project and look forward to a cantinued association with LIS Engineering,LLC. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you should have any questions, or if we may further assist you as your plans proceed. Respectfully submitted, UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES, INC. Certificate ofAuthorization No. 549 ��,��4`��111lflll/f ��`"� �p RA, �-'�,, ��, �� , �. � � � � � ,w � � a n�c�,ja�1'�� ,= P.E.= G�it�tnical M�nager �* � Fl�tda Cac� �`4f1,�6 � . D�� *' �,� SSV/dr ��'�i,��Ct`,;�1�t��;��'�'�� /ff11llllltl\ Distribution: Client (3 Bound} _ _ �+ �a G�, �, �•a�e d•� �. � �� _ ry� , x �V Q: �q� , � �• � �4 �/�+ f� • !''� r� If �' � � .'�� f � . ��E$�% �,�3� � � ,A�i" � �i� �D �� , : � R � � " f°a�� ' J,�,�' "� . x � �. � .� ...... o �- � $. :�� c [ < i y � � l ..`�� , � �. f fi; �— �a � �� . �° �,� a �� t��a.� . ' IE�k~�\: .z.T� 'I . I i'� :\ti { �� . a.a�- 3 1Ya,�%"vr �' �,.�1��s.��.�w ,� e6 a '. �� t; �s« � �+ �� ;,. �� '�' y� �� 'q a � � .�,p� .v�w u_ > �� `s<». '� h'�'�w"` :<. .a� �aa , _ ��'� c � ` � � F��x '�Y�t�+ � � Y�'�y3�� q�T� �'�" � ISAINEACNL AlkStbJ.: �� R}:j{� � 9;A�W�i� . . #y f 1[,.vT� r.� �. a�, . t �' +wR . � �� F � ��y .� ,y j� � � , . �j� �4 � � 'x '�, . }� i x . r�� " � � �� "� � _ ��', D 4a :{:.. � �'s. .� '� i �# �.s k ��- � .., $k � .,§ �r� �� • ��, ��...� ;�,:v„w��. x.r_ �` � t��1�� ' � = �� >�r _�_ � �- " , �� • : . �� , � .� � �.._.... �..�= a ��a�.:,...� � � � � .. ��.�. ��>��' � ��. �,�� . : � ,.��.� � ��:� � ��. _ � m�� — m � EM.��E��EEa��,LL� �. �'Z PROPOSED KFC DEVELOPMENT �� . z 1960 GULF TO BAY BOULEVARD oeewx er: ee �� o�ru occ is.zo:z �� CLEARWATER, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA RA.iE.uEO n: ss� o�rz: oec+n.m!¢ �, _......................................._......_ �D __.__--- vnaee.ro: scuE: vaz'=r „r DRI / BORING LOCATION PLAN �-------- YROPOS�L N0:0!]O.i21L00WY I . UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PRQJECT NO.: D830.1212 00009 9802 Palm River Road �O o I A'r ` O^ Tampa,Fbrida 33619 C1 1 V V L. V APPENDIX: (813j 74U-8506 PAGE:� 1 PROJECT: Proposed KFC Developme�t BORING DESiGNATION: A-1 SHEET: � Of� 1960 Gulf to Bay BLVD, SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: Clearwater,FL ENGINEER: Surendra Sagi,P.E. ELEVATION: DATE STARTED: 72/18/12 CLIENT: LIS Engineering,LlC WATER TABLE(ft): 8 DATE F�NISHED: 12118/12 LOCATIO(V: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN DATE OF READING: 12118l2012 DRI��ED BY: JC REMARKS: EST.W.S.W.T.(ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: Auger S g DEPTH M eLOw N SPT-N vs DEPTH G M DESCRIPTION -200 MC A LIMITSRG �FT� ORG (ft) P ' COUNTS {bpf) {bpf) W OB (%} ' (%) DAY)' �%) E � LL PL b •:; _ _ � Gray brown SAND with roots(SP) � LighY gray SAND{SPj 2 � � .�`.: 8rown SAND with silt(SP-SM) ,:�_ ,�, ' 3 Light brown SAND(SP) 4 5— . ,. ... , , ., _ _ N � m t� F � � a 7 � � Brown SAND with sitt(SP-SM) u� � �� tJ �- �' 8 � V ,.� Boring termineted at 8 ft. J � A O � � 2 OL <) m � � � a , UNIVER5AL ENGINEERING SCIENCES PROJECT NO.: 0830,1212.60009 9802 Paim River Road �OO'�� O^ - ��'^'—��""�° Tampa,Florida 33619 R t] � � APPENDtX: (813)740-85C6 PAGE: 2 PROJECT: Proposed KFC Development BORING OESIGNATION: A-2 s�Eer: 1 of 1 1960 Gulf to Bay BLVD. SECTION: TOWNSHIP: RANGE: Clearwater,Fl ENGINEER: Surendra Sagi,P:E. ELEVATION: DATE STARTED: 12l1Bl12 CLIENT: LIS Engineering,LLC WATERTABLE(ft): 8 DATE FINISHED: 12l18112 LOCATION: SEE BORING LOCATION PLAN DATE OF R�ADING: 12/18/2012 DRILLED BY: JC REMARKS: EST,W.S,W T.{ft): TYPE OF SAMPLING: Auger S g __ A DEPTH M B�oW N SPT-N vs DEPTH G ' M DESCRIPTION -200 MC A�EMBSRG ��,T� ORG (ft) P CoUNTS �bPf) �bPf) w ' O (%) (%) ' DAY) ��D) � � LL PL 0 i ' �' Gray brown SAND(SP) � � 1 Light grey SAND{SP) 2 , . °'' Brown SAND with silt(SP-SM) 3 '��' Light brown SAND(SP) 4 5 _ , �, 6 m N � ' Brown SAND with silt(SP-SM} �� st {-..� � � m >�.-. ut � � � Dark brown SAND with silt(SP-SM} . . .: � _ 8 � '-' Boring terminated at 8 R. w 0 � � � :s� � w � t- 4 �c 1960 Gulf to Bay Blvd. Clearwater, FL Drainage Calculations Given• A. Acreages 1. Total =32,529 SF = 0.75 Acres 2. Impervious a. Building (Roofl = 3,180 SF = 0.07 Acres b. Onsite Pavement/Concrete = 16,819 SF = 0.38 Acres 3. Pervious a. Dry Detention (@ T.O.B.) = 6,567 SF = 0.15 Acres b. Other Green Area = 5,963 SF = 0.14 Acres B. Minimum Elevations • 1. Roads and Parking =+68.00' N.A.V.D. 2. Finish Floors =+68.60' N.A.V.D. C. Zoning: "Commercial" (C) D. Allowable Discharge: Pre-Development Discharge Rate E. Pre-Development Discharge Rate, Q = CIA, where C = Runoff Coefficient, I = Rainfall Intensity (In./Hr.), and A=Drainage Area (Acres) Q = 0.20x8.8x0.48 = 0.84CF5 E. Water Level Elevations 1. Wet Season Water Table =+61.00' N.A.V.D. 2. Receiving Body Water Level =+61.00' N.A.V.D. .0 � 4�g�w�� , � �h�f ca& �r Y� F. Design Storm Rainfall Amounts �a ,''�'� .��,�' ��a ; �, ;�'^ ti°a= ,; 4, g, o �'��. '�. �': �`9 �„. '" `a^ y 1. Roads (10-Year, 24-Hour Event) = 6.5" � � �j�f �,�. ��:,�� "' �'` ,�: •� :;F KFC = �!��- December 2012 � � a-�' �(�� Page 1 of 5 �.� �� J ` 4? y'., n. . l . I 2. Design (25-Year, 72-Hour Event) = 7.7" x 1.359 = 10.46" 3. Floors (100-Year,72-Hour Event) =9.6" x 1.359 = 13.05" Design Criteria: A. Quality 1. If detention system,then whichever is greater a. The first inch of runoff from the developed project b. 2.5" times the percentage of imperviousness 2. If dry detenNon system, then 75% of the volume is required. B. Quantity 1. Parking Lots a. No lower than the peak stage of the 10-year, 1-day design storm event. b. At least 2' above control elevation. 2. Perimeter berm elevation to be no lower than the peak stage of the 25-year, 3-day design storm event. 3. Finish floor elevation to be no lower than the peak stage of the 100-year, 3-day design storm event with 0-discharge. Computations- A. Quality 1. Compute first inch of runoff from the developed project =32,529 SF x 0.083 x 0.75 =2,025 CF 2. Compute 2.5" times the percentage of imperviousness = 16,819 SF x 32,529 SF x 0.75 x 0.20833/29,349 SF=2,913 CF � 3. Since 2,913 CF is more than 2,025 CF, the volume of 2,913 CF controls. B. Determine Soil Storage for Developed Site 1. Average finished site grade elevation= +68.0' N.A.V.D. 2. Depth to water table=+68.0' N.G.V.D. - +61.0' N.G.V.D. = 7.0' 3. Soil storage for 7.0' depth= 10.90". KFC December 2012 Page 2 of 5 4. Project soil storage= 10.90"x % Pervious (0.38) =4.412" Proiect Surface Storage: A. Assumptions 1. Site storage is vertical. Site storage begins at the top of bank of the dry detention areas (+68.0' N.A.V.D.) and ends at the proposed minimum finish floor elevation (+68.60' N.G.V.D.). Site storage area is 32,5299 SF- 3,180 SF- 6,567 SF = 22,782 SF. 2. Detention storage is linear. Detention storage begins at +65.00' N.G.V.D. and includes bank storage to+68.0' N.A.V.D. (6,567 SF). 3. Post-development time of concentration is a minimum of 10 minutes (0.17 hours). 4. The tail water curve for the existing curb inlet parallel to Comet Ave (the proposed receiving body for the storm water discharge) would be at +61.0' N.A.V.D. (W.S.W.T.) at time, T = 0 hours, at +12.50 (below the existing limerock grades of the adjacent road) at time, T = 24 hours, and at+13.10' (below the existing edge of pavement grades of the adjacent road) at time,T = 60 hours during the 25-year, 3- day storm event. B. Detention Storage Provided STAGE DRY DETENTION SITE DETENTION STORAGE FEET AC FT AC FT AC FT 65.0 0.000 0.000 0.000 65.1 0.005 0.000 0.005 65.2 0.009 0.000 0.009 65.3 0.014 0.000 0.014 65.4 0.019 0.000 0.019 65.5 0.024 0.000 0.024 65.6 0.028 0.000 0.028 65.7 0.033 0.000 0.033 65.8 0.038 0.000 0.038 65.9 0.042 0.000 0.042 66.0 0.047 0.000 0.047 66.1 0.047 0.000 0.047 66.2 0.053 0.000 0.053 66.3 0.059 0.000 0.059 * 66.4 0.065 0.000 0.065 66.5 0.071 0.000 0.071 66.6 0.078 0.000 0.078 66.7 0.084 0.000 0.084 KFC December 2012 Page 3 of 5 STAGE DRY DETENTION SITE DETENTION STORAGE FEET AC FT AC FT AC FT 66.8 0.090 0.000 0.090 66.9 0.096 0.000 0.096 67.0 0.108 0.000 0.108 67.1 0.121 0.000 0.121 67.2 0.133 0.000 0.133 67.3 0.146 0.000 0.146 67.4 0.159 .0.000 0.159 67.5 0.171 0.000 0.171 67.6 0.184 0.000 0.184 67.7 0.197 0.000 0.197 67.8 0.209 0.000 0.209 67.9 0.222 0.000 0.222 68.0 0.235 0.000 0.235 68.1 0.250 0.052 0.302 68.2 0.265 0.104 0.369 68.3 0.280 0.156 0.436 68.4 0.295 0.208 0.503 68.5 0.310 0.260 0.570 68.6 0.325 0.312 0.637 * - +66.35' is the water quality elevation Desi�n of Control Structure: A. Bleeder Calculations 1. Size bleeder to discharge 1/" of runoff from the developed project within twenty- four (24) hours. 2. '/Z" x 32,529 SF x 1'/12" = 1355 CF 3. 1355 CF/24 Hr. x 1 hr./60 min. x 1 min./60 sec. = 0.016 CFS 4. The volume through a circular bleeder orifice is calculated using the formula Q = 4.8 AH'�2, where A= the area of the orifice and H = the head above the centroid of the orifice. 5. With the bleeder invert set at the control elevation (+64.0'), from trial and error, the bleeder will be a 3" diameter circular orifice (the smallest allowable). 