Loading...
FLD2013-02003Clearw. ater COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD - PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: May 21, 2013 AGENDA ITEM: D.2. CASE: FLD2013 -02003 REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit a school (grades kindergarten through eighth with up to 512 students) with a height of 22 feet, a front (south) setback of nine feet (to building) and zero feet (to parking), a front (north) setback of three feet (to parking), a side (east) setback of 74 feet (to building) and 2.6 feet (to parking), a side (west) setback of zero feet (to building and parking), a rear (north) setback of 33 feet (to building) and 4.7 feet (to parking and solid waste enclosure) and 90 parking spaces (0.18 spaces per student) in the Office (0) District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2- 1004.A; to permit non - residential off - street parking with a front (south) setback of 12 feet (to pavement) and side (east) setback of 35 feet and a rear (north) setback of 37 feet (both to pavement) in the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of CDC Section 2 -204.A and to reduce the front (south) landscape buffer from 10 feet to three feet (to concrete wall) and zero feet (to parking), reduce the front (north) landscape buffer from 10 feet to three feet (to parking), reduce the side (east) landscape buffer from 12 feet to 2.6 feet (to parking), reduce the side (west) landscape buffer from five feet to zero feet (to building and parking), increase the number of parking spaces in a row from 10 spaces to 11 spaces reduce the required number of canopy trees and eliminate the required foundation plantings along the front (south) fagade of two existing buildings as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of CDC Section 3- 1202.G. GENERAL DATA: Agent /Applicant /Owner...... Steve Band; Clearwater Professional Plaza, LLC Location .......................... 1510 Barry Road; north side of Barry Road approximately 330 feet east of Highland Avenue Property Size .................... 2.14 acres Future Land Use Plan........ Residential /Office General (R/OG); Residential Urban (RU) Zoning ........................... Office (0) District; Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District Special Area Plan .............. N/A Adjacent Zoning.... North: O, LMDR and High Density Residential (HDR) Districts South: Commercial (C), LMDR and HDR Districts East: LMDR District West: O District Existing Land Use ............. Proposed Land Use........ Office (O District); non - residential off - street parking (LMDR District) School (O District); non - residential off - street parking (LMDR District) M7 �.a 4 L+lea IT ate Level II Flexible Development Application Review ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 2.14 -acre site is located on the north side of Barry Road approximately 330 feet east of Highland Avenue. The subject site is comprised of two properties with a total frontage along Barry Road of approximately 430 feet and 65 feet of frontage along Jeffords Street (Jeffords Street terminates at the northeast corner of the site). The two properties must be joined together through a Declaration of Unity of Title prior to the issuance of any permits. Barry Road extends to South Betty Lane approximately I/2 mile to the west and terminates at Tuscola Road approximately I/4 mile to the east. Jeffords Street, to the north, terminates at South Keystone Drive approximately I/4 mile to the east. Jeffords Street includes two marked traffic calming devices (speed humps) between Live Oak Court and South Keystone Drive. The site spans two zoning districts including the O district (1.899 acres) and the LMDR district (0.238 acres) with two corresponding FLUP classifications; R/OG and RU, respectively. The site contains four two -story buildings (Buildings 1 through 4) and three one -story buildings (Buildings 5 through 7) totaling 26,276 square feet. The one -story buildings are generally located along the south side of the site. The two -story buildings are generally centrally located centrally on the site. All the buildings, constructed between 1965 and 1972, are located on the 1.899 -acre portion of the site within the O district. A 12 -space non- residential off - street parking lot is located within the LMDR district at the southeast corner of the site. Both the office -used portion of the site and the non - residential off - street parking lot are accessed from Barry Road via separate two - way driveways. The non - residential off - street parking lot driveway is approximately 15 feet to the east of the driveway accessing the office - used portion of the site. A third access point is PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION w TURNER - sr w` PDT E 1] �L�_ �11 Q NSMINE A JASMINE WAY Fadsel n r .� Mrpwm 111 Ja�mre w 6 MAGNOLIA Uft� a .J a PROJEGr w� SITE US PATH ...] V pow � ( _ LOTUS w U w 0 (ttIX� ne SUULEIGH ST re ST JEFFORJ)S ST V_ JE.Fe ST SARRY ST PARRY R, �_ o8 TUSCOLA RU ST s o F36� so LAKEMEW - RD LOCATION MAP Community Development Board May 21, 2013 FLD2013 -02003 —Page 1 of 25 PLANNING DEVELOPMENT Clear T ate Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOP MENT REVIEW DIVISION located at the northeast corner of the site at the Jeffords Street terminus. A sidewalk approximately four -feet in width is located along the south side of the site within the Barry Road right -of -way. Eight un- metered parallel parking spaces are located directly to the south of the sidewalk also within the Barry Road right -of -way. On -site parking consists of 80 spaces located on the portion of the site within the O district and 12 spaces within the LMDR district for a total of 92 spaces. It is important to note that there are three parking spaces along the west side of the site that are either entirely or partially located on the adjacent property to the west. These spaces, while existing on the adjacent property visually appear as though they are on the subject property and are not accessible from that adjacent property. In addition, the northernmost parking space at the northeast corner of the site is located at least partially within the Jeffords Street right -of -way. A drive aisle traversing the site north to south connects Barry Road and Jeffords Street. A six -foot masonry wall exists along most of the south property line approximately five feet from the south property line. The wall has a smooth stucco finish, is painted tan with white trim and matches the material, color, fit and finish of the existing buildings. The two existing one - story buildings along the south side of the site are located between nine and 13 feet from the south property along Barry Road. The building located at the southwest corner of the site is also approximately one foot or less from the side (west) property line. Solid waste is serviced through a single unenclosed dumpster located in the southeast quadrant of the site located on the east side of the driveway which traverses the site from Barry Road to Jeffords Street. A freestanding monument -style sign is located between the two Barry Road driveways within the Barry Road right -of -way. As mentioned, 12 of the 92 spaces are located within a small parking lot located at the southeast corner of the site within the LMDR district. This parking lot is good condition and is bound by a chainlink fence on the south, east and north sides between three and four feet in height. An outfall of Stevenson Creek is on the north side of the site. A single - family dwelling is on the east side. This parking lot is tied, visually and operationally, into the overall site. The parking lot has been in place for much, if not all of the existence of the overall office complex, according to the applicant. The subject site is located within a transitional area between a more commercially developed area along Highland Avenue to the west and a large single - family residential neighborhood located to the east. The immediate vicinity is characterized by a variety of non - residential uses including an assisted living facility (ALF) (Highland Terrace Retirement Center) and a nursing home (Highland Pines Rehabilitation Center) to the north, an office to the west and the YMCA farther to the northwest. Attached dwellings are located to the south across Barry Road. In a broader sense, the subject site is generally centrally located within a grouping of several residential neighborhoods bifurcated by Highland Avenue. This collection of residential neighborhood extends for approximately one mile in all directions and is roughly bound by Court Street (north), Nursery Road (south), Hercules Avenue (east) and Missouri Avenue (west). Currently, the site is occupied by a single entity occupying approximately 3,000 square feet. The remainder of the floor space and is and has been vacant for several years. Community Development Board May 21, 2013 FLD2013 -02003 — Page 2 of 25 PLANNING DEVELOPMENT Clear T ate Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOP MENT REVIEW DIVISION Development Proposal: The proposal is to reuse the site and the buildings as a charter school for grades kindergarten through eighth with a maximum of 512 students. A majority of the proposed modifications will take place within the buildings. Site improvements include installing two basketball hoops and a playground, adding landscaping along Barry Road, the west and north property lines, along the facade of the eastern buildings and in the interior of the site. The exterior of the buildings are in good condition and will remain essentially unchanged maintaining the white and tan color scheme. Bus service is not provided for charter schools therefore student transportation is via personal passenger vehicles. Primary drop -off and pick -up will be between 8:00 and 8:30 a.m. and 2:30 and 3:00 p.m., respectively. The standard school day is between 8:00 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. The applicant has not determined whether additional care will be provided however, any additional care services would be after -care until approximately 5:00 p.m. Therefore, the potential overall hours of operation will be between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. with the most vehicular traffic activity in the morning between 8:00 and 8:30 a.m. and the afternoon between 2:30 and 3:00 p.m. The non - residential off - street parking lot within the LMDR district will be maintained and improved with new landscaping along Barry Road and the east side of the site. Care will be taken to avoid negatively affecting the existing shade trees so the exact number and placement of additional landscape material will depend on the root structure of these trees. As mentioned, the north side of the parking lot is bound by Stevenson Creek. Striped asphalt along the south side of the site will be removed and converted to landscape area. In addition, the existing chainlink fence will be removed from along the north, south and east sides of the site and replaced with a solid wood or PVC fence three feet in height with landscaping placed on the exterior side of the fence. It should be further noted that the fence proposed along Barry Road will be 30 inches in height in order to comply with the sight visibility triangle requirements of CDC Section 3- 904.A. All existing shade trees will be maintained on the site with the proposal. No other changes are proposed for the parking lot. A playground, proposed in the southwest quadrant of the site between Buildings 5 and 7, will not displace any parking spaces. Of the 92 existing spaces 90 spaces, including all those within the non - residential off - street parking lot within the LMDR district, will remain. Two of the spaces will be removed to accommodate a dumpster and enclosure. As mentioned, three parking spaces along the west side of the site are entirely or partially located on the adjacent property to the west. In addition, the northernmost parking space at the northeast corner of the site is located at least partially within the Jeffords Street right -of -way. These parking spaces are not included in the overall parking count. The City cannot authorize use of a property without the property owner being party to the application. The applicant has been unable to make the adjacent property owner(s) a party to the application. Therefore, the applicant will prevent use of the three western parking spaces with a barrier curb until permission and an access easement /agreement can be secured from the property owner on whose property those spaces exist. The parking space within the Jeffords Street right -of -way will be removed and converted into landscape space. It should be mentioned that the eight on- street parking spaces will remain with the proposal but are not includes in any parking count. Community Development Board May 21, 2013 FLD2013 -02003 — Page 3 of 25 PLANNING DEVELOPMENT Llear T ate Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOP MENT REVIEW DIVISION As mentioned, access to the site is from Barry Road (south) and Jeffords Street (north). This access will be maintained with the proposal. Both streets extend to the east for approximately I/4 mile before terminating at local residential streets. As the proposed school will be a charter school, bus service will not be provided and student transportation will be via private passenger vehicles. It is anticipated that, with the exception of students who live in the surrounding neighborhood to the east, traffic will primarily approach the site from the west along Barry Road from Highland Avenue. The pick -up and drop -off circulation route will run from the Barry Road driveway north to an existing drive aisle located at the northeast corner of the site which connects to Jeffords Street. The route will then run to the west along the north property line, then south through the center of the site, then east back to the primary north -south drive aisle before turning back south and existing back onto Barry Road at which point most if not all of the traffic will proceed west to Highland Avenue. The site does not currently include a stormwater facility and, as additional impervious area is not proposed, a stormwater facility is not required nor will one be provided. Solid waste will be provided via a dumpster located along the north property line in the northwest quadrant of the site. The enclosure will match the exterior of the existing buildings with regard to fit, finish and materials. The existing freestanding sign located within the Barry Road right -of -way will be removed with the proposal. A signage package has not been submitted with this proposal however, any proposed sign will need to meet all applicable Sections of the CDC. While landscaping is proposed along at least portions of all property lines the buffer widths however, do not all meet the provisions of CDC Article 3 Division 12 with a three foot buffer (with a small portion at zero feet to parking) along Barry Road where 10 feet is required, a one foot buffer along the west property line where five feet is required and a 2.5 foot buffer along the east property line where 12 feet is required. The required landscape buffers associated with the non - residential off - street parking lot located within the LMDR district are met with this proposal. Furthermore, the site includes two instances where 11 parking spaces are provided in a row exceeding the maximum allowance of 10 spaces in the row. Finally, given the limited space available the requisite number of canopy trees cannot be provided on site. The applicant has mitigated these deficiencies through the provision of landscape material to the maximum extent possible. The landscape plan includes a variety of shade, ornamental and palm trees (live oak, crepe myrtle and sabal palm), as well as shrubs and ground covers (viburnum, Indian hawthorn, hibiscus, African iris, liriope and ornamental peanut). Special Area Plan: None Development Parameters Note: Where appropriate separate Development Parameters will be provided for the respective portion of the site that is within the R/OG or the RU FLUP category, as the case may be. Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2- 1001.1, the maximum FAR for properties with a Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) designation of R/OG is 0.50. The existing FAR (to remain) is 0.32, which is consistent with Code provisions. Community Development Board May 21, 2013 FLD2013 -02003 — Page 4 of 25 PLANNING DEVELOPMENT Clear T ate Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOP MENT REVIEW DIVISION Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2- 1001.1, the maximum allowable ISR within the R/OG FLUP category is 0.75. The overall proposed ISR within this portion of the site is 0.796, which, while inconsistent with Code provisions, is proposed to remain as is. Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2- 201.1, the maximum allowable ISR within the RU FLUP category is 0.65. The overall proposed ISR within this portion of the site is 0.40, which is consistent with Code provisions. Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2 -1004, there is no minimum required lot area or lot width for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to CDC Table 2 -1002, Minimum Standard Development Standards, the required lot area and lot width are to be a minimum of 40,000 square feet and 200 feet, respectively. The portion of the site within the O district has a lot area of 93,097 square feet and a lot width of 325 feet exceeding and/or meeting the otherwise minimum area and width required by Code. Pursuant to CDC Table 2 -204, there is no minimum required lot area or lot width for Residential Infill Projects or for non - residential off - street parking. Regardless, the portion of the site within the LMDR district has an area of 10,380 square feet and a width of 100 feet. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2 -1004, there are no minimum required setbacks for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to CDC Table 2- 1002, front and side /rear setbacks to primary structures for schools are 35 and 20 feet, respectively (required side and rear setbacks are the same). Setbacks to parking are based upon the required landscape buffers which for the front (south and north) are each 10 feet and five feet (north and west) and 12 feet (east). The proposal includes a front (south) setback of nine feet (to building) and zero feet (to parking), a front (north) setback of three feet (to parking), a side (east) setback of 74 feet (to building) and 2.6 feet (to parking), a side (west) setback of zero feet (to building and parking), a rear (north) setback of 33 feet (to building) and 4.7 feet (to parking). The proposal does not meet the minimum standards for setbacks to building on the front (north and south), side (west) or to parking or other like vehicular use areas on the front (north and south) and side (north, east and west). It should also be noted that the structures located on the portion of the site within the O district do not meet the required setbacks for any other Minimum Standard Development use within the O district. Pursuant to CDC Table 2 -204, there are no minimum required setbacks for a Residential Infill Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to CDC Table 2 -204, non - residential off - street parking within the LMDR district requires a front setback of 25 feet and side and rear setback of 20 feet. The proposal includes a front (south) setback of 12 feet (to pavement) and side (east) setback of 35 feet and a rear (north) setback of 37 feet (both to pavement). The proposal does not meet the minimum standards for front setbacks. Community Development Board May 21, 2013 FLD2013 -02003 — Page 5 of 25 PLANNING DEVELOPMENT Clear T ate Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOP MENT REVIEW DIVISION Maximum Building Pursuant to CDC Table 2 -1003, there is no maximum height for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to the aforementioned CDC Table 2 -1002, the maximum allowable height for schools is 30 feet. The maximum existing building height of 22 feet is less than this allowable height and is therefore consistent with the CDC. Pursuant to CDC Table 2 -204, there is no maximum height for Residential Infill Projects or for non - residential off - street parking. Minimum Q f- Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Table 2 -1003, there is no minimum off - street parking requirement for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to CDC Table 2 -1002, the minimum required parking for a school is one space per three students. This results in a requirement of 170 parking spaces for a 512- student school. The proposal provides 90 parking spaces (0.18 spaces per student) which is less than the otherwise required number of parking spaces. The proposed number of spaces will adequately serve the site because, given the proposed grades no student will drive themselves to school and there will be a maximum of 34 staff members on site at any given time. Assuming that each staff member arrives in their own vehicle there will be an excess of 58 spaces most of the time. The other time at which a regular need for parking will occur will be during Parent Teacher Association (PTA) meetings which occur once per month. A nearby charter school (Academie Da Vinci) has a student body of approximately 220 children with a PTA membership of 180 individuals with a typical PTA attendance of 35 individuals (19 percent of the total PTA membership). The overall PTA membership is significantly higher than at other schools in the area. Assuming a similar participation rate with a student body just over twice that of Academie Da Vinci and assuming that all participants will arrive in their own vehicle it is anticipated that approximately 84 spaces will be required during PTA meetings resulting in an excess of eight spaces. The applicant submitted a Parking Demand Study using standards from the 4th Edition Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) manual that indicates that 0.13 parking spaces per student (66 spaces for 512 students) for a school including only grades kindergarten through eighth is an adequate parking ratio. This is reinforced given the reasonably expected parking demands based on the maximum number of staff members expected to be on site at any given time and the anticipated parking needs during regularly scheduled PTA meetings. Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3- 201.D.1 and 3- 903.I, all outside mechanical equipment must be screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. Mechanical equipment is currently centrally located on roof of each building and visible from street rights - of -way and /or adjacent properties. The mechanical equipment will remain in place; however, it will be concealed with solid PVC fencing approximately three feet in height and painted to match the primary color of the buildings. Sight Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3- 904.A, to minimize hazards at the proposed driveways on Barry Road and Jeffords Street, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views Community Development Board May 21, 2013 FLD2013 -02003 — Page 6 of 25 PLANNING DEVELOPMENT Clear T ate Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOP MENT REVIEW DIVISION at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20 -foot sight visibility triangles. This proposal has been reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineering Department and been found to be acceptable. Shrubbery planted within the sight visibility triangles will need to be maintained to meet 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 practicable. There are existing overhead utility lines, serving this development, within the right -of -way along the north side of Barry Road that will need to be undergrounded. The applicant will be in contact with Progress Energy regarding these power lines to determine the feasibility and practicality of locating them underground. Should Progress Energy believe that undergrounding these power lines is practicable then this utility will need to be relocated underground prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy. Landscaping: Pursuant to CDC Section 3- 1202.13, required perimeter buffers are based on adjacent uses and/or street types. The required landscape buffers are 10 feet (south — local street), five feet (west — office), five feet (north — ALF), 10 feet (north - local street) and 12 feet (east — single - family residential). In addition, CDC Section 3- 1202.E provides that interior landscaping must be provided which is equal to or greater than 10 percent of the vehicular use area. The proposed vehicular use area is 42,606 square feet requiring 4,261 square feet of interior landscaped area. CDC Section 3- 1202.E also provides that no more than 10 parking spaces may be in a row. Finally, CDC Section 3- 1202.E requires that all facades facing a street must include a foundation planting area of at least five feet of depth along the entire fagade excluding areas necessary for ingress /egress. This proposal provides buffer widths along the south of between zero and three feet, west of approximately one foot, north of 4.7 feet where adjacent to an existing ALF and three feet (to parking) where adjacent to Jeffords Street and east of 2.6 feet (to parking) which do not meet the requirements of CDC Section 3- 1202.D. The proposal does not meet the requirements of CDC Section 3- 1202.E in that there are two instances where 11 parking spaces in row are proposed and foundation plantings along the south fagade are not provided. The site, given the total perimeter distance and the amount of interior landscape area provided, requires the provision of 67 canopy trees where 25 trees (or the palm/omamental tree equivalent thereof) are provided. The proposal includes 5,168 square feet of interior landscape space which meets the requirements of CDC Section 3- 1202.E. The non - residential off - street parking lot within the LMDR district provides all required buffer widths. The east (side) and north (rear) buffers of this parking area are 35 and 38 feet, respectively where 12 feet is required and south (front) landscape buffer is 12 feet where 10 feet is required. The proposal otherwise meets the remaining requirements of Article 3 Division 12 of the CDC. As noted, landscape buffer widths, certain foundation planting areas and the quantity of provided canopy trees do not meet the provisions of CDC Article 3 Division 12. The applicant has mitigated these deficiencies through the provision of landscape material in excess of the minimum otherwise required by the CDC. The landscape plan includes a variety of shade, ornamental and palm trees (live oak, crepe myrtle and sabal palm), as well as shrubs and ground Community Development Board May 21, 2013 FLD2013 -02003 — Page 7 of 25 PLANNING DEVELOPMENT Clear T ate Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOP MENT REVIEW DIVISION covers (viburnum, Indian hawthorn, hibiscus, African iris, liriope and ornamental peanut). The buffers will be planted to the maximum extent possible given existing space constraints. Cn1id Wncto- A dumpster is proposed at the northwest quadrant 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 existing buildings. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City's Solid Waste and Fire Departments. Signal The proposal includes the removal of the existing freestanding sign located within the Barry Road right -of -way. A formal signage package has not been presented at this time. Any forthcoming signage package must meet Code requirements. Comprehensive Plan: The proposal is in support of the following Goals, Objectives and /or Policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan as follows: Future Land Use Plan Element Objective A.3.2 - All development or redevelopment initiatives within the City of Clearwater shall meet the minimum landscaping / 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 Community Development Code. Barry Road is not designated as a Primary Scenic Corridor within CDC Section 3 -1203 of the nor within the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the City's Comprehensive Plan. While the proposal does not provide the required buffer widths along the perimeter of the site the applicant has provided the maximum amount of landscaping within the space available. As mentioned previously, the proposed landscape plan provides for a mix of groundcovers, low- to medium - sized shrubs as well as shade, palm and ornamental trees. Therefore, the submittal supports this Objective and Policy. Policy A.5.5.1 - Development should be designed to maintain and support the existing or envisioned character of the neighborhood. The proposal provides for a use permitted as a Minimum Standard Development within the O district and a site design generally consistent with other non - residential development in the area along Barry Road and Highland Avenue. It should be noted that the subject site was developed primarily during the mid- to late -1960s around the same time or prior to surrounding properties. In other words, the development has existed in its current state for approximately 40 years. 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 and provides a reasonable compromise between improving the site to the maximum extent practicable and a strict application of the CDC. In addition, the site design is consistent with the intent of the development parameters flexibility set by the Community Development Code with regard to parking, setbacks and landscaping. These development parameters were specifically created Community Development Board May 21, 2013 FLD2013 -02003 — Page 8 of 25 PLANNING DEVELOPMENT Clear T ate Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOP MENT REVIEW DIVISION because many areas of the City were inconsistent with the appearance and character desired by the citizens of Clearwater as evidenced by the creation and subsequent adoption of the City's current Community Development Code. The proposed school will act as an appropriate transitional use between the residential neighborhood to the east and the more commercially developed area to the west along Highland Avenue. In addition, grade /middle schools are traditionally seen as appropriate ancillary neighborhood uses located close to the residential neighborhoods which they serve. Therefore, the proposal supports this Policy. Goal A.6 - The City of Clearwater shall utilize innovative and flexible Planning and engineering practices, and urban design standards in Order to protect historic resources, ensure neighborhood Preservation, redevelop blighted areas, and encourage infill Development; and Objective A.64 - Due to the built -out character of the city of Clearwater, compact urban development within the urban service area shall be promoted through application of the Clearwater Community Development Code. The site, as mentioned, was developed primarily during the mid- to late- 1960s. The existing buildings, while structurally sound and completely serviceable, have not been able to effectively compete in the marketplace vis -a -vis office tenant attraction and retention. The continuation of office uses within the existing buildings, according to the applicant, has become untenable. Therefore, the interior rehabilitation and modification to serve as an elementary /middle school on the edge of an existing stable residential neighborhood with an updated and improved site plan including new landscaping and efficient onsite traffic circulation patterns is an appropriate reuse of the site. The proposal, which makes an appropriate reuse of the site and buildings while emphasizing enhanced aesthetics (landscaping) is the sort of project envisioned as an apt recipient of flexibility from the Minimum Standard Development parameters as provided by the above Goal and Objective with regard to its location within the urban service area and an attractive, compact redevelopment plan. Therefore, the proposal supports this Goal and Objective. Policy A. 68.1 - Build active, attractive communities that are designed at a human scale and encourage walking, cycling and use of mass transit; and Policy A. 6 8.3 - Where appropriate, development shall provide a sense of pedestrian scale on streets through minimal front setbacks, similar building heights, street trees and proportionality of building heights to street widths. The proposal includes the adaptive reuse of seven existing office buildings between one and two stories in height with a school serving grades kindergarten through eighth. The height of the existing buildings (up to 22 feet) is consistent with or lower than other buildings in the area including a one -story office to the west, a four -story attached dwelling to the south across Barry Road, a seven -story ALF to the north and the single - family residential neighborhood to the east consisting mostly of one -story dwellings. Existing front setbacks along Barry Road are minimal and are approximately nine feet to building. The establishment of a school adjacent to the residential neighborhood to the east will provide an opportunity for students who live in that neighborhood to safely walk to school via local residential streets. Therefore, the proposal supports these Policies. Community Development Board May 21, 2013 FLD2013 -02003 — Page 9 of 25 PLANNING DEVELOPMENT Clear T ate Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOP MENT REVIEW DIVISION Public Schools Facilities Element Policy J.2.1.2 - For purposes of Objective J.2.1, public educational facilities are defined as elementary schools, special education facilities, alternative education facilities, middle schools, high schools, and area vocational - technical schools of the Pinellas County School District and those charter schools whose charter has been approved by the Pinellas County School District pursuant to F.S. Chapter 1002.33; and Policy J.2.1.3 - Public educational facilities of the School District are an allowable use within the following land use categories in the City: • Residential Estate (RE) ■ Residential High (RH) • Residential Suburban (RS) ■ Residential /Office Limited (R/OL) • Residential Low (RL) ■ Residential /Office General (R/OG) • Residential Urban (RU) ■ Residential /Office /Retail (R/OR) • Residential Low Medium (RLM) ■ Institutional (I) • Residential Medium(RM) ■ Commercial General (CG) The proposal includes a new charter school with grades kindergarten through eighth and constitutes a public educational facility as defined by Policy J.2.1.2. The school will be located within the R/OG FLUP category. Therefore, the proposal supports these Policies. Policy J.2.1.4 - The location and construction of new public educational facilities, or the expansion of an existing site, within one of the future land use category listed in Policy J.2.1.3 shall only be allowed upon a determination by the City that the proposed site is consistent with the City of Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. Policy J.2.1.5 - In addition to consistency with the City of Clearwater Comprehensive Plan, the proposed location of a new or expanded public educational facility of the School Board within one of the land use categories listed in Policy J.2.1.3 shall be reviewed and considered with the following general criteria: 1. The proposed location is compatible with present and projected uses of adjacent property. Adjacent property uses include a nursing home, ALF, office and single - family residential dwellings. Attached dwellings are located across Barry Road to the south and a local YMCA is located along Highland Avenue farther to the north. A large single - family residential neighborhood defines the area to the east. The proposed school is an appropriate transitional use between the more intensely commercially developed area to the west along Highland Avenue and the residential neighborhood to the east and will serve the educational needs of that neighborhood, the residential neighborhoods extending approximately one mile in all directions as well as the City as a whole. 2. The site area of the proposed location is adequate for its intended use based on the State Requirements for Educational Facilities and provides sufficient area to accommodate all needed utilities and support facilities and allow for adequate buffering of surrounding land uses. The applicant has asserted that the subject site meets the requirements of the State Requirements for Educational Facilities Effective November 19, 2012. In addition, the amount of building area (approximately 26,000 square feet) is more than adequate to Community Development Board May 21, 2013 FLD2013 -02003 — Page 10 of 25 PLANNING DEVELOPMENT Clear T ate Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOP MENT REVIEW DIVISION serve the anticipated student population of approximately 512 students. The existing buildings and the proposed playground and basketball courts are all situated closer to the office building to the west away from the single - family dwellings to the east and the ALF and nursing home to the north. The proposed playground is located within a courtyard formed by Buildings 5 and 7 in the southwest quadrant of the site and the basketball courts are located near the west property line adjacent to an office. Adequate buffering is therefore provided. 3. Based on the Five -Year Work Program of the School Board and the City Comprehensive Plan, there will be adequate public services and facilities to support the public educational facility. Since the proposal is for a charter school, the School Board's Five -Year Work program is not applicable. However, the City has determined that adequate public services and facilities are available to support the proposed school. 4. There are no significant environmental constraints that would preclude development of a public educational facility on the site. The site has existed essentially as it appears today since the late- to early- 1970s. There are no environmental constraints associated with the subject site. 5. There will be no adverse impact on archaeological or historic sites listed in the National Register of Historic Places or designated by a local government as locally significant historic or archaeological resources. There are no listed archeological or historic sites listed in the National Register of Historic Places or otherwise designated by the City in the area. 6 The proposed location is well drained and soils are suitable for development or are adaptable for development and outdoor educational purposes with drainage improvements. The proposed location is well- drained and already developed with seven buildings with approximately 26,000 square feet of floor space. 7. The proposed location is not in conflict with the City's Stormwater Management Plan and any watershed management plans adopted by the City, if applicable. The proposal has been reviewed by the City of Clearwater's Engineering Department and has been determined to not be in conflict with any Stormwater Management or Watershed Management Plan. 8. The proposed location is not in a velocity flood zone or a floodway. The subject site is not in a velocity flood zoning or a designated floodway per Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panel 121030109H. 9. The proposed location can accommodate the required parking and anticipated queuing of vehicles onsite. As previously examined, the site contains adequate parking to serve the proposed school. In addition, ample queuing space is provided on site. Community Development Board May 21, 2013 FLD2013 -02003 — Page 10 of 25 PLANNING DEVELOPMENT Clear T ate Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOP MENT REVIEW DIVISION 10. The proposed location lies outside the area regulated by Section 333.03(3), F.S., regarding the construction of public educational facilities in the vicinity of an airport. The site is not in the vicinity of an airport and meets the requirements of Section 333.03(3), F.S. which prohibits the construction of an educational facility of a public or private school at either end of a runway of a publicly owned, public -use airport within an area which extends five miles in a direct line along the centerline of the runway and which has a width measuring one -half the length of the runway. The proposal meets and/or is consistent with each and every one of the above criteria. Therefore, the proposal supports these Policies. Policy J.2.1.6 - The following criteria shall also be used to evaluate whether proposed locations of specific types of schools are consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan: Elementary Schools, Special Education Facilities, and Alternative Education Facilities 1. The proposed location shall have direct access to at least a collector road or as otherwise approved by the local government after determination of acceptable traffic impacts on adjacent roads of lesser classification. 2. Outdoor recreational facilities and similar support facilities shall be located and buffered on the proposed site to minimize impacts on adjacent properties. Middle Schools 1. The proposed location shall have direct access to at least a collector road or as otherwise approved by the local government after determination of acceptable traffic impacts on adjacent roads of lesser classification. 2. Outdoor recreational facilities and similar support facilities shall be located and buffered on the proposed site to minimize impacts on adjacent properties. The proposal includes a school with grades kindergarten through eighth and is considered an Elementary and Middle school. The site has access to two local streets; Barry Road and Jeffords Street. Barry Road provides direct access to Highland Avenue considered a collector road. It is anticipated that traffic generated will approach primarily from Highland Avenue to the west. The City has reviewed the submitted Traffic Impact Analysis and has found it to be acceptable. The proposal is consistent with each of the above criteria. Therefore, the proposal supports this Policy. Community Development Code: The proposal supports the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code as follows: Section 1- 103.B.1. Allowing property owners to enhance the value of their property through innovative and creative redevelopment. As mentioned, the site was developed primarily in the mid- to late -1960s with seven buildings roughly concurrent with or prior to the development of surrounding properties. The proposed school will serve as an appropriate neighborhood use and, importantly, a transitional use from the more intensely developed area along Highland Avenue to the west and the single - family residential neighborhood to the east. It will constitute a project consistent with elements of the Community Development Board May 21, 2013 FLD2013 -02003 — Page 11 of 25 PLANNING DEVELOPMENT Clear T ate Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOP MENT REVIEW DIVISION Comprehensive Plan, as provided above. The proposed development is similar to the treatment other sites have received in the area vis -a -vis landscaping and other site improvements as mitigation to justify flexibility from certain the CDC requirements such as quantity of canopy trees, foundation planting, 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 development and redevelopment which will enhance the value of surrounding properties. Surrounding properties to the north include a nursing home and an ALF. Uses to the west, east and south include an office, detached and attached dwellings, respectively. A large single - family neighborhood is located to the east. It is anticipated that the proposal will result in a positive impact on those surrounding properties through the provision of an additional educational opportunity for the children residing in the area and the City and County as a whole. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. Section 1- 103.B.3. Strengthening the city's economy and increasing its tax base as a whole. The proposal includes the redevelopment of an existing under - utilized office complex with a charter school. While improving a property typically results in an increase in its value thereby positively contributing to the City's tax base and overall economy the proposed use of the site as a public school will not result in a direct positive impact to the City's economy or tax base. However, the use is typically an appropriate anchor for residential neighborhoods and provides additional educational opportunities for the community's families. The net result of the proposal will be another attractive redevelopment in the community that can further interest in the improvement of surrounding properties. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. Section 1- 103.D. It is the further purpose of this Development Code to make the beautification of the city a matter of the highest priority and to require that existing and future uses and structures in the city are attractive and well - maintained to the maximum extent permitted by law. The proposal includes the adaptive re -use of an under - utilized office complex with a new charter school. Improvements will include new landscaping. It is anticipated that a new grade school will result in a vibrant and active use of a mostly unused property. As previously mentioned, the proposed landscape plan provides for a mix of groundcovers, low- to medium -sized shrubs as well as shade, palm and ornamental trees. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. The proposal supports the specific Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria of this Code as follows: Section 2- 1004.A. 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. The site, developed approximately 40 years ago as an office complex, has sat largely vacant for several years and currently has one tenant occupying about 3,000 square feet out of approximately 26,000 square feet. Efforts to attract new office tenants have largely failed. While schools are a permitted use within the O district, the site does not meet the required setbacks for schools (or for any other use permitted in the district for that matter). In addition, the existing landscaping does not in any way fulfill any of the landscape requirements of the CDC. Finally, it should be considered that the 12 -space Community Development Board May 21, 2013 FLD2013 -02003 — Page 12 of 25 PLANNING DEVELOPMENT Clear T ate Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOP MENT REVIEW DIVISION non - residential off - street parking lot within the portion of the site within the LMDR district has been in place for approximately 40 years visually and functionally operating as part of the larger site. The proposal is to reuse the site as a school and to continue to use the non - residential off - street parking lot as a parking lot. The alternative is to remove several of the buildings and a large portion of the existing parking in order to meet all applicable development standards. Given that the existing buildings are in good condition that option is impractical. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. The redevelopment of the site will be consistent with a variety of Goals, Objectives and Policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of the CDC as examined in detail previously in this document. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. As mentioned, all surrounding properties are developed with attached dwellings, offices, ALFs or single - family residential dwellings. The proposal includes establishing a charter school (grades kindergarten through eighth) within an existing office complex consisting of seven building ranging between one- and two - stories. The proposal will have no impact on the ability of surrounding properties to improve or be redeveloped. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development. As discussed in detail, the proposal includes reusing existing buildings as a charter school. The hours of operation will be similar to an office. The school will act as an appropriate transitional use between the more intensely developed commercial area to the west along Highland Avenue and the residential neighborhood to the east. The basic character of the site will not change with the proposal. It is not anticipated that adjoining properties will suffer any detriment associated with the proposal. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 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 six objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; The proposed use, a school, is permitted within the O district as a Minimum Standard Development use and is permitted by the underlying FLUP category (R/OG). The proposal will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood in that the general hours of operation are similar to office uses (the most recent use of the site). In addition, the school will occupy the existing buildings Community Development Board May 21, 2013 FLD2013 -02003 — Page 13 of 25 PLANNING DEVELOPMENT Clear T ate Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOP MENT REVIEW DIVISION that have been on site for approximately 40 years. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 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. As mentioned, surrounding properties are developed with attached and single - family dwellings, offices, a nursing home and an ALF. The subject site was developed between the mid -1960s and the early 1970s as a seven - building office complex. The proposed school will have a similar impact on adjoining properties as when the site was used exclusively as an office. The proposal will have no effect on the ability of surrounding properties to be redeveloped or otherwise improved. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the city. There are no design guidelines adopted by the City which are applicable to the subject site or the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, this CDC Section is not applicable to the proposal. c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area. The proposal provides for a use to be located within existing one- and two -story buildings. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development will not change with the proposal. In addition, the school will serve as an appropriate transitional use between the residential neighborhood to the east the more commercially developed area to the west. Schools are also ideal uses to be located adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: • Changes in horizontal building planes; • Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; • Variety in materials, colors and textures; • Distinctive fenestration patterns; • Building stepbacks; and • Distinctive roofs forms. The existing architecture of the buildings provides for substantial articulation of the fenestration through the use of vary building heights, deep overhangs and an extensive use of windows. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. Community Development Board May 21, 2013 FLD2013 -02003 — Page 14 of 25 PLANNING DEVELOPMENT Clear T ate Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOP MENT REVIEW DIVISION e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. The proposal includes adaptive reuse of all seven existing buildings as a school. The buildings are primarily located on the western half of the site. Parking is provided along the east side, as well as centrally, on the site. Parking will be buffered from adjacent residential uses with landscaping. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. The proposal supports the specific Residential Infill Redevelopment Project criteria of this Code as follows: Section 2- 204.E. Residential Infill Projects. 1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from one or more of the following: intensity; other development standards. The portion of the site that contains the non - residential off - street parking use currently includes 12 parking spaces with a front setback of 12 feet where 25 feet is required. The parking lot has been in place for approximately 40 years. The lot cannot be pushed back to meet the 25 foot setback requirement due to the proximity of the Stevenson Creek outfall which runs along the north side of the site. The applicant will mitigate the reduction in front setback with landscaping and a solid fence three feet in height. Redeveloping this portion of the site to meet the front setback requirement is impractical because removing any parking spaces would negatively impact the ability of the overall site to effectively provide adequate parking for the proposed school. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project will not materially reduce the fair market value of abutting properties. As discussed previously, abutting properties have been developed with a variety of uses include office, ALF and single - family residential. The subject site, developed primarily in the mid- to late- 1960s, will be reused as a charter school. Specifically, the existing non - residential off - street parking lot has been place for approximately 40 years without detriment to the surrounding properties most of which were developed concurrent with the parking lot or subsequent to it. The continuation of the non - residential off - street parking lot improved with new fencing and landscaping is not expected to materially reduce the fair market value of abutting properties. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 3. The uses within the residential infill project are otherwise permitted in the district. Non - residential off - street parking is a permitted use within the LMDR district. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 4. The uses within the residential infill project are compatible with adjacent land uses. The proposed school along with the non - residential off - street parking lot will serve as an appropriate transitional use between the residential neighborhood to the east and the more intensely developed commercial area to the west along Highland Avenue. Schools are also traditionally appropriate anchor uses for residential neighborhoods providing additional educational opportunities for those residing in nearby neighborhoods. Community Development Board May 21, 2013 FLD2013 -02003 — Page 15 of 25 PLANNING DEVELOPMENT Clear T ate Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOP MENT REVIEW DIVISION Specifically, the parking lot visually and functionally operates as a part of the larger parcel and has had (and will continue to have) no greater impact than if the lot was zoned O district. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 5. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The site was developed as an office complex nearly 50 years ago. As the market has changed the site has been marginalized with regard to its capacity to attract new office tenants. Most of the floor area is currently vacant with one tenant occupying approximately 3,000 square feet out of a total of approximately 26,000 square feet. The opportunity to reuse the site for a vibrant new use which will support the residential neighborhood to the east should upgrade the immediate vicinity of the site. Specifically, the parking lot located within the LMDR district will be improved with new fencing and landscaping. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 6 The design of the proposed residential infill project creates a form and function which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. The proposal includes upgrades mostly to the interior of the existing buildings. However, site changes do include the provision of new landscaping to the maximum extent provided by existing site conditions. The site including the non - residential off - street parking lot has been a fixture within the neighborhood for approximately 40 years and is consistent with the size, scale and scope of the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 7. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height, off - street parking, access or other development standards are justified by the benefits to community character and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. The requested flexibility will allow the existing buildings and parking facilities to be reused for a new use. The proposed school will serve as an appropriate transitional use between commercial development along Highland Avenue to the west and the residential neighborhood to the east. In addition, the new school will serve the families living within the surrounding neighborhood providing additional flexibility for educational opportunities. Specifically, the parking lot located within the LMDR district has been place for decades without detriment to the surrounding area and will be improved with new fencing and landscaping. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. The proposal supports the General Applicability requirements of this Code as follows: Section 3- 914.A. General standards for Level One and Level Two approvals. 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 site, developed approximately 40 years ago, as an office complex with a small parking lot (within the LMDR district) is similar in size, scale, scope and character as surrounding non - residential uses. The height of the existing buildings is similar to or less Community Development Board May 21, 2013 FLD2013 -02003 — Page 16 of 25 PLANNING DEVELOPMENT Clear T ate Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOP MENT REVIEW DIVISION than surrounding non - residential uses and generally in scale with nearby single - family dwellings to the east. The proposal is to reuse the site and buildings as a school and to continue to use the non - residential off - street parking lot as a parking lot. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 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. As mentioned, all surrounding properties are developed with attached dwellings, offices, ALFs or single - family residential dwellings. The proposal includes establishing a charter school (grades kindergarten through eighth) within an existing office complex consisting of seven buildings ranging between one- and two - stories. The proposal will have no impact on the ability of surrounding properties to be improved or redeveloped. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 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 site will essentially function as it has for over 40 years. The hours of operation will be similar to an office use. There is adequate space on site to accommodate drop -off and pick -up events. The health and safety of residents and workers in the area should not be affected. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. As discussed in detail, the proposal includes reusing existing buildings as a charter school. The school will act as an appropriate transitional use between the more intensely developed commercial area to the west along Highland Avenue and the residential neighborhood to the east. Access to the site is from Barry Road (south) and Jeffords Street (north). Both streets extend to the east for approximately I/4 mile before terminating at local residential streets. It should be noted that Jeffords Street has traffic calming devices in place east of the subject site. As the proposed school will be a charter school, bus service will not be provided and students will be dropped off via passenger vehicles. It is anticipated that, with the exception of students who live in the surrounding neighborhood to the east, that traffic will primarily approach the site from the west along Barry Road from Highland Avenue. The pick -up and drop -off circulation route will run from the Barry Road driveway north to an existing drive aisle located at the northeast corner of the site which connects to Jeffords Street. The route will then run to the west along the north property line, then south through the center of the site, then east back to the primary north -south drive aisle before turning back south and existing back onto Barry Road at which point most if not all of the traffic will proceed west to Highland Avenue. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The proposal provides for a use permitted as a Minimum Standard Development within the O district and a site design generally consistent with other non - residential development in the area along Barry Road and Highland Avenue. It should be noted that the subject site was developed primarily during the mid- to late -1960s around the same time or prior to surrounding properties. In other words, the existing development has existed in its current state for approximately 40 years. Specifically, the proposal with Community Development Board May 21, 2013 FLD2013 -02003 — Page 17 of 25 PLANNING DEVELOPMENT Clear Tate Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOP MENT REVIEW DIVISION regard to landscaping is consistent with other properties which have been subject of Level I and Level 11 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 specifically created because many areas of the City were inconsistent with the appearance and character desired by the citizens of Clearwater as evidenced by the creation and subsequent adoption of the City's current Community Development Code. The proposed school will act as an appropriate transitional use between the residential neighborhood to the east and the more commercially developed area to the west along Highland Avenue. In addition, grade /middle schools are traditionally seen as appropriate ancillary neighborhood uses located close to the residential neighborhoods which they serve. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 6 The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. Surrounding properties to the north include a nursing home and an ALF. Uses to the west, east and south include an office, detached and attached dwellings, respectively. A large single- family neighborhood is located to the east. It is anticipated that the proposal will result in a positive impact on those surrounding properties. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. Section 4- 206.D.4: Burden of proof. The burden of proof is upon the applicant to show by substantial competent evidence that he is entitled to the approval requested. The applicant has adequately demonstrated through the submittal of substantial competent evidence that the request is entitled to the approval requested as required by CDC Section 4- 206.D.4. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no active Code Compliance cases for the subject property. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards for schools as per CDC Tables 2- 1001.1 and 2 -1004 (O District): Community Development Board May 21, 2013 FLD2013 -02003 — Page 18 of 25 Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Floor Area Ratio 0.50 0.32 X Impervious Surface Ratio 0.75 0.796 X1 Minimum Lot Area N/A 93,097 square feet (1.899 acres) X Minimum Lot Width N/A 297 feet X Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A South: 9 feet to building XI Zero feet to pavement North: Zero feet to pavement XI Side: N/A East: 74 feet to building X 2.6 feet to pavement West: Zero feet to building/pavement XI Rear: N/A North: 33 feet to building XI 4.7 feet to pavement Maximum Height N/A 22 feet X Community Development Board May 21, 2013 FLD2013 -02003 — Page 18 of 25 PLANNING DEVELOPMENT Llea Tate Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOP MENT REVIEW DIVISION I See analysis in Staff Report The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards for non - residential off - street parking as per CDC Tables 2 -201.1 and 2 -204 (LMDR District): Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Minimum Determined by 0.18 spaces per student (90 spaces) X 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of Off - Street Parking the community 0.40 X Minimum Lot Area development 10,380 square feet (0.238 acres) X Minimum Lot Width coordinator 103 feet X development and improvement of surrounding properties. Minimum Setbacks based on the South: 12 feet to pavement XI development. specific use North: 37 feet to pavement X and/or ITE East: 35 feet to pavement X Maximum Height Manual N/A X Minimum standards N/A X I See analysis in Staff Report The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards for non - residential off - street parking as per CDC Tables 2 -201.1 and 2 -204 (LMDR District): I See analysis in Staff Report COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2- 1004.A. (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project) (O District): Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Floor Area Ratio 0.40 N/A X 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of Impervious Surface Ratio 0.65 0.40 X Minimum Lot Area NA 10,380 square feet (0.238 acres) X Minimum Lot Width NA 103 feet X development and improvement of surrounding properties. Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A South: 12 feet to pavement XI development. Side: N/A North: 37 feet to pavement X East: 35 feet to pavement X Maximum Height N/A N/A X Minimum N/A N/A X Off - Street Parkin I See analysis in Staff Report COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2- 1004.A. (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project) (O District): Community Development Board May 21, 2013 FLD2013 -02003 — Page 19 of 25 Consistent Inconsistent 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of XI 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 XI development and improvement of surrounding properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed XI development. Community Development Board May 21, 2013 FLD2013 -02003 — Page 19 of 25 PLANNING DEVELOPMENT Llea Tate Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOP MENT REVIEW DIVISION I See analysis in Staff Report The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2- 204.E. (Residential Infill Project) (LMDR District): Consistent Inconsistent 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be pennitted by the underlying future land use X category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: XI a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; XI b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's XI economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs;. X' c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off - street X' parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: ❑ Changes in horizontal building planes; ❑ Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; ❑ Variety in materials, colors and textures; ❑ Distinctive fenestration patterns; ❑ Building stepbacks; and ❑ Distinctive roofs forms. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. I See analysis in Staff Report The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2- 204.E. (Residential Infill Project) (LMDR District): Community Development Board May 21, 2013 FLD2013 -02003 — Page 20 of 25 Consistent Inconsistent 1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is XI otherwise impractical without deviations from one or more of the following: intensity; other development standards; 2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill XI project will not materially reduce the fair market value of abutting properties. 3. The uses within the residential infill project are otherwise permitted in the district. XI 4. The uses within the residential infill project are compatible with adjacent land uses. XI 5. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill X' project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. Community Development Board May 21, 2013 FLD2013 -02003 — Page 20 of 25 PLANNING DEVELOPMENT Llea Tate Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOP MENT REVIEW DIVISION I See analysis in Staff Report COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL APPLICABILITY STANDARDS: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards for Level One Approvals as per CDC Section 3- 914.A: Consistent Inconsistent 6. The design of the proposed residential infill project creates a form and function X which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. X1 7. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height, off - street parking, access X1 or other development standards are justified by the benefits to community character X' and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. X1 I See analysis in Staff Report COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL APPLICABILITY STANDARDS: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards for Level One Approvals as per CDC Section 3- 914.A: See analysis in Staff Report COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM STANDARDS: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Comprehensive Landscape Program as per CDC Section 3- 1202.G: Consistent Inconsistent 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X' coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of X1 adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons X' residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. X1 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the XI immediate vicinity. X 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including XI visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. See analysis in Staff Report COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM STANDARDS: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Comprehensive Landscape Program as per CDC Section 3- 1202.G: Community Development Board May 21, 2013 FLD2013 -02003 — Page 21 of 25 Consistent Inconsistent 1. Architectural theme. a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall be designed as a part of the architectural theme of the principal buildings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for development; or b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment Xl proposed in the comprehensive landscape program shall be demonstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for development under the minimum landscape standards 2. Lighting. Any lighting proposed as a part of a comprehensive landscape program is X automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is closed. 3. Community character. The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive X1 landscape program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater. 4. Property values. The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape X' program will have a beneficial impact on the value of property in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. Community Development Board May 21, 2013 FLD2013 -02003 — Page 21 of 25 PLANNING DEVELOPMENT Llear T ate Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOP MENT REVIEW DIVISION SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of April 4, 2013 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 all evidence submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact: 1. That the 2.14 acre site is located on the north side of Barry Road approximately 330 feet east of Highland Avenue; 2. That the subject property is located within the O (1.899 acres) and LMDR (0.238 acres) Districts and the R/OG and RU Future Land Use Plan categories, respectively; 3. That the proposal is to reuse the site and existing buildings as a school and as non - residential off - street parking and is subject to the requisite development parameters per Article 2 Divisions 10 and 2, respectively, of the CDC; 4. That the portion of the site to be used as a school and which contains all the existing buildings is located completely within the O district; 5. That the proposal is also to continue to use the portion of the site within the LMDR district as a 12 -space non - residential off - street parking lot; 6. That the subject property is not located in a special plan area; 7. That the site is currently developed with a seven - building office complex and a non- residential off - street parking lot within the LMDR district; 8. The subject property is comprised of two parcels with approximately 430 feet of frontage along Barry Road and 65 feet of frontage along Jeffords Street; 9. That the proposal includes a front (south) setback of nine feet (to building) and zero feet (to parking), a front (north) setback of three feet (to parking), a side (east) setback of 74 feet (to building) and 2.6 feet (to parking), a side (west) setback of zero feet (to building and parking), a rear (north) setback of 33 feet (to building) and 4.7 feet (to parking and solid waste enclosure) and 90 parking spaces (0.18 spaces per student) in the Office (0) District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2- 1004.A; 10. That the proposal includes a 12 -space non - residential off - street parking lot with a front (south) setback of 12 feet (to pavement) and side (east) setback of 35 feet and a rear (north) setback of 37 feet (both to pavement) in the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of CDC Section 2- 204.A; 11. That the proposal includes a request to reduce the front (north) landscape buffer from 10 feet to five feet (to parking), reduce the side (east) landscape buffer from 12 feet to 2.6 feet (to parking), reduce the side (west) landscape buffer from five feet to zero feet (to parking), increase the number of parking spaces in a row from 10 spaces to 11 spaces and eliminate the Community Development Board May 21, 2013 FLD2013 -02003 — Page 22 of 25 Consistent Inconsistent 5. Special area or scenic corridor plan. The landscape treatment proposed in the NA NA comprehensive landscape program is consistent with any special area or scenic corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in which the parcel proposed for development is located. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of April 4, 2013 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 all evidence submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact: 1. That the 2.14 acre site is located on the north side of Barry Road approximately 330 feet east of Highland Avenue; 2. That the subject property is located within the O (1.899 acres) and LMDR (0.238 acres) Districts and the R/OG and RU Future Land Use Plan categories, respectively; 3. That the proposal is to reuse the site and existing buildings as a school and as non - residential off - street parking and is subject to the requisite development parameters per Article 2 Divisions 10 and 2, respectively, of the CDC; 4. That the portion of the site to be used as a school and which contains all the existing buildings is located completely within the O district; 5. That the proposal is also to continue to use the portion of the site within the LMDR district as a 12 -space non - residential off - street parking lot; 6. That the subject property is not located in a special plan area; 7. That the site is currently developed with a seven - building office complex and a non- residential off - street parking lot within the LMDR district; 8. The subject property is comprised of two parcels with approximately 430 feet of frontage along Barry Road and 65 feet of frontage along Jeffords Street; 9. That the proposal includes a front (south) setback of nine feet (to building) and zero feet (to parking), a front (north) setback of three feet (to parking), a side (east) setback of 74 feet (to building) and 2.6 feet (to parking), a side (west) setback of zero feet (to building and parking), a rear (north) setback of 33 feet (to building) and 4.7 feet (to parking and solid waste enclosure) and 90 parking spaces (0.18 spaces per student) in the Office (0) District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2- 1004.A; 10. That the proposal includes a 12 -space non - residential off - street parking lot with a front (south) setback of 12 feet (to pavement) and side (east) setback of 35 feet and a rear (north) setback of 37 feet (both to pavement) in the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of CDC Section 2- 204.A; 11. That the proposal includes a request to reduce the front (north) landscape buffer from 10 feet to five feet (to parking), reduce the side (east) landscape buffer from 12 feet to 2.6 feet (to parking), reduce the side (west) landscape buffer from five feet to zero feet (to parking), increase the number of parking spaces in a row from 10 spaces to 11 spaces and eliminate the Community Development Board May 21, 2013 FLD2013 -02003 — Page 22 of 25 PLANNING DEVELOPMENT Clear T ate Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOP MENT REVIEW DIVISION required foundation plantings along the front (south) fagade of two existing buildings as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of CDC Section 3 -1202. G; and 12. There are no active Code Compliance cases for the subject property. Conclusions of Law The Planning and Development Department, having made the above findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law: 1. That the development proposal is consistent with the 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.3.2.1, A.5.5.1 A.6.8.1 and A.6.8.3 and Public Schools Facilities Element Policies J.2.1.2, J.2.1.3, J.2.1.4, J.2.1.5 and J.2.1.6; 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 -1002 of the Community Development Code with regard to setbacks to building and pavement and the number of parking spaces; 5. That the development proposal is inconsistent with the Standard as per Table 2 -204 of the Community Development with regard to setbacks to pavement; 6. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2- 1004.A of the Community Development Code; 7. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2- 204.E; 8. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level One Approvals as per Section 3 -914.A of the Community Development Code; 9. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria for a Comprehensive Landscape Program CDC Section 3- 1202.G; and 10. That the applicant has adequately demonstrated through the submittal of substantial competent evidence that the request is entitled to the approval requested as required by CDC Section 4- 206.D.4. Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends APPROVAL of the Flexible Development application to permit a school (grades kindergarten through eighth with up to 512 students) with a height of 22 feet, a front (south) setback of nine feet (to building) and zero feet (to parking), a front (north) setback of three feet (to parking), a side (east) setback of 74 feet (to building) and 2.6 feet (to parking), a side (west) setback of zero feet (to building and parking), a rear (north) setback of 33 feet (to building) and 4.7 feet (to parking and solid waste enclosure) and 90 parking spaces (0.18 spaces per student) in the Office (0) District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2- 1004.A; to permit non - residential off - street parking with a front (south) setback of 12 feet (to pavement) and side (east) setback of 35 feet and a rear (north) setback of 37 feet (both to pavement) in the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of CDC Section 2 -204.A and to reduce the front (south) landscape buffer from 10 feet to three feet (to concrete wall) and zero feet (to parking), reduce the front (north) landscape buffer from 10 feet to three feet (to parking), reduce the side Community Development Board May 21, 2013 FLD2013 -02003 — Page 23 of 25 PLANNING DEVELOPMENT Clear T ate Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOP MENT REVIEW DIVISION (east) landscape buffer from 12 feet to 2.6 feet (to parking), reduce the side (west) landscape buffer from five feet to zero feet (to building and parking), increase the number of parking spaces in a row from 10 spaces to 11 spaces reduce the required number of canopy trees and eliminate the required foundation plantings along the front (south) facade of two existing buildings as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of CDC Section 3- 1202.G., subject to the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: General /Miscellaneous Conditions 1. That the final design and color of the buildings be consistent with the elevations approved by the CDB; 2. That the maximum number of students be restricted to 512 students; 3. That the school be limited to grades kindergarten through eight; 4. That the existing chainlink fence along the south and east sides of the site be removed and replaced with a solid wood or PVC fence or masonry wall three feet in height with landscaping on the exterior side; 5. 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; 6. 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 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; 7. That all other applicable local, state and /or federal permits be obtained before commencement of the development; Timing Conditions 8. That application for a building permit be submitted no later than May 21, 2014, unless time extensions are granted pursuant to CDC Section 4 -407; 9. That prior to the issuance of any permits the freestanding sign located in the Barry Road public right -of -way be removed; 10. 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 fire pump is required, then the water supply must be able to supply 150 percent of its rated capacity; 11. That a Declaration of 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; 12. That the proposed solid waste enclosure match the existing buildings with regard to fit, finish and materials and that evidence of same be submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any permits; 13. 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 Community Development Board May 21, 2013 FLD2013 -02003 — Page 24 of 25 PLANNING DEVELOPMENT Clear T ate Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELOP MENT REVIEW DIVISION 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; 14. That prior to the issuance of any permits, any applicable Public Art and Design Program Impact Fees be paid; 15. That prior to the issuance of any permits, any applicable Parks and Recreation impact fees be paid; 16. 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); 17. That prior to the issuance of any permit, all requirements of the General, Stormwater and Traffic Engineering and Fire Departments be addressed; 18. That prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy that all required Transportation Impact Fees be paid; and 19. That all aboveground utilities along Barry Road be located underground prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy should the owning entity believe that undergrounding these power lines is practicable. Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: ATTACHMENTS: Photographs Mark T. Parry, AICP, Planner III Community Development Board May 21, 2013 FLD2013 -02003 — Page 25 of 25 "`; � ---------�''_""�---__ ' �� ' ---- _.___,___— �_ �. "�-- :; `�,�� _�, � - — _---._„_�_ _,,w ',y�` � ,, , , , _ __ � ^ . . �k.w , -- —__ '7 � � .� �ir.ri� ~•f.. � —. ... _ � ,-. .. _ . .., ._. 1 -s''�.'�w ,t„a - �i5:+i��'• r � . �. ' ' �„„, r„.v} }�', M, ' . . _.. , r, . .. .. ..� .:.. -..- , - r-�_- —��"" �� �r,�:. s. _. � _ � _ '.''c�'»re.,_.,,._.... -,�• "t +'d �.�.`�-� � - j ��. -- '�!.� „�-+.'+u`' r / � � ; , _ � - , .�.. ��^,��'��1`�' �. -�.....: � ..: ..�,_,�' �-,�,-�. �. ..d�1.�. � � �S` 1'�:."4r.xay'y„+ a'��d}ly � t f �,`, ,C°:'�t.""'.'�'�"ti���"��{..y�v�Q�,x��"° �`".,�,�,_ � � �.fi�X Y+f"�^M'.' er.��T..'.`91!'si` ``�i.. :."• � � �i ..a. . rr e�"al..`., ���.�^� �M�°�r�',-8r'S � �."c• yS� i'I11:3�'':�.. .. �3 � �' w'' �` � ' . .,.,.t . _. _,.""�,.-, , . ,. _ I.oul�inu n��r1h cenirall� fmm �uuth properl� line al��n�l;arr� R�ri�i ,��5� .I ,,j i� fi" �:,f �, I . ,• :�. , ., ?'• ��t r; y •,11 '� rl�i ,. ,� - I _ - . �.. � _ �� `�„ ' -r� ����� '? , .,;;r.. � _ �— „ , ,. � � , . .� , , ��a. � �F� r��ae,t,, ,�„�7 . u. �, r� v_.,,°..`�. .. ._ -• -. 1`'�'�Cti " ' r`t ?�AC' 28�C►13 � - x Looking north along east side of parcel. Looking west at northeast corner of site at western terminus ofJeffords Strcct. � .�fa , ''`'�'' i I � ` � '! .<^.j�� � � ,'' 1 . i, - �, �r ��f'���r��`y ` n �a �� , ,�_�����-'�-�1lIL1f1)������������������l������ A � • °�!� i�'� _ , . �$, ur--,"___ - � a�il Aif�:.,.i�.+�� , , _ ____ . __ . ,� - _ , .` _ �_ �- �� _ �. �._-��. __.. �� _ � ,,y�� .' `\ . . , r4�`�r�a �+�k t 1 . �l�rq. ... _ =y# `°+�'�" - �v �:�Yd'!4t`r • • . �. �" \ . . �'ad��BGkI'�i ...t a . . 7tt....a,.. z«�,...«€ �_�sr� `" l�.o-.��'�+�. � . . �. � � ... . .. .. ¢.. .. �.._ \� . •. . •. y. .» �t� j � \� . „�'. ':Ya;,;. :,�;.� - � '� `t-a �'�,,` �; .3Y1�. .a,........ , . m. � . � , . . .. .. Looking south centrally along north propert�� line l,00king east t�om center oPsite. 1510 Barry Road Portion of Site within the O District FLD2013-02003 Page 1 of 3 . , 1 i u � , �'� ,;'9�i� ���;. r ` . � �� .,, Y � � � I � - �i - '' ��, . , V. . y g , F I i i r. �`�7�y'v;F.r F - �� �•. .. "�� ' � �y��,.� ���� � �;' .� . � I _ T+ r'� � . ... m �i -- , -� t iy�• ����„ .�,... =�'�� -..: - ;, , ' � „ -- . . �- ��, - . y. , ,.,I �\.' ` . -ti:�.�. - _.. _- - _ `�` x�i � " �, 'p �, `�`�',t�T'T " ,� ry I , , . � � ''bi :.1. �11j�/'�.�ti ��'� �f..�'��g� : jNyS�t �. � t1e►`v m ]f`�,, �` 4 b �`^C +'. ,, f . wrr., )V7 . _�.. . _ Looking north:uon���c,� prup�r�� iinc. Looking northetut from southwest corner of site. ��-�,��;�-�:� �����--�-�� . � ��r �+� r� ' ' _ . , � � ;j�� � � _ , . � . . f � ' u�iY' + � ' � 1. �i . ✓ �... �� �� � t.. �;.� � p�fii�i �. _ � ?. � '4�t} 1� � :� r' � � , . � ^i � �I�'it u �����������������������������������������i� ��lu,��� '� ' "`! : " l�Illlllllil " .-� �----- � � ..� � =- �.�, ` _ _= � ` . _ __.__ �.�_ . - �, �._ _ � ;. ...�., . �.�. W � _.,.;,_w ,.. ;;..,���� ����� .. Looking north from center of site. Looking southeast from west property linc. � - • �i+ �" _ ., � �.' . .. ° �• � � ' 'n �+;��� _ � �--%. .. �� � ..' .� i i •� ' j�,.. _ r--^i y� �.„�.�: '� �''� ♦',�u�ctt 1� n� - '-,._".. . •- � ..y �_ 7��f.f[i !.�� . • i: ... i•.1. •• ••• 1 d �, ip1��CU�� , 1-�N r �-•,: � ' - t, 'i _ ...... .....::�:�. ', __. .. —... ... ... .� .. --. _4, _ v ° � �/ � i� �" � ,�,�:;. �+.q i � � � . . . -: 4w M it�. 1�� �L��� � ��� � �����1 .. . {�Mr. r r l(ir�Zr� '`' . . .- � `�� ��.0 t y "b'l��'Gir1 �� �' ~ f' ` � �.�� � .. Y' F,a +i, i . r��� ,`�i� a, ,✓ r . ^silAC:�, . N�i';�w�;`.ta Looking southeast Irom within thc site. Lookin�south along��est properh� line. 1510 Barry Road Portion of Site within the O District FLD2013-02003 Page 2 of 3 .� �� � �'iSV°'�N K� y q.� � �,' i J ,i�U,�=1 ' 1 i � !' :� � ., . ;* } . . f. . :S � . � . � .� /•,� `�. 'I� �.��i '_ � }; �'��t •1.1 Y.. '� �� ..;. 3 . ,"�.,_.Ti .:. �� j „ � �. /!�. . � . _' ..�.. r_ ..' , ,. -.� . ..- . . � ��� ��..- __. , 1�1":CI t'"....._�....r...r ... � . .�, � - � - -._ _+, �... ,i '. , . . � ". _ ' �, �-'� , - _ � - . - MAR 29 2013 � � .� .,,, �,�;;� ��. ,�. Looking east along Barry Road. �� r.,� r ,. �"I ,.p� .�r-�-"� r � .t„�� � �, � � . �" F '.��{ 3.3 � i ; r W �~ . � `�` t N _ 4^s'' ;� I I" i. —- � r ,� .3 F+ o�a , LI '9 �.' �C _� Lll.. __�J �1 ;'- — -- _ , . -r,�:. : . . ,,. .� '•�'� �•- - __ r_., _ ,. ..... . ._...�._ �.�_ .....r . ._ ,. ...... . .:�x::=-�::.-,. . . . _ � y. . �, �n� N �=�r `.��j, ���' ' h�� . -±.,,, 'i�"� .._ � Looking west from centcr oi parking lot. Luuking �vest irom southcast corn�r ui sit�.. y,, .,> > `,', u::i*? `1'� i��. ,,`� �iY/��;'ii*rw .�b. 'y �;r l 4/.1 L!`9 J��1� .Y�� � Y,�-, a �µ r !� . iL !i h� .J1M� �� `4 ,,,�,, �,jl,� v�nl'��~ t��9•� .. . ` '��t�'?I '��'S } ;�.:•'I _. '����' f�.. .4('�. ._._. r.���... (t�':. �.�_ r�,��_ _ _w.__. �:�:� . �-� = � ,���:.,: _ , .f. .� . �� . — �,.�-. ,:� ,. ,� ,� __. .r . , ,. �� � �. �.�,. _ , .. �.� _ _. ._ _ _ _ _ _ , e�, . _ ,. .;; ; ,�,:; _ ; ���� �; 4.�, i, �X�r�:,�� , � ., , . : '� � .� �,. � a�C��+� .�.'.:� y�.� �''��.. � ��i ��.� '�f�V Fta�� :1��'I _ wS�: ;:r� - .__... __..._..r,ANC�«.;F�.' I.00king nurtheast �i-om drive�vay along Barr} Ro�d Looking east along north side ol�parking lot. 1510 Barry Road Portion of Site within the LMDR District FLD2013-02003 Page 3 of 3 ° 1 . . � � earwater P�ing&Devetopu�ent Departrnent � Comprehensive Landscaping Appl�cation IT IS II�tCUMBEMT UPOPI THf APPEtGANT TO SUBMIT COMPLE7E AND CQiiRECT(1Y�ORMA�FfOI�E. ANY MISLEADiNG,DECEP'FIVE, INCOMPLEI'E OR INCORRECT INFOitMAT10N MAY INVALIDATE YOUR APP�lG4TION. ALL APPIJCATIONS ARE TO$E FlLLED�UT COMPLETELY AND CORRECfLY,ANQ Si1BM17TED tN PERSOt1f(NO FAX QR DEtIVERlES) TO THf PiANMING&DEVELOPMENT DEPAR7MENT BY NOON ON THE SCtlEDULED DEADUNE DATE. A TOTAL OP 11 COMPlETE SETS O�PEANS AND APPLlCAT10N MATERU�tS(1 OR(GlNAL AND 10 CQPIfS)AS REQU�RED WITHIN ARE TO BE SUBMI7TED FOR REYIEW BY THE pEVEEOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE. SUBSEqU£111T SUSM13Ti41 fOR THE COMMUN[TY QEVfLOPMEM' BOARD, IF I�lECESSARY, WILL RfQU1RE 35 COMPLE'Cf SE7S OF PIANS ANO APPL[CATION MAYERIALS{1 ORi6tNAl AND 14 COPlESj. PLANS AND APPUCAT10N5 ARE REQUIRf D TO BE COLLATED�STAPLED ANQ fOLDED INTO SETS. THE APPLICANT, BY FILING THIS APPLtU11'lOt1f, AGREES TO COMPLY WlTH ALL APPUCABLE REQUIREMENTS QF THE COMMUl111TY DEHELQPMENT COflf. PROPERTY OWNER(PER DEED): CIr!�'t-y -���/f�i% r��,p,��l�rs,� L�- MAILING ABDRESS: �.��-L�-?�-�-����ax/�°3�r:�r��a!,--t=�����3� PHONE(dUMBER• ��s������.�02 00 EMAIL' �'b�y ��' �,�,,�w r�o_/ . —.--- AGENT OR REPRESEN7'ATIVE: 5�.��l,,M �� MAiEJiVG AbDRESS: �a!/jl�ry�y����.� .L��zY J�P 3,s._.�`•�-��4,`��-� �7'2 3� PFfONE NUMBER:�GL��}3�.�-fJ�do 4 EMAIL: �.�dar�lsJr�.�.�r.o.�i� —� r ADDRE55 OF SUBJECf PROPERTY: ��_�'�.�.,r•� oA,al�f��•ky��.�u�,g DESCRIP110N OF REQUEST: ���,��.��,11�� �t���l��►�e'����n ��e�- r�kt: Spetifrc�!(y iden6%y the request (Jnclude o!!requested code ftexJbility,• e.g., reducGion in required r►umber of parking spaces, beigh� setbacks, !ot size,lot width,specific use,etc.): STATE OF FLORiDA,COUNTY OF PINELLAS I, the undersigned, acknowledge tF►at alt Sworn to and subscribed before me this �j day of representations made in this application are true and � r, �(� 3 ,ta me and/or by accurate to the best of my knowiedge and authorize Cty representatives to visit and photograph the �,� Q►�Jip{'�who is personally known has property described in this apptication. produced as identificatior�. � Signa#u of prope own r or representative I+lotary public, �tr A(� �:...;�. ANN H.JONES My oorYmission e�ire,� � o`�Q �"''� * * AIYCOAi61lSSIONIEE044432 P�n��B�� a�Pa���� .�Avenue,ClearwaLer,FL 33756,Tel:727,562�t56T;Fax:72T.562-4865 Page 1 of 2 Revised 01112 o � Planning&Development Department � � ear�vate Com rehensive Landsca in A lication P P g Pp � Flexibility Criteria PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO EACH OF THE FIVE(5) FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA EXPLAINING HOW, IN DETAIL,THE CRITERION IS BEING COMPLIED WITH PER THIS COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPING PROPOSAL. 1. Architectural Theme: a. The landscaping in a Comprehensive Landscaping program shall be designed as a part of the architectural theme of the principal buildings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for the development. OR b. The design,character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscaping program shall be demonstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for devetopment underthe minimum landscape standards. The proposed landscape materials will provide visual interest and aesthetics by utilizing accent plantings,such as Hibiscus,Palms and Crape Myrtles along the street frontage with in a typically older neighborhooc� These planting will fill the available existing area along the street. Accent plant materials have also been used in main focal areas elsewhere within the projec� 2. Lighting. Any lighting proposed as a part of a Comprehensive Landscaping program is automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is closed. The building,signage and any landscape accent lighting will be designed to limit lighting off site and reduce glare to adjacent neighbors. Reasonable lighting levels will be provided for the building security during the night time hours. The use/activity of the project is primarily during the daylight hours. 3. Community Character. The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater. Theproject willprovide landscape treatment along the roadway frontage, which will act to soften the overall visual aesthetic of the older ezisting buildings that are being renovated The recent building exterior painting and the additional landscaping will further improve the visual impression from the roadway. 4. Property Values.The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscaping program will have a beneficial impact on the value of the property in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The additional landscape plant materials will be part ojthe site's renovation/remodeling of the older existing buildings. The new plant materials and recent painting/renovation of the building exteriors will enhance the overall visual impression of the project site and therefore the perceived value of the surrounding neighborhood - 5. Special Area or Scenic Corridor Plan. The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program is consistent with any special area or scenic corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in which the parcel proposed for development is located. There is no special area or scenic corridor plan for the project area. However,the project incorporates some of the suggested plant materials,such as Hibiscus and Palms, that are within some of the corridor plans narrative. Planning&Development Department,100 S.Myrtle Avenue,Clearwater,FL 33756,Tel:727-562�4567;Fax:727-562-4865 Page 2 of 2 Revised 01/12 �� o (� Planning&Development Department Y lear�vater � l� Flexible Develo ment A lication p pp � 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). PIANS 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: $1,205 PROPERTY OWNER(PER DEED): Clearwater Professional Plaza, Ltd. MAILING ADDRESS: 1991 Main Street, Box 183,Sarasota, Florida 34236 PHONE NUMBER: 941-365-8200 EMAIL: sband@cpmgrp.com AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE: Steven Band MAILING ADDRESS: 1991 Main Street, Box 183, Sarasota, Florida 34236 PHONE NUMBER: 941-365-8200 EMAIL: sband@cpmgrp.com ADDRESS OF SUBIECT PROPERTY: 1510 Barry Road PARCEL NUMBER(S): 23-29-15-00000-210-0100&23-29-15-30366-000-0700 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Attached Legal Description PROPOSED USE(S): School DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Looking to establish a school with reductions in setbacks and reduction in parking requirements. Specifically identify the request (include all requested code flexibiliry; e.g., reduction in required number of parking spaces, height setbacks, lot size,lot width,specific use,etc.J: Planning�Development Department,100 S.Myrtle Avenue,Clearwater,FL 33756,Tel:727-562-4567;Fax:727-562-4865 Page 1 of 8 Revised 01/12 o Planning&Development Department � � earwater Flexible Develo ment A lication p pp � Data Sheet PLEASE ENSURE THAT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS FILLED OUT, IN ITS ENTIRETY. FAILURE TO COMPLETE THIS FORM WILL RESULT IN YOUR APPLICATION BEING FOUND INCOMPLETE AND POSSIBLY DEFERRED UNTIL THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION CYCLE. ZONING DISTRICT: OfFice FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential/Office General (R/OG) EXISTING USE(currently existing on site): Offices PROPOSED USE(new use,if any;plus existing,ifto remain):School SITE AREA: 93,097 sq.ft. 2•�4+�- acres GROSS FLOOR AREA(total square footage of all buildings): Existing: 26,394 sq.ft. Proposed: 26,394 sq.ft. Maximum Allowable: 46,548(.50 FAR) sq.ft. GRO55 FLOOR AREA(total square footage devoted to each use,if there will be multiple uses): First use: 26,394 sq.ft. Second use: sq.ft. Third use: sq.ft. FLOOR AREA RATIO(total square footage of all buildings divided by the total square footage of entire site): Existing: •2$ Proposed: •28 Maximum Allowable: .50 BUILDING COVERAGE/FOOTPRINT(1�t floor square footage of all buildings): Existing: 18,363 sq.ft. ( �9•7 %of site) Proposed: 18,363 sq.ft. ( �9•7 %of site) Maximum Permitted: 46,548 Sq,ft. ( 50% %of site) GREEN SPACE WITHIN VEHICULAR USE AREA(green space within the parking lot and interior of site;not perimeter buffer): Existing: 5,168 sq.ft. ( 11.6 %of site) Proposed: 5,168 sq.ft. ( 11.6 %of site) VEHICULAR USE AREA(parking spaces,drive aisles, loading area): Existing: 44,606 sq.ft. ( 48•0 %of site) Proposed: 44,606 sq.ft. ( 48.0 %of site) Planning 8�Development Department,100 S.Myrtle Avenue,Clearwater,FL 33756,Tel:727-562-4567;Fax:727-562-4865 Page 2 of 8 Revised 01/12 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO(total square footage of impervious areas divided by the total square footage of entire site): Existing: •75 Proposed: •75 Maximum Permitted: 0.75 DENSITY(units,rooms or beds per acre): BUILDING HEIGHT: Existing: N�A Existing: 2 Story Proposed: Proposed: Maximum Permitted: Maximum Permitted: OFF-STREET PARKING: Existing: 92 Proposed: 92 Minimum Required: 167 See parking reduction letter per ITE. - WHAT IS THE ESTIMATED TOTAL VALUE OF THE PROJECT UPON COMPLETION? $Not Yet Determined ZONING DISTRICTS FORALLADJACENTPROPERTY: North: HDR(High-Density Residential)and O(Office) South: HDR(High-Density Residential)and C(Commercial) East: LMDR(Low-Medium Density Residential) West: O(Office) 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 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 as identification. Signature of property owner or representative Notary public, My commission expires: Planning&Development Department,100 S.Myrtle Avenue,Clearwater,FL 33756,Tel:727-562-4567;Fax:727-562-4865 Page 3 of 8 Revised 01112 IMPS:I/IOUSSURFAC�RATIO(total uare footage of imperviousareasdivided byihe total square footage of entire ste): 6dsting: ''� Proposed: Ma�dmum�rmilted: � Dr�15iiY�units,roomsar bedsp aa�e): taJILDf�UGH9Glfi: 6dsting: '`e` . �„asfing: A�oposed: Propassd: Maximum�rmitted: Ma�dmum f�rmitted: OF�Si3�Ef PAE�NG J F�dsfing: ""`,. 1�� R-oposed: Z, Minimum f�quired: _ ,/� ' WHAT'ISTHE6?IMATS�TOTALVAWEOFTHEPRQ�TUPOA100MPLETION? ���,,�„1��,,�,,�� .