The URL can be used to link to this page

FLD2013-04014r � �+ �+ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD � � ��1 ��1 PMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND DEVELO J STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: CASE: REQUEST: GENERAL DATA: Agent........................... Applicant / Owner. . . . . ....... Location . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. .. ... ... Property Size .................... Future Land Use Plan...... Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . S ecial Area Plan June 18, 2013 E.4 FLD2013-04014 Flexible Development application to permit a 8,000 square foot Retail Sales and Services use in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 27,878 square feet, a lot width of 85 a building height of 22.66 feet (to top of flat roo fl, front (west) setbacks of 15.67 feet (to pavement) and 64.67 feet (to building), side (north) setbacks of 7.62 feet (to pavement) and 75.29 feet (to building), side (south) setbacks of 6.79 feet (to pavement) and 8.57 feet (to building), rear (east) setbacks of zero feet (to pavement) and 5.11 feet (to building) and 23 off-street parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Iniill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-704.E. along with a reduction of a portion of the front (west) landscape buffer from 15 feet to 10 feet (to stormwater pond), a reduction to a portion of the rear (east) landscape buffer from 5 feet to zero feet (to pavement), a reduction of the number of required trees from 31 to 21, the elimination of the required foundation plantings along the front (west) fa�ade of the building and increasing the percentage of allowable accent trees from 25 to 76 percent as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of 3-1202.G. Katherine E. Cole, Esq. � Karl and Jane McClintock �'�A 1835 North Highland Avenue; :�.,� � the subject property is located ' on the east side of North Highland Avenue, approximately � �" 450 feet north of Greenlea Drive 0.64 Acres a� Commercial General (CG) j�� Commercial (C) District p .............. N/A Adjacent Zoning.... North: Commercial (C) District �' South: Commercial (C) District � y�" East: Commercial (C) District '�£ West: Commercial (C) District Existing Land Use ............. Restaurant .� Proposed Land Use......... Retail Sales and Services `� l y� - � �� r : � �,', "' � � "� aq"��' �, ,/ , � :` ?'� ,�.� x�'��a��* j • T � 9 t �',�t� :y'��a�' � ��e ��f`a j ��1.�� ' 1 * � �zj q� �q� qi't l' ` �"�e; ��M � 4 :�,n a r � � '.��".. . ' �? � t� � . x,{'�'-a . .. i� 1 ��, . .w , ., :, . . � �� ". � , �ii��l�� t�' , e� , .. r �� r �r, � f� ^ ' 9 � � � ` � � � 4 .,;„� t �, � 9 1 �49� �' i g- ,� r' i -3ia1t ;t� .� � � 9 1 ��1� a� ! � �rr,v�it" ` ' � � � ' 3 � �,��1 i'� „ ��slt'!.` �r"e�..?�` '�� +��`a��1 . ��.� � �i 4 � � �� ,,' ;ti ? �� ". ' ,:�, A� . 3 � �•+ O 1ai� .;�• f ,��ae y� , � �Ji�r='.-. 1�I� �� Ji� ' r •' �;� � �� . .«t��` h, 7 �� '� �� . e� « �, :. �� ..; .., ►. �[ j�'1f 1fw. � _.. ,. f a i � ,�, ° Clearwater Level II Flexible Development Application Review u ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: T h e 0. 6 4 a c r e s i s l o c a t e d on the east side of N Highland Avenue approximately 450 feet north of Greenlea Drive. The subject property is developed with a 4,185 square foot building that is currently vacant and previously used as a restaurant and 35 off-street parking spaces. The subject property has 185 feet of frontage along Highland Avenue, which is a right-of-way of 100 feet in width. The site has one ingress/ egress point. Development Proposal: On April O1, 2013, a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application was submitted to obtain approval to redevelop the property with retail sales and services use. The development consists of complete demolition of the existing building and the construction of a new building containing points of sale, retail items and restrooms along with 23 off-street parking spaces and dumpster enclosure. The applicant has requested flexibility with regard to setbacks measured to pavement, specifically with respect to the rear setback along the east property line. Pursuant to Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-704, the rear setback for retail sales and services can range between 10 to 20 feet. Along the east property line the proposal provides for a setback of zero feet from the property line to proposed pavement. This setback does not meet the flexibility provided for a Flexible Standard Development application for retail sales and PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION 6 rtorsnao O\�._� I e��co c �< i � IGHJ�HO 10. 1� 2 n � i � � BYRPAI DR � � L_ � �wi�son ao ^ E�izneEn� �H ERNLN � SUNSET POINT RO PROJECT : y SPftING LN S/TE � TM�� a � ' o i.; �0 �(�i � JOEL:N LL i � pl � a w o ; eer+nevsr ; � ` � q � �{ � O�NST ' �NtEADF y' w 3 ��{,�—t ' AVENSEM� `^.�±�^�S�VNLN �. i. i ` I � � SANDV�TY"'aq �:' ` .: @ SANOY LN '� ,� �' :�� -�< � �'.�, '_.-' I aaseraouron � , 'I _�.; : �':._ .._." . . . .. : _'_�.-..._.. ,: .:.! _.-(:� ,�w.�.mF�. ....._�___ _�.- LOCATION MAP services. The applicant has also requested flexibility with regard to the number of required off-street parking spaces. Pursuant to CDC Section 2-704, the required number of parking spaces for retail sales and services can range between four to five spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. The proposal includes the establishment of 8,000 square feet which would require between 32 and 40 parking spaces and the proposal includes 23; therefore the development proposal is being reviewed as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project due to the setback and parking flexibility requests. Floor Area Ratio (FAR� Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-701.1, the maximum FAR for properties with a designation of Commercial General is 0.55. The proposal Community Development Board — June 18, 2013 FLD2013-04014 — Page 1 of 9 ' C��l Y1' �L�l Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PL^nm�IrrG � nEVELOrMErrr P pP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION V �v� .. �.c ... .. .. is for the establishment of a retail sales and services use with a total gross floor area of 8,000 square feet at a FAR of 0.29, which is below the above referenced maximum. Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2- 701.1, the m�imum allowable ISR is 0.90. The proposed ISR is 0.80, which is below the above referenced maximum. Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there is no minimum required lot area or lot width for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the minimum lot area for retail sales and services in the Commercial (C) District is 10,000 square feet. The subject lot area is 27,878 square feet (0.64 acres), which exceeds these comparative Code provisions. Pursuant to the same Table, the minimum lot width for retail sales and services in the C District is 100 feet. The subject lot width along Highland Avenue is 185 feet, which exceeds the comparative Code comparison. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there are no minimum setback requirements for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison retail sales and services must have 25 foot (front), 10 foot (side), and 20 foot (rear) setbacks. The proposal includes front (west) setbacks of 15.67 feet (to pavement) and 64.67 feet (to building), side (north) setbacks of 7.62 feet (to pavement) and 75.29 feet (to building), side (south) setbacks of 6.79 feet (to pavement) and 8.57 feet (to building) and rear (east) setbacks of zero feet (to pavement) and 5.11 feet (to building). This proposal includes the construction of a new building and dumpster enclosure on the site. Staff is supportive of the setback reductions as it is anticipated that any new construction will need setback reductions for vehicular use area. The setback reductions will increase the functionality of the vehicular use area by providing adequate room for an appropriately sized off- street loading area. Maximum Building Hei� Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there is no maYimum height for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, the maximum height for retail sales and services is 25 feet. The proposed building height is 22.66 feet (to top of flat roo�, which is less than the comparative Code comparison. Minimum Off-Street Parkin�: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, the minimum off-street parking requirement for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project shall be determined by the Community Development Coordinator based on the specific use andlor ITE Manual standards. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, the minimum required parking for retail sales and services is four to five spaces per 1,000 square feet. The proposal includes the construction of an 8,000 square foot building which results in the need for between 32 and 40 parking spaces. The development proposal provides for 23 off-street parking spaces, which equates to 2.875/1,000 GFA. Two of these spaces will be handicap spaces meeting Code requirements. The applicant submitted a Parking Generation Analysis based on the Code allowed Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual, 4th Edition. The analysis indicates that the appropriate classification of the project is Land Use 815 (Free Standing Discount Store). Community Development Board — June 18, 2013 FLD2013-04014 — Page 2 of 9 � Cl�t�� ►ti4L�l Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLAxrr�G& DEVeLOPMENT P PP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION , �� . � �� For an average peak period on a non-December weekday, the observed parking demand ranges from 0.78 spaces to 2.18 spaces (yielding an average of 1.33 spaces) per 1,000 square feet of retail. Based on this data, the number of required parking spaces for an 8,000 square foot store ranges between six and 17 spaces with an average requirement of 11 spaces. Si�ht Visibilitv Triangl`es: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the proposed driveway on Highland Avenue, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20-foot sight visibility triangles. The proposal was reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineering Department and found to be acceptable. Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-912, for development that does not involve a subdivision, all utilities including individual distribution lines must be installed underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. The proposal includes undergrounding of the utility distribution lines. Landscapin� Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, the required perimeter buffers are 15 feet in width along the front (west) and five feet in width along the sides and rear (north, south and east). The proposal includes the maximum practicable landscaping buffers and includes, at a minimum, a 10 foot landscape buffer along Highland Avenue north of the ingress/ egress opening and 15.97 feet south of the opening. Along the north, south and east property lines a five foot wide buffer is required and except for a portion for the buffer along the east property line, five feet is provided. These buffers will have shade trees, accent trees, and palms. The buffers will also have a continuous hedge, shrubs, and ground cover. The front (west) and side (south) buffers will be planted in such a manner as to create a tiered effect providing adequate buffers between the subject property and adjacent right-of-way and properties. The interior landscaping required is ten percent of the total vehicular use area which would require 1,136 square feet of interior landscaping. A total of 1,096 square feet of interior landscaping is provided. The site cannot increase the interior landscaping without further reducing the parking. The required five foot foundation landscaping is not being provided on the west facade facing the adjacent right-of-way. The site is proposing the maximum practical landscaping improvements and is focusing landscaping improvements in those areas that are most visible; the front (west) and side (south) buffers. In addition, the proposal will provide native tree and shrub species as encouraged in the CDC. The proposed landscaping will be a significant improvement, is the maximum practicable, and is supportable. Solid Waste: The proposal provides a 25.84 foot by 10.67 foot dumpster enclosure at the northeast corner of the subject property. Plans indicate this enclosure will be constructed to City standards the proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City's Solid Waste and Fire Departments. Signage: The proposal does not include any signage at this time. Any signage, if and/or when proposed, must meet Code requirements. There is an existing freestanding sign in excess of 14 feet in height on the west property line. A condition of approval is being included to bring the non-conforming freestanding sign into Code confortnance. Community Development Board — June 18, 2013 FLD2013-04014 — Page 3 of 9 ° Clearwater Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT p pP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION . . �. ? 3 _.:-:. . . Comprehensive Plan: The proposal is supported by various Goals, Objectives and/or Policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan as follows: Future Land Use Plan Element Policy A.3.2 Objective — 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 Ciry. The proposal includes a Comprehensive Landscape Program due to the reduction of buffers, interior landscaping, and foundation landscaping. However the proposal includes a majority of compliant buffer widths, additional shade trees, accent trees, palms, hedges, shrubs, and ground cover and meets the spirit of this objective to the maximum extent practicable. Objective A.6.4 — 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 proposal addresses this Objective through the use of the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project as part of a Flexible Development application for the reuse of an existing and site which, without the requested deviations from Code would have its potential use severely limited. Community Development Code: The proposal is supported by 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. The property owners will make improvements to the site through the demolition of the existing outdated building and construction of a new building with enhanced architectural treatments. The landscaping proposed will be have tiered a tiered effect providing enhanced buffers between the subject property and adjacent right-of-way and subject properties. 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 south, east and west have been developed with a variety of non- residential uses including retail sales and services, medical clinic, restaurant and place of worship. These properties have been similarly developed with regard to setbacks (to pavement and buildings). The proposed landscaping of the subject property will be an upgrade compared to the landscaping of the surrounding properties. Section 1-103.B.3. Strengthening the city's economy and increasing its tax base as a whole. The existing building is vacant. The proposal will establish an allowable use for the site, while bringing a needed service to the neighborhood and the City of Clearwater as a whole. Section 1-103.E.3. Protect and conserve the value of land throughout the city and the value of buildings and improvements upon the land, and minimize the conflicts among the uses of land and buildings Community Development Board — June 18, 2013 FLD2013-04014 — Page 4 of 9 � Cl4tt�►1'�Lt�l Level II Flexible Develo ment lication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT P aPP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DMSION u ..�:�"�......s .� .',;�,�: �: . . The proposed use is not anticipated to have any conflict with the surrounding uses of land. The building was previously used for a restaurant and has been vacant according to City records since January 2011. The proposal will establish a needed use within a new building and improved site. General pur�ose and Intent of the Commercial Zoning District (Section 2-701): The intent and purpose of the Commercial District is to provide the citizens of the City of Clearwater with convenient access to goods and services throughout the city without adversely impacting the integrity of residential neighborhoods, diminishing the scenic quality of the city or negatively impacting the safe and efficient movement of people and things within the City of Clearwater. The proposal will provide a needed use conveniently located adjacent to an existing retail plaza. The surrounding uses are commercial and the use will not negatively affect residential properties as they are not adjacent to the site. The proposal includes establishing a retail sales and services use within a new building and improved site with landscaping to the maximum extent practicable. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no active Code Enforcement cases for the subject property. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards and criteria as per CDC Sections 2-701.1 and 2-704: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent F.A.R. 0.55 0.29 X Impervious Surface Ratio 0.90 0.80 X Minimum Lot Area N/A 27,878 sq. ft. (0.64 acres) X Minimum Lot Width N/A 185 feet X Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A West: 15.67 feet (to pavement) X 64.67 feet (to building) Side: N/A North: 7.62 feet (to pavement) �{ 75.29 feet (to building) South: 6.79 feet (to pavement) X 8.57feet (to building) Rear: N/A East: Zero feet (to pavement) X 5.11 feet (to building) Maximum Height N/A 14 feet (to mid-point of roo� X 17.5 feet (to top of gas canopy) Minimum Determined by the 23 parking spaces Off-Street Parking community development coordinator based on the specific use and/or ITE Manual standards Community Development Board — June 18, 2013 FLD2013-04014 — Page 5 of 9 ° Clearwater Level II Flexible Development Application Review u ,�°-�.�"�i��$ �'.: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REV�W DIVISION COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2- 704.E. (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project): 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as weli as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development. 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning 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 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 amactive 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 desi�r► and annronriate distances between buildings. Community Development Board — June 18, 2013 FLD2013-04014 — Page 6 of 9 Consistent � Inconsistent X X X X X X � V��.N� Ir Llll.l Level II Flexibie Development Application Review - �>�,x .. .. . � PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LEVEL TWO APPROVALS: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A: 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. Consistent I Inconsistent X X X X X X SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of May 2, 2013 and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient to move forward to the Community Development Board (CDB), based upon the following: Findings of Fact The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact: l. That 0.64 acre subject property is located on the east side of N Highland Avenue approximately 450 feet north of Greenlea Drive; 2. That the subject property is located within the Commercial (C) District and the Commercial General (CG) future land use plan category; 3. That the subject property has 185 feet of frontage along Highland Avenue; 4. That the current use of the site is an unoccupied building formerly used as a restaurant; 5. That adjacent uses are zoned C and developed with retail sales and services, medical clinic, restaurant and place of worship uses; 6. That based upon the gross floor area of the proposed building, a minimum of 40 off-street parking spaces are required and the applicant has proposed 23 parking spaces; 7. That in order to provide an appropriately sized off-street loading area, the proposal includes reductions to required setbacks; 8. That in order to provide as much of the required off-street parking as possible, the proposal includes reductions to required setbacks; 9. That the proposal includes setback reductions to pavement from the north, south, east and west property boundaries; 10. That the proposal includes a building height of 22.66 feet to top of flat roof; and 1 l. That there are no outstanding Code Enforcement issues associated with the subject property. Community Development Board — June 18, 2013 FLD2013-04014 — Page 7 of 9 � Cl�� ?' �L�l Level II Flexible Develo ment Application Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT P DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION u .. ...'.i.,�". �..�.:;.,, . . Conclusions of Law The Planning and Development Department, having made the above findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law: 1. That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2-701.1. and 2- 704 of the Community Development Code; 2. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2- 704.E of the Community Development Code; 3. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria for a Comprehensive Landscape Program as per CDC Section 3-1202.G; and 4. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-914.A of the Community Development Code. Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends APPROVAL of the Flexible Development application to permit a 8,000 square foot Retail Sales and Services use in the Commercial (C) District with a lot area of 27,878 square feet, a lot width of 85 a building height of 22.66 feet (to top of flat roo fl, front (west) setbacks of 15.67 feet (to pavement) and 64.67 feet (to building), side (north) setbacks of 7.62 feet (to pavement) and 75.29 feet (to building), side (south) setbacks of 6.79 feet (to pavement) and 8.57 feet (to building), rear (east) setbacks of zero feet (to pavement) and 5.11 feet (to building) and 23 off-street parking spaces, as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-704.E. along with a reduction of a portion of the front (west) landscape buffer from 15 feet to 10 feet (to stormwater pond), a reduction to a portion of the rear (east) landscape buffer from 5 feet to zero feet (to pavement), a reduction of the number of required trees from 31 to 21, the elimination of the required foundation plantings along the front (west) farade of the building and increasing the percentage of allowable accent trees from 25 to 76 percent as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of 3- 1202.G.with the following conditions: Conditions of Ap�roval 1. That the final design, color, and elevations of the proposed building be consistent with the conceptual design, color, and elevations submitted to, or as modified by, the CDB; 2. That any electric and communication panels, boxes, and meters located on the exterior of the buildings be painted the same color as the building; 3. That all utilities serving this building be relocated underground on-site in compliance with the requirement of CDC Section 3-912; 4. That prior to the issuance of any building permit, all Land Resource conditions are met; 5. That prior to the issuance of any building permit, the plantings within the sight visibility triangle on the north side of the ingress/ egress opening be revised to meet the Traffic Department condition; 6. That prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy, the existing non-conforming freestanding sign (height), be brought into compliance with CDC Section 6-104.A; 7. 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; Community Development Board — June 18, 2013 FLD2013-04014 — Page 8 of 9 ° C�L�l �l' �L�1 Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT P pP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION - �� ,;�;�� 8. That all other applicable local, state and/or federal permits be obtained before commencement of the development; 9. That application for a building permit be submitted no later than June 18, 2014, unless time extensions are granted pursuant to CDC Section 4-407; and 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% of its rated capacity. Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: /�� Matt Jackson, Planner III ATTACHMENTS: Existing Sunounding Uses Map and Photographs of Site and Vicinity Community Development Board — June 18, 2013 FLD2013-04014 — Page 9 of 9 View looking east at the subject property and existing building. View from the west property line looking east. View looking at development to the south of the subject View looking east at the property to the southeast of the subject property. View looking south from the southwest corner of the subject property. View looking at development northeast of the subject property. property. 