6. Q =4.8 AHI�Z=4.8 x 0.049 x (3.375)1�2 = 0.43 CFS B. Control Structure Elevation KFC December 2012 Page4of5 1. Set the control structure weir crest high enough to store the water quality volume . of 0.066AF (+66.35' N.A.V.D.). 2. Size weir to limit discharge to 0.84 CFS (as calculated previously) for the 25-year, 72-hour storm event. From trial and error, the control elevation will be the grate of the control structure at elevation +67.50'. This yields a peak discharge of 0.24 CFS and a peak stage of+13.99' during the 25-year, 72-hour storm event. Results: Three (3) separate storm events were routed. A summary of the results of these routings is as follows: 1. The 10-year, 24-hour storm event yields a peak discharge of 0.24 CFS and a peak stage of +65.19'. This elevation is the minimum design grade for the parking lot. 2. The 25-year, 72-hour storm event yields a peak discharge of 0.31 CFS and a peak stage of +66.37'. This elevation is the minimum design grade for the perimeter berm and establish the grate elevation for the discharge control structure. 3. The 100-year, 72-hour storm event without discharge yields a peak stage of+68.10. This elevation is the minimum design grade for finish floors. KFC December 2012 Page 5 of 5 Cascade 2001 Version 1.0 File: 10.txt Date: December 13, 2012 Page 1 Project Name: KFC-CLEARWATER Reviewer: BC Project Number: KFC09 Period Begin: Dec 13, 2012;0000 hr End: Dec 14, 2012;0000 hr Duration: 24 hr Time Step: 0.2 hr, Iterations: l0 Basin 1: 1 Method: Santa Barbara Unit Hydrograph Rainfall Distribution: SFWMD - 24 hr Design Frequency: l0 year 1 Day Rainfall: 6.5 inches Area: 0.75 acres Ground Storage: 12 inches Time of Concentration: 0.17 hours Initial Stage: 61 ft NGVD Stage Storage (ft NGVD) (acre-ft) 0.00 0.00 61.00 0.00 65.00 0.00 65.10 0.01 65.20 0.01 65.30 0.01 65.40 0.02 65.50 0.02 65.60 0.03 ' 65.70 0.03 65.80 0.04 65.90 0.04 66.00 0.05 66.10 0.05 66.20 0.06 66.30 0.07 66.50 0.08 66.60 0.08 66.70 0.09 66.80 0.10 66.90 0.10 67.00 0.11 67.10 0.12 67.20 0.13 67.30 0.15 67.40 0.16 67.50 0.17 67.60 0.18 67.70 0.20 67.80 0.21 67.90 0.22 68.00 0.23 68.10 0.30 68.20 0.37 68.30 0.44 68.40 0.50 68.50 0.57 68.60 0.64 Offsite Receiving Body: Offsitel Time Stage (hr) (ft NGVD) --------- --------- 0.00 61.00 24.00 64.00 60.00 64.70 96.00 61.00 Cascade 2001 Version 1.0 File: l0.txt Date: December 13, 2012 Page 2 Structure: 1 From Basin: 1 To Basin: Offsitel Structure Type: Gravity Weir: Broad Crested, Crest Elev = 67.5 ft NGVD, Length = 2 ft, Weir Coef = 0 Bleeder: Circular, Invert Elev = 64 ft NGVD, Diameter = 0.25 ft Default Coefs: Weir Coef = 0.6, Orifice Coef = 0.6 Pipe: Diameter = 1.25 ft, Manning's n = 0.012, Length = 28 ft , US Invert Elev = 63.25 ft NGVD, DS Invert Elev = 63 ft NGVD, flap gate Cumulative Instant Current Cumulative Head Water Tail Water Time Rainfall Runoff Discharge Discharge Stage Stage (hr) (in) (cfs) (cfs) (acre-ft) (ft NGVD) (ft NGVD) 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 61.00 61.00 2.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 61.25 4.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 61.50 6.00 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 61.75 8.00 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 62.00 10.00 1.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 62.25 12.00 4.26 0.52 0.24 0.00 65.12 62.50 14.00 5.32 0.08 0.00 0.03 0.00 62.75 16.00 5.72 0.06 0.00 0.04 65.04 63.00 18.00 5.95 0.04 0.00 0.05 65.01 63.25 20.00 6.19 0.04 0.00 0.06 0.00 63.50 22.00 6.34 0.03 0.00 0.06 0.00 63.75 24.00 6.50 0.03 0.00 0.06 65.01 64.00 STRUCTURE MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM DISCHARGES ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- Struc Max (cfs) Time (hr) Min (cfs) Time (hr) 1 0.24 12.40 0.00 0.00 BASIN MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM STAGES -------------------------- Basin Max (ft) Time (hr) Min (ft) 'rime (hr) -------------------------- 1 65.19 12.40 0.00 0.20 BASIN WATER BUDGETS (all units in acre-ft) ------------------------------------------------ Total Structure Structure Initial Final Basin Runoff Inflow Outflow Storage Storage Residual 1 0.06 0 00 0 06 0 00 0 00 0.00 Cascade 2001 Version 1.0 File: 25.txt Date: December 13, 2012 Page 1 Project Name: KFC-CLEARWATER Reviewer: BC Project Number: KFC09 Period Begin: Dec 13, 2012;0000 hr End: Dec 16, 2012;0000 hr Duration: 72 hr Time Step: 0.2 hr, Iterations: 10 Basin l: 1 Method: Santa Barbara Unit Hydrograph Rainfall Distribution: SFWMD - 3day Design Frequency: 25 year 3 Day Rainfall: 10.46 inches Area: 0.75 acres Ground Storage: 12 inches Time of Concentration: 0.17 hours Initial Stage: 61 ft NGVD Stage Storage (ft NGVD) (acre-ft) --------- --------- 0.00 0.00 61.00 0.00 65.00 0.00 65.10 0.01 65.20 0.01 65.30 0.01 65.40 0.02 65.50 0.02 65.60 0.03 65.70 0.03 65.80 0.04 65.90 0.04 66.00 0.05 66.10 0.05 66.20 0.06 66.30 0.07 66.50 0.08 66.60 0.08 66.70 0.09 66.80 0.10 66.90 0.10 67.00 0.11 67.10 0.12 67.20 0.13 67.30 0.15 67.40 0.16 67.50 0.17 • 67.60 0.18 67.70 0.20 67.80 0.21 67.90 0.22 68.00 0.23 68.10 0.30 68.20 0.37 68.30 0.44 68.40 0.50 68.50 0.57 68.60 0.64 Offsite Receiving Body: Offsitel 'rime Stage (hr) (ft NGVD) --------- --------- 0.00 61.00 24.00 64.00 60.00 64.70 96.00 61.00 , Cascade 2001 Version 1.0 - File: 25.txt Date: December 13, 2012 Page 2 Structure: 1 From Basin: 1 To Basin: Offsitel Structure Type: Gravity Weir: Broad Crested, Crest Elev = 67.5 ft NGVD, Length = 2 ft, Weir Coef = 0 Bleeder: Circular, Invert Elev = 64 ft NGVD, Diameter = 0.25 ft Default Coefs: Weir Coef = 0.6, Orifice Coef = 0.6 Pipe: Diameter = 1.25 ft, Manning's n = 0.012, Length = 28 ft US Invert Elev = 63.25 ft NGVD, DS Invert Elev = 63 ft NGVD, flap gate Cumulative Instant Current Cumulative Head Water Tail Water Time Rainfall Runoff Discharge Discharge Stage Stage (hr) (in) (cfs) (cfs) (acre-ft) (ft NGVD) (ft NGVD) ________________________________________________________________ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 61.00 61.00 2.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 61.25 4.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 61.50 6.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 61.75 8.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 62.00 10.00 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 62.25 12.00 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 62.50 14.00 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 62.75 16.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 63.00 18.00 0.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 63.25 20.00 0.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 63.50 22.00 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 63.75 24.00 1.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64.00 26.00 1.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64.04 28.00 1.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64.08 30.00 1.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64.12 32.00 1.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64.16 34.00 1.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64.19 36.00 1.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64.23 38.00 2.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64.27 40.00 2.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64.31 42.00 2.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64.35 44.00 2.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 65.00 64.39 46.00 2.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 65.00 64.43 48.00 2.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 65.01 64.47 50.00 2.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 65.03 64.51 52.00 3.11 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 64.54 54.00 3.40 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 64.58 56.00 3.82 0.03 0.00 0.01 65.02 64.62 58.00 4.40 0.07 0.14 0.02 65.02 64.66 60.00 7.81 1.76 0.26 0.04 65.88 64.70 62.00 9.06 0.16 0.31 0.09 66.20 64.49 64.00 9.54 0.11 0.27 0.14 65.62 64.29 66.00 9.81 0.06 0.00 0.17 65.03 64.08 b8.00 10.09 0.07 0.00 0.19 65.02 63.88 70.00 10.28 0.04 0.00 0.19 65.03 63.67 72.00 10.46 0.04 0.00 0.20 65.03 63.47 STRUCTURE MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM DISCHARGES ---------------------------------------- Struc Max (cfs) 'rime (hr) Min (cfs) Time (hr) -------------------------------------- 1 0.31 61.20 0.00 0.00 BASIN MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM STAGES --------------------------------- Basin Max (ft) Time (hr) Min (ft) Time (hr) 1 66.3'7 60.80 0.00 0 20 BASIN WATER BUDGETS (all units in acre-ft) Cascade 2001 Version 1.0 File: 25.txt Date: December 13, 2012 Page 3 Total Structure Structure Initial Final Basin Runoff Inflow Outflow Storage Storage Residual 1 0 20 0 00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cascade 2001 Version 1.0 File: 100.txt Date: December 13, 2012 Page 1 Project Name: KFC-CLEARWATER Reviewer: BC Project Number: KFC09 Period Begin: Dec 13, 2012;0000 hr End: Dec 16, 2012;0000 hr Duration: 72 hr Time Step: 0.2 hr, Iterations: 10 Basin l: 1 Method: Santa Barbara Unit Hydrograph Rainfall Distribution: SFwMD - 3day Design Frequency: l00 year 3 Day Rainfall: 13.05 inches Area: 0.75 acres