The URL can be used to link to this page

FLD2013-08024� Clearwater _ , . -- , ,,ti. �._�;;; - �� ;��..�_ J �� .._ . `...i "O_i "`�. .i'"°�,..../ MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: CASE: REQUEST: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT October 15, 2013 E.2. FLD2013-08024 Flexible Development application to permit an Assisted Living Facility (ALF) with up to 90 beds with a height of 22 feet, a front (south) setback of nine feet (to building), a front (north) setback of three feet (to parking), a side (east) setback of 74 feet (to building) and 2.6 feet (to parking), a side (west) setback of zero feet (to building and parking), a rear (north) setback of 33 feet (to building) and 4.7 feet (to parking and solid waste enclosure) and 75 parking spaces (0.83 spaces per resident) in the Office (0) District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-1004.A; to permit non-residential off-street parking with a front (south) setback of 30 feet (to pavement) and side (east) setback of 35.5 feet (to pavement) and a rear (north) setback of 25 feet (to pavement) in the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of CDC Section 2-204.A and to reduce the front (south) landscape buffer from 10 feet to three feet (to concrete wall), reduce the front (north) landscape buffer from 10 feet to three feet (to parking), reduce the side (east) landscape buffer from 12 feet to 2.6 feet (to parking), reduce the side (west) landscape buffer from five feet to zero feet {to building and parking), reduce the required number of canopy trees and eliminate the .required foundation plantings along the front (south) fa�ade of two existing buildings as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of CDC Section 3-1202.G. GENERAL DATA: AgenbApplicanbOwner...... Steve Band; Clearwater Professional Plaza, LLC Location .......................... 1510 Barry Road; north side of Barry Road approximately 330 feet east of Highland Avenue Property Size .................... 2.14 acres Futur'e Land Use Plan........ Residential/Office General (R/OG); Residential Urban (RU) Zoning ........................... Office (0) District; Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District Special Area Plan .............. N/A Adjacent Zoning.... North: O, LMDR and High Density Residential (HDR) Districts South: Commercial (C), LMDR and HDR Districts East: LMDR District West: O District Existing Land Use ............. Office (O District); non-residential off-street parking (LMDR District) Proposed Land Use......... ALF with 90 beds (O District); non-residential off-street parking (LMDR District) i ��,� �' � af% 1 � � � ' - . - , � , MT�"� "rt '"r^',n r � �� J��' � „�� ii � � ,��Q� ��j • t ,' h w . , �Y i -�" � �� , �� . i ' J ,.- ,» �� / i i�`s i ,. ,y .._ . "r �, � � 3�.,. � t � 1 *3 � , �. ,' ... ��.� y. , . I � �' `J:�1n�%��n�� s. � .. �/ a�'.R. � � �R! � /+" '.f, V l�9 � a �,� � � � '�`► "� �,� _- f. � � � ` �'.� s ° Clear�v�(�tll.l Level II Flexib�e Development Application Review ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 2.14-acre site is located on the north side of Barry Road approximately 330 feet east of Highland Avenue. The subject site is comprised of two properties with a total frontage along Barry Road of approximately 430 feet and 65 feet of frontage along Jeffords Street (Jeffords Street terminates at the northeast corner of the site). The two properties must be joined together through a Declaration of Unity of Title prior to the issuance of any permits. Barry Road extends to South Betty Lane approximately'/2 mile to the west and terminates at Tuscola Road approximately '/4 mile to the east. Jeffords Street, to the north, terminates at South Keystone Drive approximately '/4 mile to the east. Jeffords Street includes two marked traffic calming devices (speed humps) between Live Oak Court and South Keystone Drive. The site spans two zoning districts including the O district (1.899 acres) and the LMDR district (0.238 acres) with two corresponding FLUP classifications; R/OG and RU, respectively. The site contains four two-story buildings (Buildings 1 through 4) and three one-story buildings (Buildings 5 through 7) totaling 26,276 square feet. The one-story buildings are generally located along the south side of the site. The two-story buildings are generally centrally located centrally on the site. All the buildings, constructed between 1965 and 1972, are located on the 1.899-acre portion of the site within the O district. A 12-space non- residential off-street parking lot is located within the LMDR district at the southeast corner of the site. Both the office-used portion of the site and the non-residential off-street parking lot are accessed from Barry Road via separate two- way driveways. The non-residential off-street parking lot driveway is approximately 15 feet to the east of the driveway accessing the office- used portion of the site. A third access point is located at the northeast corner of the site at the Jeffords Street terminus. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPl1�NT REVIEW DMSION Community Development Board October 15, 2013 FLD2013-08024 — Page 2 � p��]+ p PLANHING & DEVELOPMENT : C 1�i�1 �� i�ll.� Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVELAPMENT REVIEW DMSION _5,�?"