1835 Highland Avenue Case FLD2013-04014 Matthew Jackson 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 (727) 562-4504 matthew. iackson(�a,mvclearwater.com PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE ❑ Planner III February 2013 to present City of Cleanvater Clearwater, Florida Duties include performing the technical review and preparation of staff reports for various land development applications, the organization of data and its display in order to track information and provide status reports, and making presentations to various City Boards and Committees. ❑ Planner II City of Cleanvater, Clearrvater, Florida May 2011 to February 2013 October 2008 to June 2010 Regulate growth and development of the City in accordance with land resource ordinances and regulations related to community development. Landscape plan review including: conceptual, and variance. Reviews and analyzes site plans and conducts field studies to determine the integrity of development plans and their compatibility with surroundings. Interdepartmental and zoning assistance. Respond as a City representative to citizens, City offcials, and businesses concerning ordinances and regulations. Make recommendations and presentations at staff level at various review committees, boards, and meetings. ❑ Planner I Calvin-Giordano and Associates, Fort Lauderdale, Florida May 2005 to December 2007 Project manager for various development applications such as plat, site plan, rezoning and variances. In-depth government agency, in-house and client coordination to ensure that the projects maintained submittal schedules stayed within budget constraints and attained approval. Schedule and lead project kick-off ineetings, ensure municipal project conditions were resolved, produce supporting documents and make site visits as well. Research and prepare due diligence reports including subject matter such as zoning, land uses, densities, available public utilities and land development costs. Member of emergency mitigation committee formed to prepare and mitigate for natural or man-made disasters affecting Calvin, Giordano and Associates and local municipalities. ❑ Manager Church Street Entertainment, Orlando, Florida September 1999 to February 2004 Supervised and managed daytime and nighttime operations of a bar and nightclub entertainment complex including 100+ staff: Conducted hiring and training operations including security and inventory control. Managed and reconciled nightly gross revenues as well as preparing and delivering deposits. Assisted in taking inventory and preparing weekly inventory orders, marketing and special events. ❑ Linguist USArmy, Fort Campbell, KY October 1991 to October 1995 Maintain fluency in the Arabic language and knowledge of customs and culture as well as military readiness for possible deployments or training operations. Co-managed intelligence gathering operation in Haiti including coordination between multiple Special Forces units and civilian authorities. Interpreter between U.S. and Egyptian soldiers during training exercises. Liaison between Special Forces battalions to coordinate certification training. EDUCATION o Master of Arts, Urban and Regional Planning, Florida Atlantic University, 2007 ❑ Bachelor of Arts, Urban and Regional Planning, Rollins College, 2004 ° learwater �C � Planning & Development Department Flexible Development Application Attached Dwellings, Mixed-Uses or Non-Residential Uses IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT COMPLETE AND CORRECT INFORMATION. ANY MISLEADING, DECEPTIVE, INCOMPLETE OR INCORRECT INFORMATION MAY INVALIDATE YOUR APPLICATION. ALL APPLICATIONS ARE TO BE FILLED OUT COMPLETELY AND CORRECTLY, AND SUBMITTED IN PERSON (NO FAX OR DELIVERIES) TO THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY NOON ON THE SCHEDULED DEADLINE DATE. A TOTAL OF 11 COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS (1 ORIGINAL AND 10 COPIES) AS REQUIRED WITHIN ARE TO BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE. SUBSEQUENT SUBMITTAL FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD WILL REQUIRE 15 COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS (1 ORIGINAL AND 14 COPIES). PLANS AND APPLICATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COLLATED, STAPLED AND FOLDED INTO SETS. THE APPLICANT, BY FILING THIS APPLICATION, AGREES TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. FIRE DEPT PRELIMARY SITE PLAN REVIEW FEE: $200 APPLICATION FEE: $1,205 PROPERTY OWNER (PER DEED): MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER: EMAIL: AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE: MAILING ADDRE55: Karl W. McClintock & Jane L. McClintock 2104 Lions Club Road, Suite 2, Clearwater, FL 33764 Katherine E. Cole, Esq. 311 Park Place Blvd, Suite 240, Clearwater, FL 33759 PHONE NUMBER: (727) 724-3900 EMAII: kcole@hwhlaw.com ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: PARCEL NUMBER(S): LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PROPOSED USE(S): DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Specifically identify the request (include all requested code flexibility; e.g., reduction in required number of parking spaces, height setbacks, lot size, lot width, specific use, etc.): 1835 N. Highland Avenue 02-2 9-15-00000-310-0400 See Exhibit "A" attached hereto Retail Store See Exhibit "B" attached hereto Planning 8� Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562�865 Page 7 of 8 Revised 01/12 C °1 r � � earwate �� Planning & Development Department Flexible Development Application 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: fUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING USE (currently existing on site) Commercial Commercial General Restaurant PROPOSED USE (new use, if any; plus existing, if to remain): Retail SITE AREA: 27,878 sq. ft. .g4 acres GRO55 FLOOR AREA (total square footage of all buildings): Existing: 4,185 sq. ft. Proposed: 8,000 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable: 15,333 sq. ft. GROSS FLOOR AREA (total square footage devoted to each use, if there will be multiple uses): First use: 8,000 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: .15 Proposed: 29 Maximum Allowable: .55 BUILDING COVERAGE/FOOTPRINT (i�t floor square footage of all buildings): Existing: 4,185 sq. ft. ( 15 % of site) Proposed: 8,000 sq. ft. ( 29 % of site) Maximum Permitted: 15,333 sq. ft. ( 55 % of site) GREEN SPACE WITHIN VEHICULAR USE AREA (green space within the parking lot and interior of site; not perimeter buffer): Existing: 840 sq. ft. ( 3 % of site) Proposed: 1,096 sq. ft. ( 4 % of site) VEHICULAR USE AREA (parking spaces, drive aisles, loading area): Existing: 19,430 sq. ft. ( Proposed: 11,360 Sq. ft. � 41 % of site) % of site) Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562�567; 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: Proposed: 0�79 Maximum Permitted: �90 DENSITY (units, rooms or beds per acre): Existing: Proposed: N/A Maximum Permitted: OFF-STREET PARKING: Existing: Proposed: Minimum Required: 23 40 BUILDING HEIGHT: Existing: Proposed: Maximum Permitted: WHAT IS THE ESTIMATED TOTAL VALUE OF THE PROJECT UPON COMPLETION? $ ZONING DISTRICTS FOR ALL ADJACENT PROPERTY: North: Commercial South: Commercial East: Commercial West: Commercial 22'8" 50 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 8 Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 3 of 8 Revised 01/12 ° learwater Planning & Development Department � l� Flexible Develo ment A lication p pP " Site Plan Submittal Package Check list IN ADDITION TO THE COMPLETED FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT (FLD) APPLICATION, ALL FLD APPLICATIONS SHALL INCLUDE A SITE PLAN 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 book and page numbers and street right(s)-of-way within and adjacent to the site. ❑ If the application would result in the removal or relocation of mobile home owners residing in a mobile home park as provided in F.S. § 723.083, the application must provide that information required by Section 4-202.A.5. ❑ 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 buildings 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 narradve 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. ❑ 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 8� Development Department, 100 S. Myrtie Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562d865 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 abutti ng streets) and/or 1,000 or more new trips per day; or ■ Anticipated new trip generation degrades the level of service as adopted in the City's Comprehensive Plan to unacceptable levels; or The study area contains a segment of roadway and/or intersection with five reportable accidents within a prior twelve month period, or the segment and/or intersection exists on the City's annual list of most hazardous locations, provided by the City of Clearwater Police Department; or The Traffic Operations Manager or their designee deems it necessary to require such assessment in the plan review process. Examples include developments that are expected to negatively impact a constrained roadway or developments with unknown trip generation and/or other unknown factors. ❑ 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, walis, fences, pools, patios, dumpster pads, pad mounted transformers, fire hydrants, overhead obstructions, curbs, water lines, sanitary sewer lines, storm drains, seawalis, udlity 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 8� Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 5 of 8 Revised 01/12 ° learwater �� Planning & Development Department Flexible Development Application 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. See Exhibit "B" attached hereto 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. See Exhibit "B" attached hereto 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. See Exhibit "B" attached hereto 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. See Exhibit "B" attached hereto 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. See Exhibit "B" attached hereto 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. See Exhibit "B" attached hereto Planning 8� Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 6 of 8 Revised 01112 ° learwater Planning & Development Department � l� Flexible Develo ment A lication P Pp � Flexibility Criteria PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO THE APPLICABLE FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR THE SPECIFIC USE(S) BEING REQUESTED AS SET FORTH IN THE ZONING DISTRICT(5) 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 Exhibit "B" attached hereto 2. 3. 4. 6. 8. Planning 8 Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 7 of 8 Revised 01H2 ° learwater planning & Development Department � 1� Flexible Develo ment A lication p PP � Affidavit to Authorize Agent/Representative 1. Provide names of all property owners on deed — PRINT full names: Karl W. McClintock Jane L. McClintock 2. That (I am/we are) the owner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property: 1835 Highland Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33755 Parcel No. 02-29-15-00000-310-400 3. That this property constitutes the property for which a request for (describe request): Site Plan Approval 4. That the undersigned (has/have) appointed and (does/do) appoint: Eric Lindsey & Katherine E. Cole, Esq./Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP 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. Karl W. McClintock Property Owner Property Owner Jane L. McClintock STATE OF ELORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS Property Owner Property Owner BEFORE ME THE UNDERSIGNED, AN OFFICER DULY COMMISSIONED BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ON THIS DAYOF , , PERSONALLYAPPEARED 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 8� Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562�865 Page 8 of 8 Revised 01/12 ° �learwater � Planning & Development Department Comprehensive Landscaping Application Flexibilitv 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. We are requestinq the followinq Landscape Waivers: Reduction of a portion of the west buffer from 15' to 10' near the northwest corner, Foundation Landscape from 5' to 0' and Interior Landscape Area from 10% of VUA to 9.5% of VUA. 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 development under the minimum landscape standards. To rPducP the imnac:t of the reduced right of way buffer at the northwest corner and lack of lantin9 along the building facades_ the plan proposes enhanced landscape in the west and south buffers, which are the areas seen by the public. Large shrubs, Ornamen a grasses an arge masses o groun cover wi e a rac ive an wi screen e par ing areas rom e roa ways. 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. N/A 3. Community Character. The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater. The plan indir.atPS the nrPServatinn nf nnP lar9P nak trPP� twn small naka anri five cahha9e nal� mc that nrnvirla charla anrl character to the site. The new plant species are primarily native and drought tolerant species that will thrive in the urban environment. owering trees a te s i urnum an variegate groun cover ax i y wi provi e co or an seasona c ange. 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 property will be transformed from a boarded up restaurant with neglected landscape to a busy retail establishment with lush landscape. The proposed trees, shrubs and ground cover will enhance the attractive building facades. Green buffers wi oc wews o e par ing are s o u i w w. u ra an scape wi e es e i a y i n will increase the value of the abutting �perties. 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. The wect b�ffer landscape hac been desi9�d to work with the overhead �ow _r lin _c and th - n w id -ntifi ation cign Understory trees, accent plants, a screening hedge and ground cover have been provided to enhance the views from Planning 8� Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562�865 Page 2 of 2 Revised 01N2 — � o .: �� t;,;� � ��'�:r.� PIanning & Development Departmen� Fiexible Developt�ent Appiica.tivn " Aff"idaVit to Author�ze AgentJRepresentat�ve 1. Prn�ide names of aEl praperty owners on deed — PRCNT full natnes: Karl}� McC�.�n.tock Jane L. McClintock _ 2. That (E a�n/we are) the awneris) and record title holder(s) of #he faliowirg described pro�erty: 1835 High�and Avenue, C1�axwate�, FL 33755 - 02�29-15-0000€]--31Q-4Ufl 3. That this properry constitutes the property for which a request far (descri6e request): Site P1an Approval 4. That the undersigned (hasJhavej appointed and {does/doj appoint: �� WQ�d �d-C�Sav� Eric Lindsey & Ratherine �. Cfl1.e, Esq./ , s�? �i, .='�,C ---r.�.�,. as (hisj#heir} agent(Sj ta exeCUte any petiti�lts Or CthEr documents neeessary to affect such pe#itian; S. That this aftidavit has been exece�t� ta induce the CTty of Clearwater, Fivrida to consider and act an fihe above described ProP��Y: 6. �het site visits to the prnperty are necessary by C�ty representatives in order #o pro�ess thtis applEcatEon and the owner authortzes Cfty representa#i�es ta visit and photograph the property descrtEsEd in ti�is ap�itcativn; 7. That jlJwej, ti�e undersigned autizority, hereby oertify that the faregoing is irue and correct Karl'Ip�. McCl.in�ack perty Own '��YV • �j P pe Owner ��li�� ` �� Jane L. McCli.ntack _ �s.v, P�P�Y9��"i _ /1i� STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF � jp r Owner BE�ORE ME THE UNOfRSIGN�I�, At� QFfiC�R DULY COMMISSIC3NED SY THE LAWS OF THE STA7E b� FLORlDA, O1d TNfS �—�'�` � DAY OF 1 ' "�-r� ` , , � � � , PER3QNALLY APPEAR�D �� r �--P� t+ 1 C�l �C7 V� WHD HAVlNG BEEN FiRS7 DlJLY SWORN DEPOSED A�tO SAYS THAT FfElS�[� �ULLY UNAERSTANDS THE CdNi�Ni'S OF TFi� AFFI�AVIT'�NAT NE/SHE SIGNED. NM , � MARY M. WOi.F ;.s COIk1I{3136�0li # E� 877956 _ � ` 6cp�as Match 6, zn�r a�e.en.��,�:��.aooa�sro,o Notary Pubtic Signatucsa {Yotary 3sa118tamp My CEmtmissia� Ex�ires: PtanMt�g & i)evelopm�st ��hs►en� 7ff0 S. Alyttie Avenue, Clea�waber, �L 83756, r�e rxr��r; Faoc: 727.86x.48li6 Patge 8 ct 8 Revi�d G1112 � , � °::� �.�r�at�r U Planning & De�elopsnent DeparQnent Camprehensive Landscaping Appiication (T IS i1VCUMBENT UPON Ti�l� APPL;CANi 7'O SUBMiT CaMPLEiE AlYD COitREC'f II�FORMATION. ATIY MISLEADq1{C�, DECEPTIVEr INCOM�4ETE O!� 4NCi}RRECf [�FORMA7IDN MAY INVAl.iDA'T� Y�ilR APPU�17E0i�. ALLAPPL!£ATiC3NS ARE 7Q gE PfU.ED Ot1T COMP�TELY ANU CARREC?LY, AND Sli�MiiTED 1N P�RSpN (Na FAX QR DEtIVERiESj 'I'O itiE FtAlVNING & DEVEL�PMENT DEPpRTMiNT 6Y NQ�N ON 7t3E SCIiE�I;LEE� DEADLINE DATE. A'fOTAt. OF Ii C�MP�ETE SEfS �� PlANS A�VD APPEiGAilON MA'�ERIAI.S (1 URt�INAI ANQ 10 CC11�iES} A5 RER�IIRE� WiTHIN ARE TO 8E S�sMITTED fQR REVIEW BY 7HE flEVEtOPME1ri'� RE1flEW COMR�l7TE�. SUB5EQUElVT 5U8MiTT'AL FQR THE COMMUNI'FY dEVELaPMEM' BOARi3, fF NECF.SSARY, WlLL REQUIRE 15 C�Ij�1PL� SETS 4F PLANS AND ARPLIG►7ld�i MATERIALS j�. ORlGINAE AND 14 COPfESJ. PiANS AND APPUCAiiONS ARE REQU�tt�D 70 BE COiLATEi), SiAPLEtI ANQ FOi.UEp iM'R SETS. 7iiE APPl.iCANt, BY FtLING iHIS APPiJCATlOiV, AGREFS i0 COMPLY WRy ALL APP�iGtBlE REQUIEtEMENTS �F THE CC3MMUNIi1( DEVEE.UPMEMT CiaDE. PROPER'lYt7WNER(PERDEED}: Kar1 W. I'�cCiin�ock &�ane L. A�cC3intock MAitENGAE}ORESS: 2�04 Lions Ciub' Itd ; Ste 2, Cleaxwa�er�P"i+ 33764 r PHONE IVUTV�BER: EMAII: AG�NT C}R R�PR�SENTATIVE: Kat'herine E. Cole, Estj. MAILING ADi?RE55: ' PHdiVE NUMB£R: EMAlL: 1Ca�,'�ao$.�t. Com ADDRESS DF SlJ6lECi PR�PER77: 1$35 N. Highland Avanue DESCRIPTtON �� REQUEST: ��3ble Develogment Approval f or Reta�l nse and Gomprehensive specrjtcai�y ldenttjy the request Landscape Approval (lrrdude oII request�al cade }:exibUlty; e.g., necfuctTan Ir� requlred eum6er af Aarking spaces, he+gh� set6acks� �ot sJre, fot width. specifit use, tEc.): _ 5TA7E QP �IARIDA, C�lFN7Y DF PINEL�AS , E, ttte undersigned, a�lcnowledge that a!1 Swarn to and s�hscriped 6efare me this � d�Y afi representations made in this application are true and {�'1[��r��-�y _��, ta me andJar by accurate to the hest ofi my knowledge and autF�orize -"" City representatives visit and phutograph �t,e r� Lcxr (� �� ,wh� is persvnally known has +"/l� ir r.0 r�i[ �il �a�if�/ P � roduced V't' { S L.! CQ!'�� as identification, . i,�i . Notary My cor cor�� E� axr! Exx�lltes Maich 6, 20t7 PEanntng 8� DevsEapment Department, t00 S. bJlyrlle Avanua, CEaarw�►L�r, FL 5�758, 7eE: 727-56Y�d667; Falt: 727�562�865 Page 1 of 2 Reviser! ti111 Z EMPERVfaU5 SURFACE �tATID {total square footage c�f imperviuus areas divided by the tqRa! square footage af entire site}: Existiog: . $9 Fraposed: � . $0 Mlaximum Permitted: •�d DENSI'FY (anits, raoms ar beds per acre}: FJCIStiiig: Pro�osed: NjA NEaximum Permitted: T QFF-SiREET PARKfi�tG: Existing: 3S Proposed. �7 Minimum Required: �i0 BiJtl.,DiN6 MEIGH7: Existing: 20 Prop�sed: �2' $T� Maximarn Pe�mitted: �p � WHA71S 7HE �573MA7'�D7f?TAL VALElE OF iHE PRQfECT UPDN COMPLETtON? $$J,S, (300 xQNt1VG DISTRICTS PtiRAlLAd}ACENT PROPERTY: North: Cst�erci�---_ South: � Cc�mmerc ial. 4 East: ��ercial West: Cominerci.al � sra� a� ��o�una, coun�nr oF �� (�,-�-� 1, the undersigned, acknowledge that aI1 worn to and s bscrt�ed beiore me this �� "" ` day of representatiorts made In thTs app3katian are true and �`�^� , to rne and/or hy accurate tv tt�e best of mp knowtedge and auEhorize {� ' �ity representadve t vislt and phatc�graph the j�► Y!��.� .is personaliy known has �� ,,�,�� _ E� �� i�Z produced ��ti � s ide�tff€cat3on. i _ � rv� � Notary pu tc, My commissior� [.!�7 Badrf Tku AviFia Yw�r�na I�dMi7�i9 pianping & D��lopmsRt Dep�rtrnent,l0d S. My�iie Avenu�� Ctesewater, FL 33�3B, 7ei: 72T-58Z�S67; Fax: 72T-5B2�S865 Paga 3 oi 8 ftevised {i'1lix � :� �' {'�;.�,, '�. � � Exhibit ��A" LEGAL DESCRIPTT4N PARCEL l: '�'HE EAST � SO FEET DF THE WES�' 244 FEET QF THE NORT�i 125 FEE'i' O� i`I-� SO'UTHWEST i/4 QF TI� N��T�AST 1!4 4F'TH� S(?UTHWEST 1/4 QF S$CTI4Id 2, TUWN�HTP 29 S4UT�i, RANGE 15 EAST, PINELLAS C�UNTY, FLORIDA, BETN'G M(�RE PAR'I'IGULARLY DESCRIBED AS F4LL�WS: BEGiAi AT T� Sfli;f'i'HWEST CQRNER QF TF� NORTHEAS'�' lf4 4F THE St7YJTHWEST l!4 �F SEC'TIpN Z, T�?WNSH� 29 SDUTH, �2ANGE 15 EAST, PiNEL�AS C4LTI�FTY, FL�RIDA, ANI} RUN N4RTH OD°0?'41" WEST, 30 FEET ALaNG '1'� 4Q ACR.� LINE QF SAID SECTTQN �; "�-�ENC� SULiTk-I 89°26' 1�" EAST, Sp FEET TQ A PQIl�'I' pN 'I'�E �AST PSGHT-aF-WAY LiNE QF HIGHLAII3D AVENUE; THENCE N�RTI-� 40°�7'�1"'�ST� 508.25 F��'x' Ai,O?+TG THE EA5T �IGHT-QF-WAY LINE aF �3IGHLAND AVE�TUE FQR A POiI�T 4F HEGTNNiNG; THENCE r�ax�x aa°07'41" V�EST, i2S FEET; T�NCE SOUTH 89°2?'S�" EAST',15Q F£ET; THENCE SdL1T�I 80°aT'4I" EAST,125 FEET; Tk�NCE IY(�RTH 89°27'S8�' WEST, 1S0 FE�T TQ A PQINT QF BEGINNmiG. PARCEL 2: BEGIN AT i� SOUT�IWEST GQRNER OF THE N4RTI�AS�` 1/4 UF TI� SOUTHWEST l/�! O� SEC'iION 2,1'aWNSFiIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE l5 EAST, PINELLAS C{�UNTY, FLaRIDA, �D RUN NQRT�I Q�°U7'41" WEST, 34 FEET ALQI�1� THE 40 ACR$ LINE �F SAID SECTTQN 2; THENC� SUUTH 8�°2b' 15" EAST, SO FEET TO A FQINT OI+� 'T� �,AST RIGH'I'-OF-WAY tJNE OF HIGHLA� AVENUE; '1�3EhICE N4RTH 00°07'41" V�EST, t�48.29 FEET AL4NG THE EAS'� RIGH�'-OF-WAY Li1�TE �F HIGHLAN�? AV£NUE FgR A FOIh�T QF BEGINNIN�; THEI�ICE NORT�i Q�°�7'41" V�EST, 60 FEET; THENCE SO�TTH $g°2T`58� EAST, 150 FEET; �NCE SOUTH �a°07�41 �� EAST, 5� F�ET; T�iCE NORTH 89°27�58t� W�ST, � s0 PEET TO � PO1NT OF BEGINI�NC`i. CQNTAI��IING Q,b37 ACRES MORE DR LESS i �. � . . r ' T1 : r. f�'•� � � • - • . . r ' : Y•9 � � � ' . • .. � , . a . r= � •+ , � y ; , � i ' ' - : .. J . . , � ` . i.' . � .'�♦ � �' • � . � .. • . , . - a : �:' � •� • �f 'F�. ' �V�� • • � • '� , . ••• t � • • �� • • �: ;. t ' ; '�'• . ,� ., . . • •. .�: :..�, , . w L42198 ��oii�3 .�. � .' . �' �:•• ~� ' � � , ��'�g - . �. ° - `�-' S ;;� .�, ,' • .. , ; : . • - • • ' � . �. . : : ,•• . � � � --� �;',`' �,�,p�,�, ; � .. • . � • � �.rv�ii�lri�t nEZ.ti , � , . �. , ' �'• �_� :'>' �t `� . ,'•,+. :'!' .Q�3', • • . .' • � ' .• . �. ' • ' : '` � . : � '� ' ..;;.� Y:., :;.. f:t., ,:•, �• 1`f179 il'�DB:RT[FItR'a�ada fhia l� day of' � Aypri 1 ', t8'{5. by ad8 1�St1►�ep ••.... :�e ,;,c' ;ti`•:;c;';'� �'s�,:`'�'': � � . C�I�i+B$�R. �Ck1"!`$:;71E..'�SOt`,A�?3t irsd�•CwlRl:I�lC811» .1C��. '+, :� :+::': �,� ��'k �� • ' 8C1Cf ,:t . `'>'7':'••_: s.-�= : � �•' • : a�f+i �i; FII'�i'QYtiB �e �4A�eaN. �osn:d bjr slut� aty.s: ra.p.�f�ve1„"y. ; . �i�;i,�.:-� • xn;• .. =` ,• •: � • . . . . !�D}�Q'C�iY d, �(7p�'t�, P�(7t33�t" �A . �inat�ilNB iad I�1�! t�C�]r �.. JC$I�t�V� • �vt i�ir. ' . � �: z�. `'` •• :kl.�;:t; .i..� A.r � i 1��.•,.. � '� 4,•: � � - i ; ;� � C�. ad Ora�e.' �tn.!l�e�'Jtite"o! Fiar�da.: gart7' .ot`t�a �'Irs! P�rts �ad ';� . � .�•. ,:� . ;; '�w.. `;• ; . ..' r . . • . . � . � � :x� y i.'•• � �.,'�'i "''' • - • � • • • ' ��..,•��,w. f+�:��•, r"y'::�:r�. x:��=.� � . ... '.�RL iI4..II�FFC%II4T�K:a4d �Al�i��` �►EeCY.I1�1iYi�i� lei� 1►it�; Of !be , ��'''" ��.'}��, j,•.w%.. . . � � �_� �� a�� a ��g � ► `•��,• . ��' r: :� .,:•„�,,,:,.#.. �C�o��nya�r+pf'�etl;� fs t+e oi}hs sae�oad �r1 , :, �,,,,,.�� ''o'"'��,ir::;�;� �5�.� • , . . ia+� ��l�L��i`TC 0'��pOt� irr��X"�f�L�'i�:j ti gJ�� • • � p .� � .r.I�i��^� E {i�'%iY�' �i� ~'�• • ... • � ��i • � , � • . '" �.r. � ixf..�.'.'. ��' �. ; �,� • .. -� . • ' .. .J • •, . � • •••. • � � ' �,l.�iy�.i�. 1 ,,�-'�� ..� �t� x. _� : ��'. . �� , • .'�'AA'r�lhs sidd i►ast}+ d� tlia �irs! y�ri,' for aad la coa�i¢arado�► at ths �esm •o!•' •;f �"� � �# .:: �'�';; "'' ..:.: �• ; Y'e1t.11oIlars (i16. �1; �d. o!!�s'r �ood. and valna�la •c tl�ez��io�s ta b#i�1=1 ,:: �� 'y' ;�y��; << �-':.�i. :'� • .�i�d;�d,by tlia'ss3d'pwtlj► of ths. �sco'ud' g�rt; Tbe r�Qatpt Rbtrea! fs �ei' ��'• ', x; E �".'tir,f �. ; .��. ` • sekapwtedpd. 1�as �'ra�ited.; Sar�aleed s�►d �IO�d to � �aid' psi�'a�'�. �• ,: • �� '' � �" �� •x' " ` ' ' • .acood p�rt. �L hsts�� s�l ar:i�os torar�r, tba tp13Q.'ips•direrf#�id+'�s�od.. � :.' .. � ' �,= ;;r•• �'�t:'�r,=- . _ ' • 4il+�at�. '�7in� i� Tieias� la tAe.Cawat�•Taf �S3QEbci3lt3. ,$eite ai i+farld'a,•:ta�w�ts � ` •+�; � . � s�`�'� �' .� •,� • ' The B la0 leat of th� W!Ob SeSt of ihe 1� 115+#s�t:a�tha I�]C•�itfsteir.� >�;`, ��". ; :`�,rs�y:';x.'''� '•, �.� • , ?�,tbR 3W Qvssler of Sectioa Z, 7'vwasbiip 3� �,• 1bn�i i! �� 'H �~ .., ; x� rt� �►h `'' �Yare paxeiavi�Ix1�► daoa�ibed sr �o�►�rt ,8�n st tha�.oai��.'f "� :v,: ,t•a ;Y `,� r"� o �� • '. I� i i4 ai' tl�ie 8W •1 r� of 9eCttoa�t S. TOwasl�tp �Y 9, 'R.aKe la; �,'" kp�:' �' r. 00•Q't'� " W 3a ttat slon� tbe 40 aera lfna a{ tai+� $sctiaa't .`:�Y, t��, ��; �.J. iPiL 1� � � i� � } �l •. �:.�'� 1• x';F. # • �1�73C� $ ��Z��a�� r� SQ i!!C tD i p6��OT3 � �i'�lt�T�t�Oi!7R,�.�'.` ' �,;F '1� , . ' � : . . os s��s.�a �d��, s��n�e x oo� a7��"' w�, xoe. $a�re� �t��ti� �.. �.Y� : �,��. �.� �" � '' ' ' • . . zt�t�o!•Visy liu�t af $i�W�sxi /lv'ettpe io� a 1�Q8}'�laca N 00'G?'�1" •:: °' � �, '�, •• • W. 226 leat; ti�tt�Ca 8 89�27'�3" S, Ii0 lestY�hen�a 3 4a•OTt44f" E. •''�';�;` ;`�i�'� i �� ;;� • ! , i25 fest= th�aae Di'BS'27'3a'! �. I8Q feet•tb a Pi)id. : • ' ;• • • , :,• •:•�,.�� .�,-�,� ;:,,_ '� . �1NLt Se�fn at tbs A'W corner vf the •N� 1 t# ot tbe 8tA 1/! •�f 33s,ctian A, •: ;�'•7'.;�� ; Z-,:'. .,.. • � ?owa�isip 9a8; It�e.'!5 E� and��n N DO'07l41" W� SO teat sL�. ��< :ffi;:.�� "'r:' ,. � . �.• : � � � ' . tbe 4fl acre i�e of aai3 $setion 2; tb4nce 8 8�48�15" E. Sa l�eat �to;' :�:: • •. ' '; � `�.�" "� .�;'. '��•: ; ' ri '}:# A�°tefn t!►e L' ri�bt-t�-w�p•liae of iii' n� Aveilue; tis�ngs NSiOsOT� t;'r f=,'.4;��;,�,�r 't( ��%: J � �. �. � . :i'r�":� •"�4�# W� 44$: �9 i eL a�oo� ih� �. id�tt'�1�'� .�18��M:111►+l�iti' .r;,� •�� s; : � } ' � ��. � • 'f+�r s 1'OSy.•the�Sca H 0a' OZ'�!i' W, AO te�i � 8 i�" 7T��'E �.l�41 �:.y�;; �.�; r. i?,`i��6;�'�:, -.� �� • � fae!= tl�saca $ 00•47fti" E;� 80 �eet= tDen�e N�Dtt7fbi'� W,�15b #&r!. ''1a*��. < . .�; •. - •. . • ,� :c; :• • , av;� �. ,-n �' . t0 � �iBe n . ,u"`i�,'��'' + k� •�s� • : �� r.,• :��. � , , , . .., . .:`, x'�'�h � 1�.:�:'4w�v S• �: ,• .� s.. °� � � ' • . . � ��. �:�, %%�:�.,•,r 3;+4. �� •�. ��^;�.