�_ �JJNI h!G DI SiFaCfS FORALLAD.l4C8VT PRpP9�iY: Narth: �y� s�ur►,: �I�R �: ��� West: � SCA7EOFRDFaDl�Ot7UN11(OFPINBIAS r� I, t he undersgned, acicnowledge that all 3lvorn to and s�bscxibed before me this �.7 j day of representatians made in khis application are true and �js"� ,to me and/or by aa;urate to the best of my knowledge and authorize 6ty representatives to vist and photograph the who is personally known has property desaibed in this application_ produoed- as i8entification. � �n 9gnatur prop er or representative i�lotary pubfic, Myoommissione�ires� ��b � t'�;:�e�. ANNH.,lONfiS ��' � c !AY COMMIS510H 1 E���2 * . � EXPIRES:Fe6ruary i9,2015 si�rF��a�° gp�dedThu6ud¢�llidaryS�tiKes Planning&Development Deparlment,100 S.Myrtle Avenue,Clearvvater,F!33756,Tel:727-562�4567;Fax:727-562-4665 Page 3 oi 8 Revised 01172 o - Planning&Development Department } . lear�vater Flexible Development Application r .� � Site Plan Submittal Package Check list IN ADDITION TO THE COMPLETED FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT(FLD)APPLICATION,ALL FLD APPLICATIONS SHALL INCLUDE A SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL PACKAGE THAT INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION AND/OR PLANS: ❑ 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. ❑ Responses to the General Applicability criteria set forth in Section 3-914.A. The attached Flexible Development Application General Applicability Criteria sheet shall be used to provide these responses. ❑ 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 600k and page numbers and street right(s)-of-way within and adjacent to the site. ❑ If the appiication 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. ❑ 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. ❑ 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: ❑ Index sheet of the same size shall be included with individual sheet numbers referenced thereon. ❑ North arrow,scale, location map and date prepared. ❑ Identification of the boundaries of phases,if development is proposed to be constructed in phases. ❑ 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. ❑ Location,footprint and size of all existing and proposed buiidings and structures on the site. ❑ Location and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems, both on-site and off-site,with proposed points of access. ❑ Location of all existing and proposed sidewalks, curbs, water lines, sanitary sewer lines, storm drains, fire hydrants and seawalls and any proposed utility easements. ❑ 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. ❑ 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. ❑ All adjacent right(s)-of-way,with indication of centerline and width, paved width, existing median cuts and intersections and bus shelters. 0 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,100 S.Myrtle Avenue,Clearwater,FL 33756,Tel:727-562-4567;Fax:727-562-4865 Page 4 of 8 Revised 01112 ❑ Typical floor plans,including floor plans for each floor of any parking garage. ❑ Demolition plan. ❑ 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. ❑ 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. ❑ 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 leveis;or ■ The study area contains a segment of roadway and/or intersection with five reportab�e 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. ❑ 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: ❑ 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. ❑ 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, seawalls, utility easements, treatment of all ground surfaces, and any other features that may influence the proposed landscape. ❑ Location of parking areas and other vehicular use areas, including parking spaces, circulation aisles, interior landscape islands and curbing. ❑ Drainage and retention areas,including swales,side slopes and bottom elevations. ❑ Delineation and dimensions of all required perimeter landscaped buffers including sight triangles,if any. Planning&Development Department,100 S.Myrtle Avenue,Clearwater,FL 33756,Tei:727-562-4567;Fax:727-562-4865 Page 5 of 8 Revised 01/12 o (� + Planning&Development Department } �e`a�al�er Flexible Develo ment A lication � U p pp U 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 land and existing buildings on the site are already existing and have been since the mid 1960's Thereby, the existing neighborhood has grown around and developed in conjunction with adjacent properties. The buildings are 1 and 2 story and other properties in the area range from 1-4 stories. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. The proposed development is currently designated or zoned office use. Currently the buildings are, for the most part, vacant and have existed since the 1960's in their current form. Being used as a school will not be a detriment to the existing area. If anything, it should restore vibrancy to the area. 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 property to be used for a school would not adversely affect the neighborhood. The operational hours will be similar to an office complex which has existed for 40 years. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. If there were to be any traffic congestion, it would only be in the morning or late afternoon and would be confined to the site. The property sits between two roads, Jeffords Street&Barry Road.Having access to two roads would.. help dissipate traffic and eliminate back ups on public road ways. See the detailed traffic analysis. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. Since the building & surrounding neighborhood have been growing together since the mid 1960's and for the most part the surrounding area being fully developed. The buildings are 1 and 2 stories and surrounding buildings are 1 to 4 stories . 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts,on adjacent properties. Much of the property already has in place perimeter landscaping of shadow box fencing. Landscaping will be improved as part of the site improvements. Planning&Development Department,100 S.Myrtle Avenue,Clearwater,FL 33756,Tel:727-562-4567;Fau:727-562-4865 Page 6 of 8 Revised 01/12 o Planning&Development Department > ' ��a,�t���r Flexible Develo ment Application � l� p � 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. See Attached Narrative 2. See Attached Narrative 3. See Attached Narrative 4. � See Attached Narrative 5. See Attached Narrative 6. See Attached Narrative ,. NA 8. NA Planning 8�Development Department,100 S.Myrtle Avenue,Clearwater,FL 33756,Tel:727-562-4567;Fax:727-562-4865 Page 7 of 8 Revised 01/72 o Planning&Development Department } , lea,�a�er Flexible Development Application � V � Affidavit to Authorize Agent/Representative 1. Provide names of all property owners on deed—PRINT full names: Clearwater Professional Plaza, Ltd. 2. That(I am/we are)the owner(s)and record title holder(s)of the following described property: Steven Band 3. That this property constitutes the property for which a request for(describe request): Change use from Office to School. 4. That the undersigned(has/have)appointed and(does/do)appoint: Steven Band 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 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 foregoing is true and correct. Property Owner Property Owner Property Owner Property Owner STATE OF FLORIDA,COUNTY OF PINELLAS BEFORE ME THE UNDERSIGNED,AN OFFICER DULY COMMISSIONED BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA,ON THIS DAY OF , , PERSONALLY APPEARED WHO HAVING BEEN FIRST DULY SWORN DEPOSED AND SAYS THAT HE/SHE FULLY UNDERSTANDS THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT THAT HE/SHE SIGNED. Notary Public Signature Notary Seal/Stamp My Commission Expires: Planning&Development Department,700 S.Myrtle Avenue,Clearwater,FL 33756,Tel:727-562-4567;Fax:727-562-4865 Page 8 of 8 Revised 01I12 r o :: :� ,-=�::• Ptanning 8� Developmen#Department Y%�lear�ater Flexibie Deveto ment A lication _ p Pp � . Affidavit to Authorize Agentl Representafive 1. Provide names of all property ownerson deeci-PR1NT full names (���L .� ...�!�;'��.r>.��1 ���. L�-�. 2. That(i amlwe are)the owner(s}and re�ord title holder(s)of the following described property: �C(1LL�M� 3. That this property oonstitutes#he property for which a requesi fvr(descxibe request}: G L�s,�� �,�,s��'� ��� ,� s c��J 4. That the t�ndersgned(has/have)appainted a�d(does/do)appoint: �s�z� -� as(hisltheir)agent(s)to execute any petifionsor other documents necessary to affed such petition; 5. l�hat this affidavit has been executed to induce the Qty of CJearwater, Florida to consder and ad on the above desrribed property; 6. That ste vists fo the property are necessary by Qty representatives in order to process this appficatian and the owner authori�s�ty repres�ntativesto vist and photograph the property de�ribed in tliisappliration; 7. That(Itwe},the u •ersigned authority,hereby oertify thaf the foregoing istrue and correct. Properfy O�nmer R-operty O�+vner l�operty Ovvner Roperty Ouvner 5TATE t?F FLOR!DA,OOiJN7Y OF PI NELLAS BEFORE ME THE Ut�DERSIGNED,AN OFFICER DULY COMMiSSiONED eY THE LAWS OF THE STAi'E OF FLORIQA,ON THIS �� DAY OF TQ.n1�Q Iy'GQ , �D� 3 ,PERSONALLY APPEARED �TPiV� 1��n d WHO HAVING BEEN FIRST DULY SWORN DEPOSED AND SAYS TNAT HElSHE FULLY UNDERS7ANDS THE CON7ENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT THAT WElSHE SIGNED_ �at�Y?.B��a �}'�.�E.� •� �, * MY COMMISS(ON#EE OA9432 EXPIRES:Februa 19 2015 s,? A�o< �,�8 ry � Notary Public 5ignature ���o �dge!NotuY Semces n Notary Seal/Stamp My Commission Expires; �l°.� �"l .T����� Planning&Development Department,100 S.Myrtle Aveaue,Clearwater,FL 33755,Tel:727-562-4567;Fax:T27-562-+t665 Page B of B Revlsed Oi112 COMPREHEN5IVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT Project Crite�ia l. The developinent or redevelopinent is otherwise impractical without deviations from use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. The parcel is nearly fully impervious with buildings and parking lots very close to the property boundaries. As such, deviations to the front, side and rear setbacks are necessary to use this building at all. Otherwise complete demolition and reconstruction of a smaller building would be necessary which is impractical. In addition, the site is paved to the property line due to access and parking areas. 2. The developinent or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. The building is presently mostly vacant and re-use of the building with a viable school is consistent with the policies of the comprehensive plan. The intent of the"O" zoning district is furthered by the re-use of this building as a school. In addition, the school use provides a transition between the office and commercial directly abutting Highland Avenue and the residential homes to the east. 3, The development or redevelopinent will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. The re-use of this building will not impede development or redevelopment of surrounding property. All surrounding property is currently developed with residential or office uses. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development. The re-use of this building as a school is compatible with adjacent land uses. All surrounding property is currently developed with residential or office uses. In addition, the school use provides a transition between the office and commercial directly abutting Highland Avenue and the residential homes to the east. 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use category, be coinpatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall deinonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: Page 1 of 3 a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimtun 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 accoinmodates 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 siinilar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in spot land use or zoning designation; f. The proposed use provides for the developinent of a new andlor preservation of a working waterfront use The proposed re-use as a school is a permitted use in the underlying R/OG land use category and in the Office "O"zoning district. The proposed school use would contribute to the local economy by providing jobs in a building that is primarily vacant. The reuse does not involve affordable housing. The proposed occupancy is the use of what is currently a non-economically contributing site. The area is characterized by predominantly office uses. The re-use as a school is consistent with the land use and zoning and a land use plan amendment or rezoning are not needed. The re-use as a school would provide a transition between the officelcommercial uses on Highland Avenue and the residential homes to the east. The project does not involve waterfront uses. 6. Flexibility with regaxd 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 iinpede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; c. The design, scale, and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed developinent incorporates a substantial nuinber of the following design elements: Changes in horizontal building planes Use of architectural details such as coluinris, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc. Page 2 of 3 Variety of materials and colors Distinctive fenestration patterns Building stepbacks; and Distinctive roof forms e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhances landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. The reuse of this building as a school will not impede the development of surrounding properties since they are mostly already developed with residential or office uses in the"O" zoning district or LMDR zoning district. The existing building cannot be changed. The design and scale are consistent with surrounding restaurant and office developments. The 2-story building is adjacent to multi-story senior apartments to the south, offices to the west, and multi-story residential to the north. The site will be upgraded with significant landscape features. Page 3 of 3 Non-residential off-street parking in LMDR zone Section 2-204 E 1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from one or more of the following: intensity; other development standards. The redevelopment of the site as a, school is impractical without the continued use of the existing portion of land within the LMDR district. The office complex was built in 1965. The land is question has been part of the overall property for 40 years and has served as a small 12-space parking lot for over 40 years. The flexibility requested from the otherwise required standards for non-residential off-street parking lots within the LMDR district is to maintain the existing 13-foot front (south) setback along Barry Road as otherwise required by CDC Section 2-204.C.2. The site will be buffered with the existing chain link fence 3 feet in height with landscaping provided along the external side of the fence. The otherwise required side and rear setbacks of 10 feet are met with this proposal with setbacks along the side (east) of 35 feet and rear (north) of 37 feet. All other development standards per CDC Section 2-204.0 for non-residential off-street parking within the LMDR district are met with this proposal including: 1. The parcel proposed for development is contiguous to the parcel on which the non- residential use which will be served by the off-street parking spaces, is located and has a common boundary of at least 25 feet, or the parcel proposed for development is located immediately across a public road from the non-residential use which will be served by the off-street parking spaces, provided that access to the off-street parking does not involve the use of local streets which have residential units on both sides of the street. 3. Off-street parking spaces are screened by a wall or fence of at least three feet in height which is landscaped on the external side with a continuous hedge-or»non-- deciduous vine. 4.All outdoor lighting is automatically switched to turn off at 9:00 p.m. 5.All parking spaces shall be surface parking 2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project will not materially reduce the fair market value of abutting properties. The land is question has been part of the overall property for over 40 years and has served as a small 12-space parking lot for that time. The site serves as a transitional area between the more intense commercial activities along Highland Avenue to the west and the single-family neighborhood to the east. Surrounding uses include high-density residential to the north, high-density residential to the south, single-family houses with LMDR zoning the east and office uses to the west. The parcel in question has been used as non-residential off-street parking for over 40 years without negative effect of abutting properties. The proposal will include improving the parcel with extensive landscaping. 3. The uses within the residential infill project are otherwise permitted in the district. Non-residential off-street parking is a permitted use within the LMDR district through a Flexible Development review. 4. The uses within the residential infill project are compatible with adjacent land uses. The parking lot has existed for over 40 years and there have been no issues with adjacent property owners. The use of this parking lot will be limited to schooldays, and will not involve evening or weekend use. 5. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. New buffering and landscaping will be provided on the north and west sides of this lot. The non-residential off-street parking is vital to the success of the proposed school which will provide a new use for a mostly vacant building. The overall site will be upgraded with new landscaping, and new paint . 6. The design of the proposed residential infill project creates a form and function which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. The parking has been there for over 40 years, upgrades to the parking lot and the overall site are proposed for the new proposed school. The parking is critical to the overall redevelopment of the site with a school. The school being adjacent to a residential neighborhood will be well positioned to serve that neighborhood. 7. Flexibility in regard°to Iot°width; reqaired��setbacks; height, off=street parking; access or�other -� development standards are justified by the benefits to community character and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. The only request is to maintain the existing front (south) setback along Barry Street. All other criteria for non-residential off-street parking are met. The parking has been there for over 40 years,vital for the redevelopment of the site as a school, has not had any negative effects on adjacent properties or the neighborhood as a whole, and will make the redevelopment of the site as a school possible. The proposed school will serve the residential neighborhood to the east. _ _ _ LEGAL DESCRIPTION LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (PER O.R. 5662, PG. 1443) PARCEL 1: Starting at the Northwest corner of Section 23, Township 29 South, Range 15 East and run South 89°03'13" East along the North line of said section 23, 1374.07 feet; thence South 0°02'03" East along the East right of way of Highland Avenue 33.0 feet; thence South 89°03'13" East 330.6 feet to a POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continue South 89°03'13" East 330.05 feet; thence South 00°10'1 6" East 209.38 feet; thence North 89°01'30" West 33.00 feet; thence South 0°10'16" East 12.69 feet; thence North 89°03'13" West along the Northerly right of way of Barry Street 297.57 feet; thence North 0°02'03" West 222.04 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 2: The East 297.05 feet of the North 33.00 feet of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 23, Township 29 South, Range 15 East, Pinellas County, Florida, as described in Special Warranty Deed recorded in O.R. Book 1112, Page 115, Public .Records of Pinellas Co,un.ty.,...Flori.da... PARCEL 3: Lot 70, FIRST ADDITION TO GATES KNOLL, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 38, Page 43, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. � a m 0 � � 0 � m .-i O N N N N '-I �-i � � 3 � �> V � 0 0 T e/i 2 � 2 m C .� � � O O m ti N u C UI �U N O T E v v m u Q � N > O u � � Q w Z d Y CLEARWATER PROFESSIONAL PLAZA, Ltd 1991 Main Street, Box 183 Sarasota, FL 34236 February 13, 2013 Mr. Mark Parry Planning & Development Department 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 Re: Ciearwater Professional Plaza, Ltd. 1510 Barry Road, Clearwater, Florida Dear Mr. Parry: Please accept this letter to serve as authorization for Steven Band to serve as Clearwater Plaza, Ltd authorized agent, as he is a partner as well for the above- mentioned property. If you have any questions or need additional clarification, please free to contact me. Sincerely, ' r'' � .- avid . and General Partner State of Florida County of Sarasota The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /��day of February, 2013 by DAVID S. BAND, as General Partner of Clearwater Professional Plaza, Ltd who is personally known to me or who has provided as identification. ,,,, -- �'�— ;�i'�Y"���. �����-�����woz�RO�v Not ry Public ;��q��,��� A.�YCO��fv�9S�lOhl#DD910389 Print Name: �•%�`aF�.�%'�` �X�6E��a Jufy23,zo�a My Commission Expires: � ��o,. a � �„ STORMWATER NARRATIVE Discovery Academy of Science The subject property consists of 2.137 acres. The site consists of existing residential office buildings, parking and open space. The site has an impervious surface ratio of 0.752 in the pre-development condition and an impervious surface ratio of 0.748 in the post-development condition. Drainage collection is managed by drainage inlets currently in place. Therefore flow patterns and rates of discharge will remain essentially unaltered or slightly improved in the post-development condition. � Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. Land Development Consulting � �r � Engineering.Planning.Transportation.Permitting ��� , ;. «, ICOT Center ��- �� 13825 ICOT Boufevard,Suite 605 ,.:,:. � :-. Clearwater, FL 33760 Phone:(727)524-1818 Fax: (727)524-6090 February 22, 2013 Mr. Steve Band Clearwater Professional Plaza, Itd. c/o Executive Property Management, Inc. 1991 Main Street, Box 183 Sarasota, FI 34236 Re: FLD 2013-02003 Clearwater Professional Plaza—Discovery Academy of Science Parking Reduction Dear Mr. Band: I have reviewed the letter of Incompleteness dated February 13, 2013 from Mr. Parry. According to the City of Clearwater Community Development Code the school is required to have parking at a ratio of 1 space per 3 students. As identified in the application, the school would support 270 elementary school students initially, with a future expansion to also include an additional 230 middle school students. The total future population is limited to 500 students. According to strict interpretation of the code the school would require 167 on-site parking spaces. The site has a total of 92 parking spaces, of which 12 are in an adjacent lot zoned LMDR. The total spaces are well short of 167 required by code, therefore flexibility is needed. I have discussed this with Mr. Parry and he has agreed that using average weekday parking demand rates from Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parkin� Generation, 4th Edition would be appropriate. Attached are excerpts from ITE Parkin�Generation,4th Edition, and the average parking demand rates are as follows: Elementary School =0.17 parking spaces/student Middle School =0.09 parking spaces/student The parking demand calculation for the proposed Discovery Academy of Science is shown below: Elementary School 270 students X 0.17/student= 46 parking spaces Middle School 230 students X 0.09/student= 21 parkin�spaces TOTAL PARKING DEMAND = 67 parking spaces The on-site parking spaces are adequate to satisfy the calculated demand. Sinc y, '�'U Robert Per olizzi AI P° P g , / Principal 13-006 - ,:'+;,� � ;� �, �,. � Land Use: 520 �= �'" Elementa School � �� � � � t, r: s1 i: '� s:!' ���,4', Average Peak Period Parking Demand vs. Students '�; On a: Weekday `��� �� ��, . �..::a� h'1i: :js, x m}"', :. v+fF �� �Y��t'� `�a r.: u '� yv�: 't t��.s �+�{��+`s�'r: t- �"s�"��,�a� a Y e- r" s '�. �+...,.�.�'���� � . r.Sta#�si�� ���,�_s��.��.0 ._. .�..,. � ..:: . ..... ... _..� ....: .,. . �. ...�...;�.1?e��`..Pe���, Demanrl���":� ��- � �ti;. Peak Period 8.00 a.m.-3:00 .m. �f Number of Stud Sites 5 ���`; Avera e Size of Stud Sites 495 students �t � Avera e Peak Period Parkin Demand 0.17 v icles er student �' F �� ,.