��. € '<�': , .: A sidewalk approximately four-feet in width is located along the south side of the site within the Barry Road right-of-way. Eight un-metered parallel parking spaces are located directly to the south of the sidewalk also within the Barry Road right-of-way. On-site parking consists of 80 spaces located on the portion of the site within the O district and 12 spaces within the LMDR district for a total of 92 spaces. It is important to note there are three parking spaces along the west side of the site entirely or partially located on the adjacent property to the west. These spaces, while existing on the adjacent property, visually appear as though they are on the subject property and are not accessible from that adjacent property. In addition, the northernmost parking space at the northeast corner of the site is located at least partially within the Jeffords Street right-of-way. A drive aisle traversing the site north to south connects Barry Road and Jeffords Street. A six-foot masonry wall exists along most of the south property line approximately five feet from the south property line. The wall has a smooth stucco finish, is painted tan with white trim and matches the material, color, iit and finish of the existing buildings. The two existing one- story buildings along the south side of the site are located between nine and 13 feet from the south property along Barry Road. The building located at the southwest corner of the site is also approximately one foot or less from the side (west) property line. Solid waste is serviced through a single unenclosed dumpster located in the southeast quadrant of the site located on the east side of the driveway that traverses the site from Barry Road to Jeffords Street. A freestanding monument-style sign is located between the two Barry Road driveways within the Barry Road right-of-way. As mentioned, 12 of the 92 spaces are located within a small parking lot located at the southeast corner of the site within the LMDR district. This parking lot is in good condition and is bound by a chainlink fence on the south, east and north sides. The fence is between three and four feet in height. This parking lot is tied, visually and operationally, into the overall site. The parking lot has been in place for much, if not all of the existence of the overall office complex, according to the applicant. The subject site is located within a transitional area between a more commercially developed area along Highland Avenue to the west and a large single-family residential neighborhood located to the east. The immediate vicinity is characterized by a variety of non-residential uses including an assisted living facility (ALF) (Highland Terrace Retirement Center) and a nursing home (Highland Pines Rehabilitation Center) to the north, an office to the west and the YMCA farther to the northwest. Attached dwellings are located to the south across Barry Road. In a broader sense, the subject site is generally centrally located within a grouping of several residential neighborhoods bifurcated by Highland Avenue. This collection of residential neighborhood extends for approximately one mile in all directions and is roughly bound by Court Street (north), Nursery Road (south), Hercules Avenue (east) and Missouri Avenue (west). Currently, the site is occupied by a single entity occupying approximately 3,000 square feet. The remainder of the floor space is and has been vacant for several years. Site History: The Community Development Board (CDB) has taken the following actions regarding this property: Community Development Board October 15, 2013 FLD2013-08024 — Page 3 a Vibia! I� �1�1r� Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLaxrnNG � DEV�LOPMErrr P PP DEVELOPMENTREVIEWDMSION �c��> , On May 21, 2013, the Community Development Board (CDB) approved FLD2013-02003, a Flexible Development application to permit a school (grades kindergarten through eighth with up to 512 students) with a height of 22 feet, a front (south) setback of nine feet (to building) and zero feet (to parking), a front (north) setback of three feet (to parking), a side (east) setback of 74 feet (to building) and 2.6 feet (to parking), a side (west) setback of zero feet (to building and parking), a rear (north) setback of 33 feet (to building) and 4.7 feet (to parking and solid waste enclosure) and 90 parking spaces (0.18 spaces per student) in the Office (0) District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-1004.A; to permit non-residential off-street parking with a front (south) setback of 12 feet (to pavement) and side (east) setback of 35 feet and a rear (north) setback of 37 feet (both to pavement) in the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of CDC Section 2-204.A and to reduce the front (south) landscape buffer from 10 feet to three feet (to concrete wall) and zero feet (to parking), reduce the front (north) landscape buffer from 10 feet to three feet (to parking), reduce the side (east) landscape buffer from 12 feet to 2.6 feet (to parking), reduce the side (west) landscape buffer from five feet to zero feet (to building and parking), increase the number of parking spaces in a row from 10 spaces to 11 spaces reduce the required number of canopy trees and eliminate the required foundation plantings along the front (south) fa�ade of two existing