Ground Storage: 12 inches Time of Concentration: 0.17 hours Initial Stage: 61 ft NGVD Stage Storage (ft NGVD) (acre-ft) --------- --------- 0.00 0.00 61.00 0.00 65.00 0.00 65.10 0.01 65.20 0.01 65.30 0.01 65.40 0.02 65.50 0.02 65.60 0.03 65.70 0.03 65.80 0.04 65.90 0.04 66.00 0.05 66.10 0.05 66.20 0.06 66.30 0.07 66.50 0.08 66.60 0.08 66.70 0.09 66.80 0.10 66.90 0.10 67.00 0.11 F7.10 0.12 67.20 0.13 67.30 0.15 67.40 0.16 67.50 0.17 67.60 0.18 67.70 0.20 67.80 0.21 67.90 0.22 68.00 0.23 68.10 0.30 68.20 0.37 68.30 0.44 68.40 0.50 68.50 0.57 68.60 0.64 Offsite Receiving Body: Offsitel 'rime Stage (hr) (ft NGVD) --------- --------- 0.00 61.00 24.00 64.00 60.00 64.70 96.00 61.00 Cascade 2001 Version 1.0 File: 100.txt Date: December 13, 2012 Page 2 STRUCTURE MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM DISCHARGES _____________________________________________________ Struc Max (cfs) Time (hr) Min (cfs) Time (hr) , BASIN MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM STAGES __________________________________ ------------------- Basin Max (ft) Time (hr) Min (ft) Time (hr) --------------1J------68.11-------72 00--------0.00 0.20 BASIN WATER BUDGETS (all units in acre-ft) ______----- -------------------------------------------------- Total Structure Structure Initial Final Basin Runoff Inflow Outflow Storage Storage Residual ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.00 Architecture—Engineering—Land Surveying-Interiors September 29,2012 Parking Demand Studv Introduction: The project involves the redevelopment of the existing Kentucky Fried Chicken(KFC)restaurant located at the northeast corner of the intersection of S. Comet Avenue and Gulf to Bay Boulevard., City of Clearwater, Florida. Existing Site Description: The existing KFC includes approximately 3,085 square feet of building area located on 14,990 square feet of property.The existing development includes 13 on-site parking spaces and 6 off-site parking spaces. The off-site parking spaces are diagonal in nature and are located on the east side of the S. Comet Avenue right of way. Consequently,there are a total of 19 spaces serving the existing KFC. There is a drive-thru located on the east side of the existing restaurant. This existing drive thru creates a hazardous condition, in that drive thru traffic conflicts with pedestrian traffic entering the restaurant. One of the reasons for the site"redevelopment request"is to provide a drive-thru on the west side of the building;thereby,eliminating the hazardous condition identified above. This relocation will also increase the stacking of cars from approximately two to at least seven. Description of Existing Abutting Property to be Redeveloped: In addition to the existing KFC property,the owner is currently in negotiations to purchase two residential properties to the north, in order to expand the parking area and provide a drive-thru, in addition to providing additional storm water management and landscaping enhancement. Obviously, the purchase of these parcels is contingent upon favorable site permitting. These two parcels contain approximately 6,862 square feet of building area upon approximately 17,539 square feet of property area. One of these houses was formerly used for a florist shop.Both existing structures appear to be in deteriorated condition. Proposed Project Description: 3�, �� .�� a The proposed project includes the complete demolrtic��b�t��xis��restaurant and the �3� existing off-site and on-site parking lots.The proje��a��oe�n�lq�d"eS�Fie;��.�l�se of both of the 4�„ �� ; . c.°� ��. SW Florida ,t; �;;. M ° �f ��i��;� f�^�, �: Centra]Florida 21430 Palm Beach Blvd. �p ;^�' �ti;� 2572 W.State Road 426 Alva,FL 33920 " ��' " Sp�te 2064 Oviedo,FL 32765 Ph:(239)693-9244 ;, �;a �-, .< �;'�' Ph:(321)244-0402 Fax:(239)693-9828 �t � �A '`�,::a Fax:(321)244-9419 _ .�, �� , � 1��..��«� � �'' �� ' � ��; 4 �''�� " ' R.�43q�-�v�'� LIS-Engineering Page 2 of 2 abutting residential properties to the north.All structures and driveways on these parcels shall be completely demolished.The total area of the combined parcels is 32,529 square feet.The project includes the construction of a new 3,180 KFC restaurant.The remaining area shall be utilized for 28 on-site parking spaces,and 7 drive thru spaces. The project also includes new asphalt driveways, dumpster enclosure, storm water management areas, and enhanced landscaping. Proposed Methodology: The proposed methodology is to simply compare the existing condition versus the proposed condition in order to justify the project. Parking Demand: In order to compare the existing condition to the proposed condition,we shall begin with a comparison of the traffic generated by the two.Reference is made to E�ibits"A-1"and"A-2". These e�ibits reflect the traffic generated by a 3085 square foot fast food restaurant and two single family residences and a specialty retail(florist shop)with 2 employees."Exhibit"B-1"reflects the traffic generated by a 3180 square foot fast food restaurant. These exhibits are based on the 8"' Edition of the"Trip Generation Manual"and the 6'i'Edition of"Microtrans". The results of the comparison of traffic generated indicates that the new restaurant only generates about two additional trips during the weekday peak hour and only about three additional trips during the weekend peak hour. As a percentage of the total,this increase would be considered negligible. Parking Supply and Comparison: As previously enumerated,there are total of 19 parking spaces currently available. The proposed design includes 28 parking spaces. This amounts to an approximate 47%increase in parking spaces. The Yum Brands"Site Design Manual"recommends a minimum of 25 parking spaces. Yum Brands is the parent company of KFC. The proposed KFC building shall provide 44 seats. If we assume two seats per car,these spaces would require 22 parking spaces. There are a maximum of six employees during any shift.Therefore,a maximum occupancy condition would require 22 plus 6, or 28 spaces. Conclusion: In summary, since 28 spaces are provided,this would indicate sufficient parking is available under the proposed design. In addition,it should be noted that all of these parking spaces would be provided on-site. Consequently,we feel that the proposed site improvements far exceed the existing condition and the new design shall provide an enhancement for the adjacent community. Sinc ly, ��-''_—.-- Robert W. Case,P.E. xl-Fit�� " � " � � Summary of Mul�i-Use Trip Generation Average Weekday Driveway Volumes December 13, 2012 24 Hour AM Pk Hour PM Pk Hour Two-way Land Use Size Volume Enter Exit Enter Exit Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Thru 3 .085 Th.Sq.Ft. GFA 1531 78 75 54 50 Single Family Detached Housing 2 Dwelling Units 19 0 1 1 1 Specialty Retail Center 2 Employees 45 0 0 0 0 Total Driveway Volume 1595 78 76 55 51 Total Peak Hour Pass-By Trips 38 37 27 25 Total Peak Hour Vol. Added to Adjacent Streets 40 39 28 26 Note: A zero indicates no data available. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS �s / �xEf�R� 1" k�-a" 5ummary of Multi-Use Trip Generation Saturday and Sunday Driveway Volumes December 13, 2012 Saturday Sunday 24 Hr Peak Hour 24 Hr Peak Hour 2-Way 2-Way Land Use Size Vol. Enter Exit Vol. Enter Exit Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Thru 3 .085 Th.Sq.Ft. GFA 2227 93 90 1674 108 117 Single Family Detached Housing 2 Dwelling Units 20 1 1 18 1 1 Specialty Retail Center 2 Employees 46 0 0 22 0 0 Total Driveway Volume 2293 94 91 1714 109 118 Total Peak Hour Pass-By Trips 0 0 Total Pk Hr Vol Added to Adjacent Streets 94 91 Note: A zero indicates no data available. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS �� xf-� i �3�T ''�s-- r �' Summary of Average Vehicle Trip Generation For 3 .180 Th.Sq.Ft. GFA of Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Thru December 13, 2012 24 Hour 7-9 AM Pk Hour 4-6 PM Pk Hour Two-Way Volume Enter Exit Enter Exit Average Weekday 1578 80 77 56 52 24 hour Peak Hour Two-Way Volume Enter Exit Saturday 2296 96 93 Sunday 1726 111 120 Note: A zero indicates no data available. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 8th Edition, 2008. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS / ��-�s :� , � � ; , _ . + .�. � _� 7� ��" .. x ep� w`` 7 x ��f, � a ,�� - �u : � k��i � �r < , - �+ . �„a ._..�" � � �. _ ._ . � �� `�� . ., .m . � � �: �, "�� , .. _ � � . „ , :,� m " .�' fa� � � � �� a'k�' .._. , !w- ,� �,-�a a.: � x� n. ,�: . _ � �� „, ,:��,� �. �� '� � „� � _ -: � � ; � ,x� ��`�`"�',� � _ .>� , : ., � ,�,k . ,� �. ... , . �� ;- ^ �t �°�.._�.,._... : � � . ; ,� '"*� . � � .._ ,•,� , � �• a ., , ,� - a . ,.x . ? a � ., . . . . A�y.k � .. ..r. Lr�t lr � _ �� Y�'� .:-v�." . _ ..-> . z. .u.:... � �, •{ ..�' ,�y�1"Y'� F,y�y,�'�n d�'�, i k.. �*`�+�k i R��'� v�'"K;+ � E � !�FR � _ � ��;a.� � �. � �+�� 5�' Pr ' ` k` 4 g r I,�` ��. �-+��'''�: �`s�` �e s`'" o- ..�..° ,�.��..� h � �, _ n�. . _ 1 =�.e.�� • � ..,. . � .a«., w� . � . s.. � �:, 'r.�. *"�� . . ... e 4 z £ ., t w. ��*2 -o, � g-,.„ p. t k �-�q �+ a � � � ' € � ..s �# C F .�. � } E, -.am ��wF'..