� �„ irid par1� ol•@se firit�iA-t doea kerebq #1iX�rarrint RhO��lt}� to•sai�i_ �;. �'r'*,''��'+.a�s�; � •�` •'-y ��j� Rllirdqfse+� ths sntne i�fnaL !be liwltti cLtjmat o[ ill prlE:orii•.r�t�K: .� "�rr�-yx`" f }Y -.' f • � . 4+ .t• ..` • . . 'S• ! `' . �� L �` ' ',' _ -� ' �!!°.�Ar 4 r.: +s-, ' ' ; � ; ,�j,� ii'``.}'c�`:.'t ,�=. :j, ��r. •,' . ..1� .r Y�,'•' `��l � ��g3�DF� � d wtL� 0: tit� �:i'it p�l'L:�s i�rEtln�� , •y,�i'<•.r ;,r-� h, ;'•�;_: •.. . : � . � • , � ! `a�CYs�►1SSYie tFsj�`Yad bave ��3"a . y .,. " "• � �;�. ' :�rit- n :. ': =�' • • • � f S, ' .ec` .:I�f ti 'r:, • • �� .< ;'�.: �� r] �f:sc��u°.e<\t3Y ,'.�� .: '• •�.�i:�-�+^��x�. • �•' .� �';a��?:�-_:�,r:�:�. .�:.:. 'Lr.� •, � . - � • - - - � sr _ ::�.• u'�r=4 �.. . •�� Z i s � y � � :i i' .i ��' �,� �� .• • �r%w� �.�j� ��s/�iV .1L�2,'Z'i+fi !/ ia� y �v_'� • , �. :i'Z ��!)'il4.%�EK:�xrs� t i� �!e .+`�` �� ,�' � �'�a. �� .:�i ,- �'''�ti01.!� �t,f ;,��, .�5:�;=L'+�'��Ir'I; �:ti.•."`..��:1"•'r :+:� �ilW',.' f. F�s ..,`.:'�ia�dlw4 Ri'i ' -.4;1 � � ..� . r i.�� r�7: Y: a � �S � ' I • .. ,. ' �It��1�� -•`� • � �� • • , .�� i ' �'R• . . . . . . . . . ; :�"K`r�, u. _; : ��ys ''r .�• fr . r. �i. `� y; � �'�: i �� }� � '.��5^!l:e ,!::•i:f.. �,_,. ��,: ,:?�f'�r.�r, . rr� _`^�,.�� i k^i � � � +•. i ♦ . i'i ,f. • n. • . ' .. ." � > � � � , � � ' .. - . .. • ;. ,► ,•� . �'�. • . . � �� . ''�+,.� : ;.r . '� ' �A"`.�� ,' : . � ' . • . • Z.1� �`�� i �i`��. , . . � � . :�' ' ��• • , � � . . . • _ , •r . ••`, '. ..� . 'v`Y{� • .. �':� ' ; $T�77$ OP FLARYDA ! • .. � . "" � , • ' . ' , CQ�TY (7i� ORlkNa�• . .! - t � s - . � ��: ti+l: , �: f •�,, ,� ' • . •_ . • . , . . . . . ' ? � . .: .. , ! : : � • '. • _ . . z . , . .• . • . , e, � ~:.`,�'t N �a"":, rz , . •. �. - - � •• . � . t'Fi�RLHY CERTIFY Lhat o�rdsli � aai�1 i srad bdbra�e.' ' ' r ;' • , : ' �::'` : t : . • , � . in d�laR d� �ulborttsd t0 adpALtilLie= �� th� se�fl vfiti�iiCi�r�►1e��manl�. �; � ' . i �i •? , •; i` ,:>s � �: �," i'� ' . ; ' '�, . Clu� �K. Bi�lets. C s A. Jahesou. II� Dorcthr 3.+ � ' ;_` :�.. ' ; ': c„ :s�'��w . • �� . � : •�., � � ' ' � � �i � ��7li 11'� �MA �� Q � ' =�1 � �re ['1'r'7 �," . ' : '` :. r� , '': �" !b �C t1s�� L!��I�'i�, , �!1! toYl�oii�.D+14d> . t:4,�;,•,. �• ,`•y:.+�5y'� -;;. , :y �:,, • � ' �� ,�` - * •� • ., �:' '• ' � • ' � c �b�i�are, m�,tbrt t�ex. eiE�crt� tl�, ssase, ir�s'�y and �f :+'�'� ,... �'�: ,'.*.�, ; � j ., �:: � �y }]� *i ths�r�W' a�re . . � . a. .: a . • r r q. . �.�",'?�f —... Y w. ;{'. . 71 �itd:3 �� ` K» , y � ' ` •S'`.YV. .� �r 3. - .�,'��• � ,% �4'i� �i� f�.• . . •. t • y ��..,��. �� . ;1�..�s!'i�l.�,:,. . . � r�. 4`r'?�� . r-. :=': . apt! �tlt�l.�� at OtLadb, Coun� o� QTS�� .� .� s" : aY•. a ,,, :.-• � ■ .... ! ' � : � A��4:.}.w� ~ t•. � '°"�K��4 • �...��,. �,ir.0?i�! l�i�i� f�t �' • .. . . .. . � ,;r ..'.'� yry:K. �:� +•. • »�:� � e ' ;i'^.�. _ �: � :?�c • ' t��:�.1... .� � ��•}T•':- . . . � . •�; ,T • .�f,.� ..S^,.3?;�:; • • . ' � : `r : �. •a • '� �1 '•. • . • _ F_ ' � ' �'-?.. .. r� .ysrY:. :�: � , . . ' , .,. . -��,. • � . . . � �L,,r?:�`�: - . .^, .t t�'� i�' ' • �waH��:yyl Y' ' • ' ��•t • �' � • '� • t'. '�L'a:.•M_ �t•,Y''�:'a. � '��N` tiff•�•• � ' � ' • ' � � � ,, � 'S':, JL�. .a;.� ' • . . a �;,,`�. ,.s. . � ' f ?i 7F C � til+rM.i� d� . 'ci�b„'`e;�.; . • =sc;s'° �n1�IStaslbcgiraeas• . • • . . ,• • , � ,*,��. �, �'' :* �• �: . . � i �q��1 � �„�,.�e �.. ... . � : ,- ._: . � .:t.:. :c�,. ; '+�� , w: °x y� i' � ' � ' � �' i � ` ♦l.C:il�idqlr�r�M�'r i�i 11A . , '�, •'� ;i �?3.�v. :.� �r.•S'.w.' '�'. ' � r e�'�/ii1 r ,�W Rw►:rw�T� • • . e . ..:)'s.i1i'�1 ' �.'�:i.�•:.".�'�.d i+�#�5�";F:.�:•... , # . '� �"s,�fiti♦ �ti"• . . • . t..t • �?. .L?«. . . '+ - • +� L�'w.. ,� ♦s� � . 6 t•e �r.. ._ - � • e , � 'F.r.� 4: � r1'• � a`-T� . •, o . C ''f.F�� 1ti:1 ' • , • � � - � _ �N!!J1iN1„ . _ • . '� �.. '• . , . � �,, �;�?�:.�.'�;,%� ...� � , , , � i[ ' • ' �r� • . •. � . i.».. . .b..... ��.L,+''r'f: � ,S �% ::�� '� • .• �i �y}F 'i'► � � . � . . . ' ' . . . r. : (= . �� , � 'y �3 � ��•' . . . t � • � e.' �+• �! . . . ... v . � �' ��'r: . •� �.'Sw•;�tw s Y� V' •� fa .{ . • ,� .i.t►•�� 3r� ' • � • .. . � . • . ' ',��; �� •.' y�^�`��"�� a� :�?p; ?,. v •. . . � • �� ,• w f�,,� : s�- �;�i'; ,►r�,��' 't'�, .. , . � . . � � � , ' .i . , . � . .�^ti:� �. �r� r ' . , , • •. - • • • • . • • . ' .. ' .. • �. ' ' • �r.'s � ».�i` ��'�^ . . . . .�,�i• { •'�� ; ia' � ' . . . . , � � J • . . . � .t '�°��! z�'� _ '='•�si• i . � . �, - � ' � 1'�\,� ' • _ a . _ . .' ['v. � .::'`� �,'••��' �: �'�.�:' .�: ��'i i.•.= ' _ . " �' `'•�� .. . _ ':.' �' � . �'.'. ..�;�'�` '� �;� t �i'' � �� v.?�i. •• , r• ---• • ' • • '•. , . ,»�'L�; � . � i� .�;s.�. , . ••• • � � �•f,;�: rti ;w.. .i tiE�ni�;::'..��... . . �: � ' - • ' . . �•,. .t= .:i.h•1. tiZ �'liw�',• �. .';�prS i��i�Y d ^� � v: • � . � �' L t� ' � �. . .. �•c.�ti�i � 1 1� :.�rr'��y1' [�W.+, :•r: . • � , +�f • : . ra+�� ►' " - - �r ' . . .�! , _: �•^'i4 x� 'LF , �5:�':`:wc +: 1 � ~ , `� � • . _ '� { •!•�S`•.� •�''L 1 "� S,':;' w. :i'�,ry'�•„'�M1: .�. . . . � . ` . . ��.�t,:' �...y�c �'�.�::.,' wc..� � jyi i.�':i � ' ,�.. �� ti • : . • • .` • -- , . . . . . . . � ' •�. . ... ,r. +I•. )f :.� i -s�j' ' � ' 'Ca J.;.ti :a . :i �y,t. : . ' . . }. {.;;3F ,� �1. il;M��.�` � .( . � . , .t . � . . ..�� . . � �. • � . � . . •'s:� ✓ ... {.•i.ti ,�,'� • '.8�.(� �' �y�r,�� ,�i = .�'` � . J. �r�., t ' •�'' _ • .. • • . . � " • . ..s• �-• . �'ife�f.��' i' � �� r ` • S��r; � � � , ; , • 'y. . , •• � • . . � � - • , •• .. , ,. , .�:i� y�•� ��'' .. aA�y`' „l::i .. . �. • • , ~ , � ' , .. •'' �, i�r. � «�C�•�ry�•�. � .. . •f � .f :t`�1 � ��x''��`.T�k: � � . � a !•rr. ' `... • . ►•�, •1 . � r . . . .l.. . � . • � 3 4:��y.• �;. � ��'r•-•3•j :e . . Z:j� •.'�:+ . . s `� J-_ . ' ' .. . • ' . '� " . i,. . � ', �{.: '�'�'•Gv''::�� F, ::'t, . : . - ; . � , . . . " • � • � r.i�.. ,�,¢ � .; � " � : � , f.�f.i".�7 �t4 � .� «. � , e. , f.. ' . . • . � , . . .�' .�.. . ..'1 �: .i „ •rf� ` `�•+yY'� � 3� . - . t,+r" y"'k,a� 'y: -- • '`' s9+,'; t.-'.:• '`1,+: ..�; �• . � . , `. ,'.�'ti tL�. :� � `•� :: ��'".ti�' C'•j�' . ' r�.�,: �r. .. . ., � ,� . ' .: . . , � #� . ' ••�. ' . . • n= � ;::;�:�ist � �y.* "��•. ' • � . . t. . �.}•, , _ .. .� �" ' � y ' . � � .. w r ,. '•t�_•S� • � � � ,;�tl.. r'*; '�Sk� , � . . _+ , . .-r ' . , �. ' . . . ' , ' .� • .i�4."� r, �.�. t! v,,'�� ' . . • . . s'. 3,+x . . . . � . . .. . .� . . , ' •�. .:4 H�1 4 � • .��r/.�� • � • � r . Z . , • t • ' r. ,� r •, '� . . � ; . , " � ~ ' ' . . < < • �'.. ' . . . . .'.. :�: i a r EXHIBIT "B" TO FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT 1835 Highland Avenue Section B. Description of Request The applicant has entered into a contract to purchase the subject property, which it plans to redevelop with a Family Dollar, as shown on the proposed site plan submitted with this application. The subject property is zoned "C" with a land use designation of "CG". Specifically, the applicant seeks flexible development approval of a comprehensive infill redevelopment project to allow a retail store as part of a retail plaza in the Commercial (C) district with the following: (i) Front (west) setback of 15.67' to pavement and 64.21' to building where 25' is required; (ii) Side (south) setback of 6.79' to pavement and 8.57' to building where 10' is required; (iii) Rear (east) setback of 5' to pavement and 5' to building where 20' is required; (iv) Side (north) setback of 7.62' to pavement and 76' to Building where 10' is required; (v) Height of 22' 8"' where 25' to 50' is allowed as a Level Two in "C" District; and (vi) 23 parking spaces where 40 spaces are required. The applicant has simultaneously submitted a Comprehensive Landscape Application requesting relief from the foundation plantings and perimeter landscaping requirements. Section D. Written Submittal Requirements General Applicability Criteria: 1) The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. The proposed Family Dollar is suitable for inclusion in this retail plaza. The use provides additional services to the residents in the surrounding areas and is consistent with the small commercial, grocery and restaurant uses that are within the existing retail plaza, across Highland to the West, and to the north in an adjacent retail plaza. The proposed retail use is the redevelopment of an existing, smaller restaurant that has been closed for a significant period of time. 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 redevelopment of this property will enhance the area, as it is currently occupied by a vacant restaurant space that does not meet current landscaping requirements. The upcoming sale and redevelopment of this property for use by Family Dollar will increase the assessed value of the property. 3) The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. The project is designed with adequate drainage, parking and convenient access via Highland Avenue and internal to the existing retail plaza. 4) The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. The traffic pattern as shown on the proposed site plan will allow ingress and egress from Highland Avenue as well as internal to the existing retail plaza. It is anticipated that there will be significant patrons who utilize the new Family Dollar as well as other retail establishments in the plaza therefore reducing impacts. The proposed use is compatible and desirable with the surrounding uses and has a similar customer bases. 5) The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The proposed retail use is consistent with the commercial zoning and the existing retail plaza within which this property is located. There is additional retail uses to the north of the property at the intersection of Highland and Sunset Point. The plan includes a modified ingress/egress which meets current Codes unlike the existing access to the site. 6) The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. The proposed design places the use to the rear of the parcel, thereby decreasing the impact to the road and pushing any impact toward the existing retail plaza. Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria: 1. The development deviations from th zoning district. or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without e use and/or development standards set forth in this The parcel is situated within a retail plaza and therefore the requests for relief as to setbacks are internal to the plaza. The building itself will be located well beyond required front building setbacks along the Highland Ave. frontage. The setback relief will allow appropriate traffic flow through the site. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. 3. !� The proposed use is compatible with the existing zoning and land use designation as it is a retail use within a retail plaza. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. The redevelopment encourage additional commercial zoning. of this commercial parcel with a commercial use will redevelopment in the area consistent with the surrounding Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development. The property is situated in a commercial area and is an existing outparcel to an existing retail plaza. The redevelopment of the site will provide a more attractive plaza as a whole. 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. The proposed redevelopment of this portion of an existing retail plaza use is allowed in the "C" zoning category. 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; The proposed project will not impact the surrounding properties which are already developed as a retail plaza and other commercial uses. b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; The project is not located in an area for which specific guidelines are set forth. Other than the specific requests set forth in this application, the project complies with the development parameters set forth in the Clearwater Community Development Code. c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; The scale of the project is compatible with the existing retail plaza located behind the subject property. 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 of materials, colors and textures; 4 ❑ Distinctive fenestration patterns; ❑ Building stepbacks; and ❑ Distinctive roofs forms. A number of these architectural elements have been incorporated into the architectural design, as depicted on building elevations submitted with this application. Window fenestrations offset the mass of the building on either side of the front door; patterned wall material and upgraded roof materials provide for heightened architectural style. Column-type separations create architectural depth in the building. Red accent awnings further offset the design details. The retail plaza itself has had incremental renovations in recent years, however, the proposed project provides the most distinctive architecture in the area. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. The proposed site plan provides for less impervious surface coverage than exists on the property today. The site is attractively landscaped and is designed to allow a smooth traffic flow through the property. The proposed unified development scheme is preferable to the existing conditions which consist of a mix of uses and which parcels are old and not developed up to current Code requirements. While the project includes a request for comprehensive landscape approval, the site provides appropriate buffers t the right of way and adjacent buildings and sufficient access for emergency personnel. COMMENT RESPONSE LETTER: FLD2013-04014 — 1835 N. HIGHLAND AVE Engineering Review: Prior to Building Permit: 1. As per Community Development Code Section 3-1907B, Sidewalks/Bicycle paths and City Construction Standard Index No. 109 for Sidewalks, Applicant shall bring all sub-standard sidewalks and sidewalk ramps adjacent to or a part of the project up to standard, including A.D.A. standards (raised detectable tactile surfaces or truncated domes per FDOT Index #304 and 310 FY2012/13). Sidewalks intersecting driveways do not require truncated domes. There shall be a curb ramp at the southwest corner of the property that meets current ADA standards. Acknowled�ed. 2. Please provide the following notes to the demolition plans: --All utilities shall be cut and capped prior to demolition. The Wastewater Supervisor shall be notified. --All existing utilities shall be protected during demolition. --Demolition shall not cause any service interruptions for other utility customers. --Water meters, double-detector checks and backflow preventers are owned by the City of Clearwater. The City shall remove and retain these items. The notes have been added to the DEMOLITION PLAN (sheet C-4.OL 3. If the proposed project necessitates infrastructure modifications to satisfy the site-specific water capacity and pressure requirements and/or wastewater capacity requirements, the modifications shall be completed by the applicant and at their expense. If underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, the installation shall be completed and in service prior to construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. Acknowledged. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy: 1. The Owner shall submit one set of as-built drawings signed and sealed by a State of Florida Registered Professional Engineer for the installation of all water, sanitary sewer and storm structures installed at the site. These drawings shall be sent to the Engineering Department, Municipal Services Building, 100 South Myrtle Avenue, Room 220. The City inspector will field verify the submitted as-builts for accuracy. Once the Owner has a set of 4/29/2013 1 DRC Comments "EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATI�E ACT/ON EMPLOYER" City approved as-builts, the Owner shall provide a total of five sets of as- builts to the City and a Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued. Acknowledged. General Notes: 1. Only Sheets C3.0 to C5.0 and C7.0 were reviewed for General Engineering criteria. The additional details provided in the plan set may have been necessary for other departmental reviews to provide flexible development approvaL Construction plans shall be reviewed in more detail prior to receipt of the building permit. Acknowledged. Environmental Review General Note(s) 1. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. AcknowledQed. 2. An Asbestos Survey is usually required prior to conducting any demolition or renovations. Contact Pinellas County Air Quality (727/464- 4422) for more information. AcknowledRed. The survey is complete. 3. Prior to issuance of building permit, provide stormwater vault specifications showing the vault provides water quality benefits and provide a vault maintenance schedule that has been sigaed and accepted by the owner. Acknowled� File Review 1) Show location of fire hydrant for fire fighting use. Must be within 300 feet of building as hose lays and on same side of street as building. Plan shows a fire hydrant in rear of property you will need to add one at driveway entry. ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO CDB Please see plan sheet C-7.0 (UTILITYPLAN). Per conversations with Jim Keller at DRG the applicant will utilize the existin�ydrant on the west side oi Hi�hland Avenue as there is no water main available to provide a hvdrant on the east side oithe street. The existing hvdrant is approximatelv 250 feet (hose lay) from the new building entrance. 4/29/2013 2 DRC Comments "EQUAL EMPI.OYMENTANDAFFIRMATlVEACTIONEMPLOYER" 2) Site plan shows the driveway radius at R 25 unsure of the 6 foot wide lane line. Provide and show on the plan minimum 30 foot turning radius for emergency vehicle ingress and egress at all entrance and exits. ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO CDB. Please refer to the revised SITE PLAN (C-5. 0). The original drivewav design proposed a 40 foot wide drivewav with.flared turnouts. However, the site lavout has been modified (�lipped) per the discussion at DRC to resolve several issues. As such, the proposed drivewav is shifted northward and des�ed to accommodate a smaller deliverv truck (WB-SO). The driveway width is now proposed as 36-feet wide, and the radii are 35, eet. 3) Must meet the requirements of NFPA 1 Fire Code 2009 Edition 18.2.3.4.6 Grade. 18.2.3.4.6.2 The angle of approach and departure for any means of fire department access road shall not exceed 1 ft drop in 20 ft (0.3 m drop in 6 m) or the design limitations of the fire apparatus of the fire department, and shall be subject to approval by the AHJ. Plan appears to show this is greater than code allowance. Provide clarity to meet code criteria. ACKNOWLEDGE PRiOR TO CDB Please refer to the revised GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (C-6. 0). The slope does not exceed S% (1 foot drop in 20 %et). 4) Plan shows a 5 foot sidewalk at east side of building, fire department access is required to meet NFPA-1, 2009 edition (Florida) Access is being blocked by trees, Show how fire access will be met ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO CDB Please refer to the revised SITE PLAN (G5.0). The site layout has been revised to move the proposed building awa�from the existing building, thus providing adequate Fire Department access to all sides of the building. 5) Note: This is a D.R.C. approval only. Other issues may develop and will be addressed at building permit stage. Note must address proper fire separation between new structure and existing. Acknowledged. Land Resource Review 1. Prior to building permit Provide a Tree Preservation Plan prepared by a certified arborist. This plan must show how the proposed building, parking, stormwater, irrigation and utilities impact the critical root zones (drip lines) of trees to be preserved and how you propose to address these impacts i.e.; crown elevating, root pruning and/or root aeration systems. Other data required on this plan must show the trees canopy line, actual tree barricade limits (2/3 of the drip line and/or in the root prune lines if required), and the tree barricade detail. An any other pertinent information relating to tree preservation. Provide prior to building permit. Specifically on the tree preservation plan, all asphalt under the canopy of the trees to be retained 4/29/2013 3 DRC Comments "EQUAL EMPLOYMENTANDAFFIRMATI�EACT/ONEMPLOYER" must be removed by hand. This must be shown on the plans as well as field marked and inspected. Acknowledged. See revised plans sheet L-1. 0, Tree Preservation Plan. 2. The plans show to remove 163 inches and the landscape plan shows the replacement of 66 inches therefore a 97 inch deficit will exist. It will be a condition prior to C of O that the inches are replaced on site or paid for into the Tree Fund at a rate of $48 per inch. Acknowledge. Acknowledged. Planning Review All are to be addressed in the CDB submittal 1. Acknowledge that all signage will be requested under a separate permit. AcknowledQed. The applicant will appl� for a si�n permit inde�endent of this �proval. 2. Pursuant to CDC Section 3-912, all utilities including individual distribution lines shall be installed underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. As such, confirm that the existing overhead distribution lines shown on Sheet C-4 are to be placed underground as well as the overhead power lines along the west property line. The lines on the propertv will be �laced under�round. The main transmission lines located within the rieht_of-wav on Hi�hland Avenue and on private property owned by others will not be relocated. Please note that power service provided alon� HiQhland Avenue within the vicinitv o the pro�ect site is overhead. 3. Justification for not provided the Code required loading space includes that a WB-67 truck will be making deliveries. From the detail provided, the tractor trailer truck will be taking up multiple off-street parking spaces when making deliveries. As such, staff is not supportive of the removal of the off-street loading space. See revised plans sheet C-5.0, Site Plan, and C-8.1, General Details (Truck Route Exhibit) which shows the o�'f-street loading space. Please note that the site lavout has been revised per the discussion at the DRC meetin�, and a smaller WB-50 deliverv truck is now proposed with a desiQrtated loadin� zone that meets the minimum dimensions per Code. The reduced number ofparkin�spaces (23) is supported bv the Peak Parking Demand Analvsis previouslv submitted. Additionally, attached please ind the parkin� surve�of other similar existing stores with similar parkin� ratios. 4/29/2013 4 DRC_Comments "EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATlvE ACTION EMPLOYER " 4. The parking demand study singularly references the ITE Parking Generation Manual and no comparison sites were provided. As the reduction in parking is significant, from 40 spaces to 27 spaces, provide a parking demand study of a property with a discount retail store of similar size in a location of similar traftic patterns. Attached please fnd the parkinQ survev of other similar existing stores with similar parkinQ ratios. 5. Acknowledge that all signage will come into Code compliance including the existing freestanding sign on the west property line. This sign is more than 14 feet in height and thus non-conforming with regard to height. The existing sign structure will be removed. 6. The comprehensive landscape program reflects that there is a reduction in interior landscaping from 10 to five percent. However, the landscape plan sheet L-2 states that there is well over 10 percent interior landscape provided, 1,823 sq ft where 1,400 sq ft is required. Please clarify and revise the application and plans as applicable. Request is for a reduction in the Interior Landscape Area from 10% to 7.5%. 1, 400 SF is required and we are providin� 1, 096 SF. See Interior Greenspace Plan sheet L-2. 7. The area shaded to identify interior landscaping on sheet L-2 includes a portion of the stormwater drainage area. This area cannot be counted as interior landscaping. As such, revise the plans and interior green space plan calculations. The stormwater drainage area is no lon�er included in the Interior Landscape Area calculations. For updated calculations see sheet L-2. 8. As the paved portion on the east property line does not count toward required trees, only four trees are required. Revise the plans and landscape requirements table as such. The Landscape Plan and the Landscape Repuirement Table have been revised, see sheet L-2. 9. Shade trees should be planted 35 feet off center. As such, revise the location of the winged elm along the east property line. And as only four trees are required along the east property line, a reduction in trees is acceptable. In the revised vlan, shade trees have been shown to be 35' on center. Because oi the new site layout the tree locations have been modified. 4/29/2013 5 DRC Comments "EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER " 10. Shade trees should be planted 35 feet off center. As such, revise the location of the winged elm along the south property line. And as only four trees are required along the east property line, a reduction in trees is acceptable as five are provided. In the revised plan, shade trees have been shown to be 35 ' on center. Because of the new site layout the tree locations have been modified. 11. Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1201.E.1, 50 percent of interior landscaped areas shall contain shrubs. As such, revise the interior landscape area along the south property line to be compliant. In the revised Landscape Plan at least 50% of the Interior Landscape Area contains shrubs. Planning Review 12. Provide a narrative on how the site lighting meets Community Development Code Section 3-1302. If the photometric plans meet this section, add a note to the plans as such. If not, revise the plans accordingly and add a note that the plans meet the requirements of Section 3-1302. Include in CDB submittal. For example, address how objects or lands which are located beyond the boundaries of the parcel of land are not illuminated to an extent of producing more than a diffuse shadow. Site li�� is not included as part of the revised plans. 13. Pursuant to Community Development Code Section 3-1302.C., the height of the lamp in a light fixture shall not exceed 35 feet, or one foot in height for each one foot the light fixture is setback from the setback. As such, revise the photometric plan by reducing the pole heights of the pole mounted fixtures or relocate the light poles. Include in CDB submittal. Site li�g is not included as part of the revised plans. 14. Based on the size of the site, the request to remove the off-street loading space, the size of the proposed building, and the request to reduce the amount of required landscaping while not providing excess or improved landscaping, it is not anticipated staff can support the application. Please note that the site layout has been revised per the discussion at the DRC meeting, and a smaller WB-50 delivery truck is now proposed with a desi nQ ated loading zone that meets the minimum dimensions per Code. Also, the proposed driveway has been redesigned to accommodate the smaller truck, which allows or more of the ront 1 S-foot wide bu f er to be planted; the driveway width was reduced om 40 feet to 36 feet. Moreover, this site lavout revision also allows the pro�osed pond to minimize encroachment into the said bu�'fer at the northwest corner of th�roper to onl� feet. Please note that excess bu f� width is provided at the north and south sides of the propert� 4/29/2013 6 DRC Comments "EQ UAL EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATI VE ACTION EMPLOYER " Stormwater Review Prior to Building Permit: 1. The rear and northern swale are for off-site drainage. On-site runoff from the roof shall be collected and routed to the pond for treatment and attenuation. Additionally, the proposed landscape plan will prevent the swales from functioning properly. Acknowledged. Under�round pipi��is proposed to connect the roofdrains to the stormwater management acilitv. Please refer to the revised GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (C-6. 0). 2. A roof collection system shall be shown on the civil site plan with stubs out for downspouts from roof to connect to. Acknowledged. Underground �ing is proposed to connect the rooidrains to the stormwater mana e�.facility. Please refer to the revised GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (G6.0� 3. The entire volume of pond and vault shall draw down within 24 hours or tess, not just water quality volume. Acknowled� 4. Ensure that the proposed trench is designed to capture the on-site runoff effectively. Acknowledged. Prior to C.O.: 1. Submit a copy of the approved SWFWMD permit Attached is a copv of the SWFWMD Permit approval. 2. Prior to requesting the storm sewer final inspection, the Contractor shall submit a signed and sealed as-built by the Engineer of Record certifying the stormwater system was built per design and meets all regulations. A compaction test meeting City's standard shall be submitted along with the as-built. Acknowled� 3. Call to request storm sewer final inspection once as-built is approved. Acknowled�ed. General notes: 1. All resubmittals shall be accompanied with a response letter addressing how each department condition has been met. Acknowledged. 4/29/2013 7 DRC Comments "EQUAL EMPLOYMENTANDAFFIRMATLVEACTIONEMPLOYER" 2. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review: additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Acknowledged. Traffic Eng Review Priar to Community Development Board: 1. As per Community Development Code Section 3-904, Sight Visibility Triangle, applicant shall show on the site plan 20'x20' sight visibility triangles at the driveway on N Highland Avenue. There shall be no objects in the sight triangle which do not meet the City's acceptable vertical height criteria at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade. AcknowledQed. The site visibilitv triangles have been added to the GENERAL DETAILS (sheet C-8.1) and the LANDSCAPE PLAN (L-2� 2. As per Community Development Code Section 3-1406, Off-street loading and vehicle stacking spaces, applicant shall provide the timing and frequency of deliveries if a on-site 12'x35' loading space is not provided. The site laYout has been revised per the discussion at the DRC meeting, and a smaller WB-50 deliverv truck is now proposed with a designated loadin z�one that meets the minimum dimensions per Code. 3. One page C-8.1 of the civil plans, please show the truck ingress on a separate diagram than the truck egress diagram. The dia�ram has been revised to separately show the in�ress movement and �ess movement o�the delivery truck. 4. Once the wb-67 truck is on-site, how many maneuvers does it take for the truck to get into final position to unload goods? Trucks cannot use the Highland Avenue right-of-way to unload goods. The site layout has been revised per the discussion at the DRC meetin�, and a smaller WB-SO deliverv truck is now proposed with a desi�nated loading zone that meets the minimum dimensions per Code. A standard 3 point turn is illustrated on the Truck Route Detail on plan sheet G8.1, General Details. Prior to Building Permit: 1. Provide accessible parking stall and accessible sign details compliant with City standards. (Index No. 118 & 119) http://www.myclearwater.com/�ov/depts/pwa/en�in/Production/stddet/index .asQ Acknowledged. 4/29/2013 8 DRC Comments "EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER" General Note: 1. No transportation impact fee required at this time due to the existing credits from drive though restaurant exceeding the TIF generated from proposal. Acknowled�ed. 2. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Acknowled�ed. 4/29/2013 9 DRC Comments "EQUAL EMPLOYMENTAND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER" � � V May 09, 2013 City of Clearwater Planning and Development Department 100 S. Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 (727) 562-4567 101 SO Highland Manor Drive, Suite 21 d Tampa, Florid� 33610 ; 8i3.5493250 " 813.6213580 r www.fg-inc.net Project: Family Dollar @ 1835 N. Highland Avenue, Clearwater, FL (SEQ Highland Ave & Sunset Pt Rd) (Property ID #: 02-29-15-00000-310-0400) Subject: Parking Generation Analysis Statement To Whom It May Concern: On behalf of the Applicant, the following parking generation analysis has been prepared for development of a freestanding discount retail store at the subject location (Address: 1835 N. Highland Avenue, Clearwater, FL), which is currently developed with a vacant restaurant building. This project will consist of 8,000 square feet (SF) of building area and the supporting infrastructure improvements. As shown on the attached Site Plan (Exhibit A), the proposed layout provides a total of twenty-three (23) on-site parking spaces. While this number satisfies the minimum needs of the proposed use, the amount of proposed parking spaces is deficient according to the broad retail sales and services classification described in the City of Clearwater Community Development Code (COCCDC), Article 2(Zoning Districts), Division 7(Commercial District "C"). Based on the specific type of retail use, this analysis provides justification of sufficient parking as currently proposed on the Site Plan. Since a discount retail use is not specifically provided as part of the City's required parking calculation, Article 2(Zoning Districts), Division 7(Commercial District "C"), "Retail Sales and Services — 5 per 1,000 square feet" (please refer to Exhibit B). Based on the planned gross building floor area of 8,000 SF, 40 parking spaces are required, which exceeds the number of parking spaces needed during the peak analysis. Additionally, due to geometric constraints of the property, stormwater drainage requirements, and the tenant's method of product delivery, which utilizes a WB-67 truck, the proposed development can only accommodate a total of 23 parking spaces within the property limits. Per the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual, 4th Edition (please refer to Exhibit C), the appropriate classification of the project is Land Use 815 (Free Standing Discount Store). For an average peak period on a non-December weekday, the observed parking demand ranged from 0.78 spaces to 2.18 spaces (yielding an average of 1.33 spaces) per 1,000 SF of retail area. Based on this data, the number of required parking spaces � � ifll SO Nighlanci Manar Drive, Sui!e 230 Tarnp��, FlorEda 33610 813549.3250 ` �� 813.627.3580 �� www.fy-inc.net for an 8,000 SF store ranges between a low of 6 spaces and a high of 17 spaces, with an average requirement of 11 spaces. Therefore, although the number of parking spaces provided on the Site Plan is less than the number of parking spaces required by Code, the proposed parking exceeds the number of spaces required by the ITE Parking Generation Manual, 4th Edition. After observing the required parking spaces per the ITE Parking Generation Manual, 4th Edition, it can be safely concluded that the twenty-three (23) proposed parking spaces are adequate to serve the proposed discount retail store. Please contact me or Sameer S. Patharkar at 813-549-3250 if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Foresite Group, Inc. Brad Karns Project Manager �: -�,. . ,� I _�I,� �: � 9 Y) \ � .� ,, � � 40 20 0 40 80 � SCALE IN FEET 1 =80 N � � � S89'27'S8"E 150.00' ' �� — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ' r�, .. . _.__._ . -_-- a- -. I I � ' a I .. I �e •'e� �, I _ �I f '�•� I — � I � ''L ' � . a I _ _ I � ee � oo a� � . -. : _ -' � a . . �` ��5. _ � � r-�' �� . oi t + � oi .o • J . y' f � N - � IIIIIIII FAMILY• �; N � � " ��L�� .olo � � , 8�� ,�� 8,040 SF I � I F.EE = 40.00 (NAVD 88 io � i I _ �, _23 PARKING SPACES I � L• � j j � {� � � / \ - � _ _ _ _ — _ — _ _ _ _ _ __. _ _ ____. _— ___ _'--_ S89'27'58'E 150.00' � � �' '! I � � ��I � � I J i � � — ----_.. — — � PROJECT: DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: TITLE FAMILY• :� �^ SITE PLAN �� C�RESITE (EXHIBIT A) �ocanoN: BOOS DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. Fica26�ls 2651 MCCORMICK DRIVE ForesiteGroup,lnc. 1835 N. HIGHLAND AVENUE 10150HighlandManorDr. oI8�3.549.3250 CLEARWATER CLEARWATER, FL 33759 s��e no ( � 613.6713580 Tampa,FL33610 w�www.fg-incnet oATE: 05/09/13 PINELLAS COUNTY, FL TEL (727) 669-2900 PROJECT NUMBER: �63.23� To view most current version, visit www.municode.com. � 2-702 COiVIMUNITY DEVELOPMF.NT CODE T¢ble 2-702. "C" District Minimum Deuelopment Standards Max. Min. Lot Area Min. Lot Height Min. Min. Side Min. Rear Min. Off-Street Use (sq. ft.) Width (ft.) (ft.) Front (ftJ (FtJ (ft.) Parking Spaees 5/1000 SF GFA Indoor Recreation/ Entertain- 10,000 100 25 25 10 20 or 5/lane, ment 2/court or 1/ma- chine Offices 10,000 100 25 25 10 20 4/1,000 SF GFA Overnight Accommodations 40,000 200 25 25 10 20 1/unit 1 per 20,000 SF land area or as determined by Parks and Recreational Facili- the community ties n/a n/a 25 25 10 20 development coordinator based on ITE Manual stan- darda Places of Worship 40,000 200 25 25 10 20 1 per 2 seats Restaurants 10,000 100 25 25 10 20 15/1,000 SF GFA Retail Sales and Services 10,000 100 25 25 10 20 5/1,000 SF GFA Social and Community Centers 10,000 l00 25 25 10 20 5/1,000 SF GFA Vehicle Sales/Display 40,000 200 25 25 10 20 ��5/1,000 SF Lot Sales Area (1) Governmental uses shall not exceed five acres. Any such use, alone or when added to contiguous like uses which exceed five acres shall require a land use plan map amendment to institutional which shall include such uses and all contiguous like uses. (Ord. No. 6526-00, § 1, 6-15-00; Ord. No. 6928-02, § 10, 5-2-02) Section 2-703. Flexible standard development. The following uses are Level One permitted uses in the "C" District subject to the standards and criteria set out in this Section and other applicable provisions of Article 3. Table 2-703. °C" District Flexible Standard Deuelopment Standards M¢x. Min. Lot Area Min. Lot Height Min. Min. Side Min. Re¢r Min. Off-Street Use (sq. �'t.) Width (ft.) (ft.) Front (ftJ''� (ft.) (ft.) P¢rking Sp¢ces Accessory Dwellings n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a �a 1 space per unit Adult Uses 5,000 50 25 25 10 20 5 per 1,000 GFA Alcoholic Beverage Sales 10,000 100 25 25 10 20 5 per 1,000 GFA Automobile Service Stations 10,000 100 25 25 10 20 5/1,000 SF GFA Educational Facilities 40,000 200 25 25 10 20 1 per 2 stu- dents Supp. No. 25 CD2:48 July 2012, Supplement 29 To view most current version, visit www.municode.com. ZONING DISTRICTS § 2-703 T¢ble 2-703. "C" District Flexible Standard Deuelopment St¢ndards M¢x. Min. Lot Are¢ Min. Lot Height Min. Min. Side Min. Re¢r Min. Off-Street Use (sq. ft.) Width (/'t.) (ft.) Front (ft.)* (ft.) (ft.) P¢rking Spaces Governmental Uses(1) 10,000 100 25-50 25 10 20 4 spaces per 1,000 GFA 3-5/1000 SF Indoor Recreation/Entertain- 5,000-10,000 50-100 25 25 10 20 GFA or 3-5/ ment lane, 1-2/court or 1/machine Medical Clinics 10,000 100 25 25 10 20 2-3/1,000 GFA Nightclubs 10,000 100 25 25 10 20 10 per 1,000 GFA Oflices 5,000-10,000 50-100 25-50 25 0-10 10-20 3-4 spaces per 1,000 GFA Off-Street Parking 10,000 100 n/a 25 10 20 n/a Outdoor Retail Sales, Display 5 per 1,000 SF and/or Storage 20,000 100 25 25 10 20 of outdoor dis- play area Overnight Accommodations 20,000-40,000 150-200 25-50 25 0-10 10-20 1 per unit Places of Worship(2) 20,000— 100-200 25-50 25 10 20 .5-1 per 2 seats 40,000 Public �ansportation Facili- �a n/a 10 n/a n/a n/a n/a ties(3) Restaurants 5,000-10,000 50-100 25-35 25 0-10 10-20 7-15 spaces per 1,000 GFA Retail Sales and Services 5,000-10,000 50-100 25-35 25 �10 10-20 4-5 spaces per 1,000 GFA Schools 40,000 200 25 25 0-10 10-20 1 per 3 stu- dents Social and Community Centers 3,500-10,000 35-100 25-35 25 0-10 10-20 4-5 spaces per 1,000 GFA Utility/Infrastructure Facili- �a n/a 20 25 10 20 n/a ties(4) 2.5 spaces per Vehicle Sales/Displays 20,000-40,000 150-200 25 25 10 20 1,000 of lot sales area Veterinary Offices or Animal 10,000 100 25 25 10 20 4 spaces per Grooming and Boarding 1,000 GFA *The front setback may be reduced to 15 feet for parking lots provided the land area is not sufficient to accommodate the full setback requirement and the reduction results in an improved site plan or improved design and appearance and landscaping is in excess of the minimum required. (1) Governmental uses shall not exceed five acres. Any such use, alone or when added to contiguous like uses which exceed five acres shall require a land use plan map amendment to Institutional which shall include such uses and all contiguous like uses. Supp. No. 29 CD2:49 July 2012, Supplement 29 . EXHIBIT C . Land Use: 815 Free-Standing Discount Store Average Peak Period Parking Demand vs. 1,000 sq. ft. GFA On a: Weekday (Non-December) Weak Period — ------�.__� _,_ umber of Studv Sites Avera e S�ze of Stud Si est �� --� Averaqe Peak Period Parkina pemand Standard Deviation Coe�cient of Variation'�� Range __ ____._ -.--�---_.____.__ 85th Percentile —`��`--- 33rd Percentile ��-- �, Zso �, � 200 > �so � L 100 � �' S0 n a � __..____ Peak Periad Demand_.____�_ __�__�____.11:00 a.m.-7:00 �.m-; — �_._ __ ___.. 4 - ___._ .��_�. 103,000 sq. ft• GFA ��__.� _ 1,33 vehicles er 1,000 sQ. ft_GFA� �__� -� ..�__�..__ .__-_ _0�.�5 _�__--.---,___.____.__._ 48% _--- _._.. _ _ __. _ ___� �.�___._ _ 0.78-2.18 vehiclesper 1,ppq�ft. GFA rv_ �.8� vehicles ��r 1,000 sg, ft.�s __0.$8 vehicle�er 1�000 sq. ft. GFA Weekday Non-December Peak Periad Parking Demand u � -��, _ �nstitute of Transportation Enginsers � 50 10Ci x= 1,OOQ sq. ft. GFA • Actual Data Points 15Q F'arking Genera�ion, 4th E�ition Parking Study for 1835 Highland Ave, Clearwater, FL • 17 spaces required per ITE • 23 Spaces provided on site • Off street loading area provided • Direct sidewalk connection from store to Highland Avenue sidewalk, which is being removed and replaced per request by the City of Clearwater. • Family Dollar Stores experience: o Family Dollar prefers their sites to have between 20 and 30 parking spaces o No more than 20 spaces will be used and any given time. o Many similarly sized stores to support this 0 1041 South MLK Blvd, Saint Petersburg, FL: 27 spaces which is equal to 3 per 1,000 SF. 0 4902 East Hillsborough Ave, Tampa, FL: 30 spaces which is equal to 3.27 per 1,000 SF. o Orlando (near lake Pickett): 31 spaces which is equal to 3.38 per 1,000 SF. 0 125 South Charleston Ave, Fort Meade, FL: 25 spaces which is equal to 3.13 per 1,000 SF. 0 108 West Broad Street, Groveland, FL: 7 total spaces which is equal to 1.2 spaces per 1,000 SF. 0 2370 Northwest 45th Terrace, Ocala, FL: 30 spaces which is equal to 3 spaces per 1,000 SF. 0 2600 East 5th Street, Panama City, FL: 24 spaces which is equal to 3 spaces per 1,000 SF. 0 10811 Furlong Street, Bonita Springs, FL: 24 spaces which is equal to 3 spaces per 1,000 SF. 0 3077 North Orange Blossom Trail, Zellwood, FL: 28 spaces which is equal to 3.39 per 1,000 SF. 0 0 S�c��r�tv��r �V[�r��m�n:t ,��a�ys�� Project: � � r��°�° ��3:arrt`s�y c��rm 1835 N. Mighland Av��ue �ity of Clearwater, Pinellas CQUnty, Florida Prepared for: City Qf Clearwater & Southwest �forida Water Mar�agement District Prepared by: �I � �� , � �� FLtA2S2t5 Foreslte Group, Inc. 101 �0 F�fghland Manor Dr 5ulte 210 Tampa, FL 33fi�{? Foresite Group, Inc. 10150 Highland Manor Drive Suite 210 Tampa, FL 33610 Phone (813) 549-3250 Fax (813) 621-3580 www.foresitegroupinc.com o � 813.544.3250 f � 613.621.3530 w � www.fg-Ir�c.nec Engineer of Record: Date: FG Project No. 163.230 0 Family Dollar at 1835 N. Highland Avenue City of Clearwater, Pinellas County, FL 34698 (5. 02, T. 29 S, R.15 E) Project No. 163.230 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART 1: NARRATIVE • Project Description o Existing Drainage Pattern o Proposed Drainage Pattern • Groundwater • Land Coverage o Existing Condition o Proposed Condition • Water Quality o Treatment Volume o Recovery Analysis • Water Quantity o Pre-Development Discharge Rate o Post-Development Discharge Rate o Attenuation Volume PART 2: EXHIBITS • Aerial Location Map • FEMA Flood Map • Existing Condition Exhibit • Proposed Condition Exhibit • Pinellas County Web Soil Survey • PONDS Retention Pond Recovery Analysis PART 3: APPENDIX • City of Clearwater IDF Curves (Rainfall Intensity) • Geotechnical Engineering Report OS/2013 Family Dollar at 1835 N. Highland Avenue City of Clearwater, Pinellas County, FL 34698 (S. 02, T. 29 S, R. 15 E) Project No. 163.230 PART 1: NARRATIVE PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project consists of the construction of a discount retail store at 1835 N. Highland Avenue, which is a 0.637-acre parcel (27,748 sf) located within the municipal limits of the City of Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. Constructed in 1971, the site is currently occupied by a vacant restaurant building with an area of 3,166 square feet (sf), as shown on the Aerial Location Map. The site is proposed to be cleared and redeveloped to accommodate the new building and supporting infrastructure. Elevations presented herein are based on the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88). Existin� Drainase Pattern As evidenced on the topographic survey contained in the Site Development Plans set, the majority of the runoff from the site drains west via sheet flow to the closed roadway drainage system located along N. Highland Avenue, while runoff from the southeast portion of the site drains to an existing grate inlet located on the adjacent property. The runoff collected by the off-site inlet is subsequently routed to a private stormwater system associated with the Walmart development. According to the records available at the Southwest Florida Water Management District and the City of Clearwater, the area of the site draining to the off-site inlet was not included in the water quality calculations for the Walmart development. An on-site stormwater management system does not exist on the site. A pre-application meeting was conducted at the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) on February 27, 2013, which revealed that an Environmental Resource Permit does not exist (SWFWMD File Number PA 399933). According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map Number 12103C0107H, dated May 17, 2005, the site lies in Flood Zone X, which are areas determined to be outside the 500-year flood plain. For reference, the Existing Condition Exhibit illustrates the drainage pattern. Proposed Draina�e Pattern As delineated on the Proposed Condition Exhibit, the redeveloped site has been designed to mimic the existing drainage pattern, with the exception that runoff will not be routed to the off-site inlet on the Walmart property. Runoff generated from the site development is proposed to be collected and routed by inlets and underground pipes to an on-site, aboveground surface water management system (dry pond) near the northwest corner of the property, which has been designed to provide the required water quality treatment volume. Stormwater runoff in addition to the treatment volume retained in the pond is proposed to be routed to the underground Stormtech storage system, which will subsequently discharge to an existing curb inlet that is part of the aforementioned public receiving system located along N. Highland Avenue. Since water quality was not previously provided for the southeast portion of the site that drained to the off-site grate inlet, the site has been designed to provide water quality for the entire project area. Per jurisdictional design criteria, water quality and the discharge rate shall be positively controlled via a control structure. The post-development discharge rate shall not exceed the pre-development condition. OS/2013 0 Family Dollar at 1835 N. Highland Avenue City of Clearwater, Pinellas County, FL 34698 (S. 02, T. 29 S, R. 15 E) Project No.163.230 Using best management practice, the finished floor elevation of the new building is approximately 1.5 - 2.0 feet (ft) above the centerline (crown) elevation of the adjacent public road (N. Highland Avenue). GROUNDWATER Per the soil borings log contained in the attached Geotechnical Engineering Report, the average measured water table elevation is approximately at elevation 31.14 ft, with the seasonal high water level (SHWL) estimated to be 4.5 ft below is existing grade. Using the grades at the boring locations, the average site grade is approximately 38.5 ft, and the average SHWL is 34.0 ft. Given the groundwater variation across the site, the minimum pond bottom elevation is determined by the boring data at the proposed pond area, which reports a measured water table elevation of 31.0 and a SHWL of 33.9. Therefore, with the proposed pond bottom and Stormtech storage system (bottom of angular stone) elevation at 34.40 ft, 0.50 ft(6 inches) of separation is achieved. LAND COVERAGE Using the Rational Method, the following Runoff Coefficients listed in the City of Clearwater Stormwater Management Design Criteria were utilized in the calculations: Runoff Coefficients: ➢ Ponds, lakes and detention area (wet or dry) = 1.00 ➢ Buildings, paved areas, and other impervious areas = 0.95 ➢ Turfblock = 0.45 ➢ Green or pervious areas = 0.20 However, for properties undergoing redevelopment, the City of Clearwater requires the following: "In the case of redevelopment of land upon which no stormwater attenuation or water quality feoture exists, or upon which the existence of such features do not meet the standards applicable at the time of redevelopment, the redeveloper will be required to provide facilities in a manner similar to an original developer and in proportion to the extent to which the site plan of the property is affected or disturbed by the redevelopment. In the methodology for calculating stormflow from property undergoing redevelopmeni, the pre-development volume of runoff will be calculated by the use of a Weighted Runoff Coefficient iaken from the following iable:" PROPERTY DESCRIPTION* WEIGHTED COEFFICIENT OF RUNOFF** Undergoing redevelopment and not contributing to an existing flooding problem 1/2 Actuol *** Undergoing redevelopment and contributing to an existing flooding problem .20 Undergoing redevelopment and contributing to an existing flooding problem for 1/2 Actual which an attenuating stormwater management project is under construction * City Engineer shall be the determining authority of the Property Description ** In no case shall the coefficient be less than .20 ** To be applied only to area of property undergoing alteration *** Situation wherein property damage occurs in a 25 year - 24 hour storm As such, in the Existing Condition analysis, a runoff coefficient of 0.475 (i.e.: 0.95/2) was used for the "buildings/paved areas, and other impervious areas" in lieu of 0.95. Using the aforementioned runofF OS/2013 Family Dollar at 1835 N. Highland Avenue City of Clearwater, Pinellas County, FL 34698 (S. 02, T. 29 S, R. 15 E) Project No. 163.230 coefficients, the runoff potential is estimated with the following weighted "C" analysis in the pre- and post-development conditions: Land Coverage Type Building, Sidewalks, Pavement & Curb Grass / Landscaping (Fair Condition Total Area / Weighted "C" Area (sf) C 24,840 0.475 2,908 0.20 27,748 0.45 In accordance with the City of Clearwater Stormwater Management Design Criteria, a runoff coefficient of 0.95 was used for the "buildings/paved areas, and other impervious areas in the Proposed Condition analysis: Proposed Condition (Wei�hted Runoff Coefficient) Land Coverage Type Area (sf) CN Building, Sidewalks, Pavement & Curbing 21,911 0.95 Grass / Landscaping (Fair Condition) 5,701 0.20 Dry Pond Bottom 136 1.00 TotalArea/Weighted "C" 27,748 0.80 Please refer to the Existing Condition Exhibit and the Proposed Condition Exhibit for supporting information. WATER QUALITY Per City of Clearwater Stormwater Management Design Criteria, water quality is provided in a proposed dry retention system. The water quality (treatment) volume is calculated as follows: Treatment Volume (NI: Determine the first one-half inch of rainfall as applied over the entire area of development: N=0.5 inx27,748SFx(1ft/12 in)=1,156cf The following pond stage-storage data demonstrates that the treatment volume is retained at the minimum calculated weir elevation, while providing 0.57 ft of freeboard: Stage Area Volume (ft} �sf� (acj (cf} (ac-ft� 38.3 569 0.013 1,400 0.032 38 523 0.012 1,262 0.029 37 438 0.010 745 0.017 36 356 0.008 383 0.009 35 205 0.005 102 0.002 34.4 136 0.003 0 0.000 By interpolation, the weir elevation of: 37.79 ft provides the minimum required treatment volume. OS/2013 Family Dollar at 1835 N. Highland Avenue City of Clearwater, Pinellas County, FL 34698 (S. 02, T. 29 S, R.15 E) Project No. 163.230 Recovery Analvsis PONDS Retention Pond Recovery Analysis software was utilized to verify that the treatment volume recovers within 24 hours, per City design criteria. Per the attached Pinellas County Web Soil Survey, the predominant soil types at the site are Tavares soils and Urban land, which are assigned a hydrologic soil group classification (HSGC) of "A". According the attached Geotechnical Engineering Report, as measured by a double ring infiltration rate test, the soil permeability rate at the proposed pond location is estimated to be 12.7 inches per hour. Applying a factor of safety equal to 2 yields a design rate of 6.35 inches per hour (12.7 feet per day). The attached computer model data reports that 100% of the treatment volume is recovered within 24 hours. WATER QUANTITY The rational method was utilized to determine the attenuation volume needed for the proposed stormwater management system as well as verification that the pre-development discharge rate to the receiving public system is not exceeded in the post-development condition. Per the City of Clearwater Stormwater Management Design Criteria, the design storm event is the 25- year frequency, 2-hour duration storm. The design hydrograph is an isosceles triangle, with a time of concentration equal to one-half of the duration. Detention design shall incorporate a minimum time of concentration of on hour & 25-year storm intensity. 