�- Standard Deviation 0.05 w ': Coefficient of Variation ° a �� 31 /o ' �r; ry� �' Ran e 0.11-0.24 vehicles er student ;;,;� 85th Percentile 0.21 vehicles er student ; �` � � 33rd Percentile 0.14 vehicles er student �, � i;;,. �. . ;��• Weekday Peak Period �� �F Parking Demand ���� 140 ;� � , �' 120 `'� � � :c 100 ;`,� � ♦ .. ::.':L 8� ,i;`' � 60 ;; ;� � 40 • ;;, a. 20 - — `,{. e. 0 , �'�� u 0 200 400 600 800 ��` :;, x = Students ` i��� �b if. i� .� .'�.�s�, �+� • Actual Data Points ;;;h�+' ;;� sii� �„/ ,,f�, ,� ,;i� �;�. `',({ s+S, ' la i lo 4 � +';� {,,� ��R� � � �;�'�ig 4��i�,�f ��1, r{n .. � .. {' . ���1�� '�.�WP���Sf�Y'F�v�{t`�p'+\y�l�A -. .� - •! �ti., � `f ���fit4�71,.'a ) i , '.� . r'. � 4 ° °�4�,s�"�mv � i ;5 iwWT,`3.i Kiwa s � c ' : . . . �dltlon`'1. `�� � 4i a � (ns i o Trans$orfation�Eng�neers' �� � f Parking Generafion,4fh. � y��r'��,�e�a � , [ 1:40�] �„i �����.�,k��i�.���;, � ,a .�,r�v�N 1 , � � k. Ni:\3��'�1iav.��k:i�. .1..� �.. . � . ., . . . ... "���!q � I:�';i, +�iy � �: Land Use: 522 '�� ' �, �� , Middle School/Junior High School � �'i ,;,:,, ;� �,. � � ;. ;:;� ;,,: Average Peak Period Parking Demand vs. Students '�'� ;� On a: Weekday "`� ,�� `' �t,;. � ,� y` �,.: � F:.:i. � Y r'�'f,.'N»`�"� �,a,� I'��. t.Sz�: -+� �'Y� �.""�k ^.��,��5�t�'�"� C}�;�.�,�,� i.. r "����`�r�`�+�°r��r"�'�,.�Pe�.��,t�a±����.,���°*:c'����� ' ....�:,�.�!'��;'��., .,,�.�'s,ra .;�'S. �t,. 4.�i�=.,,... �e .R+..»�. �......_ s�..._ � '' Peak Period 11:00 a.m.-12:00 .m. `,; �,;;, Number of Stud Sites 3 "� i� Avera e Size of Stud Sites 977 students `:' �`��`+ Avera e Peak Period Parkin Demand 0.09 ve 'cles er student `�`- ;�� ���� ;:t ;,.' Standard Deviation 0•02 ` '� Coefficient of Variation 24% � r� Ran e 0.07-0.11 vehicles er student :«, �'�; 0.10 vehicles er student �f�� 85th Percentile �� ��!I 33rd Percentile 0.07 vehicles er student � -�;, u�, �. u `"`;. ;ti� r�J. f'�� Weekday Peak Period ���� �� .:� �: Parking Demand - , �:�. � 120 ,�;�. .,, :�� ' °' 100 `��3. °.' � • �''�� �; > $� , -,,` � 60 ';:,�� � 40 �� a 2� a � ;`� 0 500 1,000 1,500 '�: ,�� x = Students ,:�. • Actual Data Points 's';�!';; >..,� .b ,r �,�� `,;1;f; i<';�';;� �iH . . ',:�y",Ft ��a . ;,���4 '�f:P r� F�. {) ( l $� t �:Y 1''L13���1 �4� �_ .: ,• �,tr� +9\0,f �r�d �: �,� ��.� . �, rf�wx'�l��t�.. "����w'����bcswLe;si��"I C� i��lairr�+�'i i n ..� .. } a ri��;; � �,�K=sw: nst tute of,Transpo�Eation E�►gmeers ' � 7 Parking Generation 4th Edition �. :�1 ��'�fi .� � y��'�j tt5 �"�,,,,'r' %u ��k'�...i i�' f�y ft . � 142 1, � � � . r�, s i k-��CI�'��P��D�'��rF� �r t l a u i i y - .� _ � .y: � n's`�¢ ��i�.�i��{„�'fy^��yat r � �lt 'i � 7i� � ���n v�U,"'-�'�`'��,��I"1�C5�m.�F�..a� „ ._.. . . . . . ... ��.� _ e � � TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR DISCOVERY ACADEMY OF SCIENCE CLEARWATER, FLORIDA PREPARED FOR: CLEARWATER PROFESSIONAL PLAZA PREPARED BY: GULF COAST CONSULTING, INC. JANUARY 2013 PROJECT# 13-006 r � TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION II. EXISTING CONDITIONS III. FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT IV. CONCLUSION APPENDIX A APPENDIX B �� Robert Pergoliz , P/PTP AICP # 9023 /PTP #133 � � I. INTRODUCTION Clearwater Professional Plaza is located on the north side of Barry Street between Highland Avenue and Lake Avenue in Clearwater. (See Figure 1) The site is presently zoned for Office and the owner seeks to modify the building to establish a charter school. City of Clearwater procedures require a traffic impact analysis. Prior to completing this traffic analysis a methodology was established with City of Clearwater Traffic Engineering staff. II. EXISTING CONDITIONS The development of this site will have a traffic impact on the section of Highland Avenue between Lakeview Road and Druid Road as well as portions of Barry Street. This section of Highland Avenue is a two-lane undivided roadway and is controlled by traffic signals at the Lakeview Road intersection, and at the Druid Road intersection. To establish existing conditions AM peak period (7-9 AM) intersection turning movement counts were conducted at the following locations in January 2013: Highland Avenue/Lakeview Road (signal) Highland Avenue/Barry Street Highland Avenue/Druid Road (signal) Intersection geometrics and signal timings were recorded in the field. Based on the MPO 2012 Level of Service Report the adjacent segment of Highland Avenue operates at LOS C carrying only 9,225 vehicles per day AADT. Existing conditions were analyzed using HCS 2010 software. Existing AM peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 2, and the HCS printouts are included in Appendix A. Overall intersection levels of service (LOS) are shown below: EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE - 2013 Intersection Location Tyt�e LOS Average Delav Highland Ave. / Lakeview Rd. Signal B 11.5 sec/veh Highland Ave. /Barry St Unsignal A/C* 8.3/18.9 sec/veh Highland Ave. /Druid Rd. . Signal B 13.1 sec/veh *A/C=LOS major street left turn/minor street approach The adjacent segments of Highland Avenue were analyzed using the FDOT Generalized Capacity Tables. The existing AM peak hour levels of service are shown below. .� I i 3j!! �.^@I�- .. � w.'�i. � j t`,� i . � ^ y- � �t '(6 �.e �� �3' *� r ���r; '�'..�� � -� ��� �} e�} t/���� " � .,"�_ f �` �� ��+ a�r� ,�.L':' '�l'.. � S � •� . �{� � q *1�1' QN'�Z �� �• mA �{��s� �.� ��! �.Y— {'I!. ��tfi6"*� �i�,��d ��f�,' �`. r�+ N`=l�..b i�. J� 1 r"'!?; � �*tr�� �'�tiC '� 1 rl� � � a���`�l��fi6��l� ��p �ti `�f ,� ?�� y + �� 's�l y t ' ' ' Jl�._� �!i , .;� - ,v�rn•' . ia„ �. � - . � �.. . , �� . .,a�� r � �=;� :7f :�' _�•�;;r=::. � s..�,� . . �w .�: � : y�{ � ; u���'. .� � ����r; ,. �� �� ,. ��r � [. �� , �� ,i� l ti[. f.,� ,,�,' _ �'" �"�" � �, .. �e�� :,• `+ '� � �`'�� ���, � ';..� a r�� ..�. �;^ � (,���� L n ry� �` ��,Y � .a��r, �a;t�,�"'����'� -� ��; ;�- ��. 'E, � � �.;�,:� . � � , _. _.� � t .� � �- � -� �� � �� �'� ,.. ,� e .�F � ��' ��, F � '� �. � :�, I• 7'� ,!'4�R ���: ����"�°�'�� .�_' � .,7 � �� �� � .� � �-�- ��} � .�.�,:� �` , , . . - , �. . r ,. . ; 1 r��� "� � '� + ._ '�' r, � �'! � `�' ������Mi !�i'��^�'�+�l�i � tr 1�r*.�� � * ,. ��'FL �t�? . !�.i.�!f�! ���i..:eW f �w � ,� ,_�� y�j 7����. ��`.� �]'T'y^.rxT=':-^-tr ., t �`��� �'s� '�' �fi� ��r �h � �dL� � I� 'R � iy/, �� #� '���_.yt_�,_,�''�7 n�� ,.� 4'+ � ,T� � ���f��f ��`���1��; I' �:,� �:_ .�:_� e�•, '��.�'�� I.'�J� ..�� '�""" ., '",-�� ..= 3z� .:� �� �.�� �� ;'_�.�� E .�����`f.a. � ) � '�,�� Y�� � �� �� ��1.•' ,�D ����� �.....� p �.��' ..�:� a.��r � rl {�! '�'. {'�� �� � ,LII�'��� ; i� �/..It � f�, * �' , r���5�roa• � .,�, �1P"IrM�i�Iy,G���'-'� �y i w:� i ��Y^�a�� � ��' �::.:. a,,, _.' ,.-� ��`,�'��`���•_ '�t�,. :�k. '�' � i� � � '� �* F �'�''� �.� � . � ��� ; d � �� ��"�11� i�; � ;+�i F�'i�; �- .•�.�.� � �, �t� �� I , -� ; �'`�`=� � � �°y� � �r � k�� � .[1� b�� .,w�'„ ����� � ^ � ,�1 `,�����. � ��� :�� ' 1 T � � 7 �'I� r .� � � ` 1 �:..� �. 1 i�''" _' f� �, �- � :� y '.,j.7 � . , �� ��i � � �...'E � i ti�, � *� � �� 1 �_ � � I' ;�'��` � ,� �" ���- `� ;: '�!,f a i.. � �'��� '1 � :��. ._�,, r y '.�.� �.. -.�.��`�"ty, Y�ti. ��y�-� .�-,�y. e�f°" .. - . Y+ .: .�, .. . -�� Y �`���' '� .f"M. l������� r� �� A��.1 .�'�� '� t � ��r �����,- '�, .�.� �'�'�!� �,., ,� ,w�,�c.d� �_,..�.,,y�.,., ; •. ,�.., �. � �'��� , - _y , �jt�� ��� � , ' ; _ : �,��,���t.�yi.�.a�'�� ./�� � � ..:✓B __�`��r "��4 �"�T ,� � �� ,.�r. :�, _ 1 . .. � � . � .�_ .' �, ; ,•. � . . ,... u,��. 4v. �� :�� . ' �,. . . . , f.:.�: y�' � .: . - 3'' a''"'..,.:. •I��_ " .k � ..i ..t � � � �,�,}I � . : r ��t�i;�� �+} , : �- . , � � � . `� �sl ._ _ �P�4'���.- !� �.�� �..� tl��'� 1 .�i. �i?�Y'g` �,�,.�r '��.;: �`i - , _ •L :,;� ��.f�T'� ,.� �+��RM . � 1 '�': I�� �` � �e... _ � I� � 3� �.� 4,s ��� �� . . . ,��� /, � � �r � ' �fe n'�a��m� ',/N, �% :. ,_, � : �1�+�•�� � �,'!►% r ��; . , ; "' . � F , �' � ��.�t t�` •:���,' ��! �� �" - � � � .��'�` � ��,�� � ,, ,. �. �`� �� �#��1�►', 1 � �_ ati���. � _° � � ..E -��:�`�� �� � ��, E�t�:'��� ,;�`i],r � � �, ,, , ":, "` � ;, -''!�►` �'f'�' ;�A . �F � r �- �' '�' �,�+�j� 1�' � ; r � �'�i�'�•-�"tif'�� �����`�� `_�' � "� ��� � �� �� ;� �� f ��� � �*, � ��� ,�, 3�= i;��������� �'�.� ��-��'�:� �.. • �,�„ f' ��;�;# a� �, �. ��� ��� .ril�,r�`�` � �� ��iir � �;` ��. �+�1 �'� �"''rl �,, � --- — � � .�J►n'��'�1:"�,���l��l '�+t'�i����;"f � � ��r ���'� � �� �� ���� �� ����� r �� � ��� � . . < • , I t� �:�+�� ��� �, � .r� ����L��� y���� �t ��������� ����' r. ' � ^ �:�, �'�,�"� ��� � . .,,,1 , s t �Ri� '°,.�',_„� .�''�r s�"+�'`� ' �E, I' .. &;1 J ..� �.� � �a� �� *�+ fi^��� µ.� ' ����� : ' � � I 4 ���i�i��� ..: y t�' I F�v. �.� ��, ' r� K: , . . �� ��s� r�� _�� 4 a -:.�_� �1���1��'� � .�'s���f ��..';:;7R�� �� � � ��� �� '� � . � � j �� � :.I.�.i i� ��i'' w m � ; ' , � �� . �f�..._' �.: J � ii':' m�sda `° � : '�'� s ',.'e � � � ," �»-!�, ��,-1� ����� � : �,y� ,e,�� � � � . , � �+�, K. . � ��. '! � 1 -� �� Y�,t '2'��1{ � p$ x �y r� � r . i r � .�.�� �i�'1���� �` � �� �� ; � � t°� J 1� � 1 M +s..� �. .4 ! �I T ) ,' , ., a � �oi °��. +.....� a... '�'" �gy'3y . . � -t � M `lr,� *��v g�. 3� cii �.3�``�i.�i"` %rk._ .c. .5,,.,..���.i „�L#.1�' �Tc�l�R"7.. ..'i..._.�..��'`' iY[..r'�..a•�.��:. • ■ ■ , 1 � 1 � � � � � , � /� • �' � � � � r����1�� � 1 � � �' ' •� � • �. .� � y EXISTING ROADWAY LEVELS OF SERVICE - 2013 Roadway Segment Lane Peak Hr. LO5 D Pk Hr. �From—To) Type Volume Capacity LOS Highland (S. of Lakeview Rd) 2LU 838 1200 D Highland (Lakeview Rd—Barry St) 2LU 878 1200 D Highland (Barry St—Druid Rd) 2LU 881 1200 D As shown, the adjacent segments of Highland Avenue all operate at LOS D. IIL FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH PROJECT The build-out date is expected to be 2015. The Discovery Academy of Science will be a charter school initially K-5 with 260 students, with future expansion to higher grades with an additional 252 middle/high school students by 2015. Project traffic was estimated using ITE Tri�Generation, 9�' Edition, Land Use Code 520 (Elementary School) and 522 (Middle/Junior HS). Trip Generation Estimates Land use Size Dail�ps AM Trips PM Trips Elem. School 260 students 335 117 (64/53) 37 (19/18) Middle Schoo1252 students 408 136 (74/62) 40 (20/20� TOTAL 743 253 (123/130) 76 (38/38) Since the AM peak hour of the proposed school coincides with the AM peak hour of normal commuter traffic, the AM peak hour is the critical analysis period. Project traffic was distributed to the roadway system based on the following percentages: 80%west to Highland Avenue (40%north, 40% south) 20% east to Lake Avenue Project traffic was distributed to the roadway system and the intersections and adjacent segments of Highland Avenue. Project traffic from the proposed development comprises a moderately significant impact as compared to the AM peak hour LOS D capacity of Highland Avenue. Roadway Segment Lane Project LOS D Project �From—To) Type Traffic Capacity % Highland (S. of Lakeview) 2LU 76 1200 6.33% Highland(Lakeview—Barry) 2LU 101 1200 8.41% Highland(Barry—Druid) 2LU 101 1200 8.41% Y:\PINELLAS\Discovery Academy of Science(13-006)\Drawings\Traffic\13-006 TRAFFIC COUNTS.dwg,FIG-2,1/30/2013 1:15:29 PM w � ;� �� � `� �� " � � '� �'rP'.�� H♦�y V! � 1�1 � � � � � � � ��2 � �,z W� 4s � � � �I �AI �317 Jl� �419 �I �� �-315 � O ro 405 �J I L� �43 428 � 1 � �4 448 �J 1 � �31 HIGHLAND AVENUE C�7 `� (�/� � 433 - 70� � I � 450 _ 4 � �1 f ly 433 - 73� � � � R ,'� � x 334� a�c�n 440� N�'� 286—� �N�' w O � �' 29� 6� 74� '� C/� '� � � � f"a � � UU• �• Y � � � ~ x � c r� � c � v n ^ 'm � ' � � o � o ~ O m o .. v -m+ � � LAKE AVENUE � � � � N � O . � W � � ro � W O I � N � � - oz rno `� _� < * The site primary access is to Barry Street with a secondary access to Jeffords Street. On-site circulation patterns would allow for extensive queue storage area since the student drop-off location is on the west side of the site and the access is on the east side. Future AM peak hour volumes are shown in Figure 3, and the HCS 2010 printouts are in Appendix B. The expected future intersection levels of service are shown below: FUTURE 1NTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE - 2015 Intersection Location Tyt�e LOS Avera�e Delav Highland Ave. /Lakeview Rd. Signal B 11.7 sec/veh Highland Ave. /Barry St Unsignal A/D* 8.6/28.2 sec/veh Highland Ave. /Druid Rd. . Signal B 13.3 sec/veh Barry Street/ Site Driveway Unsignal A/A* 7.2/9.8 sec/veh *A/D=LOS major street left turn/minor street approach The major intersections would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service. There will be increased delay for westbound movements on Barry Street at the Highland Avenue intersection. Future roadway segrnent operations are shown below. FUTURE ROADWAY LEVELS OF SERVICE- 2015 Roadway Segment Lane Peak Hr. LOS D Pk Hr. �From—To) Type Volume Capacitv LOS Highland (S. of Lakeview Rd) 2LU 914 1200 D Highland (Lakeview Rd—Barry St) 2LU 979 1200 D Highland (Barry St—Druid Rd) 2LU 982 1200 D There would be no change in the level of service as the adjacent segments of Highland Avenue would continue to operate at LOS D. As requested, a queue analysis for the drop-off was conducted. The drop-off area on the west side of the building is located 200 feet west of the terminus of Jeffords Street and the parking lot. The arrival of 123 cars during the peak hour would be concentrated to a 30 minute period due to peaking characteristics of schools. This translates to 5 cars per minute. An expected queue of 125 feet could be accommodated on site without spilling into Barry Street at the southern end of the site. IV. CONCLUSION The campus is expected to include up to 512 students upon completion. This analysis deinonstrates the additional traffic will comprise approximately 8.41% of the LOS D capacity of the adjacent segments of Highland Avenue and these segments would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service. The adjacent intersections and roadways segments would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service. . . �I0 N �31 � M ,� �282 107 I I � �95 �� � DRUID ROAD N 5, � � t r 184 -- � N � 50 � "� W r � rn Z � W � Q W � Z Q j J a c z 2 253 AM PEAK HOUR � TRIPS (123 IN / i3o�EFFORDS STREET = OUT) o, �63 0 � � � v u"�i � 5 80% c� 20% � 1 � �54 � �I `25 44 123 � ��9 BARRY STREET � �5 � � � I 98 � 37 a 1 ---� � v �n 1� � v � � v �n ti � � � �l �i � �I m � � � 3 io �45 � � M � �--193 ~ � � � �34 � 70% °v - LAKEVIEW ROAD U � � 86 � �1 f � o ,za � � � N r„ s4 � "' � � � � �l �i � � � 0 o M � 0 0 m .� v v PROJECT NO: � FUTURE AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC (2015) 13-006 0 � .�„ DATE: FIGURE: a � ; Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. v Land Development Consulting 1 �201 3 o � 1��+ o `�` DRAWN BY: G g � �:. VT w Z a > a ♦ APPENDIX A �" - l Robert Pergolizzi From: , Robert Pergolizzi Sent: Wednesday,January 23, 2013 8:29 AM To: 'Bennett.Elbo@myClearwater.com' ��; Himanshu.Patni@MyClearwater.com Subject: RE: Charter School on Barry Street OK,will do. I spoke to the school operator,there will be no buses, all parent drop-off. I would assume 80%west to Highland and 20%east to Lake Ave. Robert Pergolizzi,AICP PTP Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. 13825 ICOT Boulevard,Suite 605 Clearwater, FL 33760 Phone: 727-524-1818 Fax: 727-524-6090 Cel I: 727-644-2695 Emaii: per�o �ulfcoastconsultin�inc.com From: Bennett.Elbo@myClearwater.com jmailto:Bennett.Elbo@myClearwater.coml Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 4:55 PM To: Robert Pergolizzi Cc: Himanshu.Patni@MyClearwater.com Subject: RE: Charter School on Barry Street Robert- Please include on-site queuing length needed to accommodate student drop-off and pick-up. Provide adequate storage length onsite for buses (if provided) and parent drop-off and pick-up queues to eliminate back-ups onto the right-of-way and in through lanes. Also can you give me an idea of what your distribution of traffic volumes are? Thanks Bennett Elbo Engi�zeering Specialist Traffic Engineering 727-562-4775 phone 727-562-4755 fax Bennett.Elbo(a�myclearwater.com From: Robert Pergolizzi fmaiito:pergoCa�gulfcoastconsuitinginc.coml Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 3:59 PM To: Elbo, Bennett Subject: Charter School on Barry Street Bennett—Per our discussion today,our traffic analysis will include the following: 1 AM peak period (7-9 AM)turning intersection counts at the following intersections: Highland Ave/Lakeview Rd (signal) Highland Ave/ Barry St Highland Ave/ Druid Rd (signal) Existing conditions will be analyzed at these intersections and the segment of Highland between Lakeview and Druid. Project traffic per ITE Trip Generation,9`h Edition is 743 daily trips with 253 in the AM peak hour.The AM peak is the critical time period. Future conditions at these intersections,the project driveway to Barry Street, and the segment of Highland Avenue will be analyzed.A report will be prepared and submitted with the FLD application on the February 1 deadline. Let me know if you have any questions. Robert Pergolizzi,AICP PTP Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. 13825 ICOT Boulevard, Suite 605 Clearwater, FL 33760 Phone: 727-524-1818 Fax: 727-524-6090 Cell: 727-644-2695 Email: per�o �ulfcoastconsultin�inc.com 2 , 2011 Peak Season Factor Category Report - Report Type: ALL _ Category: 1500 PINELLAS COUNTYWIDE MOCF: 0_92 Week Dates SF PSCF ` 1 01/O1/2011 - O1/O1/2011 1.06 1.15 2 O1/02/2011 - 01/08/2011 1.05 1.14 3 O1/09/2011 - Ol/15/2011 1.04 1.12 4 O1/16/2011 - O1/22/2011 1.0 1.09 5 O1/23/2011 - O1/29/2011 � 1.07 6 O1/30/2011 - 02/OS/2011 0.97 1.05 * 7 02/06/2011 - 02/12/2011 0.95 1.03 * 8 02/13/2011 - 02/19/2011 0.93 1.01 * 9 02/20/2011 - 02/26/2011 0.92 1.00 *10 02/27/2011 - 03/OS/2011 0.91 0.98 *11 03/06/2011 - 03/12/2011 0.90 0.97 *12 03/13/2011 - 03/19/2011 0.90 0.97 *13 03/20/2011 - 03/26/2011 0.90 0.97 *14 03/27/2011 - 04/02/2011 0.91 0.98 *15 04/03/2011 - 04/09/2011 0.92 1.00 *16 04/10/2011 - 04/16/2011 0.93 1.01 *17 04/17/2011 - 04/23/2011 0.94 1.02 *18 04/24/2011 - 04/30/2011 0.95 1.03 *19 OS/O1/2011 - OS/07/2011 0.96 1.04 „ 20 OS/08/2011 - OS/14/2011 0.97 1_05 21 O5/15/2011 - OS/21/2011 0.99 1.07 22 OS/22/2011 - OS/26/2011 0.99 1.07 23 OS/29/2011 - 06/04/2011 0.99 1.07 24 06/OS/2011 - 06/11/2011 1.00 1.08 25 06/12/2011 - 06/18/2011 1.00 1.08 26 06/19/2011 - 06/25/2011 1.01 1.09 , 27 06/26/2011 - 07/02/2011 1.01 1_09 28 07/03/2011 - 07/09/2011 1.01 1.09 29 07/10/2011 - 07/16/2011 1.02 1.10 30 07/17/2D11 - 07/23/2011 1.03 1.11 31 07/24/ZO11 - 07/30/2011 1.03 1.11 32 07/31/2011 - OS/06/2011 1.04 1.12 33 08/07/2011 - OB/13/2011 1.05 1.14 34 OS/14/2011 - 08/20/2011 1.06 1.15 35 OS/21/2011 - 08/27/2011 1.06 1.15 36 OB/28/2011 - 09/03/2011 1.07 1.16 37 09/04/2011 - 09/10/2011 1.07 1.16 • 38 09/11/2011 - 09/17/2011 1.08 1.17 39 09/18/2011 - 09/24/2011 1.07 1.16 40 09/25/2011 - 10/O1/2011 1.06 1.15 41 10/02/2011 - 10/08/2011 1.05 1_14 42 10/09/2011 - 10/15/2011 1.04_ 1.12 43 10/16/2011 - 10/22/2011 1.04 1.12 44 10/23/2011 - 10/29/2011 1.05 1.14 45 10/30/2011 - 11/OS/2011 1.05 1.14 46 11/06/2011 - 11/12/2011 1.05 1.14 47 11/13/2011 - 11/19/2011 1.05 1.14 48 21/20/2011 - 11/26/2011 1.05 1.14 49 11/27/2011 - 12/03/2011 1.05 1.14 50 12/04/2011 - 12/10/2011 1.06 1.15 51 12/11/2011 - 12/17/2011 1.06 1.15 52 12/18/2011 - 12/24/2011 1.05 1.14 53 12/25/2011 - 12/31/2011 1.04 1.12 * Peak Season Page 1 of 2 Type of peak hour being reported:Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: S Highland Ave--Lakeview Rd QC JOB#: 10885903 CITY/STATE: Clearwater FL DATE:Thu Jan 24 2013 436 ae� Peak-Hour:7:45 AM--8:45 AM � a * � 2.1 2.2 �s s2o 43 Peak 15-Min: 8:15 AM--8:30 AM � a t � 1.4 2.5 0.0 � a 4 ., a o 339 �75 J t' 45�274 f. � t, ♦ 2.9 4 0 2.2 3.3 129� 0.91 ~ 195 p 3 'r ��`�..~ 3.6 259�55 �� �, �r 34� 201 � � 2.7 � 1.8 i� *, �� 2.9� 1.5 �71 337 29 ���1 �.}� /'"'���}�, a, * 6 S� �... W �2.8 1.8 0.0� 409 437 �IZt;rIt.F'tta-�ri(;.1 r::;'c. � � c��:i i'T�`�_s�, EI 'H_:�..:� 2.4 1.8 � � � J J i 4 � o '� "� L o ' ��:..1 6 O y :�;.. « 0 I �," i z r ��� � � � � � h t r� � � i � r � i o o � � � .i i 4 � � � .� i 4 �' ? , t « � � � � t � t NA � ��� � NA NA � � � NA �► 7 `' t �► Z i' � i � t � � '1 t (' � NA NA R'=RTOR 15-Min Count S Highland Ave S Highland Ave Lakeview Rd Lakeview Rd Total Hourly Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Totals 8e innin At Left Thru Ri ht U R` Left Thru Ri ht U R' Left Thru Ri ht U R• Left Thru Ri ht U R` 7:00 AM 7 51 1 0 0 4 46 12 0 1 18 26 8 0 0 3 34 3 0 0 214 7:15 AM 9 61 2 0 1 6 56 10 0 5 17 30 4 0 6 3 36 2 0 2 250 7:30 AM 13 76 1 0 0 15 72 9 0 1 12 28 8 0 3 8 37 5 0 2 290 ; 7.46 AM 14 �. 74 6 0 ; 3 ��13 87} �21 F 0; 1 �,;26 27 yp a,�12 G „.03� 0_ � 7 �1 7 i 0 ,2 351 r-��1106� s "B:OOAM�, `16�� 79� ��'4...:-0-.: 0� ,�13 � 101�u4�t24„�h�Q'�. w1 ,.�.12.�� 3Z��;.»,�.9���07,.«�i�r,4�.,,13^=,a�`50 .� S�Nt 0 � :,,'la �372.`•a�1263� . � � � „-, z . — , �� 8:30 ANI" � '22°>'r g2 s ` 1� '_'� �, .2� ,��7 48�f��10"'� "0'�,a` "4 �21,� �29rc�`�°. 7 -�'�0� �:5"'� '8'°���`�7�.- 10='� 0�' .3` �"296"i�=s1406.' 8:45 AM 26 83 8 0 3 2 58 11 0 1 16 16 8 0 8 3 45 S 0 0 296 1351 �;�- p � ..�°t �� �,,� 43 �� I _i� - '� `� �4s" i ZS ---a �--I� s4 � �3� � � h� ��q. Z-a Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Ri ht U R` Left Thru Ri ht U R* Left Thru Ri ht U R* Left Thru Ri ht U R* Total All Vehicles 76 408 48 0 4 40 336 32 0 16 64 144 36 0 36 24 228 44 0 12 1548 Heavy Trucks 0 8 0 0 12 0 0 4 0 0 8 0 32 Pedestrians 0 4 0 8 12 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad Sto ed Buses Comments: Report generated on 1/28/2013 12:55 PM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 • � Type of peak hour being reported:Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: S Highland Ave--Barry St QC JOB#: 10885902 CITY/STATE: Clearwater, FL DATE:Thu Jan 24 2013 ass a�o Peak-Hour:7:45 AM--8:45 AM � a � � Peak 15-Min: 8:15 AM--8:30 AM a t 12 423 4 � a 4 0.0 2.1 25.0 « s c « .� a a 21 15 11 18 0.0 «0 0 ': � Z 0.0♦ 5.6 1 ~ 0.93 ~ 5 0 0 � „f��`ti? ~ 0.0 + z r � 23 7 .^ �, � 2 11 � 0.0 ♦0.0 7� * �r 50.0� 9.1 4 444 6 • � a t �U��1�y �Ot1C1�S �o.0 2.� o.o� 432 454 I-�,:1rL.P�.,%r,�:a?�G., ��...a�:c� a t . i�C�;t.Ft-.ta'�`.' z:Ett•«��IC��:�b 2.3 2.6 � � I� � J i t. � o ': t o , I �GnIB o � �,= � o �' � � r �� ,� � ti * � � � o � � o 0 0 � � J i �. � � � J i �► � � ? < � � � J � < NA � � ~ NA NA � •� ~ NA •► z r � z r � a + t � � �► t � � NA NA R'=RTOR 15-Min Count S Highland Ave S Highland Ave Barry St Barry St Total Hourly Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Totals Be innin At Left Thru Ri ht U R* LeR Thru Ri ht U R' Left Thru Ri ht U R` Left Thru Ri ht U R" 7:00 AM 0 68 1 0 0 1 64 5 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 146 7:15 AM 1 81 2 0 0 1 79 5 0 0 6 1 1 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 183 7:30 AM 0 89 0 0 0 1 92 1 0 0 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 191 t 7.45AM 0 :102 �.� 1 �D ` 0 �p0�119 :�3 0� 0� ,�' 4 0; 2��3F ,0 0^�'� 1� , 0 4 ' 0 fl 237��'� �757�;, 8.00'�AM.> �a1�:103 W:' �0 � 0,�� 0? :�2r�.131rv��ax 3 .�"0'�� �� 0�. �s 1 .�:^� 0��'�2�hti�,'rv"�0,�� .0�'7�, 0.��".*:��1,��u��1"���0���.,�,0 -�:245'�,�w t856�_� �; ,. .�.,. c ,... . _ � ����.'4'� 4.��L .�.., :'. , :� �.. . .. ' � :. . . . . .. � . . „ y:' ;, �$:30 ARA ��1-'�107-- �"�3`r 0 � 0 �.�:0 :.70' `* 4 .'� ��, ...�. `", 6 �:'pY?"�,�P 2 �i 0� `'pj:;..0`'„ ,�`4s,��.� q�w,�J;�F.�p.M 0 '"=201"r�' 934�'��� 8:45 AM 1 106 1 0 0 2 70 4 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 189 886 �� =p.q� �Z 4�a 4 � � � �s� �.�� � _ �.—� � �i G�Z � � I `� 44c� C� Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Ri ht U R* Left Thru Ri ht U R* Left Thru Ri ht U R' Left Thru Ri ht U R* Total All Vehicies 8 528 8 0 0 8 412 8 0 0 16 4 0 0 0 4 0 8 0 0 1004 Heavy Trucks 0 16 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 28 Pedestrians 0 0 12 16 28 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad Sto ed Buses Comments: Report generated on 1/28/2013 12:55 PM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 • � Type of peak hour being reported:Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour:Total Entering Volume LOCATION: S Highland Ave--Druid Rd E QC JOB#: 10885901 CITY/STATE: Clearwater FL DATE:Thu Jan 24 2013 ss� s�z Peak-Hour:7:30 AM--8:30 AM z.o a.s � a * � Peak 15-Min: 7:45 AM--8:00 AM � + t � 48 318 31 2.1 1.9 32 .+ + a � a 4 407�52 'f t" 31 ~412 22 ~7.7 'J � , t 32~ 22 �y:� � 186� 0.90 � 285 ♦ ���'��' 1.1 ry�,a 1.1 276�38 7`� �, rr 96� 292 � 2.5 �2.6 i � * �r 52� 1.0 �a zas �s (����t�� �a���c� s.a a.z o.o � a * _ � a r � A52 438 H�"r-I R �' 4;i C �+�•F� ,.Lr_..,,.�.�-L �i i�;=5 2.7 3.9 � � � � .� a a � i�► a s t o �{$� ��= o 'y C� « o 6 � �.�� ��� 0 � :i:dr. � � "� l � o �h t �►� o � ��� � � � o 0 0 1 � J i 4 � � � J i �. � > . �. � � � TTr � � �.� ti e NA �► .