buildings as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of CDC Section 3-1202.G., subject to 21 conditions of approval. For varying reasons, the agreement with the proposed charter school to use the site did not occur. The applicant has secured a new user, an Assisted Living Facility (ALF) with up to 90 beds, for the site. This use is not specifically permitted within the O District; therefore, the request must be reviewed as part of a Level II Flexible Development application. Development Proposal: The proposal is to reuse the site and the buildings as an ALF with up to 90 beds. A majority of the proposed modifications will take place within the buildings. Site improvements include adding landscaping along Barry Road, the west and north property lines, along the facade of the eastern buildings and in the interior of the site. The exterior of the buildings are in good condition and will remain essentially unchanged maintaining the white and tan color scheme. The non-residential off-street parking lot within the LMDR district will be maintained and improved with new landscaping along Barry Road and the east side of the site. Care will be taken to avoid negatively affecting the existing shade trees so the exact number and placement of additional landscape material will depend on the root structure of these trees. As mentioned, the north side of the parking lot is bound by Stevenson Creek. Striped asphalt along the south side of the site will be removed and converted to landscape area. In addition, the existing chainlink fence will be removed from along the north, south and east sides of the site and replaced with a solid wood or PVC fence three feet in height with landscaping placed on the exterior side of the fence. It should be further noted that the fence proposed along Barry Road will be 30 inches in height in order to comply with the sight visibility triangle requirements of CDC Section 3-904.A. All existing shade trees will be maintained on the site with the proposal. No other changes are proposed for the parking lot. Community Development Board October 15, 2013 FLD2013-08024 — Page 4 � C��.L�! F7�lQ�Level II Flexible DevelopmentApplication Review DEVELO IMENTREVIEW MsION � `~'"`•f"`.'v�,�'�-' �,�-r� �..�-,..'..�.., Of the 92 existing spaces, two will be removed to accommodate a dumpster and enclosure and 15 additional parking spaces are to be removed for landscaping leaving 75 spaces, including all those within the non-residential off-street parking lot within the LMDR district. As mentioned, three parking spaces along the west side of the site are entirely or partially located on the adjacent property to the west. In addition, the northernmost parking space at the northeast corner of the site is located at least partially within the Jeffords Street right-of-way. These parking spaces have not been included in the overall existing parking count of 92 spaces as the City cannot authorize use of a property without the property owner being party to the application. Because the applicant has been unable to make the adjacent property owner(s) a party to the application, the use of the three western parking spaces will be prevented with a barrier curb until permission and an access easement/agreement can be secured from the property owner on whose property those spaces exist. The parking space within the Jeffords Street right-of-way will be removed and converted into landscape space. It should be mentioned that the eight on- street parking spaces will remain with the proposal but are not included in any parking count. As mentioned, access to the site is from Barry Road (south) and Jeffords Street (north). This access will be maintained with the proposal. Both streets extend to the east for approximately '/4 mile before terminating at local residential streets. The site does not currently include a stormwater facility and, as additional impervious area is not proposed, a stormwater facility is not required nor will one be provided. Solid waste will be provided via a dumpster located along the north property line in the northwest quadrant of the site. The enclosure will match the exterior of the existing buildings with regard to fit, finish and materials. The existing freestanding sign located within the Barry Road right-of-way will be removed with the proposal. A signage package has not been submitted with this proposal however, any proposed sign will need to meet all applicable Sections of the CDC. While landscaping has been proposed along portions of all property lines the buffer widths do not all meet the provisions of CDC Article 3 Division 12 with a three-foot buffer. Proposed is a small portion at zero feet to parking along Barry Road where 10 feet is required, a one-foot buffer along the west property line where five feet is required and a 2.6 foot buffer along the east property line where 12 feet is required. The required landscape buffers associated with the non- residential off-street parking lot located within the LMDR district are met with this proposal. Finally, given the limited space available the requisite number of canopy trees cannot be provided on site. The applicant has mitigated these deficiencies through the provision of landscape material to the maximum extent possible. The landscape plan includes a variety of shade, ornamental and palm trees (live oak, crepe myrtle and sabal palm), as well as shrubs and ground covers (viburnum, Indian hawthorn, hibiscus, African iris, liriope and ornamental peanut). In summary, the proposed site plan does not differ from that as approved by the CDB on May 21, 2013; the primary difference is that the use has changed from a school to an ALF. Special Area Plan: None Community Development Code: Community Development Board October 15, 2013 FLD2013-08024 — Page 5 � C�b(�l �7Li1�1 Level II Flexible Develo ment lication Review PLANHING&DEVELOPMENT P MP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DMSION o .,_...,�..i...,,. � .'