7 Taar of Concmtrattion T �S@C' . � Dumtio Per the City of Clearwater Rainfall Intensity IDF Curves (see Appendix), the rainfall intensity is 3.6 inches per hour (25-year frequency with a Time of Concentration equal to 1-hour). The SWFWMD water quantity criteria do not apply for a Minor System. Below are the calculations for the pre- and post- development discharge rates: The Pre-Development Discharse Rate: Q (pre) _ �C(weightedJ� ��(25yJ � �A (site orea) � C (weighted) _ �•45 1 �25y� = 3.6 in/hr A (s�te area) = 27�748 SF Q(pre) _�0.45] [3.6 in/hr J[27,478 SF] [1 ft/12 in][1 hr/3,600 sec] Q (pre) = 1.04 Cf SeC OS/2013 Family Dollar at 1835 N. Highland Avenue City of Clearwater, Pinellas County, FL 34698 (5. 02, T. 29 S, R. 15 E) Project No. 163.230 The Post-Development Dischar�e Rate: Q (post) _ �C(weighted)] ��(25yJ � �A (site areoJ � C (weightedJ — �•80 1 �25yJ = 3.6 in/hr A (site areo) = 27.748 SF Q�poSt� _(0.80] [3.6 in/hr ][27,478 SF] [i ft/12 in](1 hr/3,600 sec] Q �post> = 1.85 cf/sec Per the City Clearwater Stormwater Management Design Criteria, the required volume of detention (attenuation volume) may be established by multiplying the time of concentration times DELTA Q providing the outlet control structure (weir, pipe, etc.) is designed to restrict other than pre- development Q. The required attenuation volume is calculated below: Attenuation Volume: Time of Concentration (TcJ =1 hr (3,600 secJ dQ = �d�(weightedJ� ��(15yJ � �A (site areaJ � dC(weighted) = 0.35 (0.80 - 0.45) 1 �25y� = 3.6 in/hr A (s�te oreo) = 27�748 SF �Q =[0.35] [3.6 in/hr] [27,478 SF] [i ft/12 in][1 hr/3,600 sec] OQ = 0.81 cf/sec Attenuation Volume = (Tc)(OQ) Attenuation Volume = (3600 sec) (0.81 cf/sec) Attenuation Volume = 2.916 cf The proposed stormwater system has been designed to provide water quality in the aboveground dry pond and attenuation in the underground Stormtech storage system. The post-development discharge rate to the existing public roadway receiving system is positively controlled via control structure (D-5) that contains an internal wall and weir. The weir sizing calculations is below: �is Q(preJ = IC(rectangular)I I�(IengthJ I I�H (height)� � Q (pre) = 1.04 Cf�SC'C OS/2013 0 Family Dollar at 1835 N. Highland Avenue City of Clearwater, Pinellas County, FL 34698 (S. 02, T. 29 S, R. 15 E) Project No. 163.230 C(rectangular) = 3.13 �pe�9rn� = Unknown F1(ne�9ht) = 0.5 ft (6 inchesJ / nl 5 �(length) _ �Q (pre) � 1C(rectangular�� "� (height) �� (�ength) _ [1.04 Cf/SeC / (3.13)( 0.5^l.$)] �(length) = 0.94 ft (11 itlCheS) Details pertaining to the proposed control structure (D-5) are below and are also included on the Grading and Drainage Plan contained in the Site Development Plans set: �/, � �/4x`S`� a. � �� 75' FLS'—� � ! �I �� ' __ . l!`.. .4 .// ALJMNUMI SRMME7 ?, I�_I � '�tF1R '�aLL Fl nTM MP1EN11GtR °. E�L Ai EhtH EN� t5 �_�_ � AP15 ��_ � � PLA�� `�1E'�N a T:W El— CA�ER ' = SE.fiN. 16" � 2' � '.�Z' � 78� , EL= .1G 13_� i5^ — Tc� :7F 'MEI� waLL Yk7R ��T� %�noS _ �6.13 (nH�'1L; IN�Eai � _ t —'NEIft SLAT ELEV. i9" EL- 35.03_ �IINF�CN .,� I = J�5.83 :1ti0tij RCP�'` -�_EL= 57.3G t � I �-}- OU1FLfYX �� " EL.- 3513 � � AII:MINUV 9i1MME4 . _� � .. NEIN W+LL El= +.7.'8_ -- '�+1EI� '��'A.LL DETAIL �� ` � .'� . " � � �..� �� 9?' � }' L'ALVhMlE'] HhNOWhf2E CL+JTH �•.2� �IA. _� � N4. 4 �CPA5E A�;F£GSTE 2'xT'a7'— .:�-'. �gP HOLE I �+� FLTE4 F{�71C C:c'�'-.— — � — — ��V _ ,u"�k^� OYE'�7fCA4AlE 2` BEYON�J SiRUCTJRE L1MIT ANp SUMP �OTf7A �E? F'QT 3EPLaCE WTH QE4u FlLL C1DEx No. 2b� :�ECTI�N `�ilElN" i;:�1JT�i�L �TR�,.JCT!.;�;E �r)—:�;� C£ETHIL VCT TG SCALE As detailed in the calculation below, the post-development discharge to the existing receiving system has been reduced in the proposed condition. �is Q (post) — IC(rectangular)� I�(IengthJl ��H (heightJl � Q �Post� = Unknown C(rectangular) = 3.13 �(�en9th) = 0.9397 ft (111►1CheS) F1(ne�9nt) = 0.5 ft (6 inchesJ Q �post� _ (3.13 [11in] [1 ft/12 in ] [(0.5 ^l.s] Q �post� = 1.01 cf sec OS/2013 Family Dollar at 1835 N. Highland Avenue City of Clearwater, Pinellas County, FL 34698 (S. 02, T. 29 S, R. 15 E) Project No. 163.230 Clearwater 25-Year, 2-Hour Design Storm Scenario Discharge Rate Pre-Development Condition [Q �P�e�J 1.04 cfs Post-Development Condition [Q �POSr�] 1.01 cfs The PONDS computer model, and other supporting exhibits are attached. Additional information is shown on the Site Development Plans. OS/2013 Family Dollar at 1835 N. Highland Avenue City of Clearwater, Pinellas County, FL 34698 (S. 02, T. 29 S, R. 15 E) Project No. 163.230 PART 2: EXHIBITS OS/2013 Family Dollar at 1835 N. Highland Avenue City of Clearwater, Pinellas County, FL 34698 (S. 02, T. 29 S, R.15 E) Project No. 163.230 AERIAL LOCATION MAP 03/2013 Family Dollar at 1835 N. Highland Avenue City of Clearwater, Pinellas County, FL 34698 (S. 02, T. 29 S, R. 15 E) Project No. 163.230 1��►�il_7��Z�7�7►�t1_i� 03/2013 � LEGEND � � � � � PROPERTV LIMIT � � � BASIN LIMIT ""`^ FLOW DIRECTION *00.00 GRADE ELEVATION te RCP DRAINAGE PIPE � DRAINAGE STRULTURE 0° TREE � CONCRETE / SIDEWALK � BWLDING � GRASS / LANDSCAPING � ASPHALT \ J nu .n.ss CWY/ __ b�P _ � _ , ]J lt nn ])i9 ' fl).56 �9 � I1 3 �► �, � nY +� NOTES I. REFER TO THE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. � I n;�` I �\\ 4 na Iwtx +nm �nInm +�n. .rze. »e� g �� nn � �n vJ asO –+fineF'______– , �— 011p�5 MP . �c sS'''—_ ONP %� / /�0 �YO S 5 � ..�. � ' .'.... aa 20 o aa eo � SCALE IN FEET 1 =80 N � . _..._ . _._ ....._ .' _ +�rn Q +ns� +�xs� .nv +nsv . . +�ne +�zn / _ �.sam __ – – _ _ A1` � i�� .,�_ �r�n – _3H .xm ..uia .._– -- �°� +. �s} �a 39�z� �"€ so.d� sa �43 o�a xs� �— o�P —�— o�o — � x.w * HEOGE �� HEDGE �6 +�q'b.a s . � � � � r B Y Y. — . _ -- .�. � � {= 3 _ .._ __ — _ �. ._ . ._..,.�.� ......... —. ....�. _ +)9� U9 i`� ,.. �RIi: .» i �.. °,4�, J•�"'` t 1Bi5 ..� ^— T � �.' .y� .� g�5�i9 '.MD) �� -. �� v \ � �l � ➢.56 � Z�. ��i -� Y% ��.UO( �o�� . � h I �.: � 1��_ ��e.n : �s� . nrw�Ra-� a _ x�s ? +n.n /xso 1 »m neo la �} 5�� ra�v :� «�a.: ��: �$� - 1 � �� f -�� s � orvE sTORV sra�:; � . FINISHED FLOOR EL - .. Z I n� Z 7g�� . 142e � •n1� .. � , � 1 .t� 0 � b a �� . ��z1 .) . � a > 1 / � g :- i ,..,/ �. � r+n�� • n s � �b � 3 � ? '�f9 �3d f•� . �S� _r a , i»o, Z�.� ' � I x f s,'� � x�e ,a� ` ;�� g=x t�� '�• •�� , �;° �.a /,� �� 0 3gs� ,�g,�� nx ^ - � 'Ld �� p S�'. �'0. i0'°'�ss` 0" � �y ( � � ��i` '�� ° i .�1� � 34iS \ . �se �B9 �3d 33 r � ! �� o � � ' �. ' .xn ! ' � �� ..V ' ,, �,. �_ 7&3� 'YN : i O +xii }I � .` `'°a � .��s .�s.z� � � ; t �,�� u 5 � 39� � R�� os� mss � I a — �: '� � �� N n� x�e � �`,�', 25 . _ ?w ' �s z.s. � � �nm: aa �g m �s = 36.90 i z � � �' �� . � i ��- rs Sr '- �Qa � .� . � + _.. 'n¢es� x� +x xsz azis � :ir ..".�p� xts �mae,� a� �.'� �+ �.�s +xa 'a:Q�' nteie � M.SI �� .. ' � . � . . � � � '- ,�� ` ' � . . � H. y �.+ v �.' 'k]U '.18 9 �. �B\ ��i� '-��H � .14N �] � a . �n �� ` --��3 � �- _: p� � . . cRnre e� 3�.e � � t.N"�''. L� xms iE = as.ss � .xea " m ii' �am xs: :� a r�an \ :: ' � � ikSi �rs �o � I ' '° xm «,e�� xv TOP OF �TC��'a\ �� 1aw� ,,,��!!! I / A IN � � -.�� e � THROAT�� 14 � � b� ave 0 NW IE = 31.8h�e ��sl � �, �... _� I 5 IE _ }1.73 � y - - .�au �: .: �� ]6.81 +Y]0 ♦Yn M.l.l� p .ry� Y N� 1&rs � Y . . � �5 Eig .t�.14 � � S �A : _..��° J9'e � lflf 41fl19 � �:: ��$� _ �� x �� ` �,� �� .�. — —� - s, , . � - � , ,� � . .. � � - � .�.� m� l .�;'� � �s. I � ' d$ '"n 39-01 S89'27"58�" 150A0-- _ _ – _ ` Si I 3141 ffii0 ]d�6 0 Y.69 l!.)5 ]B.pi ��.� \. f a6 � � / � \ / / � +��91 I. )�� 3 l5 / � � � - Y53 XN' ♦ �J89� +�� 'x" x I �ia°RCa n�'»pp�� w," .�� _'��' +�a,� .��s �zso+�m . .a� �,sss- �� a� RIM EL 36.37 + �i , \ . �w N iE = J1.45 � •C � RATE EL = 37. 4 � � R�M EL'= 77_95 E IE = 31.62 � � W IE = 31.66 � W IE J4.13 S IE = 31.43 �°–� g �� %ts+ �. CP �61 _ 18'_RCP SEIEE =}34?O6 ��m ♦Bix ��n� �� PN ] ai 9a � � Yi� — —�'.i� �r — �i.�- –�i�i \y �?�y � �� J]n� �•':� H. ,N9 .� .IA.I . Ni �� ]8��7� eb� ., – PROJECT: DEVELOPER: EN6INEER-. TITLE: F��Y� EXISTING i»LL�i� ��" �J�� CONDITION �ocnr�oN: BOOS DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. FLCA26775 EXH I B I T 2651 MCCORMICK DRIVE 10150`HGhla dlManorDr. oI8�3.549.3250 1835 N. HIGHLAND AVENUE a CLEARWATER CLEARWATER, FL 33759 Suite210 f � 813.621.3580 Tampa,FL33610 w�www.fg-inc.ne[ DATE: �3�25��3 PINELLAS COUNTY, FL TEL (727) 669-2900 PROJECT NUMBER, (63.23� � LEGEND � � � � PROPERTV LIMIT � � � BASIN LIMIT �^^ FLOW DIRECTION X'�;;: ;,;? EXISTING GRADE ELEVATION OO.00 PROPOSED GRADE OO.00 ELEVATION ie RCP EXISTING DRAINAGE PIPE � DRAINAGE PIPE �� PROPOSED ORAINAGE STRUCTl1RE � EXISTING DRAINAGE STRl1CTURE NOTES I. REFER TO THE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. � �� 9 \� _ �3� �}§ 40 20 0 40 80 � SCALE IN FEET 1=80 N � 0 TREE SHOPPING CENTER � � � ZONING: C � � � �CONCRETE / SIDEWALK �.R ,:: �,� .'.� � BUILDING � "� g� �y _- 58 � ' �.r. �/ �-_.'_'_. - __. _ � GRASS / LANDSCAPING .i" i"' �xs �\.'.� . , ..- ... .... -.. a�.z �� ' sit ASPHALT � + . � � II �6eI ��'"�' . . � �mst } Ixw � x.w ( \7 z �"° ss z� xs: -� .. 18-5 {{ \ x.x .�+.�'i7� i � I � CRAO . ��_' , xe. 'x1� i xr �s' "ge �s' ._ `x : _� � aa xs � ._ _ .. . � 5 ,�rt O �� . �- -� ,� __ -.- � n.n', MATCH ' ,� a: _ ..__ t � `- _ _ .. w . g ._� a s� na EXIST. '�� ._ ntts4 y D_3 -. . _ - -•- �..-:ffs"�s"'" ;� �es � .n.� _ �, �.� �} ,'�r'� - - - � ,,.,s „ '"rt �-;= � ues 3ae2 . . ° conc ` �s., � na nx 4 \ fi �_ # . o-d ' 34.40 . . �� '__ CONC �n�"33� � � �f� n� �e --------------------- 3e�e, �R s.rc 3 I�u �� • I.� T � � ! . 39.08 � � � {'� I �� CONC ,_' I q >- 36.91 �. ■ e � � 3 JY��. : � Tm# �p •�� • I CONC � � .' ys)xi �� : F �.. : . I N � R : �� ./ � �, ., .:.. ��{. . + 39.70 /�I,p� o �8z, �yM ay.sc . coNC .,i conc MULTI-TENANT =s v.� ] n� /'" M7 � � 3�gi 37.94 = .. 38.21 ( � . . 39.16 � . . 79.6(HI. � a ��•� 350WH SHOPPING CENTER � ' � , , � J �_ 3 ZONING C U � t__ _.__ ______________ 994 TOP / �� SLMK �t � C � � I M J8.68 � aJ0.45 39.93 � � � : '`�� p � � I ■ �-5 39.94 �_ J9.94 79 % c� z r �a .:' »> 0 �� I I(� /399� I 3BAt 39.M ^� �' i.i n a T � � 39.93 °° 6 f`. � ... . e o 0 0 ..._ - v� w,n S.E?5 i� n:� � l ��36.��77g^ 37.73 . (�D 2�,,. 39A0 39.94.� e ..e..,_..._n _.--.. _..' . , '._ r} �s�„ .�i06HI t ��q.is �� \ _ � �'� R SDN% � � s� 0 �I1 FL SDNK . - ._ .. 39.44 � asa .ux �asx I �� 7fi.64 31.W m� 385 TOP ��&00 38.37 ♦ zo�_' i PVNT 39.92 SDVM o� �. 39.18 59.�2 J9.93 �ir.z� TCH E%. ,. �� \ �'.6�i ' SDYM�14 µ � �. 39.9J � �� . R '�SB.13 � . I . (� 39.43 i� I �'.i� 1;�' 76.54 f.. JB'05 '�, PWT Y Fl. , . -. 39.2� 9.43 �h � �q��'� NN� 'r„ . f' f I' Y�� N 395 Q = 36 90 � �� 3910 39.93 � � � a ��+t � �� 37: SDM1( � - 3�8. Q PY11T �%'° 39.43 �,.� ae .. ��Y .� � ,..�.ae.00 . t* �o � �.: �v.ia � ��"'ii,W �Bf ae�°' �....-�:?i R \� J8.4J � � �� GRAIE I V�aR '� �fi o-i aa.ss�, roP « � ��4 � 4»�f� � w.ee �. ae.n 39.94 3P�i �\ �� 39.14 GRATE EL = 3].80 . �" � _ iP b � _ � .� �D fi . 5 IE - 35.59 '��.�.. I � �� , � �� $91 �n. I � �� WALMART -•I r' �� \\ � � �,. ... ZONING C tOP OF CATCH . �� ' � �, nse , 3 Ins�� 5 .. ��..38.95 . 39.95 ... BASIN EL = �6.99 � D-] � II I ��/� THROAT EL = 36.I4 39.45 � � z^+ NW IE = 71.84 ��{ �'' .�.� 5 IE = 71.7J I I' _ �� n �o �� ua a� � 5�3 0 _ _... � r� ; --- �� a.�i3 � - , 37P �--: � , w . - ... ,. JOEL LANE ' ». ",r, � . � �� r z�'sa'� ��"'�ii'� � ' `� �`�. � m� � "� �,.�.►' .�' (so' nrcHr-oF-war) I � �93��, �2d �� is��o' �49� �1S ��il �� i � � �� `a, ii ub.y 18"RCPI �� RIM EL = 36.37 �nM / II ` �a N IE = 31.45 RATE EL = 7. 4 RIM EL =}7_g5 a E IE = 31.62 � � W IE 31.fi6 `., W IE = 34.13 S IE = 31.43 m� � IB"RCP _ `.. N�E = 35.2fi j � •0.�Q 'o^ �cy - �e.!� .w�- SE IE = 34.06 �,,r� � g . � �--#-�. � ._ ... � -� -- ... ____�. so" ' > »� �� J �.� n� ,�z � xim PROJECT: �EVELOPER�. ENGINEER'. TITLE: F/��Y� PROPOSED !��`� 0�� ORE�I�E CONDITION �ocanoN: BOOS DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. FLCA26115 EXH I B I T 2651 MCCORMICK DRIVE ForesiteGroup,lnc. 1835 N. HIGHLAND AVENUE 1O150HighlandManorOr. 0�813.5493250 CLEARWATER CLEARWATER, FL 33759 s�itezio �I8�3.6213580 PINELLAS COUNTY, FL TEL (727) 669-2900 Tampa,FL33610 w�www.fg-incnet oare: ��j/�C)/13 PROJECT NUMBER: I63.23� Family Dollar at 1835 N. Highland Avenue City of Clearwater, Pinellas County, FL 34698 (S. 02, T. 29 S, R. 15 E) Project No. 163.230 PINELLAS COUNTY WEB SOIL SURVEY � �'� {�� : ,;t _. � M�� iii � . ,�� 5�„ +' i s�: �,W � �� A�,� � : �. ,foN tn � �; � � �� P`�� "'�*'� �si, �r 1 a _}:. �' �,� t�14n 8� � � � ` � ��,,� $:. r� ii��r �� y � k. ..� n e c ;. � ' bm, � . � : �� P�elias County, Florida (FL703) Map Unrt Syrttl�al 1Nap Unrt Narne Acres m AO# Pereent af AOI 29 Tavares soils and Urk» 1and, 0 ra 5 0.6 104.�740 percent sl4pes Totais for Area of Interest 0.6 100.0% 03/2013 0 Proiect Data Project Name: Simulation Description Project Number: Engineer : Supervising Engineer: Date: Aquifer Data PONDS Version 3.3.0265 Retention Pond Recovery - Refined Method Copyright 2012 Devo Seereeram, Ph.D., P.E. Family Dollar @ 1835 N. Highland Ave, Clearwater, FL Recovery Analysis 163.230 Brad Karns Jose L. J. Martinez 05-09-2013 Base Of Aquifer Elevation, [B] (ft datum): Water Table Elevation, [WT] (ft datum): Horizontal Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity, [Kh] (fUday) Fillable Porosity, [n] (%): Vertical infiltration was not considered. Geometrv Data Equivalent Pond Length, [L] (ft): 30.0 Equivalent Pond Width, [W] (ft): 13.0 Ground water mound is expected to intersect the pond bottom Staae vs Area Data Stage (ft datum) 34.40 35.00 36.00 Area (ft2) 139.0 205.0 356.0 Family Dollar @ 1835 N. Highland Ave, Clearwater, FL 0.00 33.90 12.70 30.00 OS-09-2013 23:35:05 Page 1 PONDS Version 3.3.0265 Retention Pond Recovery - Refined Method Copyright 2012 Devo Seereeram, Ph.D., P.E. Scenario Input Data Scenario 1:: 1156 ft3 slug load Hydrograph Type: Slug Load Modflow Routing: Routed with infiltration Treatment Volume (ft3) 1156 Initial ground water level (ft datum) 33.90 (default) Time After Storm Event (days) 0.100 0.250 0.500 1.000 1.500 Time After Storm Event (days) 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500 4.000 Family Dollar @ 1835 N. Highland Ave, Clearwater, FL 05-09-2013 23:35:06 Page 2 PONDS Version 3.3.0265 Retention Pond Recovery - Refined Method Copyright 2012 Devo Seereeram, Ph.D., P.E. Detailed Results :: Scenario 1:: 1156 ft3 slug load Elapsed Time 0.000 0.002 2.400 6.000 12.000 24.000 36.000 48.000 so.000 72.000 84.000 ss.000 Instantaneous Inflow Rate 192.6667 192.6667 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 o.0000 0.0000 0.0000 o.0000 Outside Recharge 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 o.00000 0.00000 0.00000 o.00000 Stage Elevation 34.40000 38.14001 35.87254 34.98781 34.47928 34.19470 34.08752 34.03550 34.00532 33.98594 33.97239 33.96252 Infiltration Rate 1.74375 1.74146 0.06339 0.01307 0.00285 0.00013 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 Combined Instantaneous Cumulative Discharge Inflow 0 0.000 0 1156.000 0 1156.000 0 1156.000 0 1156.000 0 1156.000 0 1156.000 0 1156.000 0 1156.000 0 1156.000 o i i ss.000 ---- 1156.000 Cumulative Combined Infiltration Cumulative 0.00000 0 N.A. 10.45564 0 S 816.44900 0 S 1055.29000 0 S 1144.63400 0 S 1156.00000 0 S 1156.00000 0 S 1156.00000 0 S 1156.00000 0 S 1156.00000 0 S 1156.00000 0 S 1156.00000 0 N.A. Family Dollar @ 1835 N. Highland Ave, Clearwater, FL 05-09-2013 23:35:06 Page 3 T w 3 � 0 0 w � � w � z x � � w a D. <, m, n'' � w � w m T r 0 � 0 � N O W N W W � 0 � � w � m .A t� � � � � O � � � � � � U 1' 1 1 Plot of Cumulative Volumes and Pond Stage vs Elapsed Time 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1 Elapsed Time (hrs) Y1 Axis: Cumulative Inflow --� Cumulative Infiltration ----- Cumulative Discharge -��-�� Y2 Axis: Pond Stage — 39.0 38.5 38.0 37.5 37.0 E 36.5 � ca 'o 36.0 = � 35.5 � W 35.0 34.5 34.0 33.5 33.0 00 � fD ..r �o 7 .. v ° � 0 0 0 �oaN � 'v c�DO�� 01 � � H � � � O � �o , w 0�'� o � ~' N � � � m a . � �o � � 0 a Family Dollar at 1835 N. Highland Avenue City of Clearwater, Pinellas County, FL 34698 (S. 02, T. 29 S, R.15 E) Project No. 163.230 PART 3: APPENDIX OS/2013 � a w � � ':C��:C:::::::::�:-::0' ..��.��...........,...��,� ■■...�m.■■■■■■■.■�.r,u iiiii�iiiiiiiiiiiiuiuiii ■��uuwu►.u��m ■��nuun��r�ri�u� ■��nmmanvuni u��uwur,nu7�vu � Geotechnical Engineering Report FAMILY DOLLAR 1835 N. Highland Avenue Clearwater, Florida February 8, 2013 Terracon Project No. H4135005 Prepared for: Boos Development Group, Inc. Clearwater, Florida Prepared by: Terracon Consultants, Inc. Tampa, FL February 8, 2013 Boos Develapment Group, Inc. 2651 McCormick Drive Clearwat�r, Fiorida 33759 ,4ttn: Mr. Brett Gilbert P: [727j 669-2900 F: [727] 669-2915 E: bgilbert@bo�sdevelopment.com Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report Family Dollar — 1835 N. Highland Avenue Ciearwater, F'inella� County, �lorida l��r�r�eon Project No. H4135005 �ear Mr. Gilbe�t: 1��rr�cvn Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon) has completed the geotechnical engineering services for the above referenced project. These services were performed in general accordance with our proposal number NA120465 dated October 24, 2012. The repo�t provides geotechnical recommendations concerning earthwork and the design and construction of fnundations, floor slabs, and pavements for the proposed project. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact us. Sincerely, Terracon Consultantst,l��. � , , y ��. `' y ' � • ' t. < � � rY .�J ;�' a ' ro i ._„�,,. -.�� ; .� , Q . s .r _ j j + � 1i �� ° 1 � J ` ;� c>� j--�'"_".�,,+.�,s`_ �' ��w:.� . ; �� , ,.1� . � s..:�� p � „ Stephen C. K,n�u�.s, P E,�'C�.G� • :. � c Senior Proje�t ��c�yp��` � � ' � � .�; a FL Registration N�, ��{9��t��'�� rr � y �'� s'' �4 �'s'.�� `..��ll� aee � t°.J *) � � 4`� Air- �. yr�' Copies to: 3 Addres�'��r(�'��via e-mail} Terracon Consultants, Inc. 504 E. Tyler Street �' (813j 221 0050 F(813! 221 0051 �, -; . , ; � ,! ; r' , ,,�, !1f ,% ,t= -fl -p`I -r�1�-- ._ .. . . ... . ,'� � ��' � i Craig M. Anstett, P.E. Regional Manager, Principal FL Registration No. 60850 T�mpa, Fl�ri�ia 33Ei�2 terracon.com TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVESUMMARY .............................................................................................................i 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................1 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION .............................................................................................1 2.1 Project Description ...............................................................................................1 2.2 Site Location and Description ...............................................................................2 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................2 3.1 USDA — NRCS Soil Survey ..................................................................................2 3.2 Typical Profile ......................................................................................................3 3.3 Groundwater ........................................................................................................3 3.4 Double Ring Infiltration Test .................................................................................4 3.5 Sinkholes ............................................................................. 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ...... 4.1 Geotechnical Considerations ............................................... 4.2 Earthwork ............................................................................. 4.2.1 Compaction Requirements ....................................... 4.2.2 Construction Considerations ..................................... 4.3 Foundations ......................................................................... ............................4 ............................4 ............................4 ............................ 5 ............................ 6 ............................6 ............................ 7 4.3.1 Design Recommendations ........................................................................7 4.3.2 Construction Considerations .....................................................................8 4.4 Seismic Considerations ........................................................................................9 4.5 Floor Slab ............................................................................................................9 4.5.1 Design Recommendations ........................................................................9 4.6 Pavements ...........................................................................................................9 4.6.1 Subgrade Preparation ............................................................................10 4.6.2 Design Considerations ...........................................................................10 4.6.3 Asphaltic Cement Concrete Thickness ...................................................11 4.6.4 Portland Cement Concrete Thickness ....................................................11 4.6.5 Pavement Drainage ................................................................................12 4.6.6 Pavement Maintenance ..........................................................................12 4.7 Temporary Dewatering .......................................................................................12 5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS ...............................................................................................12 APPENDIX A — FIELD EXPLORATION Exhibit A-1 Topographic Vicinity Map Exhibit A-2 Soil survey Map Exhibit A-3 Soil Survey Descriptions Exhibit A-4 Boring Location Diagram Exhibit A-5 to A-12 Boring Logs (B-1 to B-8) Exhibit A-13 Double Ring Infiltration Test Exhibit A-14 Field Exploration Description APPENDIX B — LABORATORY TESTING Exhibit B-1 Laboratory Testing Reliable ■ Resourceful ■ Responsive Exhibit B-2 Laboratory Test Results APPENDIX C — SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Exhibit C-1 General Notes Exhibit C-2 Unified Soil Classification System Reliable ■ Resourceful ■ Responsive Geotechnical Engineering Report l��rr�con Family Dollar —1835 N. Highland Ave ■ Clearwater, Florida February 8, 2013 ■ Terracon Project No. H4135005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A geotechnical exploration has been performed for the proposed Family Dollar planned to be constructed at 1835 North Highland Avenue, Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. Eight borings, designated B-1 through B-8, were performed to depths ranging befinreen approximately 10 feet and 15 feet below the existing ground surface in the proposed building and pavement areas. In addition, a double ring infiltration test was performed in the proposed stormwater management area. Based on the information obtained from our subsurface exploration, the site can be developed for the proposed project. The following geotechnical considerations were identified: ■ Site Soils: Sandy soil conditions (SP) were typically encountered in all of the borings from the ground surface to a depth of 6 to 12 feet. Below the surficial sands, sand with silt (SP-SM) was generally found to the termination of the borings. ■ Groundwater: Groundwater was encountered at a depth of approximately 7 to 8 feet in the test borings at the time of our field exploration. The seasonal high groundwater level is estimated to be about 4.5 feet below the ground surface of most of the site. ■ Foundations and Floor slabs: Based on the results of the subsurface exploration and our analyses, it is our opinion that the proposed Family Dollar can be supported on spread footings bearing on properly compacted native soils following the proof-rolling of the site. V ■ Pavement Sections: Standard duty areas — 1'/2' asphaltic concrete (AC) over 6" limerock base or 5" Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) over 12" free draining granular material; Drive lanes — 2.5" AC over 8" limerock base or 6" PCC over 12" free draining granular material. Earthwork operations on the project should be observed and evaluated by Terracon. The evaluation of earthwork operations should include observation and testing of engineered fill, subgrade preparation, foundation bearing soils, and other geotechnical conditions exposed during construction. This summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design purposes. It should be recognized that details were not included or fully developed in this section, and the report must be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained herein. The section titled GENERAL COMMENTS should be read for an understanding of the report limitations. Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT FAMILY DOLLAR -1835 N. HIGHLAND AVENUE CLEARWATER, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA Terracon Project No. H4135005 February 8, 2013 1.0 INTRODUCTION A geotechnical engineering report has been completed for the proposed Family Dollar to be located at 1835 N. Highland Avenue in Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida as shown on the Topographic Vicinity Map included as Exhibit A-1 in Appendix A. As proposed, eight soil borings, designated B-1 through B-8, were performed to depths ranging between 10 and 15 feet below the existing ground surface within the areas of the proposed building and pavement areas. In addition, a double ring infiltration test, DRI-1, was also performed. Logs of the borings along with a Boring Location Plan (Exhibit A-4) are included in Appendix A of this report. A description of the field exploration procedures (Exhibit A-14) is included in Appendix A. The purpose of these services is to provide information and geotechnical engineering recommendations relative to: ❑ ❑ ❑ subsurface soil conditions earthwork pavement design and construction 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Project Description ITEM Structures r � ❑ groundwater conditions foundation design and construction floor slab design and construction DESCRIPTION The project will include a one-story Family Dollar building with a proposed footprint of approximately 8,000 square feet. ', Steel frame construction supported on a reinforced concrete Building construction foundation system, concrete slab-on-grade floors and steel i interior columns. Finished floor elevations ! t 2 foot of existing finished floor (assumed). Maximum loads Building: Column Load — 30 kips Continuous Load-Bearing Wall Loads — less than 2 klf Maximum Uniform Floor Slab Load — less than 150 psf Reliable ■ Resourceful ■ Responsive 1 Geotechnical Engineering Report Family Dollar —1835 N. Highland Ave ■ Clearwater, Florida February 8, 2013 ■ Terracon Project No. H4135005 ITEM DESCRIPTION 1 ��rr�con I Maximum Load: < 60,000 18-kip ESAL for 20 year design Pavement Loading i period (assumed) � Light Duty: < 30,000 18-kip ESAL for 20 year design period � (assumed) Grading 2.2 Site Location and Description ITEM Assumed to be no more than 2 foot DESCRIPTION 1835 North Highland Avenue, Clearwater, Florida. The site is Location on the east side of North Highland Avenue and south of Sunset Point Road. The site is an out-parcel of a shopping � center. Existing improvements The site has a single story restaurant building with drive-thru that is closed. Most of the rest of the site is asphalt pavement. ' The perimeter of the site is landscaped with the bulk of the � ; site covered by pavement or building. Several mature trees Current ground cover ; including oaks and palms are present along the north and ; south property lines. Existing topography The site is generally flat with a slight downward slope to the west. The USGS quadrangle map Clearwater, Florida, dated 1995, shows a general downward slope to the west. Contour elevations indicate the ground surFace elevation at the site to be approximately +40 feet as referenced to the National Geodetic Verticaf Datum (NGVD 1929). 3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3.1 USDA — NRCS Soil Survey The Web Soil Survey, as maintained by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service (SCS; later renamed the Natural Resource Conservation Service - NRCS), identifies most of the site as covered by Tavares soils and Urban land, 0 to 5 percent slopes soil: The Tavares soils consist of sand to 80 inches, the depth described. The seasonal high groundwater level is on the order of 42 to 72 inches below the ground surface. It should be noted that the Soil Survey is not intended as a substitute for site-specific geotechnical exploration; rather it is a useful tool in planning a project scope in that it provides information on soil types likely to be encountered. Boundaries between adjacent soil types on Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 2 Geotechnical Engineering Report 1 f�rr�con Family Dollar —1835 N. Highland Ave ■ Clearwater, Florida February 8, 2013 ■ Terracon Project No. H4135005 the Soil Survey maps are approximate. A copy of the soil survey map is included as Exhibit A-2 in Appendix A and a detailed soil description is included as Exhibit A-3 in Appendix A. 3.2 Typical Profile While a private utility locate company was used to mark the existing underground utilities, the drill crew, hand augured the initial 4 feet to minimize the potential that undetected utilities would be struck. Based on the results of all of the soil borings, subsurface conditions on the project site can be generalized as follows: Description APProximate Depth to Bottom of Stratum Pavement' ' Material Encountered 2 inches of asphalt pavement over 3 to 4 inches of limerock base Consistency/Density Stratum 1 6 to 12 feet Sand (SP) Loose 2 ___ __ � __._ . , __ ___ _._ . (4 feet to 9 bpfl 13 to 15 feet the Very Loose to Medium Stratum 2 termination of the borings Sand with Silt (SP-SM) Dense 2 (3 to 14 bpf) ------ -- ---------------- ------------------ �—___---------------- ------------- --------- ' Pavement was present in all borings except B-2. Z Range of Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistance values or "N-values", blows per foot. Conditions encountered at each boring location are indicated on the individual boring logs. Stratification boundaries on the boring logs represent the approximate location of changes in soil types; in-situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. Details for each of the borings can be found on the boring logs (Exhibits A-5 to A-12) in Appendix A of this report. 3.3 Groundwater The borings were monitored while drilling for the presence and level of groundwater. Water levels observed at these times are indicated on the individual Boring Logs. The depth to groundwater was generally measured to be 7 to 8 feet below the ground surface. Based on our review of published information and the results of our field exploration, we estimate that the seasonal high groundwater level will be about 4.5 feet below the existing ground surface. These water level observations provide an approximate indication of the groundwater conditions existing at the time the borings were drilled. It should be recognized that fluctuations of the groundwater table may occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff and other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. In addition, perched water can develop over low permeability soil strata following periods of heavy or prolonged precipitation. Groundwater levels during construction or at other times in the life of the structure may be higher or lower than the levels indicated on the boring logs. The possibility of groundwater level Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 3 Geotechnical Engineering Report 1 ferracon Family Dollar —1835 N. Highland Ave ■ Clearwater, Florida February 8, 2013 ■ Terracon Project No. H4135005 fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project. 3.4 Double Ring Infiltration Test A double ring infiltration test, DRI-1, was conducted at the location as indicated on the Boring Location Plan, Exhibit A-4 in the Appendix. The results of the test indicated an infiltration rate of 12.7 inches per hour. The results of the test are shown on Exhibit A-13 in the Appendix. We recommend that a factor of safety be applied to this infiltration value when designing the stormwater management system for this project. 3.5 Sinkholes Sinkhole development occurs in Florida and varies geographically from areas with almost no potential or a very low potential to areas with a high potential where sinkholes occur frequently. The subject property is located in Area III on the United States Geological Survey map entitled "Sinkhole Type, Development, and Distribution in Florida". Area III is defined as an area where the cover is 30 to 200 feet thick and consists of cohesive clayey sediments of low permeability. Sinkholes are most numerous, of varying size and develop abruptly. Cover-collapse sinkholes dominate. The borings conducted on the site did not exhibit any indications of sinkhole activity within the depth explored. Based on the available information, the probability of sinkhole formation on the site is low. 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION 4.1 Geotechnical Considerations The site generally appears suitable for the proposed construction based upon geotechnical conditions encountered in the borings and our current understanding of the proposed development. The near surface sands are generally loose and will need to be compacted to provide adequate support for the proposed construction. This can be relatively easily accomplished on this site utilizing a vibratory roller. Following the compaction operations, it is Terracon's opinion that shallow foundations may bear on native soils or structural fill. Based on our visual observation, the soils identified as Strata 1 or 2 are suitable for use as structural fill. A subgrade prepared and tested as recommended in this report should provide adequate support for floor slabs. Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 4 Geotechnical Engineering Report 1 ��rracon Family Dollar —1835 N. Highland Ave ■ Clearwater, Florida February 8, 2013 ■ Terracon Project No. H4135005 Geotechnical engineering recommendations for foundation systems and other earth connected phases of the project are outlined below. The recommendations contained in this report are based upon the results of data presented herein, engineering analyses, and our current understanding of the proposed project. 4.2 Earthwork Initial site work will include demolition of the onsite construction including pavement as well as the building. Any vegetation and/or topsoil, and otherwise unsuitable materials should also be removed from below the proposed construction areas to a lateral distance of 5 feet beyond all building and pavement areas. The actual depth of removal will be variable and should be evaluated by Terracon personnel during construction to help verify that unsuitable materials have been removed. Any unsuitable material should be disposed off-site. Any existing underground utilities that will not be used in the new construction should be removed and backfilled as noted in this report or filled with an inert material. Once stripping has been completed, the exposed subgrade should be observed, tested, and proof-rolled utilizing a vibratory roller. The vibratory drum roller should have a minimum static weight of 20,000 pounds. At least 10 overlapping passes shall be completed over all areas of the site except for the stormwater retention area. The proof-roll should continue until the exposed subgrade has achieved at least 95 percent of the material's maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor Test (ASTM D-1557). Prior to proof-rolling, the subgrade soils should be moisture conditioned to within ±3 percent of the optimum moisture content. Proof-rolling aids in providing a firm base for compaction of new fill and delineating soft or disturbed areas that may exist at or near the exposed subgrade level. Proof-rolling should be performed in the presence of a Terracon representative to aid in evaluating unstable subgrade areas. Unstable areas observed at this time should be improved as recommended by the engineer based on field conditions and typically includes scarification and re-compaction or by undercutting and replacement with suitable compacted fill. Should proofrolling create unacceptable vibrations in adjoining structures, an alternative for site preparation in the building area would be to excavate the in-place soils in the building area to a depth of 2 feet and then place those soils back in thin lifts compacted using a heavy non- vibratory roller such that the recommended compaction is achieved. Once the exposed subgrade has been compacted, fill materials required can be placed and compacted in lifts not exceeding 12 inches in loose thickness. Unless otherwise specified, new fill materials required at the site should consist of approved materials, free of organic matter and debris. The fill should be non-plastic, with a fines content of less than 12 percent. The maximum particle size should not exceed 2 inches. Engineered fill should meet the following material property requirements: Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 5 Geotechnical Engineering Report Family Dollar —1835 N. Highland Ave ■ Clearwater, Florida February 8, 2013 ■ Terracon Project No. H4135005 Fill Type � USCS Classification SP, SP-SM or GP, GP-GM (fines General' �ntent < 12 percent, maximum particle size < 2 inches, organic content < 5 percent) 1 ��rr�con Acceptable Location for Placement All locations and elevations On-site soils of Strata 1 and 2 meet these properties. Soils with fines content > 5 percent may retain moisture and be difficult to compact and achieve specified density and stability. These soils may need to be maintained dry of optimum to properly compact. 4.2.1 Compaction Requirements ITEM Fill Lift Thickness DESCRIPTION 12 inches or less in loose compaction equipment is used. exceed 2 inches in a 12-inch lift. thickness when heavy vibratory Maximum particle size should not 4 to 6 inches in loose thickness when hand-guided equipment (i.e. jumping jack or plate compactor) is used. Maximum particle size should not exceed 1 inch in a 4- to 6-inch lift. ' Beneath the building footprint and more than one foot below ; pavement subgrade elevation should be compacted to at least 95 Minimum Compaction percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Requirements , Proctor Test (ASTM D-1557). The upper one foot of pavement subgrades should be compacted to at least 98 percent of the , maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor Test ' (ASTM D-1557). Moisture Content' ;�Nithin t3 percent of optimum moisture content as determined by the Modified Proctor test, at the time of placement and compaction , One field density test per 2,500 square feet of building footprint (or Minimum Testing Frequency ! fraction thereofl per lift and one test per 5,000 square feet of ; parking/drive area. ' We recommend that engineered fill be tested for moisture content and compaction during placement. Should the results of the in-place density tests indicate compaction limits have not been met, the area represented by the test should be reworked and retested as required until the compaction requirements are achieved. 4.2.2 Construction Considerations Construction traffic over the completed subgrade should be avoided to the extent practical. The site should also be graded to prevent ponding of surface water on the prepared subgrades or in excavations. If the subgrade should become desiccated, saturated, or disturbed, the affected Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 6 Geotechnical Engineering Report 1 ��rr�con Family Dollar —1835 N. Highland Ave r Clearwater, Florida February 8, 2013 ■ Terracon Project No. H4135005 material should be removed or these materials should be re-compacted prior to floor slab and pavement construction. As a minimum, all temporary excavations should be sloped or braced as required by Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) regulations to provide stability and safe working conditions. Temporary excavations will probably be required during grading operations. The grading contractor, by his contract, is usually responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations and should shore, slope or bench the sides of the excavations as required, to maintain stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. All excavations should comply with applicable local, state and federal safety regulations, including the current OSHA Excavation and Trench Safety Standards. The geotechnical engineer should be retained during the construction phase of the project to observe earthwork and to perForm necessary tests and observations during subgrade preparation; proofrolling; placement and compaction of controlled compacted fills; backfilling of excavations into the completed subgrade, and just prior to construction of building floor slabs. 4.3 Foundations Based on the results of the subsurface exploration and our analyses, it is our opinion that the proposed Family Dollar can be supported on spread footings provided that the bearing soils are tested by Terracon during construction and subgrades are prepared in accordance with the recommendations in this report. Design recommendations for shallow foundations for the proposed structure are presented below. If the building is to be supported by a post-tensioned slab, please contact us for the design criteria. 4.3.1 Design Recommendations DESCRIPTION Net allowable bearing pressure' Minimum footing width Minimum embedment depth below finished grade Z Approximate total settlement Estimated differential settlement Ultimate coefficient of sliding friction 3 Minimum Compaction Requirements (base of the footing) Minimum Testing Frequency Column Footings 2,500 psf 30 inches 18 inches <1 inch <'/ inch 0.35 95 percent of the materials maximum Modified Proctor dry density (ASTM D 1557) One field density test per footing Wall Footings 2,500 psf 24 inches 18 inches <1 inch <'/ inch 0.35 95 percent of the materials maximum Modified Proctor dry density (ASTM D 1557) One field density test per 100 linear feet Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 7 Geotechnical Engineering Report Family Dollar —1835 N. Highland Ave ■ Clearwater, Florida February 8, 2013 ■ Terracon Project No. H4135005 1 f�rr�con 1. The recommended net allowable bearing pressure is the pressure in excess of the minimum surrounding overburden pressure at the footing base elevation. Assumes any unsuitable fill or soft soils, if encountered, will be undercut and replaced with engineered fill. 2. Relative to lowest adjacent finished grade, typically exterior grade. 3. Sliding friction along the base of the footings will not develop where net uplift conditions exist. 4.3.2 Construction Considerations The base of all foundation excavations should be free of water and loose soil prior to placing concrete. Concrete should be placed soon after excavating to reduce bearing soil disturbance. Should the soils at bearing level become excessively dry, disturbed or saturated, the affected soil should be removed prior to placing concrete. It is recommended that the geotechnical engineer be retained to observe and test the soil foundation bearing materials. Terracon anticipates hand- operated compaction equipment will be utilized, as necessary, in footing cuts, following any mass grading. If unsuitable bearing soils are encountered in footing excavations, the excavation could be extended deeper to suitable soils and the footing could bear directly on these soils at the lower level or on lean concrete backfill placed in the excavations. As an alternative, the footings could also bear on properly compacted structural backfill extending down to the suitable soils. Over- excavation for compacted structural fill placement below footings should extend laterally beyond all edges of the footings at least 8 inches per foot of over-excavation depth below footing base elevation. The over-excavation should then be backfilled up to the footing base elevation with well graded granular material placed in lifts of 9 inches or less in loose thickness (6 inches or less if using hand-guided compaction equipment) and compacted to at least 95 percent of the material's modified proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). In lieu of compacted soils, No. 57 stone may be used for backfill, particularly if soft soils due to a high groundwater table necessitate the over-excavation. The over-excavation and backfill procedure is described in the following figure. Design Foo6ng Level �. Recommended Excavation Level w LEAN CONCRETE Design 2/3D W Footing Level ,�._.____- _ -_-__.- --' � COMPACTED � STRUCTURAL [ Recommended FILL Excavation Level �___..___ Lean Concrete Backfill Overexcavation / Backfill NOTE Excavations in sketches shown vertical for convenience. Excavations should be sloped as necessary for safety. Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 8 Geotechnical Engineering Report Family Dollar —1835 N. Highland Ave ■ Clearwater, Florida February 8, 2013 ■ Terracon Project No. H4135005 4.4 Seismic Considerations 1 f�rr�con Florida is under the jurisdiction of its own building code as opposed to the Intemational Building Code. The Florida Building Code does not have a requirement or provision for evaluating seismic potential. Florida is generally regarded to be in a zone of low seismic risk. Therefore we do not consider seismic effects to be a concern at this site. 4.5 Floor Slab 4.5.1 Design Recommendations ITEM Floor slab support Modulus of subgrade reaction Minimum Compaction Requirements (immediately beneath the slab) DESCRIPTION ' Minimum of four inches of free draining granular ' material meeting the general fill specification' 150 pounds per square inch per inch (psi/in) for ' point loading conditions ' 98 percent of the materials maximum Modified , Proctor dry density (ASTM D 1557) Minimum Testing Frequency One field density test per 2,500 square feet (or fraction thereofl ' The in-place sandy soil appears to meet this criterion. Where appropnate, saw-cut control joints should be placed in the slab to help control the location and extent of cracking. For additional recommendations refer to the ACI Design Manual. Joints or any cracks that develop should be sealed with a water-proof, non-extruding compressible compound specifically recommended for heavy duty concrete pavement and wet environments. The use of a vapor retarder should be considered beneath concrete slabs-on-grade that will be covered with wood, tile, carpet or other moisture sensitive or impervious coverings, or when the slab will support equipment sensitive to moisture. When conditions warrant the use of a vapor retarder, the slab designer and slab contractor should refer to ACI 302, ACI 360, and Florida Building Code (FBC) Section 1807 for procedures and cautions regarding the use and placement of a vapor retarder; however, local requirements that might affect what moisture barrier may use should also be consulted. 4.6 Pavements Traffic pattems and anticipated loading conditions were not available. However, we anticipate that traffic loads will be produced primarily by automobile traffic and occasional delivery and trash removal trucks. Pavement section alternatives have been provided for those areas expected to receive only car traffic and for those areas expected to receive 20 delivery and trash removal trucks per week. Pavement thickness can be determined using FDOT design methods if specific wheel loads, axle configurations, frequencies and desired pavement life are provided. Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 9 Geotechnical Engineering Report 1 f�rr�con Family Dollar —1835 N. Highland Ave ■ Clearwater, Florida February 8, 2013 ■ Terracon Project No. H4135005 The following section presents our recommendations for both a rigid (concrete) pavement section and a flexible (asphalt) pavement section. 