�'r.. « NA Nq ~ � w ~ NA y 7 � y Z � '1 t (' '1 t f �a NA * � � NA � . R =RTOR 15-Min Count S Highland Ave S Highland Ave Druid Rd E Druid Rd E Total Hourly Period (Northbound) (Southbound) (Eastbound) (Westbound) Totals Be innin At Left Thru Ri ht U R` Left Thru Ri ht U R' Left Thru Ri ht U R" Left Thru Ri ht U R* 7:00 AM 5 45 17 0 5 1 54 2 0 1 12 19 3 0 2 21 42 5 0 0 234 7:15 AM 9 68 7 0 10 3 57 5 0 2 6 37 1 0 2 13 31 4 0 0 255 7:30AM., •95. �72 ,s9 .. 0';;;� 7. S�r'2.' 62N%=i•4 .;'0° .. 2'i .,>,:11 �,338"'�,��2..'. €0 -rN7a�,�'� 26� "`�83.', 7 �`a�0•"�� 1� '329= 'tx+'�� � .,, _ , �, � �,_� r� m �.,, �, �� , . vu 8 00 AM� t 22 ;�65 ,ra 9 r Oas � 8�1 a'„�i'��� 87�s"s�10 �t�' 0�F� 1 E �13�h��G4$ls��z��G z�'����"�1�12 i,� 25�.��70���„ �e��;„„�c�6 i�`� 1� 386�6#1391,'� � �y, .,,;�.. . � ., . �i^^, . �:<,8:18�AM'+� `'15'?:,7g '^:1'1 '- 0�'-�16 �'�12. �. 75'�'i;,12 Q`�" '.1°*?n1d�a�`"�53��i �3"'�'����0'.',��`�sr,4r�. =22����a,65 �, S�.w;� 0., x;.2 387,.:.H523�",� 8:30 AM 17 69 11 0 12 5 57 8 0 1 11 36 6 0 3 16 69 2 0 1 324 1518 8:45 AM 15 74 10 0 9 4 49 9 0 5 12 44 4 0 6 30 69 5 0 2 347 1444 S�= 0.�a ,� ��, � st � 'C._.�.� IB4� �---ZB a�3� .�`�is � � � '13 Zst� �`� Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Flowrates Left Thru Ri ht U R* Left Thru Ri ht U R* Left Thru Ri ht U R* Left Thru Ri ht U R" Total All Vehicles 84 292 40 0 20 40 376 60 0 12 72 192 16 0 16 88 348 28 0 0 1684 Heavy Trucks 8 8 0 0 8 0 12 4 0 4 0 4 48 Pedestrians 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Railroad Sto ed Buses Comments: Report generated on 1/28/2013 12:55 PM SOURCE:Quality Counts,LLC(http://www.qualitycounts.net)1-877-580-2212 � � HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information �'a'��'}'�' �' Agency GCC Duration, h 0.25 -1 t Analyst VT Analysis Date Jan 30,2013 Area Type Other '� � Jurisdiction Clearwater Time Period AM PHF 0.91 � � � Intersection Highland/Lakeview Road Analysis Year 2013 Analysis Period 1>7:00 � � File Name HGHLNDLKVWX.xus Project Description AM Peak Hour Existing 2013 �`'� ' �'r''''r' Demandlnformation EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand (v);veh/h 74 128 54 34 193 45 70 334 29 43 317 72 Signal Information �,,� Cycle, s 60.0 Reference Phase 2 �;'�, � ��� Offset,s 0 Reference Point End � 2 3 � 4 G r e e n 3 3.0 1 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 � Uncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap E/W On Yellow 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Red 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 s � ' e Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 4 8 2 6 Case Number 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Phase Duration, s 23.0 23.0 37.0 37.0 Change Period, (Y+R�), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Allow Headway(MAH), s 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Queue Clearance Time(g5), s 9.8 9.9 11.2 11.4 Green Extension Time(ge), s 0.9 0.9 2.1 2.1 Phase Call Probabiliry 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Max Out Probability 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.00 Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Assigned Movement 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Adjusted Flow Rate (v),veh/h 281 299 476 475 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate(s),veh/h/In 1630 1775 1704 1759 Queue Service Time(gs), s 0.0 0.0 OA- 0.0 Cycle Queue Clearance Time(go), s 7.8 7.9 92 9.4 Capacity(c),veh/h 593 630 1007 1033 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio(X) 0.474 0.475 0.473 0.459 Available Capacity (ca),veh/h 593 630 1007 1033 Back of Queue (Q),veh/In(50th percentile) 2.8 3.0 2.8 2.9 OverFlow Queue(Qs), veh/In 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Queue Storage Ratio(RQ)(50th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d�), s/veh 16.6 16.7 8.1 8.2 incrementai Delay(dz), s/veh 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 Initial Queue Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay(d), s/veh 16.8 16.9 8.3 8.3 Level of Service(LOS) B B A A Approach Delay, s/veh/LOS 16.8 B 16.9 B 8.3 A 8.3 A Intersection Delay, s/veh/LOS 11.5 B Multimodal Results - EB WB NB ` SB Pedestrian LOS Score/LOS 2.1 B 2.1 B 2.1 B 2.1 B Bicycle LOS Score/LOS 1.0 A 1 A A 1.3 A 1.3 A Copyright O 2013 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010T"'Streets Version 6.41 Generated:1/30/2013 9:48:28 AM ,, Tw,p-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Anal st VT Intersection Highland Ave and Barry enc /Co. GCC Street Date Performed 1/30/13 urisdiction C/earwater Anal sis Time Period Existin AM nal sis Year 2013 Pro'ect Descri tion 13-006 Discove Academ of Science East/West Street: Barry Street North/South Street: Hi h/and Ave Intersection Orientation: North-South Stud Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Ad'ustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume veh/h 4 440 6 4 419 12 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 4 473 6 4 450 12 veh/h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- p __ __ Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR U stream Si nal 0 p Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume veh/h 15 1 7 2 5 11 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 16 1 7 2 5 11 veh/h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Dela , Queue Len th,and Level of Service pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR (veh/h) 4 4 18 24 C (m) (veh/h) 1110 1094 388 2g3 lc 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.08 95%queue length 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.28 Control Delay(s/veh) 8.3 8.3 14.7 1g,g LOS A A 8 C pproach Delay(s/veh) -- -- 14.7 18.9 pproach LOS -- -- g C Copyright OO 2010 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 1/30/2013 10:44 AM file:///C:/LTsers/vtomalAppData/LocaUTemp/u2k4C 1 O.tmp 1/3 0/2013 " t HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information a �'=�+ h 4' Agency GCC Duration, h 0.25 Analyst VT Analysis Date Jan 30,2013 Area Type Other b � Jurisdiction Clearwater Time Period AM PHF 0.90 � � � Intersection Highland/Druid Road Analysis Year 2013 Analysis Period 1>7:00 � � File Name HGHLNDDRDX.xus Project Description AM Peak Hour Existing 2013 ti-Y t-���r r r. Demand Information EB WB ' NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand (v),veh/h 51 184 38 95 282 31 73 286 74 31 315 48 Signal Information , :.� Cycle, s 60.0 Reference Phase 2 �-_., ""� E" :1� �� 7 2 � 3 � ..q. Offset, s 0 Reference Point End Green 30.0 22.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 OA Uncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap E/W On Yellow 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 � Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Red 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 OA 6 e � a Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT ` NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 4 8 2 6 Case Number 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Phase Duration, s 26.0 26.0 34.0 34.0 Change Period, (Y+R�), s 4A 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Allow Headway(MAH), s 32 3.2 3.2 3.2 Queue Clearance Time(g5), s 9.4 15.5 12.8 11.2 Green Extension Time(ge), s 1.5 1.1 2.0 2.0 Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Max Out Probability 0.02 0.25 0.01 0.00 Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Assigned Movement 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Adjusted Flow Rate (v), veh/h 303 453 481 438 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate(s),veh/h/In 1673 1693 1680 1796 Queue Service Time(g5), s 0.0 6.0 1.6 OA Cycle Queue Clearance Time (g�), s 7.4 13.5 10.8 9.2 Capacity(c),veh/h 685 695 910 963 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio(X) 0.443 0.652 0.529 0.455 Available Capacity (ca), veh/h 685 695 910 963 Back of Queue(Q),veh/In (50th percentile) 2.7 4.9 3.5 3.0 OverFlow Queue(Qs),veh/In 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Queue Storage Ratio (RQ) (50th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d,), s/veh 14.4 16.1 10.2 g.g Incremental Delay(dz), s/veh 0.2 1.7 0.3 0.1 Initial Queue Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay(d), s/veh 14.6 17.8 10.5 9.g Level of Service(LOS) g g g A Approach Delay,s/veh/LOS 14.6 B 17.8 B 10.5 B 9.9 A Intersection Delay, s/veh/LOS 13.1 g Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB ' Pedestrian LOS Score/LOS 2.1 B 2.1 B 2.1 B 2.1 B Bicycle LOS Score/LOS 1.0 A ' 1.2 A 1.3 A 1.2' A Copyright O 2013 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010TM'Streets Version 6.41 Generated:1/30/2013 9:48:28 AM Facility Juris Plan Fac Road LOS Length Signals LOS AADT Volume Physical V:Cap Def Fac Area T e T pe Std mi Per Mile Meth Capaci Ratio Fla LOS • 691-GANDY BLVD:(I-275 WEST RAMPS-to-GRAND AVE�GANDY ACCESS) SR 10 SA 6D D .539 1.86 T 62,000 3,240 2,940 1.102 2 F 692-GANDY BLVD:(GRAND AVE�GANDY ACCESS-to-US 19) SR 10 NA 4D D .986 .00 T 62,000 3,240 3,760 .862 0 D 693-GANDY BLVD:(4TH ST N-to-BRIGHTON BLVD) SR 11 SA 4D D .745 1.34 T 42,500 2,221 1,960 1.133 2 F 694-GANDY BLVD:(BRIGHTON BLVD-to-SAN MARTIN BLVD) SR 11 NA 4D D .329 .00 T 42,50D 2,221 3,760 .591 0 C 707-GREENBRIAR BLVD:(VIRGINIA AVE-to-BELCHER RD) CR 04 SMC 2U D .688 1.45 T 7,585 396 572 .692 0 C 710-GULF BLVD:(MADIERA BEACH CSWY-to-PARK BLVD) SR 13 SA 4D D 3.771 .80 T 16,833 S80 1,960 .449 0 B 711-GULF BLVD:(PARK BLVD-to-WALSINGHAM R�) SR 13 SA 2U D 2.879 .69 T 12,400 648 880 .736 0 C 712-GULF BLVD:(W GULF BL-to-TREASURE ISLAND CSWY) SR 12 SA 4U D .968 1.03 T 16,000 836 1,862 .449 0 B 713-GULF BLVD:(WALSINGHAM RD-to-BELLEAIR CSWY) CR 13 SA 2D D 2.364 .42 T 15,184 793 832 .953 1 D 714-GULF BLVD:(TREASURE ISLAND CSWY-to-MADEIRA BEACH CSWY) SR 13 SA 4D D 2.992 1.34 T 25,136 1,313 1,960 .670 0 B 715-GULF BLVD:(BELLEAIR CSWY-to-SAND KEY PARK) CR O6 NA 2D D 2.889 .00 T 13,032 681 1,512 .450 0 C 716-GULF BLVD:(SAND KEY PARK-to-GULFVIEW BLVD) CL O6 NA 2D D .771 .00 T 13,032 681 1,512 .450 0 C 718-GULF BLVD S:(BAYWAY-to-75TH AVE) SR 12 SA 4D D 2.405 2.91 T 24,461 1,278 1,870 .683 0 C 721-GULFPORT BLVD:(PASADENA AVE-to-58TH ST S) CR 11 SA 4D D 1.852 2.16 T 15,083 788 1,683 .468 0 C 722-GULF-TO-BAY BLVD:(BAYSHORE BLVD-to-US 19) SR O6 SA 6D D 1.512 3.97 T 59,500 3,109 2,830 1.099 2 F 723-GULF-TO-BAY BLVD:(US 19-to-BELCHER RD) SR 06 SA 6D D ,986 2.03 T 52,000 2,717 2,830 .960 2 E 724-GULF-TO-BAY BLVD:(CLEVELAND ST-to-HIGHLAND AVE) CL O6 SA 4U D .4�6 4.48 T 11,109 580 1,599 .363 0 C 725-GULF-TO-BAY BLVD:(HIGHLAND AVE-to-KEENE RD) SR O6 SA 6D D .756 3.97 T 45,665 2,386 2,830 .843 0 D 726-GULF-TO-BAY BLVD:(KEENE RD-to-BELCHER RD) SR O6 SA 6D D 1.026 2.92 T 52,D00 2,717 2,830 .960 2 E 727-GULFVIEW BLVD:(CLEARWATER PASS-to-ROUNDABOUT) CL O6 SA 2D D 1:132 3.53 T 7,485 391 813 .481 0 C 730-HAINES RD:(DR ML KING JR ST N-to-54TH AVE N) SP 11 SMC 2U � 1.852 1.62 T 9,194 480 572 .839 0 C 731-HAINES RD:(54TH AVE N-to-US 19) CR 14 SMC 2U D 1208 2.48 T 9,194 480 559 .859 D D 737-HERCULES AVE:(GULF-TO-BAY BLVD-to-DREW ST) CL 06 SA 4U D .509 3.93 T 8,335 436 1,599 .273 0 C 738-HERCULES AVE:(DREW ST-to-SUNSET POINT RD) CR O6 SA 4D D 1.514 1.32 T 13,806 721 1,764 .409 0 B 739-HERCULES AVE:(SUNSET POINT RD-ta-VIRGINIA AVE) CR O6 SA 2� D 1:011 1.98 T 11,979 626 832 .752 0 C 741-NIGHLAND AVE:(EAST BAY DR-to-BELLEAIR RD) CR 07 SA 2U D 1.527 1.96 T 9,225 482 792 .609 0 C "'� 742-HIGHLAND AVE:(BELLEAIR RD-to-DRUID RD) CR O6 SA 2U D 1.255 1.59 T 9,225 482 792 .609 0 C t-- 743-HIGHLAND AVE:(DRUID RD-to-GULF-TO-BAY BLVD) CR O6 SA 4U D .253 3.95 T 9,225 4S2 1,599 .301 0 C 744-HIGHLAND AVE:(GULF-TO-BAY BLVD-to-DREW ST) CL O6 SA 2D D .506 3.95 T 13,966 730 813 .898 0 D 745-HIGHLAND AVE:(DREW ST-to-SUNSET POINT RD) CL 06 SA 2D D 1.512 1.98 T 13,966 730 832 .877 0 C 746-HIGHLAND AVE:(SUNSET POINT RD-to-UNION ST) CL O6 SA 2U D .504 1.98 T 12,454 651 792 .822 0 C 750-HIGHLAND ST N:(9TH AVE N-ta DR ML KING JR ST N) SP 11 NA 20 D .083 .00 T 7,708 732 4,512 .162 0 B 752-HIGHLANDS BLVD:(US 19-to-ALDERMAN RD) CR 03 NMC 2U D 2.673 .00 T 7,407 387 1,440 .269 0 B 757-I-175:(I-275-to-4TH ST S) SR 11 F 4F D 1.302 .00 T 27,338 1,398 4,020 .348 0 B 758-I-275:(54TH AVE N-to-38TH AVE N) SR 11 F SF D .948 .00 T 149,000 7,621 8,400 .907 2 E 759-I-275:(I-375-to-I-t75) SR 11 F 6F D .441 .00 T 105,500 5,396 6,200 .870 0 D 760-I-275:(38TH AVE N-ta 22ND AVE N) SR 11 F 6F D 1.027 .00 T 150,500 7,698 6,20� 1.242 2 F 761-I-275:(I-175-to-22ND AVE S) SR 11 F 6F D 2.002 .00 T 92,690 4,741 6,200 .765 0 D 762-I-275:(22ND AVE S-to-54TH AVE S) SR 11 F 6F D 2,017 .00 T 81,774 4,183 6,200 .675 0 C 763-I-275:(22ND AVE N-to-I-375) SR 11 F 8F D T:322 .00 T 148,500 7,596 8,400 .904 2 E 764-I-275:(PINELLAS SHORELINE-to-4TH ST N) SR 11 F 8F D 2.220 .00 T 135,000 6,905 8,400 .822 0 D 765-I-275:(54TH AVE S-to-PINELLAS SHORELINE) SR 11 F 4F D 5.428 .00 T 50,672 2,703 4,020 .672 0 C 766-I-275:(SR 686�ROOSEVELT BLVD-to-GANDY BLVD) SR 11 F 8F D 1.929 .00 T 123,000 6,291 8,400 .749 0 D 767-I-275:(4TH ST N-to-SR 686�ROOSEVELT BLVD) SR 11 F 8F D 2.040 .00 T 106,440 5,444 8,400 .648 0 C Fac Type:"F"=Freeway,"SA"�ignalized Arterial,°SC°=Signalized Colledor,"SMC°=Signalized Collecotor(Major),"NA"=Non-Signaiized Arterial,"NC"=NonSignalized Collector,"NMC°=NonSignalized Collector(Major) LOS Meffi:"A"=ApCalc,"H"=Conceptual,"P=Generalized Tables Abbreviations:°Fac"=Facility,"V:Cap"=Volume to Physical Capacity Def Flag:°1"=V/C RaGo>_.9 and LOS=A,LOS=B,LOS=C or LOS=D "2"=V/C Ratio>_.9 and L05=E or LOS=F �`� Tindale-Oliver and Associates Produced using:vTIMAS v1.163 Page-8 ��'�� Tampa,Florida . , Generalized Peak Hour Two-Way Volumes for Florida's TABLE 4 Urbanized Areasl � � iz/is/sz � • � � e � STATE SIGNALIZED ARTERIALS FREEWAYS Lanes B C D E Class I(40 mph or higher posted speed limit) 4 4,120 5,540 6,700 7,190 Lanes Median B C D E 6 6,130 8,370 10,060 11,100 2 Undivided * 1,510 1,600 ** g 8,230 11,100 13,390 15,010 4 Divided * 3,420 3,580 ** 10 10 330 14 040 16 840 18 930 6 Divided * 5,250 5,390 ** 12 14,450 18,880 22,030 22,860 8 Divided * 7,090 7,210 ** Class II(35 mph or slower posted speed limit) Freeway Adjustments Lanes Median B C D E Auxiliary Lanes Ramp 2 Undivided � 660 1 330 1,410 Present in Both Directions Metering 4 Divided * 1,310 2,920 3,040 +1,800 +5% 6 Divided * 2,090 4,500 4,590 8 Divided * 2,880 6,060 6,130 G�pd/p }l�ijya:t«o �:s.t � ��'+.)' 3J c"sw� �c�a �ZU Non-State Signalized Roadway Adjustments (Alter•corresponding state volumes by the indicated percent.) Non-State Signalized Roadways -10% Median&Turn Lane Adjustments �INTERRUPTED FLOW H[GHWAYS Exclusive Exclusive Adjustment Lanes Median Left Lanes Right Lanes Factors Lanes Median B C D E 2 Divided Yes No +5% 2 Undivided 770 1,530 2,170 2,990 2 Undivided No No -20% 4 Divided 3,300 4,660 5,900 6,530 Multi Undivided Yes No -5% 6 Divided 4,950 6,990 8,840 9,790 Multi Undivided No No -25% - - - Yes +5% Uninterrupted Flow Highway Adjustments Lanes Median Exclusive left lanes Adjustrnent factors One-Way Facility Adjustment 2 Divided Yes +5% Multiply the corresponding two-directional Multi Undivided Yes -5% voluuies in this table by 0.6 Multi Undivided No -25% �� � {.' ii ', E �" a,o ., r� y- '�. t a ': *� ;._ �_, �i: BICYCLE MODEZ Z{��Values shown aie ptese:rted_as peak hoiii two way.volumes forlevels`of servtce az�d,'� y �f�ere fnr the automobile%uck modes unlass specifically stazed Thu fa�ble does aot' �, � (Multiply motorized vehicle voluines shown below b number of � , �i i , � , y + -� �r directional roadway lanes to detennine two-way maximum service rm consti��e a standffid and sl�ould ke usyed':;onlyfo�generalpla�imp ap�Lcatzons '�'her�. : volumes.) ��c'omputu�model.s"-fromwlvchtivs lable ss denved sfiould be used foz moie::specffic �„7 �: plennmg apphcations Tl�e tzble and denvmg computer models'shouldnoE be used for..i � comdor or mte�sect�on3desigu,whae more refined techmques',exst�Cakulations aze� =,' Paved ShoulderBicycle t . i,based onplamm�g appl�cat�ons ofthe Highway CapacdyManu`al and the Trans�t !: `' Lane Coverage B C D E' Capac$y and Quality of Sery�ce ManuaPi - �� � 0-49% * 260 680 1,770 � ' ' ' � ` t �° 4' t �, '' ' ° 19� 6�0 1 �7� >1 ,770 Zevelofservicefortheb�cycleandpedestnanmodesmt�utable�shasedonnumber ' 5�-84�0 , � ofmotonzedvehicles notnumberofb�oycl�stsorpedestnansusmgthefacil�ty 85-100% 830 1,770 >1,770 �* " ' ' ` `" � " `' 3 Buses pu l�ourslnwn are only for tl�e peak lnur in tlie s�ngle direct�on of the,lvgher 4affc PEDESTRIAN MODE2 fl°w.'� ' - � ulti I motorized vehicle volumes shown below b number of s � ` � ' ' , � � � P y Y Canuot be aclueved usmg table u�p�rt value defaults d'uecrional roadway lanes to detennine two-way maximum service ;� : ' ' ' 4 -' ` volumes.) *'Not-appl�cable;fortl�atlevelofservicelettergrade Fortl�eautomobileinode volumes greater tlian level of serv�ce D¢ecome F because mtei5echon capacrt�es I�ave; , :-. . ; ,.. , SidewalkCoverage B C D E beenreacl�edFortl�eb�cycle'mode,tl�elevelofserJicelettergade(mcludmgF)unot . 0-49% '�` '�` 2$� 850 aclvevablebecauseflieieunomaxnnuuiveluclevolumetluesfioldusingtableu�put - 50-84% � 150 780 1,420 �alue defaults :' ;� - � �: 85-100% 340 960 1,560 >1,770 '� ' � ' �� _ � � � ; � � '_ �� � _ � - BUS MODE (Scheduled Fixed Route)3 � '� , a' � � �� ;,F F ; ,i � (Buses in peak hour in peak direcrion) ' � " " ' i i� �`= � ,ji�; Sidewalk Covera e B C D E source"' , � � ;" � ;' ;�� � � � ' '` ` , 4 , ,; ;. g Flonda Department of'�'ranaportation � � ' �-84% �Jr �4 �3 �`L t� Systems Plannmg Office� ��.�;�'`��t� i., � �� j 4"� � � �.+ {4 i - g5-1��% >4 �3 >Z > 1 y wwwdot stste fLuslplannmg/Systems/sm�los/defaultshtm kk � � , � ii��, � i' ,r.�� - - - . ...0 ... . `' ..r :�.� . ,: � :�...,. �::: x. ..�.!. � .. :.:, ,-r::�i-.�...:._� .u:. , �1 Y � i ilii 2012 FDOT QUALITY/LEVEL OF SERVICE HANDBOOK TABLES • • APPENDIX B � � , � ' Elementary School (520) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Students On a: Weekday Number of Studies: 33 Average Number of Students: 620 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting ! ; Trip Generation per Student � Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 1.29 0.45 - 2.45 1.26 Data Plot and Equation 3,000 , , , , . . , , ; ; : ; ; ; ; ; : , : , ; , , , , : X , � y . , , , , : . , , , _c 2,000 - - - - - ' � - - - - - '- - - - - - -'- - - - - - ' - - - - - -'- , , , , - - - - - - - - - - - - - � - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W , , , , ; ; ; ; ; ; Q , , , , . , , , , H ; ; ; ; : ; : ; ; X ; � , , , . , , V . . , , � , L , , , � . , , . X � � , . , � � � � X , . , � . , , . . , , , . , � � � � . . , . � , , � � � � , . � , . X , . X , , ��� � Q . , . . , , , -'��, X . F! 1,000 - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X . - - - �- - , - ��- - - - ; - - � - -; - - - - - 'Xy , , . ,X ,, ' , . .X X ,-'�� , , , . X , , , , , - � X X , , . , , . ; ''�. �SC , , , , , , -7��,' X ; x . . , . X� � � , '� '�' , X X X X , X, , . , , ',� 5C , , , . , , , . ' . ,X , , . . , , , X,' , . , . . , a , , , . , 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 X=Number of Students i X Actual Data Points ------ Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Not Given R2_**** Trip Generation,9th Edition•Institute of Transportation Engineers 979 . _ , ► Elementary School � t (520) s � Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Students ; On a: Weekday, ' A.M. Peak Hour Number of Studies: 49 Average Number of Students: 630 Directional Distribution: 55% entering, 45% exiting Trip Generation per Student Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.45 0.11 - 0.92 0.70 , Data Plot and Equation soo ' � ; ; � � ; ; ; ; X ' ' ' soo - - - - -;- - - - - -; - - - - ' � � , , , , ; : ; ; : ; ; ; ; X ; ; �oo - - - � - -'- - - - - - = - : � ; ; ; ; � ; ; � � � � : ; ; ; ; x � ; � ; . . , , , , , � soo - - - - - - - - - - � - � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � - - - - - � .x�_ _ , ; : w ; ; ; ; ; , - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- a � , . . , , ; , , . � ; ; ; : ; ; ; ; ; ; � 500 - - - - -,- - - � - - � - - - - - --- - - - - --- - - - � -; - - - - -;- - -� - - • - - � X- -�- - - - - ��- - - - - - � - - - - �-- - -/ � - - - , � : X • ; ; ; ; ; a� 400 - �- - - - - • - - - �- - - - - �- - - - - - - X x ' , , � ; � . , ; - - - - - - - � -- ; - - - - ;- - ; -;- - - ; - - - - - �•- - - - - a� ' ' � � � , X ' ' a' : � ; ; ' ; - ; ; X i X X ,�X� X, � 300 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - : - - - - - , - - - - - ,- - - - � - - - - ,- - - - � , . , ; ; „'� X >4C ; ; � , ; ; ;X � ,��X : x ; ' ; ; : 200 - - � - ,- - - - - � - - - - - - - - - - - - <'� X X ' x, , , i i X X �:� X-k- - � - ; X- - - --- - - - - - --- - �-; - - - � -I- - - - � X , XX . ; , , �oo - - - - - -x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X� _ .x. ' � , , , ; , ;" ; ; -, - - � - , - - - - -�;- - - - - ,- - - - � -, - - - - , - - - - o X� � � � ' � � ' � � 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 X=Number of Students X Actual Data Points ------ Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Not given R2_*,,*. 980 Trip Generation,9th Edition • Institute of Transportation Engineers , . Elementary School ' (520) i 1 Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Students On a: Weekday, . Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, ' One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: 21 Average Number of Students: 684 Directional Distribution: 49% entering, 51% exiting C� Trip Generation per Student ; Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.15 0.05 - 0.37 0.40 Data Plot and Equation zoo , x , , X , X , , ' - - - - � 190 - - - - - - - - - � - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -'- - - - - - - - - - -'- - - - - - � - - -'- - - . . 180 - - - - -- � - - - - - - - - - - - - �� � - - - ;- - - - - - - - :- - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - � : , , 170 - - - - - - - - - - --- - - � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -� - - - � - - - - - - 16Q - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - '- - - - - '- - � - - - - - - - -'- - - - - - - - - -�- - - - - - - � � 150 - - - - - - - - - � - � - - - - - - - - � - �� - - - - - - - - � - - - - - -X - - -�- - - - - - - - - � - - - - - - - - - - N ; , , -° 140 � - - - - - , - - - - - - - - - -, - � - . . . - ,- - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - - - - -;; '� - - - - W , . �- 130 - - - - - - - , - - � - X- - � - - - ,- -X- - - - - - --- - - - - - � - - - - - - - - - - - -; '- - - - - - - - - - - - I� ; X , "� , � 120 - - - - - - - - - - � - - - - - - - - - - -�- - - - - � - - � - -� - - - - - - - - - - -�- - - - - - - - � - ; - - - - - - - - - - � X ; : ,,-'� , � 110 - - - - - - - ; � - - - - ;- - - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X , X rn100 - - - - - - - - - - - � - - - - - - - - - - - �- - - - , �- - - -� - - - - - - - - � - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ro ; ; ,�-'� ; ; ; X jgp - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - ;> , - - - - - - - - - , - - - - ,- - - - - - - - ,- - - - - - - . . a , ,, . X , u $o - - - - - - - � - - - -. - - - -'�- - - - - -, � - - - - � - - � - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - � , ' , �o - - -,- '- - � - - - - - X- - - - - � - - - X;- - - - - -� - - - - -"� - x- - so - - - - - - - - � - - - - - -'- - - - - - - ' - - - - - - '- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 50 - -� - - - • - - - - - - -� - - - - - - �- - . _ . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , , X , , 40 - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - -'. _ . . . . - - - - �'� - - X - - � - - -'- ; - - - - - - - - -'- - - - - - - - - 30 - - - � - ; - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - -:- - - - - - - - -;- - - - - - - - - -:- - - - - - - - - - - - - X ; 20 400 500 600 700 S00 900 1000 X=Number of Students X Actual Data Points ------ Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Not given R2-**"* Trip Generation, 9th Edition�Institute of Transportation Engineers 981 , , , Middle School/Junior High Schooi ' (522) � Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Students ; On a: Weekday ; a Number of Studies: 20 Average Number of Students: 904 �; Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per Student Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 1.62 0.72 - 2.81 1.45 Data Plot and Equation 4,000 , , , : X 3,000 - = - - �- - - - - ' - - ' - - ; ; X ; � X W , , , %� , X Q.. , , �, � , X - � , , . , , . . V . . . . � , . . , . , , _ , . � . . � . , . „ . . , � 2,��� _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ ' _ ; _ . _ _ . _ ; . _ _ _ � ' X , � ; : -'� ; ; Q X : : II � � . � � ,- � � , . � , . � F— . . � . , . . . . . . . � , 1,000 - - - - ,- - - �� �- - • �- _ - - - � . . _ ;_ . . , X , �X . -'� X X ; -'. X ' x X X ; ; x : ; ; X , , X , , , 0 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 X=Number of Students x Actual Data Points ------ Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Not Given R2_**** 992 Trip Generafion, 9th Edition • Institute of Transportation Engineers \ ~ Middle School/Junior High School (522) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Students On a: Weekday, A.M. Peak Hour Number of Studies: 25 Average Number of Students: 876 Directional Distribution: 55% entering, 45% exiting Trip Generation per Student Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.54 0.14 - 1.29 0.80 Data Plot and Equation 1,200 , X , X 1,100 - - - , , � , - - ; - - j� - - - � - - - -�- - - . . . - - - - -� - � - - -•- - - - - -•- - - - - -�- - - 1,000 - - -,- - • -• ; - - � - � - - - � -, -,- - � - - ; - - 900 - - - - , - - ;- - - - - - - -X - - - -,- - - - - - X : � , ( � 800 - - , - - ,- - -, -X - -,- -,- - - w Q : : F- 700 - - -, - -,- - ; X � - - - ,- - - - - - -. - - - - -, - - , . . . - - -. - - � , X ,- � : - . X : ; : k � - - - - - - - - - X - � - - - - - - - - - � - � 600 > , , � � ro500 r - - - -.