�5�"`" ' .. . . Development Parameters Note: Where appropriate, separate development parameters are provided for the respective portion of the site within the R/OG or the RU FLUP category, as the case may be. In addition, since ALF uses are oot a listed use within the O District points of comparison for development parameters such as setbacks, height and parking will reference CDC Table 2-12021ocated within the Institutional (I) District portion of the CDC. Densi : Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-1001.1, the maximum allowable density within the R/OG FLUP category is 15 dwelling units per acre. The Countywide Land Use Rules provide that up to three beds per dwelling unit are permitted. This is consistent with the CDC, which, in Article 8, provides that three beds are equal to one dwelling unit. The area of the portion of the site within the O District is 1.899 acres, which yields 28.485 dwelling units or 85.455 beds. Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-201.1, the maximum allowable density within the RU FLUP category is 7.5 dwelling units per acre. The area of the portion of the site within the LMDR District is 0.238 acres, which yields 1.785 dwelling units or 5355 beds. Based upon the above, 90 beds may be permitted on the site, and 90 beds are proposed. Therefore, the proposal is consistent within Code provision. Impervious Sur�ace Ratio (ISR� Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-1001.1, the maximum allowable ISR within the R/OG FLUP category is 0.75. The overall proposed ISR within this portion of the site is 0.773, which, while inconsistent with Code provisions, is a reduction from the current ISR of 0.796. Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-201.1, the maximum allowable ISR within the RU FLUP category is 0.65. The overall proposed ISR within this portion of the site is 0.254, which is consistent with Code provisions. Minimum Lot Area / Lot Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1202, the required lot area and lot width are to be a minimum of 20,000 square feet and 100 feet, respectively. The portion of the site within the O district has a lot area of 82,717 square feet (1.899 acres) and a lot width of approximately 325 feet. Pursuant to CDC Table 2-204, there is no minimum required lot area or lot width for Residential Infill Projects or for non-residential off-street parking. Regardless, the portion of the site within the LMDR district has an area of 10,380 square feet (0.238 acres) and a width of 100 feet. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1004, there are no minimum required setbacks for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to CDC Table 2- 1202, front, side and rear setbacks to primary structures for an ALF are 25, 10 and 20 feet, respectively. Setbacks to parking are based upon the required landscape buffers which for the front (south and north) are each 10 feet and five feet (north and west) and 12 feet (east). The proposal includes a front (south) setback of nine feet (to building) and zero feet (to parking), a front (north) setback of three feet (to parking), a side (east) setback of 74 feet (to building) and 2.6 feet (to parking), a side (west) setback of zero feet (to building and parking), a rear (north) Community Development Board October 15, 2013 FLD2013-08024 — Page 6 � Clbial ��L�l Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT P pP DEVELOPMENTREVIEWDMSION �.,�-,.-�.r�,.-, ;�..: �- . � setback of 33 feet (to building) and 4.7 feet (to parking). The proposal does not meet the minimum standards for setbacks to building on the front (north and south), side (west) or to parking or other like vehicular use areas on the front (north and south) and side (north, east and west). It should also be noted that the structures located on the portion of the site within the O district do not meet the required setbacks for any other Minimum Standard Development use permitted within the O district. Pursuant to CDC Table 2-204, there are no minimum required setbacks for a Residential Infill Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to CDC Table 2-204, non-residential off- street parking within the LMDR district requires a front setback of 25 feet and side and rear setback of 20 feet. The proposal includes a front (south) setback of 30 feet (to pavement) and side (east) setback of 35.5 feet and a rear (north) setback of 25 feet (both to pavement). The proposal meets the minimum standards for front setbacks. Muximum Buildin� Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1003, there is no maximum height for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to the aforementioned CDC Table 