4.6.1 Subgrade Preparation ITEM j DESCRIPTION Minimum Compaction ' The upper one foot of pavement subgrades should be compacted Requirements to at least 98 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by '�! the Modified Proctor Test (ASTM D-1557). Moisture Content' !�Nithin t3 percent of optimum moisture content as determined by ', the Modified Proctor test, at the time of placement and compaction Minimum Testing Frequency One field density test per 5,000 square feet of parking/drive area. ' We recommend that engineered fill be tested for moisture content and compaction during placement. Should the results of the in-place density tests indicate compaction limits have not been met, the area represented by the test should be reworked and retested as required until the compaction requirements are achieved. 4.6.2 Design Considerations Pavement performance is affected by its surroundings. In addition to providing preventative maintenance, the civil engineer should consider the following recommendations in the design and layout of pavements: ■ At least one foot of free-draining sandy soil (no greater than 12 percent fines) should be provided beneath the following pavement sections. The in-place soils satisfy this criterion. Limerock should not be considered free draining for this purpose, nor should stabilized subbase; ■ The subgrade and the pavement surFace should have a minimum 2% slope to promote proper surface drainage; ■ Adequate separation must be provided between the bottom of the pavement structure and the seasonal high water table. Terracon recommends that a minimum of 1 foot of separation be provided for concrete and 2 feet below the base for flexible pavement. It appears that the site grade is satisfactory for the use of limerock base; ■ All concrete joints should be sealed and all cracks should be sealed immediately; ■ All curbing should be to the full depth of the pavement; and ■ All surface water should be directed away from the edges of the pavement. Estimates of the minimum thicknesses for new pavement sections for this project have been based on the procedures outlined developed by the Florida DOT for flexible and rigid pavement design. The following minimum thicknesses were estimated based upon the estimated loading, the soils information and our experience with similar projects and soil conditions. Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 10 0 Geotechnical Engineering Report Family Dollar —1835 N. Highland Ave ■ Clearwater, Florida February 8, 2013 ■ Terracon Project No. H4135005 4.6.3 Asphaltic Cement Concrete Thickness Traffic Area Automobile Parking Minimum ACC Pavement Section (inches) Asphalt Surface' 1.5 Aggregate Base 2 6.0 Stabilized Subgrade3 12.0 Drive Lanes/ ; 2 5 8.0 ; 12.0 Entrances/Exits ; �--- T - — _ __-------------- ____-------___.._.---- -- - ------ 1. FDOT Asphalt mix SP9.5 and 12.5 or Type I or Type III mixes. 2. FDOT limerock or crushed concrete (LBR >_ 150). 3. Subgrade stabilized to >_ 40. 4.6.4 Portland Cement Concrete Thickness 1 2 3 Traffic Area Automobile Parking Minimum PCC Pavement Section (inches) Portland Cement Concrete' 5.0 Granular Subgrade 2 12.0 1 ��rr�con Total Thickness 19.5 22.0 Total Thickness 17.0 Drive Lanes/ Entrances/Exits 6.0 12.0 18.0 ---- ___ -- --- _ .. — --- --- _ __— ----- � _ __.. --- — -- ---- -_. Dumpster Pad 3 7.0 12.0 19.0 ._ _ .._ _.. . _ _ _.. _._ -. _ __ ---- Concrete should have minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi with a minimum modulus of rupture of 580 psi. The soils from Strata 1 meet the criteria for granular subgrade. The trash container pad should be large enough to support the container and the tipping axle of the co�lection truck. Rigid PCC pavements will perform better than ACC in areas where short-radii turning and braking are expected (i.e. entrance/exit aprons) due to better resistance to rutting and shoving. In addition, PCC pavement will perform better in areas subject to large or sustained loads. An adequate number of longitudinal and transverse control joints should be placed in the rigid pavement in accordance with ACI and/or AASHTO requirements. Expansion (isolation) joints must be full depth and should only be used to isolate fixed objects abutting or within the paved area. We recommend all PCC pavement details for joint spacing, joint reinforcement, and joint sealing be prepared in accordance with American Concrete Institute (ACI 330R-01 and ACI 325R.9-91). Portland cement concrete pavements should be provided with mechanically reinforced joints (doweled or keyed) in accordance with ACI 330R-01. Responsive w Resourceful ■ Reliable 11 Geotechnical Engineering Report 1 ��rr�con Family Dollar —1835 N. Highland Ave ■ Clearwater, Florida February 8, 2013 ■ Terracon Project No. H4135005 4.6.5 Pavement Drainage Pavements should be sloped to provide rapid drainage of surface water. Water allowed to pond on or adjacent to the pavements could saturate the subgrade and contribute to premature pavement deterioration. In addition, the pavement subgrade should be graded to provide positive drainage within the granular base section. Appropriate sub-drainage or connection to a suitable daylight outlet should be provided to remove water from the granular subbase. 4.6.6 Pavement Maintenance The pavement sections provided in this report represent minimum recommended thicknesses and, as such, periodic maintenance should be anticipated. Therefore preventive maintenance should be planned and provided for through an on-going pavement management program. Maintenance activities are intended to slow the rate of pavement deterioration and to preserve the pavement investment. Maintenance consists of both localized maintenance (e.g. crack and joint sealing and patching) and global maintenance (e.g. surface sealing). Preventive maintenance is usually the first priority when implementing a pavement maintenance program. Additional engineering observation is recommended to determine the type and extent of a cost effective program. Even with periodic maintenance, some movements and related cracking may still occur and repairs may be required. 4.7 Temporary Dewatering It appears that dewatering may be needed to facilitate excavation and compaction operations of deeper underground utilities for this project. The necessity for dewatering will be dependent on the depth of excavation below existing grade and the groundwater levels at the time of construction. Actual dewatering means and methods should be left up to a contractor experienced in installation and operation of dewatering systems. The contractor should provide a dewatering plan for review and approval by the engineer prior to the installation of the dewatering systems. 5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. Terracon also should be retained to provide observation and testing services during grading, excavation, foundation construction and other earth-related construction phases of the project. The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between borings, across the site, or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather. The nature and extent of such Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 12 Geotechnical Engineering Report 1 ��rr�con Family Dollar —1835 N. Highland Ave ■ Clearwater, Florida February 8, 2013 ■ Terracon Project No. H4135005 variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can be provided. The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, either expressed or implied, are intended or made. Site safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing. Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable 13 APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION UNITED STATES — DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR — GEOLOGICAL SURVEY SCALE 1" = 2000' 1 .5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2 1000 0 MILES 1000 2000 1 5 0 1 FEET i000 o i000 2aao aoaa a000 s000 s000 �000 e000 s000 i0000 SECTION: 2 TOWNSHIP: 29 SOUTH RANGE: 15 EAST CONTOURINTERVALSFEET NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA ISSUED: 1995 7.5 MINUTE SERIES (QUADRANGLE) N 1 " P`°�""""9� PfOfeCNO TOPOGRAPHIC VICINITY MAP EXHIBIT + SCK H4135005 1 ��rracon n 0rawoey S�k: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT ° TMB AS SHOWN � �h�k�ar Fi�eNO. ConsultingEngineersandScientists PROPOSED FAMILY DOLLAR ° SCK H4135005 � PpO�oveOBy: Date: 5p4E.TVLERSTREET TAMPA,FLORIOA33802 1835N.HIGHLANDAVENUE A�1 SCK 02-04-13 PH.�eia�zziaasa FAX.�B13)221-0051 CLEARWATER, PINELLASCOUNTY, FLORIDA SCALE 1" = 2000' iaoo o i000 z000 a000 a000 s000 e000 �000 e000 aaaa iaaaa SECTION: 2 TOWNSHIP: 29 SOUTH RANGE: 15 EAST U.S.D.A. SOIL SURVEY FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA ISSUED: JANUARY 2010 SOIL LEGEND 29 TAVARES SOILS AND URBAN LAND, 0 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES N r PrqectMngr. P�a;��NO. SOIL SURVEY MAP EXHIBIT SCK H4135005 1 ��rr�con °'a"�BY TMB � ASSHOWN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT cnerxeaey: F�er�. ConsultingEngineersandScientists PROPOSED FAMILY DOLLAR SCK H4135005 1835 N. HIGHLAND AVENUE A-2 ApproveE By Date: 504 E. NLER STREET TAMPA, FLORIOA 33602 SCK 02-04-13 pH.(81�)221-0050 FAX.�813�221-0�51 CLEARWATER,PINELLASCOUNTY,FLORIDA Geotechnical Engineering Report 1 ��rr�con Family Dollar —1835 N. Highland Ave ■ Clearwater, Florida February 8, 2013 ■ Terracon Project No. H4135005 Soil Survey Descriptions 29 — Tavares Soils and Urt�an land. 0 to 5 percent slopes. This is a nearly level to gently sloping, moderately well drained sandy soil that is typically found on ridges on marine terraces. The seasonal high groundwater table can be expected to be 42 to 72 inches below the ground surface during the rainy summer months. This soil generally has a high to very high permeability (6 to 20 inches per hour). Exhibit A-3 � � � � �T::3:i DFMVEWAY r�:��u�-h. �� c�sroM rorawEhr S�i'�• 1 T IMIC iENiNT.11•-0` j I � � hZ a� I g�_ n l p�� t W��- �«�� ccu.�vr a� mav�q uwos�o�o— sion�r��a oflatnor�srsTea UN31C�t1ALJgD INfER5ECT10M � d— —► 9Fi0PPIN6 CEHIER ZONiNG: C f r � e`�� /"°....�°derwu � --► ...��... �- b ' - �EI�l711'R�910t w� � • B�2 • � ' � f � � � B-'� � � �m ��j�� I i p /� a� I � I Y' I r I I r I � � j S�J�"�!!t� xu, . p � (AIULTIPI.ETEMANTS� � ,` � � I � r � � � $ �{ P11QiOTVPE 301 G: -3 I B-8 I N 8 ocrrnian:+arsa-4..�.... � SNOPPi�OCENIER � av�aaqlv�cGS I 20NING:C j I •� I � � j � I .� EMiFnCaOR �1 �' �i � eoPlBaWdt �� E I �� il e.con�v ki aa ' ra� 000a /� pAP NINDYCnPE j �'�J ( - � . � � I • B_5�- � I � p � � � i �B-4 � I � B'% I _---.__.— __. _. _ �— i � � � � r i , �-;� � � �B_6 `- , � $ I $ �� i i � �► t I I I . . . ..� , I�-..� _ � '.. �_.:�,��. . e _�,� �� ' � �T� LEGEND �APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF STANDARD PENETRATION TEST BORING Q APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF DOUBLE RING � INFILTRATION TEST N �r HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET 0 30 60 � � Prole�Mrgr. P�;a��. BORING LOCATION PLAN EXHIBIT � SCK H4135005 1 f�rr�con � DrawnBy TMB �� ASSHOWN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT � cnec�edey: FueNo. Consulting Engineers and Scientists PROPOSED FAMILY DOLLAR ° SCK H4135005 � Appmved By Da1e: 504 E. TVLERSTREET 7AMPA, FLORIDA33fi02 1835 N, HIGHLAND AVENUE A�4 SCK 02-04-13 pH.(813)221-0050 Fnx.�a�a�zz�-0os� CLEARWATER, PINELLAS COUNIY, FLORIDA BORING LOG NO. B-1 Pa e 1 of 1 PROJECT: Family Dollar CLIENT: Boos Development Group Clearwater, Florida SITE: 1835 North Highland Avenue Clearwater, Florida c9 LOCATION See E�ibit A� � Z w � F- o w o � w� r wr�- �� J Q � � W Z � w Ww � O� �Z V � LL � � � DEPTH � O � V a 21NCHES ASPHALT PAVEMENT 4 INCHES LIMEROCK BASE POORLY GRADED SAND ISPI, fine grained, gray/brown 2.5 POORLY GRADED SAND (SP), fine grained, tan to brown, loose � C N � � � 5 2-4-5-5 N N=9 0 U � w a � 3-3-4-3 c� N=7 w > a ` 8.0 � Q POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT ISP-SMI, fine grained, dark brown, very loose J � = 1-1-2-2 o N=3 LL O � � � _ J > � Z � � � Q 13.0 � o POORLY GRADED SAND ISPI, fine grained, brown, medium dense � � a 3-4-8 � 15 rv=� 2 J a 15.5 z � Boring Ter►ninated at 15.5 Feet � 0 � 0 � � 0 W Q Stratification lines are approbmate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Rope and Cathead � ¢ a w N A��encement Method: Notes: LL See F�diibit A-13 for description of field procedures 0 mud-rotary Q See ApperMix B for description of laboralory > procedures and additional data (if any). � Z Abandonment Method: See P�ppendix C for e�lanafion of symbols and � Borings backfilled with cement-beMOnite grout upon abbreuations. � completion. O J WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS � Boring Started:l/24/2013 Boring Completed:l/24/2013 �� Water initally observed at 7, �rr�con Om Drill Rig: CME 45 Driller: R S Jr. v� 504 East Tyler Street � Tampa, Florida Project No.: H4135005 6Qiibit: A-5 BORI NG LOG NO. B-2 Pa e 1 of 1 PROJECT: Family Dollar CLIENT: Boos Development Group Clearwater, Florida SITE: 1835 North Highiand Avenue Clearwater, Florida o LOCATION See E�ibitA� ^ w w� a H o w U „'� J H � � J W H lL Q Z a a w� W oai ¢r w � w ~w a Ww �Z v c7 ° �m ¢ 'i� ° w O � a DEPTH POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT ISP-SMI, fine grained, brown 14 7 2.0 POORLY GRADED SAND (SPI, fine grained, tan, loose � � � 0 N 5 3-4-5-4 o N=9 z 0 U ¢ — � w ~ 2-4-4-5 � N=8 > a o e.o � _ _ Q: POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT ISP-SM1, fine grained, dark brown, very loose J � 2-�'2-3 o N=3 � 0 � � _ � a _ J> > � Z (7 �2.� ° POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT ISP-SMI, fine grained, brown, medium dense J N � Q � � 0 W C7 _ K °a 3-3-7 � � N=10 J Z 15.5 c� Boring Te►minated at 15.5 Feet � 0 � 0 � LL ❑ W Q Stra6fication lines are appmpmate. In-siN, the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Rope and Cathead � ¢ a w LL Ad�encement Method: See 6Aiibit A-13 for description of field procedu2s Notes: ❑ mu�rotary Q See Appendix B for description of laboratory > procedures and additional dafa (if any). � � Abandonment Method: See Appendix C for e�lanation of symbols and � Borings backfilled with cement�entanite grout upon abbreviations. � completion. 0 WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS c� Boring Started:l/24l2013 Boring Completed:t/24/2013 � SZ Water initally observed at 8- 1 ��rr�con m Drill Rig: CME 45 Driller: R S Jr. � 504 East Tyler St2et F Tampa, Florida Project No.: H4135005 6Q�ibit: A-6 BORING LOG NO. B-3 Pa e 1 of 1 PROJECT: Family Dollar CLIENT: Boos Development Group Ciearwater, Florida SITE: 1835 North Highland Avenue Clearwater, Florida c9 LOCATION See E�ibit A-4 � v� w � o � wZ a F o w U � W O H W H � H lLL aQ a w� J �� Q� Z 2' 0 Q m Q W� � Z w � O � DEPTH 3 O cn � a 2 INCHES ASPHALT PAVEMENT 3 INCHES LIMEROCK BASE POORLY GRADED SAND ISP-SMI, fine grained, gray/brown z.o POORLY GRADED SAND ISPI, fine grained, tan, loose � � N O � � 5 3-2-2-3 9 4 N N=4 0 Q s.o _ � POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT ISP-SM1, fine grained, light brown, loose w a � 2-3-2-2 c� N=5 > 0 8.0 J POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT ISP-SMI, fine grained, dark brown, very loose _ c� = 1-1-2-3 o N=3 � 0 " 1 f _ J> > � Z (7 �2.� ° POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT ISP-SM), fine grained, brown, medium dense � � a � � 0 w C7 H � a 3-5-9 � 15 N=14 � Z �ss c� Boring Tem►inated at 15.5 Feet � 0 � 0 � � 0 w Q Stratification lines are approbmate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Rope and Cathead � ¢ a w LL P,d�ancement Method: See E�ibit A-13 for description of field procedures �tes: 0 mu�rotary Q See Appendix B for descrip6on of laboratory > procedures and additional dafa (if any). � � Abandonment Method: See Appendix C for e�lanation of symbols and N Borings backfilled with cement-bentonite grout upon abbreviations. � completion. 0 J WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS � Boring StaRed: 1/24/2013 Boring Completed: t/24/2013 �� Water initally observed at 7. �rr�con O� Drill Rig: CME 45 Driller: R S Jr. � 504 East Tyle� Street � Tampa, Florida Project No.: H4135005 E�diibit: Pr7 BORING LOG NO. B-4 Pa e 1 of 1 PROJECT: Family Dollar CLIENT: Boos Development Group Clearwater, Florida SITE: 1835 North Highland Avenue Clearwater, Florida p LOCATION See E�idt A� ^ J � wF � w� �`e z Q H Z LL U = � w J W F �H �'% J Oy Q w Z a W �W p. wW �Z w c� � a m 2 "� � w 3 o v> a DEPTH 2 INCHES ASPHALT PAVEMENT INCHES LIMEROCK BASE POORLY GRADED SAND (SPI, with minor shell fragments, fine grained, gary/brown z.o POORLY GRADED SAND ISP►, fine grained, tan to brown, loose � C N O. �? 5 3-4-5-4 o N=9 z 0 ¢ � w ~ 1-3-3-3 � , � N=6 > a 8.0 0 Q POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT ISP-SMI, fine grained, dark brown, very loose _ � 1-1-2-3 o N=3 LL O � � � Q _ >J > � Z � �2.� ° POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT ISP-SMI, fine grained, brown, loose J H � Q � � � � ' H � a 2-3-5 � � N=s J Z �5.5 c� Boring Terminated at 15.5 Feet � 0 � 0 � � 0 w Q Stratification lirnes a2 approzmate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Rope and Cathead � ¢ a w LL A��encement MetFwd: See 6diibit A-13 for description of field procedures Notes: 0 mud-rotary Q See Appendix B for description of laboratory > procedures and additional data (if any). � Abandonment Method: See Appendix C for e�lanation of symbols and � Borings backfilled with cement-bentonite grout upon abb2Nations. � comple6on. O J WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS c� Boring Started: 1/24/2013 Boring Completed: 1/24/2013 � � Waterinitallyobservedat7.5. �rr�con Om Drill Rig: CME 45 Driller: R S Jr. � — 504 East Ty1er Street � Tampa, Florida Project No.: Fk1135005 6t�ibit: A-8 BORING LOG NO. B-5 Page 1 of 1 PROJECT: Family Dollar CLIENT: Boos Development Group Clearvvater, Florida SITE: 1835 North Highland Avenue Clearwater, Florida c9 LOCATION See E�hibit A-4 � v� w N O -� w Z a � �q w (J �. WO F}- WF �H LL _ = J a W ~� � Z f a a w� J �� Q� Z � W ~W � w� �Z V � � O � � DEPTH � O vai � a 2 INCHES ASPHALT PAVEMENT 4 INCHES LIMEROCK BASE POORLY GRADED SAND ISP1, fine grained, brown 1.5 POORLY GRADED SAND ISP1, fine grained, tan to brown/reddish brown, loose � C N � N 5 2-3-a-a N N=7 0 a � w a 2-3-4-3 c� � N=7 > a 0 z a _ � 1-2-2-3 o N-4 26 2 � 0 � 1 � � _ � � 0 z �j 12.0 ° POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT ISP-SMI, fine grained, dark brown, loose � a � � 0 � � � a 3-4-5 � 15 N=s Z � 15.5 � Boring Terminated at 15.5 Feet � 0 � 0 � LL 0 W Q Stratification lines are appropmate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Rope and Cathead � ¢ a w LL Ad�ancement Method: See F�diibit A-13 for description of field procedures �tes: 0 mud-rotary � See Appendix B for descripfion of laboratory > procedures and additional data (if any). � � Abandonment MeUiod: See Appendix C for e�lanation of symbols and � Borings backfitled with cement-berrtonite grout upon abbreNations. � completion. O WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS � Boring Started: 1/24/2013 Boring Cwnpleted: 1/24/2013 � � Waterinitallyobservedat7.5. 1��rr�con m Drill Rig: CME 45 Driller: R S Jr. �n 504 East Tyler Street � Tampa, Florida Project No.: H4135005 E�ibit: Pr9 BORING LOG NO. B-6 Pa e 1 of 1 PROJECT: Family Dollar CLIENT: Boos Development Group Clearwater, Florida SITE: 1835 North Highland Avenue Clearwater, Florida c9 LOCATION SeeE�diibitA-4 w wo a � o W O � J F- H W J w H li Q H Z a � �� oy QF z qQ a ww °. w �z "' � ° �m ¢ LL� � w O �n a DEPTH 2 INCHES ASPHALT PAVEMENT 4 INCHES LIMEROCK BASE POORLY GRADED SAND ISP), with minor shell fragments, fine grained, gray/brown 2_5 POORLY GRADED SAND ISPI, fine grained, light brown to tan, loose � C w O �? 5 4-4-4-4 o N=8 z � 6.0 — � POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT ISP-SMI, fine grained, dark brown, loose w ~ 4-3-2-2 � � N=5 w > a o I — z ¢ � I. 1-2-3-3 o N=5 � � 0 g io.o � � Boring Terminated at 10 Feet _ J > Q Z � � � Q � � 0 � � a � ¢ z � � 0 � 0 � LL O w � Stratification lines are approbmate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Rope and Cathead ¢ a w � Pdvancement Method: See 6diibit A-13 far description of field pracedu2s Notes: 0 mud-rotary Q See Appendix B for description of laboratory > procedures and additional data (if any). Z Abandonment Method: See Appendix C for e�lanation of symbols and � Borirgs backfilled with cement-berdonite grout upan abbreWaGons. � completion. O -' WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS c� Boring Started: 1/24/2013 Boring Completed: 1/24/2013 � � Waterinitallyobservedat7.5. �rr�cO� m Drill Rig: CME 45 Driller: R S Jr. � 504 East Tyler Street F Tampa, Florida Project No.: H4135005 E�Qiibit: A-10 BORING LOG NO. B-7 Page 1 of 1 PROJECT: Family Dollar CLIENT: Boos Development Group Clearwater, Florida SITE: 1835 North Highland Avenue Clearwater, Florida c� LOCATION See E�ibit A-4 � Z w � o .. w a � a w V � WO F WH �H li 2 J a W ~ J W Z aQQ a w� J O� Q>� Z � ❑ Q m Q W� > 0 2' � DEPTH � O � v a 2 INCHES ASPHALT PAVEMENT 4 INCHES LIMEROCK BASE POORLY GRADED SAND ISPI, with minor shell fragments, fine grained, gray/brown 2.5 POORLY GRADED SAND (SP►, fine grained, tan to light reddish brown, loose � � � 0 � N 4-4-3-3 � 5 ►v=� 0 Q s.o � i POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT ISP-SMI, fine grained, dark brown, very loose to loase W I� a � � 4-2-1-2 c� N=3 w > a 0 z a _ � 0 2 N=F 4 � 0 � 10.0 ,� Q Boring Terminated at 10 Feet x J> > � Z � � J � Q � � � � � a � a z � � 0 � O � LL � W Q Stratification lines are appmzmate. In-situ, the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Rope and Cathead � ¢ a w LL Ad�encement Methad: See E�ibit A-13 for description of field procedures �`lotes: 0 mudrotary � See Appendix B for description of laboratory > procedures and additional data (if any). � � Abandonment Method: See Appendix C for e�lanation of symbols and � Borings backfilled with cement-berrtonite grout upon abbreHations. � compieGon. 