- - - , - - - - -.- - - - -. � - - � , , > X , X X , Q � 400 - - - - - - ;- - - - - - - - - - - - - -,- - - - -, � ! - ' ; i 300 - x ; , - ; - - - ; � - - - , ; - - - - - - � X ' � �;;�^�// - - � - � . -X ,� - � - . . _ . _ : . . � � X . . . . - - - 200 X X ' - X , X ! 100 X X- - �X - - - - - - - � - � - - - O , 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 X=Number of Students X Actual Data Points ------ Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Not given R2='`**" ` ! Trip Generation, 9th Edition•Institute of Transportation Engineers 993 I. f � � . ,'III;`?`r }ti� i Middle School/Junior High School �`x� � (522) '''�`��;� �,�,�. Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Students �';;'�� On a: Weekday, ��;�� Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, ;�'�„4;� One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. '_�� ;f x� Number of Studies: 16 `'��� Average Number of Students: 982 '"�''?'?�� ;��;;��'�a Directional Distribution: 49% entering, 51% exiting '�:�'��;���;;�;',� !!;��� Trip Generation per Student � ';,;�; Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation "';�� ;'i�' 0.16 0.06 - 0.36 0.40 'I�!;;; r,�5 ,: Data Plot and Equation ,� 400 ' , X 300 - - - - - - =- - - � -' - - - � - - - � - ' - - - - - - � ; ; ; � W , , - Q X , , , I— X ; . ; ; � v ' X , , -' ; ' � 200 - - - ; - - - - - - - - - -,, - - �-, - - � - - - - - - - � - � , ; ,- ,X ro , , � ; - ; Q' : : -�� : X : u x ,-'� : ; X �. , , - X , 100 - � - - --- - - � - - �- - -X - - - - - � � � , - , X . � X ,-'. X 0 , 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 X=Number of Students X Actual Data Points ------ Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Not given R2_�*** 994 Trip Generation, 9th Edition • Institute of Transportation Engineers ' � ' HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information ����+ ��' Agency GCC Duration, h 0.25 J i Analyst VT Analysis Date Jan 30,2013 Area Type Other � � Jurisdiction Clearwater Time Period AM PHF 0.91 � � � Intersection Highland/Lakeview Road Analysis Year 2013 Analysis Period 1>7:00 .� � File Name HGHLNDLKVINWP.xus Project Description AM Peak Hour Future 2015 ti-� t.�•r Y r' Demand Information EB ` WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand(v),veh/h 86 128 54 34 193 45 70 371 29 43 356 85 Signal lnformation ' Cycle, s 60.0 Reference Phase 2 F�, "'� �" , z s�j a Offset, s 0 Reference Point End Green 33.0 19.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 OA � Uncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap E/W On Yellow 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Red 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 s � 8 Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 4 g 2 g Case Number 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Phase Duration, s 23.0 23.0 37.0 37.0 Change Period, (Y+R�), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Allow Headway(MAH), s 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Queue Clearance Time(gs), s 10.9 9.9 12.2 13.0 Green Extension Time(ge), s 0.9 1.0 2.4 2.4 Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Max Out Probability 0.08 0.05 0.01 0.01 Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Assigned Movement 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Adjusted Flow Rate (v),veh/h 295 299 516 532 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate(s),veh/h/In 1582 1783 1711 1759 Queue Service Time(gs), s 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Cycle Queue Clearance Time(g�), s 8.9 7.9 10.2 11.0 Capacity(c), veh/h 580 632 1010 1033 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (X) 0.508 0.473 0.511 0.515 Available Capacity(ca), veh/h 580 632 1010 1033 Back of Queue(Q),veh/In (50th percentile) 3.0 3.0 3.2 3.3 OverFlow Queue(Qs),veh/In 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Queue Storage Ratio (RQ)(50th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d�), s/veh 16.9 16.7 8.4 g.5 Incremental Delay(d2), s/veh 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 Initial Queue Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay(d), s/veh 17.2 16.9 8.6 8.7 Level of Service (LOS) B B A A Approach Delay, s/veh/LOS 17.2 B 16.9 B 8.6 A 8.7 A Intersection Delay, s/veh/LOS 11.7 g Multimodal Results Eg 1Ng Ng Sg Pedestrian LOS Score/LOS 2.1 B 2.1 B 2.1 B 2.1 B Bicycle LOS Score/LOS 1 A A 1 A " A 1.3 A 1.4 A Copyright O 2013 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010T""Streets Version 6.41 Generated:1/30/2013 12:13:07 PM . ;T�-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information nal st VT Intersection Highland Ave and Barry Street enc /Co. GCC Jurisdiction Clearwater Date Pertormed 1/30/13 nal sis Year 2013 Anal sis Time Period Future AM Pro'ect Descri tion 13-006 Discove Academ of Science East/West Street: Bar Street North/South Street: Highland Ave Intersection Orientation: North-South Stud Period hrs : 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Ad'ustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume veh/h 4 440 55 53 419 12 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 4 473 59 56 450 12 veh/h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- p __ __ Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR U stream Si nal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume veh/h 15 1 7 54 5 63 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 16 1 7 58 5 67 veh/h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 D 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LTR LTR Dela ,Queue Len th,and Level of Service pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LTR LTR LTR LTR (veh/h) 4 56 130 24 C(m) (veh/h) 1110 1046 282 197 �� 0.00 0.05 0.46 0.12 95%queue length 0.01 0.17 2.29 0.41 Control Delay(s/veh) 8.3 8.6 2g,2 25 g LOS A A p p pproach Delay(s/veh) -- -- 2g.2 25.8 pproach LOS -- -- D D Copyright O 2010 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 1l30/2013 12:53 PM file:///C:/LTsers/vtomalAppDataJLocaUTemp/u2kD30D.tmp 1/30/2013 ' � ' HCS 2010 Signalized Intersection Results Summary General Information Intersection Information a�"�¢} '�''�' Agency GCC Duration, h 0.25 Analyst VT Analysis Date Jan 30,2013 Area Type Other '� � Jurisdiction Clearwater Time Period AM PHF 0.90 ¢ � � Intersection Highland/Druid Road Analysis Year 2013 Analysis Period 1>7:00 '' r � r File Name HGHLNDDRDWP.xus Project Description AM Peak Hour Future 2013 ti:Y 1 �'r'r r' Demand Information EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Demand (v),veh/h 51 184 50 95 282 31 86 325 74 31 352 48 Signal lnformation ' Cycle, s 60.0 Reference Phase 2 F,�, '`� �" ' •J � 1 2 3 � 4. Offset, s 0 Reference Point End Green 30.0 22.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 Uncoordinated Yes Simult. Gap E/W On Yellow 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ���+ Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On Red 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 OA 6 6 � e Timer Results EBL' EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT Assigned Phase 4 g 2 g Case Number 8A 8A 8.0 8.0 Phase Duration, s 26.0 26.0 34.0 34.0 Change Period, (Y+R�), s 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Max Allow Headway(MAH), s 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 Queue Clearance Time(gs), s 10.0 15.7 15.1 12.4 Green Extension Time(ge), s 1.5 1.1 2.2 2.3 Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Max Out Probability 0.03 0.29 0.03 0.01 Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Assigned Movement 7 4 14 3 8 18 5 2 12 1 6 16 Adjusted Flow Rate(v),veh/h 317 453 539 479 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate (s),veh/h/In 1668 1680 1666 1800 Queue Service Time(gs), s 0.0 5.7 2.7 0.0 Cycle Queue Clearance Time (g�), s 8.0 13.7 13.1 10.4 Capacity(c),veh/h 682 690 904 964 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio(X) 0.464 0.657 0.596 0.497 Available Capacity (ca), veh/h 682 690 904 964 Back of Queue(Q),veh/In(50th percentile) 2.9 4.9 4.2 3.4 Overflow Queue (Qs),veh/In 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Queue Storage Ratio (RQ)(50th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay(d�), s/veh 14.5 16.2 10.6 10.1 Incremental Delay(d2), s/veh 0.2 1.8 0.8 0.1 Initial Queue Delay (ds), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay(d), s/veh 14.7 18.0 11.4 10.2 Level of Service(LOS) g g g g Approach Delay, s/veh/LOS 14.7 B 18A B 11.4 B 10.2 B Intersection Delay, s/veh/LOS 13.3 g Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB Pedestrian LOS Score/LOS 2.1 B 2.1 B 2.1 B 2.1 B Bicycle LOS Score/LOS 1.0 A 1.2 ' A 1.4 A 1.3 A Copyright O 2013 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010T"'Streets Version 6.41 Generated:1/30/2013 12:23:33 PM -r �T��-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site information Anal st VT Intersection Bar Street and Drivewa A enc /Co. GCC urisdiction Clearwater Date Performed 1/30/13 nal sis Year 2013 Anal sis Time Period Future AM Pro'ect Descri tion 13-006 Discove Academ of Science East/West Street: Bar Street North/South Street: Drivewa Intersection Orientation: North-South Stud Period hrs): 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Ad'ustments Ma'or Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume veh/h 26 104 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.93 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 27 0 111 veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- — 0 _ _ Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 1 0 1 Configuration L R U stream Si nal 0 p Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume (veh/h) 98 11 �g 25 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.93 0.93 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.93 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 105 11 0 0 20 26 veh/h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade(%) p p Flared Approach N /� Storage 0 p RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 Configuration LT TR Dela , Queue Len th,and Level of Service pproach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L TR LT (veh/h) 27 46 116 C (m) (veh/h) 1636 891 861 �� �•�2 0.05 0.13 95% queue length 0.05 0.16 0.46 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.2 9.3 9.8 LOS A A A pproach Delay (s/veh) -- -- 9.3 g g pproach LOS -- -- A A Copyright O 2010 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved NCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 1/30/2013 11:59 AM file:///C:/LJsers/vtoma/AppData/LocaUTemp/u2k3DB0.tmp 1/30/2013 � � � � D � �� t' �' 1 � ',9�t G.f. �'' � �, y� 5.r,� � . . . ._ _ . � ...,� i .5 k . � �4� � f {� F 3.. . "���. ���# � :. . � - . :# �� yA��Aj , .. . 6: �Ey�; .��. �.... ��� � �• �S ?.*t`.S i b�' L� t�� � � �y r « x` s *c: e '� ` �i �.r � �4� � � ���_ � � � ��...� i ;� f, , �� i � �� � .: � �` � — � d � r.-- � " # `_ �� � � 3 . b. ,3 4 '�°-v,�y +„',; r� £ $ � c-'"a` : �} af . �'' � it�*` . � �:. ���. . ... � . ( .�+ � . � , � � � � ( � �.� ....� : � . (5` I �. I � � � s � i � i v 1 a� �; � r � �.�f�i,n�,,, ��:;c;K��7.G . ��. . Y � � �� �. . 1.. � s � �u � 5.�.. ,.. �"f u.r''t '� # t � E ,<. " � �' t €� t��"�� � ��.. w n.....��.:„ � . ',�.fi x�R°�n t � � �3^ . �'t�,""�°�s j,�b . �: � ,��a �+ 'r E � � ��. �!e ut, � � $ �k . . . . .I I � � t i �; �; t , { ��° � . . � �� � � � � � � _�� � I ` � �� � � � � �� �� i ; �: t� � �- �� �; � � �� � s,, ` � '�w , �� ��� �� , ,a�� # • . .. . ,6 .. . � '_ ... � � � �� �,„�.�.,;;�„��,,,,,.«�:��,.�.�a+....e.,«e ..... . . . . . , ... _ .... . . .—� � - '... .� . ` .._ __..- —, '. — ' .. . ._ . ,. ..4:o-.c y{'�uk r.t.$} ` �„��..".,+qeC. . ��`�� . , . �... �' � ��'a " ` ::;. �� `�"""„�.� - _ . . , '� .:, �« . � 'r.-g��`r,,r."x$.i"...�!Y , . Yr» ,` '°,�'.`»�. ` . �¢,,,� ' �- . —"�`M�"_Y'.^` -._� . , .. _.. . �.:.� .*Y.� -,�w. .'�tifC„ .'� s. '„�`s`�►`+xi.'.�r'*�skc .. �. '�' _ . s�' ' rt.s-.,.�,,a•- _•. � . � . ._..� � ., ,..r:�t'.'.-*.�ci.�+..,�. . .. ... '�- ._ � - �. .. , �cr-t'��isE:���'�� „......_ �; . .,. "'w„"°'1""'�".`a.... .�'^� �� , _ ;.ti}' ..:$�" � � 1 f � : ---- -- --_.. _--- ---_ .,� -----_ --------. � �� -_ _. _ __ , _ _-- , _ _ _ +�. _ -- _.. .........., .... 5 �y �� � r... _ � �� � , �1 .� -� �. .� `_� A ?,fi. � :gd4K'�"� . � 4 �..� ' « �� �. .. � .� � �'�.'.. .. p� .�: �. �� . . � � �. ` � � ti� t, �_ , `�� - � t � � \ l�`: i � \ �`;i�,1 ' ,�`` i r � ;, ,', :. - � �� �t� :�_: f i `� . , �,, . .. . . . � . . . . , . . ,:� ".� ... ,. I _ � � . .. . . ... � � . .. � � I ;.�. . . : � .. . . . '� . . � � I�i�I�G1r��{¢ 't i'p °V��+ IPrr i .. � �r������r���"�4q��lbi��4���«i1��4+l��jrr'��;�il� ��� �ii ��4�i i��t��; y i �ui I� r f F^ �j �'� i } i s :.. �. . .. . . � a '. �. i,�+" . .. ',t� . . � a.w. : w .... �: q�� � � d i� �' ,. '� ,.°..**� F � �:� �����. �� .. _,. ux „_.;�,. .� , � � .� _, .., .... �... . . `i� . �- � . .i �,.� � ' 8,�,f � ��t' � . ..�__.- l� d�. � . . � �� ,�.., w.....,,.,,....._..., ~� ■... �.. '�, � .. . . e . �s�3 �j .� � � � `,�`f„ { . t ��1 � l�� � � � �� �� �f � � ;l; � �� '� � � 7� �� �����i �t„� � �� t ��: , �z � �� ,,� � � ,.� � � _� � i � , , �� ��, ; � � � �� a I �3$E,��, i �: e � � � ; �a��x�`; .�, i f ����� � ., � } #�' '`s ` "� �'� `� _ � ( pa` 3 1 34 ��i.�', .. � � i w , �i I �� � �pN" �t� � � �y`....._ , 3 � r 1 I �� 1 m � *r ��.�'^,m�`.��. .� �'� ' i ��� 7 ; ( ; s i ( a s� ����� ��� . � .,� � �" �} �?�,. 'fJ x u" 3 y i�( 7 .. + ' ! �. 4 ! . . � .. . ��.", . . . . .. � ��� �..-, , � � � . . -'� .. �s. �' a � �r— ..,. � . � , . � , ��,�„� � �� ,�' � , � . !/ % � 'i � �� // J/ t '. //�J ��// /f ;� : �: / ! f � . .. . � .�. #f��� � � {:: a � ��.�' _ (�� ��� � � <, � t,*. � ; �. � �� , ��� k � ;�yf��� � � ���+'r' �^t`'i �*.Y��k. S'°€y�.m . �;}�' °kk. �) :;*'i`�{ .3' ,:,4. ( d ..., �� � . � . .���� t � �� ���j,' . " �,.,1 !�1 E '� �; �� �ry ,�,�, �� � �i � �� � .,...�: � � � �' � , � � . � , � * � _ � .__ , , �,��, t � �� � ��`''" c ,�� � ; ,� �� , , �;F�� x„��K �� � � �i „��� ����'",�," ! � $ � ,.��s���a�� . � �, � ��� : ��+ `�j� ��w t� h..�+, 1 � �tt;�; t' �,«: � � � � I w '.3` :J =f :..! ,w� y ¢ �'5��.�..� �3: �f � � . �� � �. � � ab*�y ...3 �n. �� �� ����3 �� � � � .. � �„i� � "4�' £ '+ '.. f � <a2ss. p �'�`'' A+"�C"�" .,�j"°.. � � . ... . �k ... . �� ��� *� Y .tt . .,... ..-�X.AiYt �y.. . .. . �10/S:: M �` '� '� .�.� _ �'� X , s ��� J�. �� �� ��,. i . . � . . �.,�r � .�,.; P q, ,� ,�� � �. �� � (' �A�.' { ��iU����� $I " , i i� t I 1 £, � _ r„II ,, � � � /�� � !f '`' � �� � � t � i�� ��� ',� r, �+ � ;�` �,��.,� ct,�.`m'.� r � �,��: � ��� . �, a> �k$§.:ay.. }rl:' � � {h.; . 8. �2'�y't^ c'� }��''�' � e, , �.� , :,�,� � � � : � t��'��W ��� w;�° fi � h F i � s �<,� j•: �^�` , h"� .,� , ':��. i, ' �i � �,�'4'�� �+w*��..,...�...__.. I I o � ���' � � � � x�� 5:�� �'S� �� ,�:����� , �,:i �� .. �� : ": .�.... � � .. ;� ; f ;� � �;� p , �. . �4'�.. ������� �� . . F Y� � Y ��� �' � ;f�������I,�������� . �,�; �� `�,, ,1 � ` 1 � � i�P . , � . , � ,� ��. _ - ;'' : , �.;.. . . < . - � � ���� ��� - � � - � � � - _ � Y » -'�. ������� �i � -�''" .",t�a y� �. .. � �� . . . , � ' ��,' - _. ` ,�.k�'1:�f?'ca�•�'`� �ekY t� 1'l �:. �'�,t . � , r i� "S �' '1b�'��' `in�: `y _.�;?'v� ���� h y _ ...,� ._ 4 . ��a. <.`�,i'S � , ,`i s � � k '` , . . . " 5' � : � s �'. .� ,, , ^^ , i - S .', it 3. '�ii��" � �, �� 4 ..� � ,.� - .. .. a, ; * � 1 \ � 4^ b a . i u t. � ;`� .� ,'�'t�wSa�y*,� . 4�st�z`�:.. ., . �. � . � •. �� � ����.a t"'�'•a�» �`e�jp�'a'y�. 1�,,, � � i` 4' � , r +.: .. :.:.. .. .. . . . .:: .. ..:.:.� . -. �' n ; „�.r�� ��,t-, .: :<` ...' ,.g' ,,.:�, ' y' } +^+ �= f "- � :� :. ..� �� � � �� .: � . A�.P. r,. , � � �� � � �: � �m u �z .� ��� ��.��� ; ., . �. ' _ , ... 'a : ,�''� ,.�... "� �a x- . ..�,. ^z 3,� C 3gxT a s.ti�,z-.w ., , . " ��°kre *,.sds , .. � .. p � 3 e �,� �. � � � � � �`2^w ..�`.. �£ . .. . � "�' �. ; :� .� L�t r �,_ � . � . . � �� �. ��: "° �;.^`�,.. � .. � . �., "N>.. ., ..z .a. . .. r.. �. ,.,v.,�.�<< ..., �..,t :.... _ .:. r �t�=' � � ��� � �,� �R ra� �� E� �,,... y �MIiA11lw� .. .. � � . h. . .'.r___ ... . ' �"'I �M ilq '���4 .�-.. ;. . "�' v�: �t ./�^°° �,rc ,� � � . �a-�: a� d �� �. { . .. � � � . � , �"�� � � � i }'"m"m� � . # y q,�a4 •� ���� ��� � ^&. k �.* p� i r'�"" � { �� � Ai �_ '�"�d...' � .. � . . �..:.;i� i.., 9 " �Y �' �� e ,.� * � �, � �, � 5�t }��J;t� ;�v'��.,�rt`�j �:� �;�'� �f . z .. '��'s°*y'�,n'��`"•-�' �^" , �. :�.w . � "f ,,' � �� .:�{t��'��. G k . . � k ` G' . �M $g � 'J . ' { .�' � �'�4`#�§ TM'R�+'�"� g` '+�^,� 7 �M � ��� � ����;� ���� �� �� �� �� � '` � . . , � ;�� � ,: .F r.Y�M.r` ..,a�arx'� �,�„.1':&. i � � �x ', . s. �<,. i a1 i 5y ��� I��V�il�4 ri i�n F�,�s i �� ' I{V ��'� � '1 ��u t. $5 ���� E k ��� .€ �� �S'". � 1 �Y�' � �y ���� � . , : L°�r � .. Rt -. y, ,i ' ti" __ ��h. �:,. . . .:'._�.' .. ;� � _' � _ ���.�-„',� . p_ ��'/�e ^ .�'F. �.�, . . w . Mr` �Se' ����� . �"£ :x-:t.f .:"r . , . / ��'� !�4 :���r � . 3r,l,., . ��� .. .. ' l � �� � � �� � . , ., . 4 ,, »- � r� � � ,,, . V_. � •— _. 4 � .., { �� � r � � � � ..: , � �,� �` . _ �,� `�' , ! a. �:��.. � �• '�:�"�.�,,.:�_ k � II �II ,�`f°� � . . '� I�,z��� ���`" ,,"�y+"�#��u�t C ; ° �t � i vi�'`,''z� 5-n��'%. 'r � r�,.,,z� �����a °� ti',���' r � . � ���;��� � � �� t� r� H� .� r, � 3 ,���� � � " . .. �.m.���a,'�k���4�,.. frr� `�' i .. . ,.� . ��y '* . ��;��'(�R�'Mx eA t' 3 _ . ;. '^; .... i.:: .,:�> ,kY'y,e.�.4 T�����. : � .. .._. . �.. � _., a" . .. . . . . . .. ���� .� ; �, . . -.� . ' r� ���"�n,�7r'� R�,����'���t f�f�+� �:: �� �'j�,z-�� + 4 �" ti�r �.. ^ti � ' �� �'� *.�.�� S� _'� �� � � , � .. � � �� �' � � �� ; � ����� ��—�, �°��� :� �- - ' ���+�n��� r . . � w»�" �a y`1s'�.*�.?-. �vs.�1t��'h „'�'.�M.. � ; � s s&p"� �:`t �4� . ,.. .. , . qEi�nsL'-` a. � '��j. ..w. _ .. � . � . . � . .. . , i �, � y i,'` ,��� n, ,. ,, 'v;' �t �,°,: ,k�: 23, m' � iix..�h.'k'" -..:.�:�,�:'+�Y§�`�r . %ai� 'y� r r �� riar�v�.,�ar.,�,.. . . . � 3±� " 1 ILL�i+ltdtt�r�,�� ��',�� • .. .. . .. .. �e%�;� � . . i ,� �. �' 4,.. � �a, ��',i �'.. �":":"F .. k-.. � "` �M�:. .. Y�i,i'�. . � � ' 9�' t� , � ,�'L,•: iF°_ . .. . .. . � 'h�^ . �`�v, 'p i.# �" Y`. a"S; �P3i'" �� ��� Z p4 a � � ��� �.r # n ���. �'s {�" ie� :ave�,�.� . .��I y��e�i,y� �I�I I � . ` u ���� � �t � �� i < �. p a �.�, �„ �� i .: .�� . �i �� �� � I`'� (' ������ s � � �,. ���� � � �, � " � - t6.� 'S�3, a�F • nf t.�f4a'M, �A,?� T�.hi .. _ . . � } . nr�+'� ��� . . .. � '°�is � a �'PR t a�.. . I L r„„�.�` �'� . ���7�,.,,����� :.�.��,.��� �;a ��'��" .�: � � � ��.;�� ,�,�, � ,�� ����; , ... � � : '� , , �,��� ; ws,;�„ '�u , .: .. �urv r „ ..k� � . .)�� � p � s' � K '�'�'` . ..,. .: ,>�: 'rrm ..�. ' . �. . F��'�dx` � ..... 'p-S"`�� ' � t �. ����3, �'�E�• .,a�c�.wu. ..t, ;ky� 2.� � 1=a � 4 +,Jgq P Y�� '�°II �4NiI I��I�Iilll I9� � � ;�z: ,?�,,„��+ �� ��i�i�ll�I�I i' I t,a,�;.,- � � !y, � � j �+� s+� S t 5 g . c�s F � � , , � . : . � ,. .�; . � � � . � , ,„, : . .�:.._..... I � i � ',,i�� �I �� �,��������� �y�,q�d �'� �����i� i� � _ , r a,�,�'4�!?���l�i�r�������1 �'� ilt�I�II ii Y N���ii I,b � ,� .� t � : :. ��wnq�i�ww�n�wa.�n. �""�� iP ii ilp��,� wl��r,. d ; � �� � � I =j� ,Y., ��� :�'�� MnMmr��p�'�" � � m��� , �. �� i�k a ��� � � ����'��i 4� � 'X:� �' � . �. .�:: ;,., g. , :r �;� k� 2 �� � �. � � '� �t� iiil ; � , , . _.,.. ��� i � � �,� r �� i i �� i Y �� �li ` , ����Yl��e� [{ s t � I I� � �� .. l iA�"� :r ���,f�'u�'�I II�� . � 3�� !�i��'I �� �� I � �` '� �'�' ��� ��� `* �,� . . ,.� :.�_ .,�� � 'i .�;�� I U111�N[�#A � , � ��������... _ ,t� j #• F� � �i t ..r �. h. ` ;..' # ,� . _.. �.r.. .� . , .� �..;...� . '-. `• . � ,�.- , . _�. . . . , : . � ���s�.' .,:����`` ��. , .. � �+ .i .�s `'� ' � .� � r . . :i _V e '.':��a- ar»�- � �; � �s.' \...��k ' ..- �ts, .'�� `,4�j� ss+ . �'� . ' .i n�t � . .. � ��. .�, �� ,.,. �� {�.,�;4 , ' �,°; �, ,�;,�'+ x i,r �w.t.i.._ ,=. -�;�: ��.: u+'`,",r. r .-;" _;y �i i ...,u, r - � *; '� '� � � � � �`ar � 'y���:�, fl,. � � �, w�w �. � : � ,� .. '�',,�� a e . e ��n� �_ -.. � . . �..,�„ ' ' '�.. ��II� �*� �j � 4� t 4 � �``: �fl�l1�► • ���#t � � � �' t �` , �; �� � � �• � ���� =r ° E ��t'��'�� �'�'rty, 1 �r� �, F �f�" � � ��� � s � � ��� ' �a � .� � „� �� �'�.�_> �t � . . .���� " , .� k 1 ,� rk' Y •� j �� �- f *`� t * i�,✓` 't'�#, x � "��� ���� �%,{Jr�� #'�`,w � . >s s ft�t+� �+"`�,.��?� �` =�i���, fi o-�aca �° '.a�� , ��sL�� A,�?. ��'t• p Ey��� ,,FR...�.^a W�� � s`�.r'<�.:. (�; �����r � �f��' ,F L � k'� iS � � � f,F;sS'�z P .' , „} ".`� .^'' y��� �.. �y� :,,�k: �r' n.M'�� ? �. C: t �� i'� . �� _ ..,a . � . . - � . � � - - »,;�., � . . . . . ' ,�..:� � .� . � . . . i � ���,� . " �. � � � � � , , y'' - '��rl - � , . ' � . �..++.�. . � . � - . . . . . .. Y . r.,-' � . , � . � :1C��d. ��� . . ' _ . _ ._�i. . y � . .. . � . . � � ' i A ��.. .,a4..�..' . . . . ��.\ ' ' x.. . � . . . ' .. ` .. ' -- j/� � � � M- •� ,� . . - =h�' ' � . �.r�-� ��'� '°�� � � , - . !�� "� c�. �` "_� t �'%� _ - � - � \:'. �_ ;, . "��' • � � � , � . � .... - . � _ .f*� . , : , � �.; . .�� .ti. ` � -� '%� { s ♦ � `.�} � '•- �' � � ' ' 7f' � ,�� f`'�T����.4+.'���. � . ' . '*. i � SC' ,";, !�, „ `�',?� ��t,. y{ � � � �r � . � �'a� �� , a, t'�'4 cc,, �y,� �, J'J. ''� �.',� ..� '''s„✓t �,�.�� �� . '` 7�k .'f t'ti ,.'w-e �•. . , ; fy,,y. . � "� `' "" r � x !y�' �. � ' -e�y z, r . -' „«� � f'�`.a;.-, .� � �* ;."�'a'a,, -.+ ';-x 1 �,.; z ....r.M ' '�:¢. „� < ' � .. � �s'>.� � .�r . . . . � f ��r" •.Y�" , s „". .��`f ..�I ... �� �' #'�"�r.rt ��.5 F' ��N., ����'. rilA �y . . d4� *" � ,t° �"1 .�y* d' � . � X " .0 t' S ..k�:, � . n ti t ^; 1g �'� � � �, } , � �'��'„y� ',:.,'�.�tt. �r .�� ' il ey a�` y'� ��_ '�,.�-° # , �' y�, �.�, , '+ ��`,�, — ,� �'. ,��ti._. . w ' � . a'�' x $� � ��. � I�%'� 1: � � .; � ; � , . y�� �� sF-. ' � Y ,� t �'� � � � �'1 _ � � .��� �' �. � F `;� ' �"� ����J �� ."�� �� � . • �'� � " , ���� ,�- � ; '_���'�; � �����`��- � 4 .: '�, LLz .�,���c '� „ .$�; ������t � "� ` 4� � _ .� � -�- �. ,. ' _ . . . � �.;j. l � t ' . . . ' .,.:.t.�` . .. . , . .. � '.� i � �" _ , � � . : �� � „-- � , .7 : , � -� ��� � � � �� � � �� �� �� � . � � , �.r �� � � � � �_� � � � -- � � _ , , . , :� �--"�-, � _ f/ #;,� _ .� �. .. / . .. �l Y1I ' ._�./� �-� , ` . . . . .Y F..� a ;yg��. : � .. � � +� ��`4ff�.� . i ' ie: , � - . '.lj'.�r �.'. �* � . ^.� � . . �'�< ��r' �� ��� . . . .• � �'� �.:�� ��"� `\�`� .. �'. � �; . .. � � {� , i✓- �� '. � - � J y�i ,�S . . . . . . . . . � � �` �\ � - C5 � / . -. . . . � . " � � � IY.� ' . , � . �, ` 5r `_ . , � , . . i� � . '�� =� �� � �'",��- f��� ,� • �.. .«� . , . � .;�;:� � � .Y � ��� '"� � � � -', .,,� , t��+ �' a, �* �'��'� �� � s,� � �' �`. � k�` � � '��"��,��`` , � s �a*a *. � .� �,��4 �'3� •fr' Mt , . � I�r�K ii�l �,,i,`�Ir i! ::� ' �,� �. � � � � :� ���z a,�� ��� ��� �� * _� �� � �� � �r �.� 1 �. t ,� ' ``���.�=Wh 1rrr, f, �- �' ''" � � `��°"� �����,; �r�tt �� � �� '�� �V ;,#� `��t �� � y' ' t' ;''�7'r � . � ���<a �vi=" ��ljy1�I �� a'�. Prrr r�l:• k` 1. �f, � Ai.� C� j "`'�, % s . � .< ^. ��� � ,{ a4^ �R�� ;, �. :�. .�; n:� � ��: "'�. � �m� a a`. ��� . wz s *t ,,r r � �'�° � " �,� .� � �" �� '�il � �� � � y;,'�� �� p"`� ����'�� > ��, .�� �F �� � � � � � � � � � t;� � � z::� t �. �: z m�� '� " ,, � � � ����� ��t.;��� � � r� . � ���, . � �. ° �t ����TM �� � ���.,� P . . ��A.',�,r �:�2` r � � rv� , �� :?«.` 4,?'^' ;�s.>[.. _� �' L• �. f �� 4 � �� �iY �.�'�k . , � �,�1���. . �; � � t� � t� k � � �� �������,���� � � � � ��.����'� �' � � .� — ; � �������'� ��� ;�" ,;, ^�r ��� �z � � �5 ��� � � �. r � n'.'� �}5 +���. ' ��"�� p �. �t��, . � �� K � ����� ����� ���: �� ,L. �� ✓2 �j��, *� �C. b °k Y.v �� / 3'�. � �r�III 5�,�� il ���' ' R � � t �. �� �� �. �� � �� ew �