„ .. . . . ' j 6ya�� tY p� - . ��,,.... .. �r,�, _,. . ,. � �t .� . ✓ � �°+ . u . � « ' �� S � f ,-��'�T �"�' � � �� s�»� � � � , ,�... • '�.8..�,.m�.„ ,. . . . �� -�� S�� . r ..�� '�.�*"" *� � . ��p # , .« � w � . , , ... ....- -� ..y , �.0 _ � � � „ �-�, . ., ': ,a L - ,.. , �. . � ,� � ."+�..�"'�.F ' . . � � . � -,:r � � w `-,'�o,:; � � . � �" ` B'��A� ' • w� ��e�;:_ � � '� � '�� .. - � �. . _ ..�<.. �,� ... � _ ��.�� _ ��?� � 'L �� yfi'y 1 a y,.,��. �' .+ .,. .� ��,_ , � T� � r � �Aa M � . . ` _ _ � . . � ; �� , - � � ^ . � �' - � � ��"�4 �� ` � �" �,;`, �� ..��v. »;`-.i � �: � .. -w x -, ' s ,' , � ��lf�� . ._ .� ��.. . LL ��k _�''` �' � _ � 3. � �.� 1 � ��x�- .�. � �:'� ^'� .. «� � �� ,�,, �� ;,�.�. , .�_� ..,...��.�...� � ; y .� �� : y�� : �., � � � �; � �g � � li{ � � $ �� a f3. � � � � z �� :�r �� .": ,�,�.,� �, „� ��+ �� `� . � ��"; � ' -�� ' ¢� �� f t"54+�' ,.#�'1�u`Y`�'#�'..t 7 � t �. S , u, . " ,w� . .�� ,,. .. ,.. . a . +i. .. w..w�.4 , ...,..... �<, -� r ,., � � , �� , ._. m . � .:*� �, �v � .....�,. _... � �°�.`�� r }... . � �� . � r�� . . � . � �� _ .. . �� . , a �.�. �� ., _�. . , �. �a_, , . „ �. � ;� ��. .�;- -w . _ ' � �,� "�.,� � � � � _ �, � � � � �t q .e.f,,�, r , ,�„i ..._ ; �;� : > � � �ra,_� �� ,.� _� �. �'� �;�`� � .: � r�� •€, . �� ' � �t#. . . . ..... � V�W �i:t.a�;.,., ��fi:.,� � . .'-i� �YI� � ; a��',�k. �`..� . . . ,_ +�rs' `'c ,.;..�. y � � - ,, - � 4�S¢�F F:;�_ �} ,... . ... . . . .. . .. � �� . .�R , . . . . . . . '� a�-�� '�'u'� . � . � . �.� .�±� . �„ ... : ,��:« . � � � � � . ;� . ., : _ � ��.- s" � � . .. . _ �** a �� ,.. � �; . � . _ � . . � y�� ,��,� ��,� i>�'•� • ,, � ' � a , � , � , . . . . . � ,� � # - � _`, , �,� f��.... a , � � . . .. . � .. . . . - , � �"-. � . �k�'� ..�:�'� '.Li £ , b .t;��,. T . � �. .....,;*r,. .. .. . � ._ ..�,v� M • .'. . �muK.+efwra� ¢ I�I 9.... �.. ,IIII � il�--� ,✓ - ' F . . . x.a`• :. .. .. ._._.,_ y.. . ,. , . . .� , nx-a'��s *��caM.auw' .. ::. r + �3 ' �. . ,... :. �:� �, . . y z , � .. �._ a , . .:+�_-....... - . �� _. �. . , . . +.r�uq.m , t .. ,F. < °.. �- � . .. � �, . � �"��"��. � -. ; �r , �y_.,�'�. � a . . . ' " , �♦ . �� . "r ,e�m, � . . � . e. �� 4"" `�,K�' . rt � . . : � � �ys`°'m�€MC ..,5-�[�'�+zn��. � � � � � y ' ?' . . fi � ° � �w. o'P.'i.. .r � '� � � � . j ....y.�g,. � � .�.l, r�"` s, .. � . . � � . . �q �� . � . . t.: , . � �,..�. . ....- . � .�. _. ,. . � . - .�� ," , ^� � . �'.»�"°'. >�,.,b.�� '-+� .r�._ , � �. . - . .. . � . � �' . ' �.'.� .�:� �*d .,� . ' -.'w,. .,._�.. ,,,,,, „�„'� ` - . ,;. , -�, . . -;... . � . . ,��.,.�°.�.� _ . ...�� .. 4 " �� +,s. ; . . e , < �, �,� . .� .: ....:: ':',r ., .. �, ..-, .' '.,. '�, 3 . . � .. . °' , . � .... ,_.,.. .... .. . _. ;,.a+� ..,:4 . .. , 4 � . � �� r`� �G '� �. �' � ��+ .'§. � � 's" ,'..'. �Yi. '� �i i � '�,, 'r _ �y:,.,s^;. -,.:.. � 4 ,� , , s 9 �I f�� ., � = s i _ . a rv • ' � •. �, �„ �. . : 'A�F+��-�w�' �' : w'. ' S� . .. � - �. E �a:� -KA'T= k �` ,s ` `� ' �-'� �"'M. . .a . �'`� � , � ..:3 .�,�.sar ��. � r � ,� k. � ' ' i � .r��w .r�T� �. � .. �. � y ;. �. �� . � . � }r � � � � �. �- � : , �.. . x4 . , . . � �� , � - . ; , �� , , � �� ' � ..- I ,.�...�.,�. �r..�'��..w��tnee+�*?+i�m�r .�. . � i ,. — . �_��,. ';� t...� � , , , T .. . ' '� � � . � _ ��, . � . . : , : :�. . �.,. . � ,m�,�,... » .,• . .�. .. - . � �♦ � �.itd- w .. . ., � _..; _ � �'} ' �,;- „ ��.:i�' d.q�� :`�� ,a .�� . . _ ,. '`sA�,$�=4 n�� . .� . ,�. ' . ,.,�.>.. � �� .� r isn�y�`&x"+..w.�+u e , . �'11 .,,ty.„ ,�LL �... �. . x#�. . ,,.. „� �.,.. .>.r �r:. x ' . . . , .x - . d�.. .,. ..a,.... . .�, ��'L'".. �. �.. .y..r ;., n ..: �. ,.,.:,.. a8�,y-«'a:'.c�' ,, ' �o i .m'2'''war. ��k,�?°� � "��. e � r . �MI�l�.:_.� » . . .. :_ , ;. .�.,. �,... ..,a . °pp";Y .,.� +�,� • „ . ^ ��`'� .. , .. . .. , �,: � .#`' � �. .� �. � . _ t ,.., .o, a.e�t ... : �•:. .� . , ..«,.. _,.� ' . �. �� . °a ...r- . . . , . ,�,_�, �. . � �.��... � f. ..:..'��.� <��,�s .� � ... �. g'9i,i; x� a �: ,. ., . . ..,_..,. ..� ��y ,' .* ; . . ..6 . . �� .s:. �t`�� 7�. ... �,�. . y . .r4 r � ,.,.+�. ,e .�' + ,.�a�A�a ¥•- • s -..rt.�' _. . . : _.,. .,�. . . . 5�.. _ . .x . ` � + � .�., � � .� ..� , . ' , - � . . .. .. .. .. ' . r . �� , o-i�.. , �.,: ,. iA� :t�r �:"�'� +Y. . '.:. .�5 b, �..„ .. _ "� .. .. ' . .. � ' . r s.. �.i:�% ��k�5a•,.` .�' �; •r. 4,t,,� �,��e� � '° - "" � '�k � x i � . m � � ' . . ,��:t�Sa'9 ��. .. „ �?�.:='o .�, ' ' �' �..�t L..� . .... .�.-.� � �..� �.k;: ., . , _ . . .. p � � '� G.,',.�„r ., € ,.�e. �.��. _.:... „`"^, try..,,,-.�. . ..� . �'� .. .. �,�„`'�.-��'�e _�.,y,.t ��'� . _. -* - - W �`� � ' . y -.r�'�M .. t"; . ° . � � r, `t r�e. - .,. t �, � ''}}��f°"';c�,i .Yer+A{+C� . r r � ...�,, � yk .:�,;, a`' a• . '"��•M1 .`{a�"' ��[r+�iJ7�C'#�+` .` f 4''� ��.. � • � '� � . . �. � �. �. . - . . .. .. '�1 . .'� w , • _ , y�� + ;r:'`r , LL °j� •'��i�w�J�S+��l�•� �'i• �'k�.tr . • �� ".�_'. � : , . • � . , • _ '• .•t. , . .�y�/� � •., . , , • ,. �, ► ^•` ti.#Irr.iK+�� . . y.�°" : ' , t . „ , � . , . t # , . � � ,,,i �f � ; i � ,> ,,r. , . . a.� , � r.� , + -.�_ + -, � .�,r� �}� �'.€f� .C�` ri,y � k t ,j ', '.# F � i,' i, ,' . �� 1. �, ,», . . + '�, x b ,, .,3 I { . � .., x �.. �..� - �, �,'� �. ��,.. 5, .:; �. .� , < • ; ,. r� �.a �."1 .,.. , � ,.3 Y�,..E"�e:f,,.. �, • x � �d + . ... .- ;; ti��.` �"k x $�� ,r' �" �f: e �A �� . � ; i � E; , . � #M � a,. .r (, � r .,:� , wS x � , ., '9e� �EP � �� + , a , � t# rz !k, t iJ S ( ;. .} , . _, '', { .'° � + o � , � �� . w , +, •'C +, t�'s a a ,,r.��tiE � I� i .,t �� i.# � , £ � y r . ,, d" � S y , q� +� , ,. , � ,t � r . � � k d a „«i � g � . � s a � . �,3 4 „,, .., . :� .. _ �. ;�.E , � �:s r .� �`, �' +' a�.'�4 , . . � , � ��,t +. #��, �,, �, .t, ; : �. ��I {i ` z , i � � ,�., , �r , �; � , ,.{��'�i �. .x -.T } �":. !, ; k,�"' ';��.t,�.�'�n+��} ,�$`'�� °�'�`�-;�� ,,,'t +�4�X;�. �r. .�•?� '�€ . � ��.� ? �y�'� : � � r 4 x 1; , � t . , , 7 . : r , � , � , * r � . ' � 3 r !` � �` , # �:. 4 ; , , , ; . # s , r � � � � i .� • � •� `f. t �� x �i , �. .,� r . . . . .. . ..� �,� . . . r 6 � p' � + : c � " ' i . - �.�� .,, �i *,, � '°��1 t � �a �t �. . � . . �t �, � x. }� .3 ;��: 's � k.� `.c E" 2` � �` 1,„ # ! , � _ �` .r„ 7 � , < . , T � . � } � , � r. .�. F ,, t � � < � � � k� �� +" �y�� t�� '�� . � � ;� , t" 3 r m.� ° � � ' . � � , � r ; . , � �, � �. � �,`�, . �.. ...„.- . k � '. 9� , . � '� �. , c . . � , > . { _ p�w . . x d ,��„ , �,�.. � � ��°� ,r '� _ r � _ , �!��'�q�'�'�•'�_ �� KK� ;* � � �y � ��W� ,�.. '*e��' ., �'� . # . ` �: ,�, �� I I� �p .. �ra#xx�� `ro` �,„ ��.�,:'�°`�,� ,�� , , ,� � p�,�:� i � �� k4�x �� x ,�" �� ,�� I i i �"�';� ",�'. ,� �# ``` � 4, ' � � , � ��» �a� ��"'- -.� �i�' �,�:?� '��?�, � _ ,� b i � y� �I ��i�i� y�'�! `�'� �.� �..+�'�.�� .�.. .. x.��- . �'wi�" c � I �`x....�,,,,, ^'x*` „��.,�'� �r�� , � �� ." '�u" �r�r ,,�..�--��.��, �.-,� , •�f _'qyqe��,� �. �"��4 '�" �� "xm'�S#� . � <.k �. � '� `_ x . ,,•M« h� -...,��, �. h �y '�Ys�� t-� �� n �` � �. �� .. . .�'�...�� tw�� p� � .. .� , � � �� X"; ' at��Y �� °w'Y,, w A'� �:-rmu.: �� '4" Y' ��2. �'�}t��. � , •� ij{ �y ��b �g� "� . SEM .. �'^� "vb"� na h p��'(N�'"i f$ A `��"��R§��%`� � �d��`��, � i � �. y 3� .4�/y . �� , ��. �� . , . " �� '� `�" : ��'` ��"��"��`�,.>� �� Wu� � ,��a��u�� ,.to��. _ , . _ _ . . _ .v� �.I�R�� . . . . �y�},�-:, '�r�hv s �x.MT �'�J� � � Set `*r,3 '�,'�'tr.3. � „ � � �.., �. .�!.., ,�3.�Yr>� 5��5#�,�� g��t�u��'� v��•'�� "S . ".` k ¢^e° vo.' � j ,a �.r g 3 '{. . � r . . �r°" . �i f w� � �t ; � p � r ; ��".. .. .w,,, ,�=: . '� � ' f a ` � , ri _ . �. � .,r „ ,. � , . . . . ,. t � f 3 ... k „ � � � , , � -, �� i � �'� 4 �� '`�� ,.`t . � - x�€ � .� � � � � a,� �.�.. �t�, �' s� � . ,. T� ;� �., . . , , . ., . _ . '. { ;,., .<. _ �_ x '� " �� }.�� `r,�,"r 'a .�—> .,. , � 4:-. S� C .. , . .�,t,� .� 4 � , .� : „ , . .. . . �._ �. �,-•.�� M, ,. ., �`�� .. .. - . -- � Y �4 ,�� • �' +��u: �' .. f _ w .- a r -- . � ��., .-. _ _ . � •� ,�, ,>. .,.r�. � � . r-,z . "-� �-_ . �, � . . .. .,� .:,.. �„-.-�.. . .:� _. �3 g .. _.. `v. �,.. �� sa,�.�.,,. ..._. , r � , .�� .. . � II I�I � � , � � 4- 4�a � ,. ��., � _ " : ��, . .« ��-_ � .,�-T�t.. x. .. �� . t.,.... :.. .. �.. 'a« ':��, , .. . , ... � ...... .,. .. � .. �.�. ....,. _� . +�, . . . .. , ' s ,.. � - .. �� . �. a � � "G�.��i � . Jt M � '&� � �.�,., �„ �� _ � � � � a � _ s � . Xx . _ �.4�....�, . t '� 3 '�� z � � � �+ �, �`�� .a�`i. �� ..... � . �� a : . � ..,. .. � �.. . .. .._ �-. aJa» ♦ -;a�,�..: r� �. t , •.k=. � x f�;a #"e t-t pbt#,5� § so II� I I I �� . � ; : � � �.; �, � , ..,� ,. , ., . �, � , �„ s. _ _ _,. � , �r .. n_ ...._: ., � �;,� . �_ :� .. .,� ,��. � -�,; �' � �� ,�.., ; � �� n :� ._ , �.:.�ti,.� �� _.� < y r _: , , .�, � �,. �..w� ° _ �s�« , .. „,.-� � , x� � ,� A�: ,.�. ,�:- ,�,�, � . � ti�- 5 ��. *- _, .�.,r _ �. ;fr= w�� —� �rI�W, ; � �� "' � -' ; � m.. � t t� ' � � �W� ,� � a � � �. , w� �� w�, f.��,4-�,�...; �;��,�. r .. . � �� r ��,� �'*� ;�� 4 °' ��ss` . . � � � ��' � �� .�`,,�.�,"� v�. fyl� x, � �"a�,. � i'�:�" �,�� '�_��',.�� . ��' t . +� .ti,>'��,"�'.' ,+ . „Ai" , x' 4.,�,,'� .. � x'� n Rwa �� ; ' v�� tif . , �£. �`` "�?'�:�:yia�,.. x � �, � r � �y x a� � "k ''' ,�� '�� ." - � .. _ '��,"a"� ��v , .,� . `�.��y� s �' � �"��H��s��,'`�`�",y�-'ri" k��+ .. ,� ��.ra �` A,; ,� � .