2-1202, the maximum allowable height for an ALF is 50 feet. As a further point of reference, the typical allowable maximum height for other uses within the O District is 30 feet. The maximum existing building height of 22 feet is less than the typical allowable height within the O District and is therefore consistent with the CDC. Pursuant to CDC Table 2-204, there is no maximum height for Residential Infill Projects or for non-residential off-street parking. Minimum O ff-Street Parking: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1003, there is no minimum off-street parking requirement for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to CDC Table 2-1202, ALF's are required to have one off-street parking space per each resident. As 90 beds are proposed, 45 parking spaces are required. The proposal includes 75 parking spaces, which exceeds this Code provision. Minimum Of'f-Street Parkin� Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1004, there is no minimum required lot area or lot width for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to CDC Table 2-1202, the minimum required parking for an ALF is one space per two residents. This results in a requirement of 45 parking spaces for a 90-bed ALF. The proposal provides 75 parking spaces (one space per resident) which is greater than the otherwise required number of parking spaces. Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-201.D.1 and 3-903.I, all outside mechanical equipment must be screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. Mechanical equipment is currently centrally located on roof of each building and visible from street rights- of-way and/or adjacent properties. The mechanical equipment will remain in place but concealed with solid PVC fencing approximately three feet in height and painted to match the primary color of the buildings. Community Development Board October 15, 2013 FLD2013-08024 — Page 7 � Vl\^Ni 11all.l Level II Flexible Develo ment iication Review PLANHING&DEVELOPMEN'f P �P DEVELOPMENTREVIEWDMSION " ,_.�—�..�.��- :;�a�'�-= `, :... .. Sight Visibili Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the proposed driveways on Barry Road and Jeffords Street, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20-foot sight visibility triangles. This proposal has been reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineering Department and been found to be acceptable. Shrubbery planted within the sight visibility triangles will need to be maintained to meet Code requirements. Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-912, for development that does not involve a subdivision, all utilities including individual distribution lines must be installed underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. There are existing overhead utility lines, serving this development, within the right-of-way along the north side of Barry Road that will need to be undergrounded. The applicant will be in contact with Progress Energy regarding these power lines to determine the feasibility and practicality of locating them underground. Should Progress Energy believe that undergrounding these power lines is practicable then this utility will need to be relocated underground prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy. Landscaping_ Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, required perimeter buffers are based on adjacent uses and/or street types. The required landscape buffers are 10 feet (south — local street), five feet (west — offce), five feet (north — ALF), 10 feet (north - local street) and 12 feet (east — single-family residential). In addition, CDC Section 3-1202.E provides that interior landscaping must be provided which is equal to or greater than 10 percent of the vehicular use area. The proposed vehicular use area is 41,205 square feet requiring 4,120 square feet of interior landscaped area. CDC Section 3-1202.E also provides that no more than 10 parking spaces may be in a row. Finally, CDC Section 3-1202.E requires that all facades facing a street must include a foundation planting area of at least five feet of depth along the entire farade excluding areas necessary for ingress/egress. This proposal provides buffer widths along the south of between zero and three feet, west of approximately one foot, north of 4.7 feet where adjacent to an existing ALF and three feet (to parking) where adjacent to Jeffords Street and east of 2.6 feet (to parking) which do not meet the requirements of CDC Section 3-1202.D. The proposal does not meet the requirements of CDC Section 3-1202.E in that foundation plantings along the south fa�ade are not provided. The site, given the total perimeter distance and the amount of interior landscape area provided, requires the provision of 67 canopy trees where 25 trees (or the palm/ornamental tree equivalent thereo� are provided. The proposal includes 7,789.26 square feet of interior landscape space which meets the requirements of CDC Section 3-1202.E. The non-residential off-street parking lot within the LMDR district provides all required buffer widths. The east (side) and north (rear) buffers of this parking area are 35.5 and 37.7 feet, respectively where 12 feet is required and south (front) landscape buffer is 30 feet where 10 feet is required. The proposal otherwise meets