0 � WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS Z Boring Started: 1/24/2013 Boring Completed: 1/24/2013 �� Water initally observed at 7- 1�rracon O� Dril� Rig: CME 45 Driller: R S Jr. rn 504 East Tyler Street = Tampa, Florida Project No.: H4135005 6diibit: A-11 � BORING LOG NO. B-8 Page 1 of 1 PROJECT: Family Dollar CLIENT: Boos Development Group Clearwater, Florida SITE: 1835 North Highland Avenue Ciearwater, Florida c� LOCATION SeeE�ibitA� w w Q a F- o w O � � F- F- W � W i- lLL Q H 2 a � a � �- � � W Ww a �w �Z � Ci � am Q "� � W � o cn a DEPTH 2 INCHES ASPHALT PAVEMENT 4 INCHES LIMEROCK BASE POORLY GRADED SAND ISPI, fine grained, gray/brown ` 3.5 `� POORLY GRADED SAND ISPI, fine grained, tan, loose � - N � � 3-3-4-5 s 5 N=� Z ° s.o � POORLY GRADED SAND WITH SILT ISP-SM►, fine grained, dark brown, loose w ~ _� 3-4-3-4 � N=7 w > a 0 Z J � = 3-3-3-5 o N=6 LL N " O � ��.Q � � Boring Terminated at 10 Feet _ J> > � Z � � � Q � � � i� � 0 w � a z � � 0 � O � � 0 w Q Stratification lines are approbmate. ln-situ, the transition may be gradual. Hammer Type: Rope and Cathead � a a w � Advencement Method: See 6diibit A-13 for description of field procedures �tes: a mud-rotary Q See Appendix B for description of laboratory > procedures and additional data (if any). � � Abandonment Method: See Appendix C for e�lanation of symbols and � Borings backfilled wifh cement�entonite grout upon abbreviabons. � completion. O J WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS c� Bonrg Started:l/24/2013 Boring Completed:l/24/2013 � � Waterinitallyobservedat7- �rracon m Drill Rig: CME 45 Driller. R S Jr. � 504 East Tyler Street � Tampa, Florida Projecl No.: H4135005 F�diibit: Pr12 Geotechnical Engineering Report 1 ��rr�con Family Dollar —1835 N. Highland Ave ■ Clearwater, Florida February 8, 2013 ■ Terracon Project No. H4135005 Field Exploration Description The field exploration consisted of performing eight SPT borings (Borings B-1 through B-8) to a depth of 10 to 15 feet in the proposed building and parking areas. The boring locations were laid out at the project site at the locations indicated on the attached diagram. The boring locations are approximate and were measured by pacing distances and estimating right angles. The locations of the borings should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the means and methods used to define them. The SPT soil borings were drilled with a rotary drilling rig equipped with manually operated safety hammer. The boreholes were advanced with a cutting head and stabilized with the use of bentonite (drillers' mud). Soil samples were obtained by the split spoon sampling procedure in general accordance with the Standard Penetration Test (SP� procedure. In the split spoon sampling procedure, the number of blows required to advance the sampling spoon the last 12 inches of an 18-inch penetration or the middle 12 inches of a 24-inch penetration by means of a 140-pound hammer with a free fall of 30 inches, is the standard penetration resistance value (N). This value is used to estimate the in-situ relative density of cohesionless soils and the consistency of cohesive soils. The sampling depths and penetration distance, plus the standard penetration resistance values, are shown on the boring logs. Portions of the samples from the borings were sealed in glass jars to reduce moisture loss, and then the jars were taken to our laboratory for further observation and classification. Upon completion, the boreholes were backfilled with cuttings and the asphalt was patched. Field logs of each boring were prepared by the drill crew. These logs included visual classifications of the materials encountered during drilling as well as the driller's interpretation of the subsurface conditions between samples. The boring logs included with this report represent an interpretation of the field logs and include modifications based on laboratory observation of the samples. A Double Ring Infiltration test, DRI-1, was performed within the proposed stormwater management area. The DRI test procedure consisted of installing a 12-inch diameter steel ring and a 24-inch diameter steel ring concentrically into the ground. Water was then added to a desired head level of approximately 12 inches in both casings and held constant. The amount of infiltration observed in the inner ring versus time was then recorded. This procedure was repeated for a total of 3 hours or until a stabilized infiltration rate was achieved. Exhibit A-14 APPENDIX B SUPPORTING INFORMATION Geotechnical Engineering Report l��rracon Family Dollar —1835 N. Highland Ave ■ Clearwater, Florida February 8, 2013 ■ Terracon Project No. H4135005 Laboratory Testing During the field exploration, a portion of each recovered sample was sealed in a glass jar and transported to our laboratory for further visual observation and laboratory testing. The soil samples were classified in general accordance with the appended General Notes and the Unified Soil Classification System based on the material's texture and plasticity. The estimated group symbol for the Unified Soil Classification System is shown on the boring logs and a brief description of the Unified Soil Classification System is included in Appendix C. Laboratory tests conducted for this project included moisture content and determination of the amount passing a No. 200 sieve. The results are on the following table and on the boring logs in Appendix A. Responsive ■ Resourceful ■ Reliable Exhibit B-1 0 Geotechnical Engineering Report Family Dollar —1835 N. Highland Ave ■ Clearwater, Florida February 8, 2013 ■ Terracon Project No. H4135005 Boring Sample Number Depth (ft) From To B-2 0 — 2 B-3 4-6 B-5 8 —10 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY RESULTS FAMILY DOLLAR 1835 NORTH HIGHLAND AVENUE CLERWATER, FLORIDA Terracon Project No. H4135005 Soil Description USCS Stratum ID No. Brown Poorly Graded Sand with Silt SP-SM Tan Poorly Graded Sand SP Reddish brown poorly Graded Sand SP � ■ 0 0 l�err�con Sieve Analysis (Percent Passing) #200 7 4 2 Natural Maisture (%) 14 9 26 APPENDIX C SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS GENERAL NOTES DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS � � � Water Initially (HP) Hand Penetrometer Encountered Auger Split Spoon � Water Level After a �� Specified Period of Time Torvane ' m J � Water Level After � (bl� Standard Penetration � ; a Specified Period of Time N Test (blows per foot) Z Shelby Tube Macro Core {y� W �� a J Water levels indicated on the soil boring J (PID) Photo-lonization Detector a Wlogs are the levels measured in the G borehole at the times indicated. yQ Groundwater level variations will occur � (OVA) OrganicvaporAnalyzer Ring Sampler Rock Core � over time. In low permeability soils, e � accurate determination of groundwater levels is not possible with short term water level observations. Grab Sample No Recovery DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION Soil classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Coarse Grained Soils have more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a#200 sieve; their principal descriptors are: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a#200 sieve; they are principally described as ciays if they are plastic, and silts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may be added according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse-grained soils are defined on the basis of their in-place relative density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency. LOCATION AND ELEVATION NOTES Unless otherwise noted, Latitude and Longitude are approximately determined using a hand-held GPS device. The accuracy of such devices is variable. Surface elevation data annotated with +/- indicates that no actual topographical survey was conducted to confirm the surface elevation. Instead, the surface elevation was approximately determined from topographic maps of the area. RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS (More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve.) (50% or more passing the No. 200 sieve.) Density determined by Standard Penetration Resistance Consistency determined by laboratory shear strength testing, field Includes gravels, sands and silts. visual-manual procedures or standard penetration resistance y Descriptive Tertn Standard Penetretion or Ring Sampler Descriptive Term Unconfined Compressive Standard Penetration or Ring Sampler � (Density) N-Value g�ows/Ft. (Consistency) Strength, Qu, psf N-Value g�ows/Ft. � Blows/Ft. Blows/Ft W H Very Loose 0- 3 0- 6 Very Soft less than 500 0- 1 < 3 _ ~ Loose 4- 9 7- 18 Soft 500 to 1,000 2- 4 3- 4 � Z W Medium Dense 10 - 29 19 - 58 Medium-Stiff 1,000 to 2,000 4- 8 5- 9 � H � Dense 30 - 50 59 - 98 Stiff 2,000 to 4,000 8- 15 10 - 18 Very Dense > 50 > 99 Very Stiff 4,000 to 8,000 15 - 30 19 - 42 Hard > 8,000 > 30 > 42 L :�'�: •� � �� :� _� :u �� • �- �w •u••�� ► �- •� Trace W ith Modifier <15 15-29 > 30 RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES Descriotive Tertn(s) Percent of of other constituents Drv Weiaht Trace W ith Modifier <5 5-12 >12 Boulders Cobbles Gravel Sand Silt or Clay Term Non-plastic Low Medium High 1 f�rr�co Over 12 in. (300 mm) 12 in. to 3 in. (300mm to 75mm) 3 in. to #4 sieve (75mm to 4.75 mm) #4 to #200 sieve (4.75mm to 0.075mm Passing #200 sieve (0.075mm) PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION Plasticitv Index 0 1-10 11 - 30 > 30 Exhibit C-1 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory Tests" Coarse Grained Soils: More than 50% retained on No. 200 sieve Fine-Grained Soils: 50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve Highly organic soils: Gravels: i Clean Gravels ! Cu >_ 4 and 1 s Cc <_ 3 t More than 50% of � Less than 5% fines ° ; Cu < 4 and/or 1> Cc > 3 E � coarse fraction retained ' � }� � wi� � Gravels with Fines: ! Fines classify as ML or MH on No. 4 sieve ; More than 12% fines ` Fines classify as CL or CH Sands: j Clean Sands: � Cu ? 6 and 1< Cc <_ 3 E 50% or more of coarse i Less than 5% fines ° ' Cu < 6 and/or 1> Cc > 3 E --i---- fraction passes No. 4 j Sands with Fines: i Fines classify as ML or MH ' ----- sieve i More than 12% fines °' Fines classify as CL or CH ___._ .._ F __ _ -- _ f _ __ ____. _ __._ -- PI > 7 and plots on or above A" line Inorganic: �-------- ---� -- Silts and Clays: PI < 4 or plots below A" line � _ .. __..____ —__ _ .- . .._. _._.____ Liquid limit less than 50 . Liquid limit - oven dned , � Organic: - -- < 0.75 I ; Liquid limit - not dried _.__._�__------------ -- _w _. � ---- PI plots on or above 'A" line � Inorganic: � __-- _ _ _. __---__. Silts and Clays: ; PI plots below "A" line '.�-- -- ------ *-_____ __-- -_ Liquid limit 50 or more i Liquid limit - oven dried ; Organic: ------------ + < 0.75 ; Liquid limit - not dried --.------- ---- - --- -------_ _..._.. J---- -------- �------ - - Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor " Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75-mm) sieve e If field sample contained cobbles or bouiders, or both, add `rnrith cobbles or boulders, or both" to group name. ° Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay. ° Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay z E Cu = Deo/D�o Cc = ��so � D�a x Dso F If soil contains ? 15% sand, add 'bvith sand" to group name. � If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM. d X W 0 Z F}- U � � J d 60 For classification of fine-grained soils and fine-grained fraction � of coarse-grained soils - Equation of "A' - line Horizontal at PI=4 to LL=25.5. 40 - then PI=0J3 (LL-20) -- - -- - Equation of "U" - line Vertical at LL=16 to Pi=7, 30 then PI=0.9 (LL-8) �� r� 10 -----._._.__..... .—........--� 7 --- �. - / � q -- i � i 0 10 16 20 I ' V � ,' O�O ---� --- �,v — - i � �� i .'� � 30 ML or OL . Group Symbol GW �GP GM _ ----- -_._ _ GC _ SW - __ SP--- __-SM -- _ ---- SC CL ML Soil Classification _ --_ -- - - Group NameB Well-graded gravel' Poorly graded grave Silty gravel F,G," �-- ---- -___. Clayey gravel F c;" - Well-graded sand' Poorly graded sand Silty sandc"' --- Clayey sand c"' - .. .. -- - ----_. Lean clay ",` "' SIItKLM Organic clay"� """ — -- _.__. Organic silt"`"",o ____ - Fat clay"`"" Elastic Silt"`"' Organic clay"` "',—P - Organic silt"` "" ° Peat --------- " If fines are organic, add "with organic fines" to group name. ' If soil contains ? 15°/a gravel, add "with gravel" to group name. � If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay. " If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add 'ti,vith sand" or `�vith gravel," whichever is predominant. � If soil contains ? 30°/a plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add "sandy" to group name. "" If soil contains ? 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add "gravelly" to group name. " PI >_ 4 and plots on or above "A" line. ° PI < 4 or piots below "A" line. P PI plots on or above "A" line. ° PI plots below "A" line. � , , e�' , _ , . e ,. �?� � \� .J �, P�, , /' � ------- -..__.____ -- �Q`r---- - �— ��G ' j MH or OH ; ' 40 50 60 70 LIC�UID LIMIT (L�) 1 ��rracon 80 90 100 110 Exhibit C-2 CHAMBERS SHALL MEET ASTM F2922 "STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR POLYETHYLENE (PE) CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS" NOMINAL 3/4" - 2" (19 mm - 51 mm) CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE (AASHTO M43 #3 THROUGH #57 STONE SIZES ALLOWED) ADS 601 NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE (OR EQUAL) ALL AROUND ANGULAR STONE SC-310 END CAP 6" [152 mm] MIN. DESIGN ENGINEER RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THE REQUIRED BEARING CAPACITY OF SUBGRADE SOILS CHAMBERS SHALL BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM F2787 "STANDARD PRACTICE FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THERMOPLASTIC CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS". GRANULAR WELL GRADED SOIUAGGREGATE MIXTURES, <35% FINES. COMPACT IN 6" LIFTS TO 95% STANDARD PROCTOR DENSITY. SEE THE TABLE OF ACCEPTABLE FILL MATERIALS PAVEMENT FOR UNPAVED INSTALLATION WHERE T RUTTING FROM VEHICLES MAV OCCUR, � '� 8�� [457 mm] 9611 �2438 mm] INCREASE COVER TO 24" 1610 mm] MINIMUM. ^ A^ v, MIN. '�"�" 6" [152 mm] MIN. + � ;`�� lk � � E� � :. ;,i .... _ �+.... . __.-__5;. "� � 34" [864 mm] 16" [406 mm] DEPTH TO BE DETERMINED BY DESIGN ENGINEER 6" [152 mm] MIN. 12" [305 mm] MIN. THE INSTALLED CHAMBER SYSTEM SHALL PROVIDE THE LOAD FACTORS SPECIFIED IN THE AASHTO LFRD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS SECTION 12.12 FOR EARTH AND LIVE LOADS WITH CONSIDERATION FOR IMPACT AND MULTIPLE VEHICLE PRESENCES. � SC-310 TYPICAL CROSS SECTION THE�ESIGNENGWEERSHALLREVIEWTHISORAWINGPRIORTO S,tormTech� SCALE: NTS CONSTRUCTION. IT IS TME ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DESIGN � ENGINEER TO ENSURE THAT THE PRODUCT(S) DEPICTED AND ALL on��,.am.��.rr.m�ye - • ASSOCIATED DETAILS MEET ALL APPLICABLE L4WS, REGUL4TION5, AND subsurrace stormwater nnanagement' DATE: OH-ZZ-� 2 aovnNCEOOnnwncESrstEms.lr+c. PROJECTRE�UIREMENTS. 701NWOOOROAD,SUITE3 � ROCKVHILL,CT06067 DRAWN BY: JLM PHONE: 88&892-2694 � FA%: B66-328-8901 WWW.STORMTECH.COM CHECKED: n ACCEPTS 4" [100 mm] SCH 40 PVC PIPE FOR INSPECTION PORT , " � i, ,� �i ( � i �k � ,� � � � �g 1 pp ` Yy� !l��`� �� I ��:��I��t�`��y%1��+Gfk��^��''��.-. I-- 90.7" [2304 mm] ACTUAL �I ,� , '� �a'� . y +� �� " �. 1� a _ 3� ' � 85.4" [2169 mm] INSTALLED � � � -- �i � � I� � � i � � � � �- i4 i j � , �� 1 I START END � ,��,��:��,'�,�b ��i.�� i} +�: �� .I..w�.� k_ .' '-:_ .._. t OVERLAP NEXT CHAMBER HERE (OVER SMALL CORRUGATION) ---- BUILD ROW IN THIS DIRECTION ,.._F �A� �A� �9'ii�-=� a„`;�� ` . �� '�� 'I 6" [406 mm] I �,,�„� , � � h'�� ;, L � �,� _I ;� y �` � �" �. � 34 � B �` C [864 mm] NOMINAL CHAMBER SPECIFICATIONS SIZE (W x H x INSTALLED LENGTH) 34.0" x 16.0" x 85.4" [864 mm x 406 mm x 2169 mm] CHAMBER STORAGE 14.7 CUBIC FEET [0.42 m'] MINIMUM INSTALLED STORAGE 31.0 CUBIC FEET [0.88 m'] WEIGHT 35 Ibs. [16.8 kg] STUBS AT BOTTOM OF END CAP FOR PART NUMBERS ENDING WITH "B" STUBS AT TOP OF END CAP FOR PART NUMBERS ENDING WITH "T" PART# STUB A B C SC310EPE06T 6" [150 mm] 9.60" [244 mm] 5.80" [147 mm] N/A SC310EPE06B 6" 150 mm 9.60" 244 mm N/A 0.50" 13 mm SC310EPE08T 8" 200 mm 11.90" 302 mm 3.50" 89 mm N/A SC310EPE08B 8" 200 mm 11.90" 302 mm N/A 0.60" 15 mm SC310EPE10T 10" 250 mm 12.70" 323 mm 1.40" 36 mm N/A SC310EPE10B 10" 250 mm 12.70" 323 mm N/A 0.70" 18 mm '`SC310EPE12B 12" [300 mm] 13.50" [343 mm] N/A 0.90" [23 mm] ALL STUBS, EXCEPT FOR THE SC310EPE12B ARE PLACED AT BOTTOM OF END CAP SUCH THAT THE OUTSIDE DIAMETER OF THE STUB IS FLUSH WITH THE BOTTOM OF THE END CAP. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTACT STORMTECH AT 1-888-892-2694. '`FOR THE SC310EPE12B THE 12" [300 mm] STUB LIES BELOW THE BOTTOM OF THE END CAP APPROXIMATELY 0.25" [6 mm]. BACKFILL MATERIAL SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM BELOW THE N-12 STUB SO THAT THE FITTING SITS LEVEL. NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE NOMINAL � SC-310 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS � StormTech� SCALE: NTS F�VhNCEO ORNNFGE SYSTEMS.INL. • subsudace5tormwaterManagement` �iiTE: 3/3�/�Q THE DESIGN ENGINEER SHALL REVIEW THIS DR4WING PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 701NWOOD ROAO. SUITE 3 I ROCKV HILL, CT 06067 IT IS THE ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DESIGN ENGWEER TO ENSURE THAT PHONE:888A92-2fi94 � FAX:86632&8401 DRAW N BY: KLJ THE PRODUCT(S) DEPICTED AND ALL ASSOCIATED DETAILS MEET ALLAPPLICABLE L4WS,REGULATIONS,ANDPROJECTREDUIREMENTS. WWW.STORMTECH.COM CHECKED: �� _ y.• �! �. , � I i.�l� .: ��,,: ,..'�, y`. •. Southw�st �lorida 2379 Broad Street, Brooksvilie, Florida 34604-6899 j�,�� M�� T, „��G� (352) 796-7211 or 1-800-423-1476 (FL only) t�� LIZJ TDD only:l-80o-231-6103 (FL onlyj On the Internet at WaterMatters.org Bartow S�rvlc� OMc� Sarssota Ssrvlce OMce Tampa Ssrvloe Oiflce 170 Century Boulevard 6750 Fruitville Road 7601 Highway 301 Nath Bartow, Florida 336347700 Sarasota, Florida 342449711 Tampa, Florida 33637�6759 (863) 5341446 or (941) 377-3722 or (813) 98�7481 or 1-800-492•7862 (FL only) 1�Oo-3243503 (FL oniy) 1�00�36-0797 (FL only) April 26, 2013 Karl W. and Jane L. McClintock 2104 Lions Club Road, Suite 2 Clearwater, FL 33764 Subject: Project Evaluation - Project Exempt Project Name: Family Dollar @ 1835 North Highland Avenue File Number: 679850 County: PINELLAS Sec/Twp/Rge: S2JT29SIR15E Reference: Rule 40D-4.051, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) Subsection 373.406(6), Florida Statutes (F.S.) Dear Mr and Mrs. McClintock: The District has reviewed the information you submitted for the project referenced above and has determined that an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) will not be required for the proposed redevelopment of the site. The applicant's engineer has shown a net reduction in total impervious area and vehicular use area that will equate to a net improvement in pollutant loading. [Rule 40D-4.051(1), F.A.C.] The information received by the District will be kept on file to support the DistricYs determination regarding your project. This information is available for viewing or downloading through the DistricYs Application and Permit Search Tools located at www.WaterMatters.orglpermits. The DistricYs determination that your project does not require an ERP is only applicable pursuant to the statutes and rules in effect at the time the information was submitted and may not be valid in the event subsequent changes occur in the applicable rules and statutes. Additionally, this notification does not mean that the District has determined that your project is permanently exempt from permitting requirements. Any subsequent change you make in the projecYs operation may necessitate further evaluation or permitting by the District. Therefore, you are advised to contact the District before beginning the project and before beginning any activity which is not specifically described in your submittal. Your timely pursuit af khis activity is encouraged to avaid any potential rule changes that could affect your request. This letter constitutes no6ce of Intended Agency Action of the project referenced above. The District's action in thls m�tter only becames closed to future (egal challenges from members of the public if such persons have been properly notifred of the District's action and no person objects to the District's action within the prescribed period of dme following the notification. The District does not publish notices of agency action. If you wish to lirnit the time within which a person who does not receive actual written notice from the District may request an administrative hearing regarding this action, you are strongly encouraged to publish, at your own expense, a notice of agency action in the legal advertisement section of a newspaper of general circulation in the county or counties where the ac#ivity will occur. Publishing notice of agency action will close the window for fifing a petition for hearing. Legal requirements and instructians for publishing notiee of agency action, as well as a noticing form that can be used is available ► • • : • � Administrative Hearing 1. You or any person whose substantial interests are or may be affected by the DistricYs intended or proposed action may request an administrative hearing on that action by filing a written petition in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes (F.S.), Uniform Rules of Procedure Chapter 28-106, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) and District Rule 40D-1.1010, F.A.C. Unless otherwise provided by law, a petition for administrative hearing must be filed with (received by) the District within 21 days af receipt of written notice of agency action. "Written notice° means either actual written notice, or newspaper publication of notice, that the District has taken or intends to take agency action. "Receipt of written notice" is deemed to be the fifth day after the date on which actual notice is deposited in the United States mail, if notice is mailed to you, or the date that actual notice is issued, if sent to you by electronic mail or delivered to you, or the date that notice is published in a newspaper, for those persons to whom the District does not provide actual notice. 2. Pursuant to Subsection 373.427(2)(c), F.S., for notices of intended or proposed agency action on a consolidated application for an environmental resource permit and use of sovereignty submerged lands concurrently reviewed by the District, a petition for administrative hearing must be filed with (received by) the District within 14 days of receipt of written notice. 3. Pursuant to Rule 62-532.430, F.A.C., for notices of intent to deny a well construction permit, a petition for administrative hearing must be filed with (received by) the District within 30 days of receipt of written notice of intent to deny. 4. Any person who receives written notice of an agency decision and who fails to file a written request for a hearing within 21 days of receipt or other period as required by law waives the right to request a hearing on such matters. 5. Mediation pursuant to Section 120.573, F.S., to settle an administrative dispute regarding District intended or proposed action is not available prior to the filing of a petition for hearing. 6. A request or petition for administrative hearing must comply with the requirements set forth in Chapter 28-106, F.A.C. A petition for a hearing must: (1) explain how the substantial interests of each person requesting the hearing will be affected by the DistricYs intended action or proposed action, (2) state all material facts disputed by the person requesting the hearing or state that there are no material facts in dispute, and (3) otherwise comply with Rules 28-106.201 and 28-106.301, F.A.C. Chapter 28-106, F.A.C., can be viewed at www.flrules.org or at the DistricYs website at www.WaterMatters.orq/permits/ rules. 7. A petition for administrative hearing is deemed filed upon receipt af the complete petition by the Diskrict Agency Clerk at the DistricYs Tampa Service Office during normal business hours, which are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding District holidays. Filings with the District Agency Clerk may be made by mail, hand-delivery or facsimile transfer (fax). The District does not accept petitions for administrative hearing by electronic maif. Mailed filings must be addressed to, and hand-delivered filings must be delivered to, the Agency Clerk, So�thwest Florida Water Management District, 7601 US Hwy 301, Tampa, FL 33637-6759. Faxed filings must be transmitted to the District Agency Clerk at (813) 987-6746. Any petition not received during normal business hours shall be filed as of 8:00 a.m. on the next business day. The DistricYs acceptance of faxed petitions for filing is subject to certain conditions set forth in the District's Statement of Agency Organization and Operation, available for viewing at www.WaterMatiers.orglabout. Judicial Review Pursuant to Sections 120.60(3) and 120.68, F.S., a party who is adversely affected by District action may seek judicial review of the DistricYs action. Judicial review shall be sought in the Fifth District Court of Appeal or in the appellate district where a party resides or as otherwise provided by law. 2. All proceedings shall be instituted by filing an original notice of appeal with the District Agency Clerk within 30 days after the rendition of the order being appealed, and a copy of the notice of appeal, accompanied by any filing fees prescribed by law, with the clerk of the court, in accordance with Rules 9.110 and 9.190 of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure (Fla. R. App. P.). Pursuant to Fla. R. App P. 9.020(h), an order is rendered when a signed written order is filed with the clerk of the lower tribunal. May 9, 2013 Mr. Jose Martinez, PE Forsite Group, Inc 10150 Highland Manor Drive, S-210 Tampa, Florida 33610 Dear Mr. Martinez, Re: Existing Tree Inventory and Ratings Family Dollar @ N. Highland Avenue The existing trees on the site have been assessed according to The City of Clearwater's Tree Rating System. All of the existing trees on the site have been marked with a number that corresponds with the numbers shown on the Table on page two, so they can be identified in the field. These trees are shown on the Tree Preservation Plan along with their number, size, rating and status. The Ciry of Clearwater rating system numbers are explained below: 0 = Dead - require removal 1= Poor (nearly dead, hazardous) - require removal 2= below Average (declining, diseased, poor structure, potential hazard) - Require Removal 3= Average (worthy of preservation but has some minor problems, minor decline, tip die-back, minor inclusion) - Problems can be corrected 4= Above Average (rather healthy tree with very minor problems) 5 = Outstanding (very healthy) 6= Specimen (unique in size, age, exceptional quality) Trees rated 0-2 should be removed because they pose a hazard - no replacement required, trees rated 3 are worthy of preservation but could be sacrificed to allow additional preservation of trees rated 4-6 and trees rated 6(very rarely used) are trees that cannot be removed. In general, the existing trees on this site are in good condition. See page two for tree table with conditions. Sincerely, � �i `ti, l.� L. Alyson Utter Anderson Lesniak Limited, Inc. ISA Certified Arborist FL-6158A Tree Inventory for Family Dollar @ North Highland and Joel Lane - Page 1 Existinq Tree Table with City of Clearwater Condition Ratinqs Ta No. S ecies DBH Ratin 57 Cabba e Palm 12" 4 58 Cabba e Palm 13" 4 59 Live Oak 30' 3 60 Jerusalem Thorn 7" 2 61 Live Oak 31" 3 62 Cabba e Palm 14" 4 63 Washin ton Palm 17" 4 64 Carrotwood 6" 4 65 Cabba e Palm 17" 4 66 Live Oak 11 ",15" 3 67 Live Oak 13" 3 68 Live Oak 13" 3 69 Live Oak 13" 3 70 Live Oak 15" 3 71 Live Oak 15" 3 72 Live Oak 13" 3 73 Live Oak 11" 3 74 Live Oak 6" 3 75 Live Oak 6, 12, 16" 3 76 Cabba e Palm 15" 4 77 Cabba e Palm 11" 4 Tree Inventory for Family Dollar @ North Highland and Joel Lane - Page 2 mrcvA � t� � SE IE = 32.03 �� I� ' I ; �� Oli�/ 1 .• 1 I � 3 • I I ,,• ► ; .. . ia. .�., . . , . I ' , . . 4 ' ; .�.�:. y � .•:� :' ' r � .� , . � .. ;a s '' . I � I I 3 ' 'O � i •• � � 3 I • � � � � .. : • 3 ' '• • �a ' r, � �' � ^Y w � , • :,� � 0. � �� • . 3 •-. .• � � . � �� . � � � � :• � = A �; i �'_ � � �- w --- •- w.�r�w -- � � •' � � 3 � '�i o E� �; ,.�. � U � � �� a s � o � '• � o � � � s �'' I I 1 �' « 13 I I I \ 3 . I �• \ I ,. s �8;p I � \ I ' \ I 3 ' � \ ' I 1 \s I TOP OF CATCH I BASIN EL = 36.99 _ � THROAT EL � 36.14 s NWIE=31.84 Jadc S IE = 31.73 I I JOEL LA1�'E �' a�a�-ar�� 1 I � I — �° dF1P � OHP — - � —r ,- � =�--" - � � � � HEDGE,.�" - �� _1. ONE STORY STRUCNRE FlNISHED FLOOR EL � 40.3 •��.��' b .. . .. � .;.-r.s�s.: � .� �" •�` �� I � S89'27'58"E 150.00' (� / ♦_ a .� � I� � 18_RCP RIM EL - 38.37 � y, ,� � ��•• � ,� �� FAMILY DOLLAR NEC OF N HIGHLAND AVE AND JOEL LANE