� N�t4�; ,�- s ka"s r v= � `" ;�},y�.��v�� V V��N v � .�,, .+6� } �� . � �� t � �i ttz � ...�.� z - — ��a�^� iV �� .I. � � � a� � � � � #� � � � �$ � v �� . � ��""��r� '�� ,� � �Y�`'�:''�,�..s e�z� �. �.�,. d�yt. ' r . �u�k��`��.��r x �. �"��s•'�4'�z ^�� :�..��.�..�. � ��y� � �� «5. � n a.- ,� �" �, rj3 , L �. „,�,1,�,y,y��- �t �i4�x r r� a 1� �.? ,..�� '�" t*7}� �,� +�SA :�3 4� } "t i Z' �4 !$ yny . � c$7 .� , �'k`.i� i}��tt.�� . . ". r � r� � j r� � or„� �� f`¢� � �7� � � , � �1 ,� x� �¢i�t �g � <n E � �g �`� �r� � a ��a x� � �. �g x o � . t ' � f p n ��e� �S !� 5 n `��i '�z"c �. ��g� 4��yi� hd A +� � i � �#a� k S 4�f : �r�� r'�� $s �}�ry d� # Pss �.�'� , F �' � ��;�Y, ��'f� #�#� �ad�i��¢� kceS . ��. .�_; " �' � �� at#� � � '4 r�.��'� .. �� .�� €�� t�� `i��: � ' �� ,.� .� � � � ;� � �� .��[��4�"�»�� €�� `�` ��-�� `� ,i ': SY�� .� ��$"� �1{*�� 3 @� . � d�� #�� i"MAf' 4 � ¢ 5 �4 � Sy ��. �i� ��$ 4.� # � � ��*�*: �`� � �t,,�� '� 3a �.$� .! � �� 3 ' 3� �:i�.r �p#'y�g�;,�as �� ` �r ° � � � � aS 3,� .'� �eL 97kt�fr9a�4 �t #� � s z�� . � 3d ,p a�x �� `��..r�sig�,�t �� q�"�x�` p S ��'� . s c� .� ' �'� � '��4��e��1 4x��1��a��€ �yS kt£�� ,� � � z � � 7a3 � ,� � � �� , €;�.,�� s�� ` �' , �`i�' � ' ��'�w - a� a��'�F��,A��a�i' ��*�s �4��gy�€t� � � ''��„ �� ..�4t� �� pk e��{�"��gtdS¢#9F � �r1 yt} ��F� 1 �!Y� � . . �� p .�� "'* ' ��t�� R$'2'2� f � :�:� � � ��'� � s �,�' . . � .'.I � ��#� �� it��'� � � �t� � �4 x`�P i t�.'f�a�.� x g 4��? S �� {��j� �y t` S �k k , `� � SA� � .. . ' i �'. � L k ...� � 9 ' � y' `�,� g� ,� nt , t 4 p( � �� 4_. . i�� z... ° � �,u �s �t� ; B� �'.� 3 � � � � ��; . �,� � � �, ` � � ��a� a � `} ! �,�� r �: �X d k�� r'q ;Y� ��* � c#s �:��s��e, � �� :6 � * '� .�93� ��4�� x M �P��i�3�{3i� 3$9 b�.av � . � , . . � � �# } ty k R i4 a�fj��r S bY;a{ p . pp . .u' S� � ##�� S:�t £ �.6;�'�AjEk.�p� 7 a ;j�� S k#t <g ¢s �'� E 6 ¢+ ' ��'7�'�'� ax'�,� ;,�A �# � �«'i�f��!t �� a^� 'g� fhB}{ }�x��# x ,��y� . . t # �! � t. � '� 9 � �.[§ g � a S 1 fd} t� ' �` e g � � � tir.� . � 3 ; � ... �zE.�.. ! �.iexS ,.�r � t ��Lt �� G � �� xit n � i 3 ��. � 3.� � . ��yy�n....�._.�`��,v�, C ��y ��y �� p rp€�s€�7�3� � a'' I �.�.�4�i;1F.' S� f 1 #'i Pg>�$�t }� 3, 'r� !k� +k�.�pY9� . ��t�� 7 � �:ro�� # �:+ P��r ��a��, �. ,if°�.�s.�d � adl�... �'� ,q ,�y�t b 9 4e P � '* �� .�,�� A�.�� t��x�=��. .��- �� t��f � � � � � � ��` � �� x � =,_ �� ¢ �� l��;�� .:;�� —�� nc� �� s �s i � fy j � S #aw ��r, G# i (3 l5� 0��:& x�"� . �� ;� � s�'�s��.� �' �"��#��aa�f��.�.�`¢ 'j`�.. . _�.,' � � x k s � a x, 4 xo-i� f i3 �' �V�� .� ��3� � .$t �T �� :�.� �S�i�l,,. 4 � �� " a , ' x. . ,: � ; . . �l��+�.l� � � VIly d'�' �'R'�- 'i �` �• � 3u � � � � f B ( .. 3 } �:�.Wc,'e' . 4,� � `� � �� :��'�" � ��a� � F��4�.. �'z a r ' � '°x� "`" Y �` M. �a ti�w . fi ,��,.. ��"��; ,,'r�C�,u rN...:;,�;�;... �. � �; � ,., y�y"` -��. � y �iti y � . �� m�� . � ��,..� �� , a-�� .�'�� °, sn�.�+ � , f �r�.`�'. a � �� ` ��"�� ;� $_.,. x� . ti P��, �� k � � � � "�� !I �� 3,m � � � � ��,x---- I � � � i �7 .�.. �...I}�i ,., �Y�.. ' _ . . F�5�aq` I F� II I � � � �r. u'�`+ .. . .., . . IIIIIf^I��II�.,��w ��w-�,+ � �„�,' # �y } � ��.. �� ,��, �� r'" `�� ,� ��>��yxa.�� ' � �. �;�„ c a ,y "� � �7s —� ' �.+'=n s �' • �y � 4-^:.: .�* . r:,�- . i.' � �{ � � ,.. ; .:.:�,..._ ..,.. ,..�..:. ._...__.�t: �. ;:. _ „ ��" „��, . ,.. ..,...,. ��,� � M � � � � � � � i�� '�� I �� ,� �� '�� : � � �� # �� ! � � ,� . t:3�� 1�� m�� . �k��i'�� 6 � �! � ° ,. ,, , ��- �'� �� ,c�.,,, ��.� «. -,_ , �� _ � '�:I � %�� ;��,�� n� � ��i �: �� . ��>�,�� :�. � ��.4 , � �� ,�� ' � � �� ;« , ' ,.r. ��"��t 4 �� " ��.�� x�`'�� .tr� � � � �_r t�;�. � �� ;,��, � ,.�.. �� ,. :. � r ,,� �� 1�� y.. ��. �f �",�" � _ '� y x . . . x .. . ...� . ... .. , a .:4t ti< .. .. � , �.. �.nxti.r.. ,. . . f .+....�.v..t. �'-��x.<. ..�:.... .. .. {�; '� � .�� . . � � F x x _ , .. ':�: ' , . -.� _ . , �, _ � �x�� . � , � � � , n , �y � �, ._ � � ,�:"",,,�. My� y � 4 _ � �,..,,�.�:� � �:��m. '. �� +� w �� .: , � =� � � � � l= �� _ � a .�� - '°; � ��!'�^ rka � ��..,.. �m. �� - '� � � � _ �.�, ��y� i ..,,� '- .'.-a.' • , '�. , � ti � .. ��'Y k �4 �, .d . 4 .. . . .A ... �� .�.��'.N .. ' �. f. �_I� .. m ir rv'+p+ �� -r e T'�' .i`r. „�"�^'..._ �,, .. . . � a��.d��#4t#� r ��8:#,�.`#at#�aea � � '� 'g , �� '.�: �„ � .� `, .��; , ` � � .� �� t" _ �, y '; :y �� h s . �� *,��.' � � A � . �� '� � 1: � ��1x ... . .. . �� e . � c ��. k .. .. . 1 5 f � � � '; ., �. t "� ... .,. ; " s a FI ,i i i �� #� �� , �{ �'.. �1r � � 3 �. � � � "�.,'.� ' a � � � Y a 7 f a � i x .x...# . . ' � � � �... ..��" .. '„ �� V � � '�� . .. A � g � � � .1� � � �� ,� .� .�..:} � � f § } :� .. . r^* • �.'S R . +�, ... � �'. f`"'.9� #`y� � . .�_. F �A j �' ' � � � � G�,� .� .. , `�sw •�+.�,� ��. _�_� , w' �, "w�;`.R?"�. .: w� a r £ "�+" . � ,,�; I. ',� :� �r; ��. � ��,�"' ��v`$�`� ; t = � � ;�,��I� � . - L _ -� n . � � � � �� N_ � ,r--�•� s�: w , � � �. . . �: �— N. . a f �� . . ''��.. �!�' � b � � " � � � __ �'.. r � � �P� . :.� .... .,.. . � . . �� . �� 5�,., y.�, . r � . ��x . d � 1 � � � ......�.._ �. ...._... ,_ � � '� x'�;, '� '" i � � 'Y 5 � . �., � 3 �,-�_., � � � y : �� ` .�. ��:'� � ' �� .. ` . ; �,. �. ,� � � �� Y �, , � �k ,�.�� , , � �� , t � �,.�, r�k�� '�x �� < � , � p; �� * ��. y� ��, } � � ; 4 � � �: x I �� *�� -,�+��';��,,�� —�i�� . `�� ' �� :,. n._ ��,IGA�'�I lil 'll� ' � �� , x, � %� � �� g �r � � . ',,�� '�� 4�4�'��,.vfi"�' � -�" ��„. s,.s`"' � ^,� �.�k�ni� a: �k�.�� M. . . � �, ,�9'. ,�'�;��,4'++�3Y .� k � : ,.' .,% �� , � .. � #��ss'�.v,�., _ �' ks�� .> � � �� c �, � # . y v�. ��.,a`�.�, ' t ,� � w. �#A. J �.�a..�"' ��:�i,i�'`��t��.�$^�; x:.' '�"*�� .:�. `"` ,a, v Y: ,., ,,m�� .. �''� a � �3 r �a�t.'C ts pti, � w��,k fr ��i,��r�� i��.,� �i�1V��i�i ir u�a a��i i�i�V�I� �� ,,'��.� .� I II' I ��i F` �'# Ah�� Ill�i °'.. II � � �li i t° g,„ :s �� '� �x: n °i , dt ,� �� t� .. . �8.. 3 � , 3 �`�'S `r�� 4 �„� . .. . -� �� . IV�I i�iilll,S4�:,� ��,��I�,�I '� ,� �,,.. � ,�:. �;y�� ..�.�.��,�u�nFr�,�t�u�i��uredw�!�"��'*"+�"��'"4!a��. , . �� ii �g��. �`��' W ��'. � • �.,.� � :.... � . f � _�.__ —�, ' �,.-. ;s _ .. . ..,.,. . w. ., _._ _.#: , � , � _,,T � �,3 � � � �� .. � `:� , _.:. � lr-' �I i .�� : F � �� ,. �n _ � ti iNtar��I'��I��ii��1M I's"*�a N" �, �� - a;� � � `' I li � �� .� . �- �� -rf � � � 1� tY. . �r `�. � �� k � ! • ' � y �� ,��Ikif` w � ,.�q�� ' i� r � � � � �� , �� "�` � �, �� V . .. � .. � .� ; . , .. , . , 4 . .. � .. i - , k "x y.ih: " . ._:.,..... . . ,. .: .. .., , � : ,.. Y�. �..... ..r ._.. .€ �� ! ��' �. � �, � - '"'�' �er� •_ . .._ �� . . ��: � w e �. _ ... . m<"�.,. � $'-4 , . � _ .' '_�,. ..s�� , t .�..i.. � .�. ,. .e ., :.� I + � r= � � . Q , . . :� i £'-�....� �,. 3 . r�.',e.�.. .,, � �. '�,a*, ; ;�`e'/rv�'. r erv u.,- Y � � �A .�i "dlm�Riy, .w,..wf.�... � " .$ y .z� . �. � ..#e1��""a� a�� fl� , �.. k �; '"': e. �.. � �,s�� ;� � _ s � � ..,,,,��y,�« ^ � t��: r� �_.:.,. - t - � � .. � '��`... - ... �" . . . �� ,�.��'"'�� . � � �. - . ....�� .' . . . v..�.. ,�.-°..-'— ' - _ - �: .�� '..: a � ., ,..�� ` `.:.. �. ; �� , e. .; ' s. :�,�3 �:. r _ > s. ,. � .;: .. .. .. .. ...,.�. .. , �. �� .,,;_ d.� , .. ,r. _. �., ....� ... - _:� F � ..... ,; . ' . � .. .. � :"+�,U.r,..,�',;�'"""� " � . , ,,,,t - �` . ° . `"�v".�+ . . .. ,.,: � . ,. : : W ^ $ ' �_: �^ -' .;. ��. '� .'�,.. $ � �.. ., _,. 3.�,- �� ..._r . � � 3 ._: . _._ _ � ,,R.. a„ , � �. R. e�,� .� - r _s .,�. — � „� . �� _ �. � ; . a �� ;. ..;�� .m k j ," � � b �~ - •+1f4 _ . � ._��*�� ` 'f�� ' � 4'�i,. { 3 . �,- � � ...' . 4 . . , .. _�� .. � . yb � ..�. � +�,. . . , .•'{� k ��Y yr�FV J ��faa . . .. . `e.a s v y_ .,..,.., � b .. � . +� . . � . �4 i� _ ,.�j r.�' .. w'�Fw �i��9�',�� -. . . � - . �°'ys " -� f'4 a . g , »,�F d �t �r �� .'' ` �- . '. .,, � , . . . ,. � : , �. � :ii *• �� 4 , • , , � .r;� t�!� �, .°:s- °� � � ' r`� ' �,.,«,,,y, "�^�.�.�,.,.� ; "�'..+.... ._..,� ` `- •--�..,. "`�---°°-�-..,,_..� — ,�.��,: £M: j z} $�+ �;��.x?;: .. �,`�� . .. �:, . . � � � �� , �. . �' dn�� ,:'�"' � _ � . . �''i's*�,.y. �r. • _ �, > ;��u' �„�.- #.��. � � �- �; �*4• . 4'- , �� .- �s � � _ �•" � � :� e'� � �4i� � 1 r ��Ill�lr� � � � q.i� •:.. ,., .. . . '��: � ��4 � � � . .. �i,�� 4 �� y i 3 E � }e *, . . . v Yn'tr . . ��f _ �,.�, � T �. . { ��/� �.u� ;. . . . . �4N '�; a+�ns?�y.. '# r.. .... , kY a :. .. .. . '�� ...� � : � � '• 'i �� ".,:+-.,. ".��..:. � -� �.a .. �` � � .*.' w.�� .:.: �� . » e + � . .a. ... _ �"� � : A.... y � '",_ ,� � . ` . �.n.�a . .� *9+ � �' r r �� '$�� . � . . A ... -� .... � d . :.., . C� : _. + a. , :.�, �: �, . .... �� .. � �. � � � � ... � ��: .. U. . ��.�.. . � ,�� . � �. . � � � � � _ . . , . � � � . , .:. . , . . � s �.� .'� ,a. z c -� .. �„" . �1� . : .. � . �.. � i.'"r r; - I ii��e..A . . , ..._. .. f f't ; � � . .. . i' . �,", "� � _. �. ,. _..,. >. .� , � ; .. . 2•k. ��?� S'F� � �_ R 4, . . � a:�. :'a, '� x�: .., � ... �.. � w ' ` 4 , � � k". . � 's . ��,J b e rv -M - .w,. Y . ... �' y.� . � � �..� �� a �� ;i�. � ...:d:. �. �� ,�f`,'�� . � �,,�, � � . .� � , � .�M ��'��5 +� .. �yt , _fyy�� §',".� : � .` R .x.3YtY+�Y�%' . ..... .. • � x�. � �'ni.�'} � , � ' ��£# ��J,' ��+ ..._. �� I�. �! � � y� � .. � �y"� . :"� II��O t��" v � � 3 k � :'�. �,:.�yv�,4. � . � �: q lro; .. ..... . i1�. �� " ,�y;; . .r " �� _ _,�� , � � .�„ �.. �, �� ,;a .. � . L' �` � .. ,. . . .. . .. ... . . ,. -ws,�,, a,y .. . . .. .K t �'io' ,� �^ �g�. ' A ;Y�; � ,;tf�s"w'a. .. � sy6� ,� . ., �-.� N� � ; I��i �S'�" i.�H� i ( r �.; f �� _ � � � ��I�i��II��I��I��II��`��"`� �� i II�II ♦ �� ..,5� , . ..;� ._ ,� , t .,e . , ` � 4 � 3 - - , o- � : ; . � . �`r .r�; . ti ,a, � +r , , _ �� k i^�`�' ,� ��,� ns ��h.�., . . . '+$.� :'. � ..,,4'N'�:'i.a. .. . _,...� _ _d_ M� < � __ — _ ,, I � i „ _ __ __ _ , f n- --' - {.�� .. f�, � � � —a—._. ;;°. ��.�� ,� n'�:�� I �� . ' — '¢_�'+ �� : *3�� _,i.Y� �; � a{�� _ i , I l b5'.' S,'�i'f+T � . �j. ._rc�w . . . «� s�*� � „: . :, _' m.- ' . -... � . � _,... . . ... ,.. . , . ..:... ._.. ,�: f�, .r � , . .., „ .�. . ,:. ,,:� . � � �. � , E �: .er .. - , �., ;�. �Y^y fM,,, . ,. y._ .. A ��t � 'w. . .,9�..Ikr .. ..*S wlta"' � . . �. (p_ . . ... .. _._- . +pv'. .. � ��t.. � . k�`,,."�fr� . . . � �. 3 w .n -.,_. ; .- . _.._. .___ .. , , r; ._ �: # � 9 i .� �� y3t � ,. � . 4 � m� , ' €.. mi s � � � � �� s.�. , �' ��. � � `+ '� �J. . ,� ' �° Y , �, �, . � ^ e IA � ..... � .. .. �� .r y" i.. r ..wi.,a .._. . d. ew� .:. . � .i� � . � '.�-_ . ... ....�... . . .._ .5 .� � . v� - �M' .� - . 1 � . . . .' .s � , , . . .. :' � �. , �� _ �, r � ,�.-. 'X ; . � .,.�.. .. .. ....... ......... .....'�LL� `. .... _ ._ .'. ' ; ��i . ,... bdR"4 A��' _ � _. .. � I �. �. . _ b � �� + �, ,�,ti � � f'�� '� P� i�� ; ' i �� _k�" �' � t�1�M4��: ,� � al�.��i+ ] �� '; � i , � ,' �,� �� `�,� 1.' ` � ��a {y�;� ��1�i��►� S , �� ' � `� ,� _ � �� *# �+iN, � � �-. I . � � - ` � ^f y� ` . ��i�� y � r � �� I a , , ��ej{{ y �/ �� S��y �+< `A 4 / - ' . �- ♦ , � �' �y� 0 4 ��" � �y3 I :. .. � w � •1 � � y} ! t!�1}ry'-�� f ' � 1 i' � ��F A 5��, ��i F 2�5 a � r��3� ��'��t`�'ip . a .a�� ,+ {��'�' �.`��rl�l.�a��"r.:,'1� J� i . ` � . F ,i. t r� ��#�.�.�j ,�' rr ..� 1`�Y �X, � a k : , , � =�, - � � � � .m :��'`"� ;,,*� � �° ±d". :"� .� a� e �- = �:°t ��W � �.�.'i.�.�.. �.� Li.._. ;_i: ��,... �` } � � , --r-� �-��-- �� ` �� i�� g �___ � :, . ,t — °+R , E'. ,��`� �. �,�,..�4+ ,w, k�""�'�. _�� j,. , � _. . � � �—* — �„�,.:,.�� f..,..i»��....i,A,.. 1+ . M � y �� _ _ _ � �� '��. � fi� �� - �, � � _ � 1 � �960 GULF TO BAY BLVD �.�►ate Received: 9/4/2012 11:09:57 AM Kentucy Fried Chicken � - ZONING DISTRICT: Commercial LAND USE: Commercial General ATLAS PAGE: 289A PLANNER OF RECOT��: PLANNER: Mark Parry, Pl�nner III � - __� _ _ . � � � � PLANNING 8Z DEVELOPMENI' • �ITY OF CLEARWATER POST �FFICF. BOX 4%4c�� CLEARWATER, FLOUi�n 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL SERY'ICES Bl!ILUING, lOO SOUTH MYRTLE AVENlIE, CLFJIRWATER� FLOR�UA 33756 TELEPHONE �%Z7� S6Z-4S6% FAX (727) 562-4865 January I5, 2013 Mr. Robert W. Case LIS Engineering, LLC. 21430 Palm Beach Boulevard Alva, FL 33920 RE: Development Order - Case FLD2012-09016 1960 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Dear Mr. Case: This letter constitutes a Development Order pursuant to Section 4-206.D.6 of the Community Development Code. On January 15, 2013, the Community Development Board (CDB) reviewed your Flexible Development application to permit a restaurant with a height of 22 feet, a front (west) setback of three feet (to drive-thru lane) and 16 feet (to building�, a front (south) setback of 10 feet (to drive-thru lane) and 39 feet (to building), a side (east) setback of one foot (to parking) and 48.5 feet (to building), a side (north) setback of 10 feet (to parking and dumpster enclosurej and i4y feet (to buildingj and l� parking spaces (8.x1 spaces per 1,UUU square feet ot Gross Floor Area) in the Commercial (C) District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-704.C. and to reduce the front (west) landscape buffer from 10 feet to three feet (to drive-thru lane), reduce the front (south) landscape buffer from 15 feet to 10 feet (to drive-thru lane), reduce the side (east) landscape buffer from five feet to one foot, increase the number of parking spaces in a row from 10 spaces to 11 spaces and eliminate the required foundation plantings along the front (west) fa�ade of the proposed building as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of CDC Section 3-1202.G. The CDB APPROVED the application with the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Conditions of Approval: Findin�s of Fact 1. That the 0.75 acre site is located at the northeast corner of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and South Comet Avenue; 2. That the subject property is located within the Commercial (C) District and the Commercial General (CG) Future Land Use Plan category; 3. That the subject property is not located in a special plan area; 4. That the proposal is to construct a restaurant and is subject to the requisite development parameters per Article 2 Division 7 of the CDC; 5. That the site is currently developed with a restaurant, two single-family dwellings and a retail sales and service establishment; T�y� � �r �„ ., ,,,.,��, _,.�,>_„ ,..� a, .,.��=,,,,,,.�,� \J Case; Development Order January I5, 2013 Page 2 of 4 • 6. The subject property is comprised of three parcels with approximately 100 feet of frontage along Gulf to Bay Boulevard and 280 feet of frontage along South Comet Avenue; 7. The proposal includes a front (west) setback of three feet (to drive-thru lane) and 16 feet (to building), a front (south) setback of 10 feet (to drive-thru lane) and 39 feet (to building), a side (east) setback of one foot (to parking) and 48.5 feet (to building), a side (north) setback of 10 feet (to parking and dumpster enclosure) and 149 feet (to building} and 28 parking spaces (8.81 spaces per 1,000 square feet of Gross Floor Area); 8. A front (south) Iandscape buffer of IO feet (to drive-thru lane), a side (east} landscape buffer of one foot, up to 11 parking spaces in a row without a landscape island and no foundation plantings along the front (west) fa�ade of the proposed building; and 9. There are no active Code Compliance cases for the subject property. Conclusions of Law 1. That the development proposal is consistent with the pattern of development of the surrounding neighborhood; 2. That the proposal is consistent with applicable portions of the Comprehensive Plan including Future Land Use Plan Element Goal A.6, Objectives A.3.2 and A.6.4 and Policies A.2.2.3, A.3.2.1, A.5.5.1 and A.6.4.1; 3. That the proposal consistent with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of the Community Development Code Sections 1-103.B.1 — 3 and D; 4. That the development proposal is inconsistent with the Standards as per Table 2-702 of the Community Development Code with regard to setbacks to building and pavement and the nutnber of parking spaces; 5. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2- 704.0 of the Community Development Code; / Tl_'a 1_' �__'_1'"'"_"_"i t• • •l_ 1__ !'�__"' 7(�a__ 7 7_ C_ T 1!l V. 111�tL lI1G UGVGIU�II1CIll �FV�UJdl 1J l:VI1S1SlCIlI W1LI1 LI1C VCI1Crd1 .�L'd11C1dI(1S lUI' LCVCl VI1C Approvals as per Section 3-914.A of the Community Development Code; and 7. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria for a Comprehensive Landscape Program CDC Section 3-1202.G. Conditions of Annroval: General/Miscellaneous Conditions l. That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the elevations approved by the CDB; 2. That, should the fence along the north property line be removed or destroyed, a solid fence six feet in height (within the limitations of the CDC) be installed along the north side of the subject site except in the case of a letter of opposition by the property owner of that adjoining property to the north; 3. That all signage be reviewed and approved pursuant to the City's sign ordinance and that the maximum square footage of any freestanding signs be limited to the minimum permitted by the CDC with regard to area, height and number without the opportunity to apply for a Comprehensive Sign Program; 4. That issuance of a development permit by the City of Clearwater does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the City for issuance of the permit if the applicant • Case; Development Order January I5, 2013 Page 3 of 4 i fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law; 5. That all other applicable local, state andlor federal permits be obtained before commencement of the development; Timing Conditions 6. That application for a building permit be submitted no later than January 15, 2014, unless time extensions are granted pursuant to CDC Section 4-407; 7. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the Fire Department may require the provision of a Water Study performed by a Fire Protection Engineer in order to ensure that an adequate water supply is available and to determine if any upgrades are required by the developer due to the impact of the project. The water supply must be able to support the needs of any required fire sprinkler, standpipe and/or fire pump. If a fre pump is required, then the water supply must be able to supply 150 percent of its rated capacity; 8. That a Unity of Title and evidence of filing of same with the Pinellas County Clerk of the Court be submitted to Staff prior to the issuance of any permits; 9. That prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy that all required Transportation Impact Fees be paid; 10. That prior to the issuance of any building permits the location and visibility of electric equipment (electric panels, boxes and meters) be reviewed and, if located exterior to the building where visible from any street frontage, be shown to be painted the same color as the portion of the building to which such features are attached; 1 l. That prior to the issuance of any permits a final landscape plan which clearly shows all underground utilities on and adjacent to the site be submitted to and approved by Staff; 12. That prior to the issuance of any permits a final landscape plan which includes an interior �ICCIl S�7�ICC SI1CCl WI11GII (:1C�lily lI1Clll:d�CS Ail AI'CAS 1I1C1U(le(1 AS COL1IlilIl�T iOW1iQS ille 111ieTlOI green space requirements of the CDC be submitted to and approved by Staff; 13. That prior to the issuance of any permits, any applicable Public Art and Design Program Impact Fees be paid; 14. That prior to the issuance of any permits, any applicable Parks and Recreation impact fees be paid; 15. That prior to the issuance of any permits all sub-standard sidewalks and sidewalk ramps adjacent to or a part of the project shall be shown on plans to be improved to meet the requirement of Local, State and/or Federal standards including A.D.A. requirements (truncated domes per FDOT Index #304); and 16. That prior to the issuance of any permit, all requirements of the General Engineering, Traffic Engineering and Fire Departments be addressed. Pursuant to CDC Section 4-407, an application for a building permit or other approvals shall be made within one year of the date of Flexible Development approval (by January 15, 2014). All required certificates of occupancy shall be obtained within two years of the date of issuance of the initial building permit. The buildin�permit must be obtained within six months of the initial permit a�lication. 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 w Case; Development Order January I5, 2013 Page 4 of 4 i 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 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 CDC Section 4-502.B 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 the effect of the decision pending the iinal determination of the case. The appeal period for your case expires on January 29, 2014 (14 days from the date of the CDB meeting). If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Mark T. Parry, Planner III, at 727-562- 4741 or via email at mark.parry�a,mvclearwater.com. Sincerely, .�� Mic e , ICP Planning Director 7'�9Y'3Oy✓.rr 1aj�e"�i.-�+ uF!M. �.:. , ; , ,,, ��,_� ,,:�.�;,, ., . � > 7,�`', \ 1 ' f��+,�R�r�m M'� "7° `'�.;8 �" � �. w�a q �. �' = .� ('��'�� :.�y �"��... ' �,\1�3 °�'�TER��, �'.✓.r s 1 9 Y PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT � :J CITY OF CLEARWATER POST OFFICE BOX '3%4H� CI.Er1RWATER, F�oR,DA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, IOO SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE� CLEARWATER� FLORIDA �j3%SV TELErxo�ve (727) 562-4567 Fnx <727) 562-4865 August 5, 2013 Mr. Robert W. Case LIS Engineering, LLC. 21430 Palm Beach Boulevard Alva, FL 33920 RE: Development Order - Case FLD2012-09016 1960 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Dear Mr. Case: On January 15, 2013, the Community Development Board (CDB) approved, subject to conditions, the above referenced Flexible Development application to permit a restaurant with a height of 22 feet, a front (west) setback of three feet (to drive-thru lane) and 16 feet (to building), a front (south) setback of 10 feet (to drive-thru lane) and 39 feet (to building), a side (east) setback of one foot (to parking) and 48.5 feet (to building), a side (north) setback of l0 feet (to parking and dumpster enclosure) and 149 feet (to building) and 28 parking spaces (8.81 spaces per 1,000 square feet of Gross Floor Area) in the Commercial (C) District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC} Section 2-704.C. and to reduce the front (west) landscape buffer from 10 feet to three feet (to drive-thru lane), reduce the front (south) landscape buffer from 15 feet to 10 feet (to drive-thru lane), reduce the side (east) landscape buffer from five feet to one foot, increase the number of parking spaces in a row from 10 spaces to 11 spaces and eliminate the required foundation plantings along the front (west) fa�ade of the proposed building as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of CDC Section 3-1202.G. Pursuant to Section 4-407, CDC, an application for a building permit was required within one year of the date the CDB approved the request (by January 15, 2013). An application for building permit was made on February 11, 2013. The building permit was to have been obtained within six months of the initial permit application. The six- month deadline for obtaining a building permit will occur on August 11, 2013. This timeframe to obtain the initial building permit may be extended for an additional six months for cause by the Community Development Coordinator. On August 2, 2013, you submitted a request to the Community Development Coordinator to extend the deadline by which a building permit must be obtained by six months (February 11, 2014). �y� �■r ��EQUAL EMPLUYMP.NT AND Abl'IRb1Al'IVfS ACTION FVIPLOI'ER�� August 5, 2013 Development Order Time Exten� Case — Page 2 � In accordance Section 4-407, CDC, I hereby APPROVE the requested six-month time extension until February 1 l, 2014, in which to obtain a building permit to construct those improvements originally approved by the CDB and subject to the same conditions of approval. In order to facilitate the issuance of any permit affected by this approval, please be prepared to submit a copy of this letter with you when applying for a building permit. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Mark T. Parry, AICP, Planner III, at (727) 562-4741, or via email at mark.parry�a�myclearwater.com. Respectfully, Michael Delk, AICP Planning and Development Department Director � • �J''�$``�a'� CITY �F CLEARWATER R�e �\� ��%�1 Pi.a:�v�rvr•c & DEV�.opM�.�vr Dr-.rnxrrn�r�:vr ;�'n= = �:= a Pcxr Or•ric,c &>x 47�.t8, G�wA7ex Fiox�nn 337>8�748 '��9L_�—„� eL�qti`� 'VIWICIPAI SL•R\7f.ES BIIILDINGr LOO SOU1'H AMYR1'LE AVEtiL�, CLL'ARV�'ATER, FLOxu>a 33?56 '?+.�. TE il�r T�.EPHOtiE 2 562-4>6! Fns %2 ��.,,� t i � . (. � >b2-�sGS November 7, 2012 ROBERT W. CASE 21430 PALM BEACH BOULEVARD ALVA, FL 33920 VIA FAX: RE: FLD2012-09016 — 1960 GULF TO BAY BLVD— Letter of Completeness Dear ROBERT W. CASE: The Planning and Development staff has entered your application into the DepartmenYs filing system and assigned the case number: FLD2012-09016. 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 December 6, 2012, in the Planning Department conference room - Room 216 - on the second floor of the Municipal Services Building. The building is located at 100 South Myrtle Avenue in downtown Clearwater. You will be contacieci by ihe rianning uepartmeni`s Haminisiraiive Hnaiysi wiihin one week prior io ihe meeiing 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. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 727-562-4741 or mark. parry@myclearwater.com. Sincerely yours, �. ____-�------ ---------� Mark Parry PLANNER 111 11 /7/2012 II QI :�L 1iPL0YAtE�;'[ �:VD !�,FF➢2i4iAT[VF. AC;T[OV E�SPLt)'4�1.° Letler_Of_Com pleteness CJ • ,�+ �rrt �� ,,.�,,,,,, QA� CITY OF CLEARWATER d PL,L'VNING �C DEYfiI.OPMBNC DLPARI'MENT �=��_ � P(riT �IT1C,C BOX �%4H, CLCARVL'ATCR, FLO�n� 33758-4748 G�9�;- G�� UNICIPAL SF121�If.ES BUf1.DI1JG, l0U Sou�i� M��a��►.E Avs:vu�, Ci.NARVFATER, FLOwnn 33?56 7�;r�,s,t� T�.sPxo!cE (727) 562-4>67 Fnx (%2� 5G2-48G5 September 7, 2012 Robert W. Case LIS Engineering, LLC. 21430 Palm Beach Boulevard Alva, FL 33920 VIA FAX: RE: FLD2012-09016 — 1960 GULF TO BAY BLVD— Letter of Incompleteness Dear Robert W. Case: The Planning Staff has entered your application into the Department's filing system and assigned the case number: FLD2012-09016. After a preliminary review of the submitted documents, staff has determined that the application is Incomplete with the following comments. 1. The property owner(s) of the two other lots (409 S. Comet Avenue; 13/29/15/82494/002/0050 and 407 S. Comet Avenue; 13/29/15/82494/002/0051) need to be a party to the application. Please provide a signed and notarized affidavit of authorization from the property owner(s) associated with these two properties. 2. Please update the application to include the number of existing, proposed and minimum required parking spaces. Please note that spaces within the drive-thru lane do not count as parking spaces. The site data table on sheet C2 will also need to be updated. 3. Please provide scaled, dimensioned and rendered elevations. The elevations must depict each side of the building. 4. Clarify if signage is included as part of the proposal. Any depicted signage will need to to scale and dimensioned. If you are proposing signage which is greater than that permitted by Code a Comprehensive Sign Program will need to be submitted at this time. 5. Please clarify the height of the building (this can be accomplished through the provision of scaled, dimensioned and rendered elevations). 9/7/2012 ��EQ1;�1L E:14PLOYMF.tiTfi �:vD tiFFIlt1Vi�17'IVF, t�,CTION E�iPI.Ot�R" Lettar Of_Incompleteness �4��a�r✓ (�� r � \T� \` � %� � � � x�' � —:._ o� �_- -_. ��Y 9�V:. .� �� ,.7.r 6. 9/7/2012 • • CITY C)F CLEARWATER Pia.�v��vnvc & DEV�.orM�:vr D�rnxrM�-�v�r �(KT �Lf1C,C �X �%4g, CLCARVL'ATCR, FLO1unn 337>8-4748 Mv:�ncrPU Srx�zr.�.� Burcoi�rc, 100 SoL�x M��m�� Avs:v�, Cu:nxwn��x, FLOKroA 33?56 TELEPHO?vE �%27� SC)2-i76% Fnx (72� 562-��t865 Please submit responses to all required flexibility criteria. Specifically, the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria (sec. 2-704.C) as provided below: C. Comprehensive infill redevelopment projects. 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from 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 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 development and improvement of surrounding properties; 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development; 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 designatian; or f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderty 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 ��EQL:al E34PLOF�SEiT �VD!�.FFIltM�TTIVE A,CtTOV EyiPI.OYF.R" Letler_Of_I ncompleteness l J • �yrrr� ,''�,,,,�� CITY C7F CLEARWATER .� ��t J_ AQti PLAIVNIIvG SL DEVEI.OPMt..'VT DLPARTMhe"�1T ►e :;--_-. p,� i „�.�+ �� PcnT Otrice Bo� -t748, Ci,t:�xvvnTex, FLOiunn 337>8-4748 "�9��— �� ;V[IJPTIC(PAL SFRl7CES BIJiC.DING, t�U SOLTI'H MYR'1`I.E 11VEti[JE, CLEARWAI'ER� F�o�una 33?56 ��TE�,F,�' �r�.�HO�E (�27> 562-�>6� Fnx (%2� 562-4865 6. 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. Please provide a completed Comprehensive Landscape Program Application. Please provide a parking demand study justifying the requested reduction in the required number of parking spaces (Parking Demand Study Guidelines provided). Please provide a Unity of Title application combining all three properties together into one property. Section 4-1008 of the Communiry Development Code states that if an application is deemed incomplete, the deficiencies of the application shall be specified by Staff. No further development review action shall be taken until the deficiencies are corrected and the application is deemed complete. Please resubmit by September 12, 2012 at NOON. Failure to do so will result in the application being withdrawn. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 727-562-4741 or mark. parry@myclearwater.com. Sincerely yours, Mark Parry PLANNER III 9/7/2012 ��EQ1;�1L E.4IPLOYMF,\T �vD!�,FFIRh4�1T[VE ACTION EMPI,01�R" LeXer_a Incomple�eness � :;,�► � u•.� � � � • Prior to the preparation of a Parking Demand Study (Study) the architect, civil engineer or other approved professional whom is preparing the Study shall schedule and attend a mandatory meeting with City staff from Traffic Engineering (Engineering Department) and the Planning and Development Department in order to establish an approved methodology for the Study. Parking Demand Studies shall typically include the following sections and information: Introduction ■ Provide a description of the Study area. Be thorough; examine if the location is near transit stops, public parking areas, a college, educational facility or school, etc — the proximity to these elements should be taken into consideration in the analysis. (Note: eeing near to a transii stop does not necessarily mean that employees or customers will be using transit to access the business. This may be an opportunity where a survey of how employees and/or customers arrived at the place of business could be conducted.J ■ Provide details as to the scope of the project. ■ Describe the methodology for the Study. Studies shall generally be conducted during typical peak business period on Tuesday, Wednesday, and/or Thursday; however the Study may be required to be conducted on Monday, Friday, Saturday and/or Sunday if these days are determined to be more appropriate based upon the proposed use and its typical peak business period. This will be determined at the mandatory methodology meeting. (Note: For existing businesses, it is recommended that they study their existing characteristics. However, if there is a business location elsewhere that is desired to be studied due to its similar characteristics, that may be acceptable, but a determination would need to be made as to whether the site/business characteristics, as well as the surrounding area characteristics are similar to that of the proposed business/location. In this latter circumstance, the Study would need to denote how this similar business is reolly similar and the neighborhood context. It may be necessary to provide population densities and a surrounding uses study for the neighborhood context.) II. Parking Demand ■ Provide an analysis of the expected operation of the use to determine the number of vehicles that will be on-site during peak periods. The analysis should examine the use characteristics, capture, average/typical length of stay, and the number of employees and the length of employee shifts. (Note: Surveying customers may also be an option.J ■ Staff/employee parking must be taken into consideration. Consider conducting a survey of employees on how they travel to work (including name and shift worked). ■ Provide tables summarizing information obtained from the above analyses. III. Parking Supply • Provide a site plan that depicts the following: a. All off-street parking spaces provided on-site; b. All off-street parking spaces actually used during the times the Study was conducted; c. All on-street parking spaces actually used by patrons of the business during the times the Study was conducted; and d. All off-street parking spaces intended to be used by employees of the business. • In the instance that the actual parking demand exceeds the supply, identify the area(s) where overflow parking can occur and what properties will be impacted. (Note: With regard to off-site locations, it wil! need to be determined whether that parking area is paved, meeting current Code, and whether there is excess porking that can be "shared" with the proposed business.) ■ Provide a narrative that describes what information is presented in the above site plan. (V. Parking Comparison ■ Comparative analysis between the Parking Demand section of the Study and findings derived from the data provided for the use within Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation, 4th Edition. ■ Comparative analysis between the Parking Demand section of the Study and the most intense possible use of the site given allowances of the zoning/land use. ■ Comparative analysis between the Parking Demand section of the Study and the proposed business if the business was extremely successful. ■ Provide tables summarizing information obtained from the above analyses. V. Conclusion ■ Provide a conclusion derived from the facts put forward by the various analyses conducted in the Study. Preparing a Parking Demand Study that follows these Guidelines does not guarantee support of its findings by P/anning and Development Department and/or Engineering Department staff. i'y y • • �. ,� , �� . �� Architecture — Engineering— I.cnul Surveying - Interiors August 2, 2013 City of Clearwater Planning & Development Community Development Coordinator PO Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 33957-4748 Municipal Services Building, 2nd Floor 100 S. Myrtle Ave. Clearwater, FL 33756 Re: Pernut No: FLD2012-09016 BCP2013-02199 Address: 1960 Gulf to Bay Blvd. Project: KFC Redesign LIS No: KFC09 Dear Sir or Madam: It is our understanding that pursuant to the City of Clearwater Development Code section 4-407, the above referenced permit (number BCP2013-02199) is approaching the deadline to obtain the building pernut. At this time we are in process of obtaining the appropriate approvals from FDOT and as such, request an eartension of time to comply with this requirement. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or require any additional information. I greatly appreciate your assistance in this matter. Sin ly, . (��- Ro ert W. Case, P.E. FL PE No: 44643 LIS Engineering, LLC FL CA No: 6843 SW Florida 21430 Palm Beach Blvd. Alva, FL 33920 Ph: (239) 693-9244 Fax:(239)693-9828 Central Florida 2572 W. State Road 426 Suite 2064 Oviedo, FL 32765 Ph: (321) 244-0402 Fax:(321)244-9419 , i , LIS Engineering, LLC 2i4go Palrn Beach Blvd. Alva, FL 33920 U•SPAIDSTAGE � RUG�O ?�13 �� 1 7�11 2970 0003 6328 627� �n; s�°v� RMOUNT �:� .: � . -_.._.�.,.�� 6.11 � � �000 _ ____ __— 33957 0003i994-02 � /r� F . �V�j��j� ` �ui r�. City of Clearwater Planning & Development Community Development Coordinator PO Box 4748 � Clearwater, FL 33957-4748 — f:s:�i #{t:i 7t� 1 it3t� _� '} "t ; ' ' iliaJt:i ' = t�• e. .:.. �'�.�'..�... . . ?."". ... ... _�.�.. ? � � iti� is� 7�i �11iltffrii} � ! ftt�f}i�iij.ijiit