the remaining requirements of Article 3 Division 12 of the CDC. As noted, landscape buffer widths, certain foundation planting areas and the quantity of provided canopy trees do not meet the provisions of CDC Article 3 Division 12. The applicant has mitigated these deficiencies through the provision of landscape material in excess of the CommuniTy Development Board October 15, 2013 FLD2013-08024 — Page 8 � C�bi4�►1'�l�! Level II Flexibie Develo ment lication Review 1'LANHING&DEVELOPMENT P MP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DMSION ° ,..i 's. � '= . . . . . minimum otherwise required by the CDC. The landscape plan includes a variety of shade, ornamental and palm trees (live oak, crepe myrtle and sabal palm), as well as shrubs and ground covers (viburnum, Indian hawthorn, hibiscus, African iris, liriope and ornamental peanut). The buffers will be planted to the maximum extent possible given existing space constraints. Solid Waste: A dumpster is proposed at the northwest quadrant of the site. The dumpster area will be screened by a solid wall with a stucco finish to match the primary exterior color of the existing buildings. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City's Solid Waste and Fire Departments. SiQnage: The proposal includes the removal of the existing freestanding sign located within the Barry Road right-of-way. A formal signage package has not been presented at this time. Any forthcoming signage package must meet Code requirements. Purpose, Intent and Basic Plannin�Objectives The proposal is supported by the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code as follows: Section 2-1001.1 Intent of the O District and R/OG FL UP classification. The CDC provides that it is the intent of the O District that development be consistent with the Countywide Future Land Use Plan as required by state law. The uses and development potential of a parcel of land within the O District shall be determined by the standards found in this Development Code as well as the Countywide Future Land Use Designation of the property, including any acreage or floor area restrictions set forth in the Rules Concerning the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as amended from time to time. Section 2.3.3.4.2 of the Countywide Land Use Rules provides that the purpose of the R/OG FLUP classification is to depict those areas of the CounTy that are now developed, or appropriate to be developed, in an office and/or medium density residential use; and to recognize such areas as primarily well-suited for mixed-use of an office/residential character consistent with the surrounding uses. Furthermore, Section 2.3.3.1.5 provides that the purpose of the RU FLUP classifcation is to depict those areas of the County that are now developed, or appropriate to be developed, in an urban low density residential manner; and to recognize such areas as primarily well-suited for residential uses that are consistent with the urban qualities and natural resource characteristics of such areas. Permitted uses in both FLUP classifcations include residential equivalent with a density of up to three beds. Article 7 of the Countywide Land Use Rules includes ALFs as a residential equivalent use. The proposal includes a 90-bed ALF where 90 beds are permitted. The proposal includes a level of intensity supported by the intent of the O District and the R/OG and RU FLUP classifications. Section 1-103.B.1. Allowing property owners to enhance the value of their property through innovative and creative redevelopment. As mentioned, the site was developed primarily in the mid- to late-1960s with seven buildings roughly concurrent with or prior to the development of surrounding properties. The proposed ALF will serve as an appropriate neighborhood use and, importantly, a transitional use from the more intensely developed area along Highland Avenue to the west and the single-family Community Development Board October 15, 2013 FLD2013-08024 — Page 9 ' V�LI�i �1�b�1 Level II Flexible Develo ment FLANMNG&DEVELOPMENT p Application Review - .,�i^�„i-.,,i-�,,,.� � DEVELOPMENf REVIEW DMSION � �_ residential neighborhood to the east. It will constitute a project consistent with elements of the Comprehensive Plan, as provided above. The proposed development is similar to the treatment other sites have received in the area vis-a-vis landscaping and other site improvements as mitigation to justify flexibility from certain the CDC requirements such as quantity of canopy trees, foundation planting, buffer width, setbacks and the permitted number of parking spaces in a row. It should be noted that attached dwellings are located to the south across Barry Road and ALF is located adjacent to the north. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. Section 1-103.B.2. Ensuring that development and redevelopment will not have a negative impact on the value of surrounding properties and wherever practicable promoting development and redevelopment which will enhance the value of surrounding properties. Surrounding properties to the north include a nursing home and an ALF. Uses to the west, east and south include an office, detached and attached dwellings, respectively. A large single-family neighborhood is located to the east. The ALFs are typically residential in nature and it is anticipated that the proposal will result in a positive impact on those surrounding properties by providing a new use where a primarily offce complex exists. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. Section 1-103.B.3. Strengthening the city's economy and increasing its tax base as a whole. The proposal includes the redevelopment of an existing under-utilized office complex with an ALF. The site and building improvements and full utilization of the site should result in an increase in its value thereby positively contributing to the City's tax base and overall economy. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. Section 1-103.D. It is the further purpose of this Development Code to make the beautification of the city a matter of the highest priority and to require that existing and future uses and structures in the city are attractive and well-maintained to the mcrcimum extent permitted by law. The proposal includes the adaptive re-use of an under-utilized office complex with a new ALF. Improvements will include new landscaping. It is anticipated that a new ALF will result in a vibrant and active use of a mostly unused property. As previously mentioned, the proposed landscape plan provides for a mix of groundcovers, low- to medium-sized shrubs as well as shade, palm and ornamental trees. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. Criteria Requirements The proposal supports the General Applicability requirements of this Code as follows: Sectton 3-914.A. General standards for Level One and Level Two approvals. 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density, and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. The site, developed approximately 40 years ago, as an office complex with a small parking lot (within the LMDR district) is similar in size, scale, scope and character as surrounding non-residential uses. The height of the existing buildings is similar to or less than surrounding non-residential uses and generally in scale with nearby single-family dwellings to the east. The proposal is to reuse the site and buildings as an ALF and to continue to use the non-residential off-street parking lot as a parking lot. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. Community Development Board October 15, 2013 FLD2013-08024 — Page 10 � C�4u�r'�l��Level II Fiexible Develo ment lication Review FLANHING&DEVELOPMENT P �P DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DMSION , :`�'w`��, �'�e�v:,�; ;..,..: . . . As mentioned, all surrounding properties are developed with attached dwellings, offices, ALFs or single-family residential dwellings. The proposal includes establishing an ALF within an existing office complex consisting of seven buildings ranging between one- and two-stories. The proposal will have no impact on the ability of surrounding properties to be improved or redeveloped. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. The site will essentially function as it has for over 40 years. The hours of operation will be similar to an office use. There is adequate space on site to accommodate drop-off and pick- up events. The health and safety of residents and workers in the area should not be affected. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize tra�c congestion. As discussed in detail, the proposal includes reusing existing buildings as an ALF. The ALF will act as an appropriate transitional use between the more intensely developed commercial area to the west along Highland Avenue and the residential neighborhood to the east. Access to the site is from Barry Road (south) and Jeffords Street (north). Both streets extend to the east for approximately '/4 mile before terminating at local residential streets. It should be noted that Jeffords Street has traffic calming devices in place east of the subject site. The proposed ALF should have less of an impact vis-a-vis traffic than the previously approved school. It is anticipated that traffic will primarily approach the site from the west along Barry Road from Highland Avenue. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. S. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. While the proposal provides for a use not otherwise permitted within the O district the site design is generally consistent with other non-residential development in the area along Barry Road and Highland Avenue. In addition, the proposed ALF is consistent with other uses in the area include an ALF and nursing home to the north. It should be noted that the subject site was developed primarily during the mid- to late-1960s around the same time or prior to surrounding properties. In other words, the existing development has existed in its current state for approximately 40 years. Specifcally, the proposal with regard to landscaping is consistent with other properties which have been subject of Level I and Level II site plan approvals. In addition, the site design is consistent with the intent of the development parameters set by the Community Development Code with regard to setbacks and landscaping. These development parameters were specifically created because many areas of the City were inconsistent with the appearance and character desired by the citizens of Clearwater as evidenced by the creation and subsequent adoption of the City's current Community Development Code. The proposed ALF will act as an appropriate transitional use between the residential neighborhood to the east and the more commercially developed area to the west along Highland Avenue. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. Surrounding properties to the north include a nursing home and an ALF. Uses to the west, east and south include an office, detached and attached dwellings, respectively. A large Community Development Board October 15, 2013 FLD2013-08024 — Page 11 � V14tt1 T��l�l Level II Flexible DevelopmentApplication Review PLANHING&DEVELOPMENT DEVELAPMENT REVIEW DMSION . g�.S:�..,.e•�>, . . . . .. single-family neighborhood is located to the east. It is anticipated that the proposal will result in a positive impact on those surrounding properties. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. The proposal supports the speciiic Comprehensive Infll Redevelopment Project criteria of this Code as follows: Section 2-1004.A. Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects. 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. The site, developed approximately 40 years ago as an office complex, has sat largely vacant for several years and currently has one tenant occupying about 3,000 square feet out of approximately 26,000 square feet. Efforts to attract new office tenants have largely failed. While ALFs are not a permitted use within the O district they are permitted by the underlying FLUP as explored in detail below in criterion five and elsewhere in this report. It should be noted that the site does not meet the required setbacks for any other use permitted in the district. In addition, the existing landscaping does not in any way fulfill any of the landscape requirements of the CDC. Finally, it should be considered that the 12-space non-residential off-street parking lot within the portion of the site within the LMDR district has been in place for approximately 40 years visually and functionally operating as part of the larger site. The proposal is to reuse the site as an ALF and to continue to use the non-residential off-street parking lot as a parking lot. The alternative is to remove several of the buildings and a large portion of the existing parking in order to meet all applicable development standards. Given that the existing buildings are in good condition that option is largely impractical. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. The redevelopment of the site will be consistent with a variety of Goals, Objectives and Policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of the CDC as examined in detail previously in this document. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. As mentioned, all surrounding properties are developed with attached dwellings, offices, ALFs or single-family residential dwellings. The proposal includes establishing an ALF within an existing offce complex consisting of seven building ranging between one- and two-stories. The proposal will have no impact on the ability of surrounding properties to improve or be redeveloped. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development. As discussed in detail, the proposal includes reusing existing buildings as an ALF. The active hours of operation will be similar to a residential use. The ALF will act as an appropriate transitional use between the more intensely developed commercial area to the west along Highland Avenue and the residential neighborhood to the east. The basic Community Development Board October 15, 2013 FLD2013-08024 —Page 12 � C1bLtl �7�1��1 Level II Flexible Develo mentApplication Review PLANHING&DEVELOPMENT P DEVELOPMENT REVIf.W DMSION � .�, .. . � ' �.. �`,�,. � character of the site will not change with the proposal. It is not anticipated that adjoining properties will suffer any detriment associated with the proposal. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of six objectives: b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the ciry's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; 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 use; The proposed use, an ALF, is permitted within the underlying R/OG and RU FLUP classifications. The proposal will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood in that the general hours of operation are similar to office uses (the most recent use of the site). In addition, the ALF will occupy the existing buildings that have been on site for approximately 40 years. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district. As mentioned, surrounding properties are developed with attached and single-family dwellings, offces, a nursing home and an ALF. The subject site was developed between the mid-1960s and the early 1970s as a seven-building office complex. The proposed ALF will have a similar impact on adjoining properties as when the site was used exclusively as an ofiice. The proposal will have no effect on the ability of surrounding properties to be redeveloped or otherwise improved. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the city. There are no design guidelines adopted by the City which are applicable to the subject site or the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, this CDC Section is not applicable to the proposal. c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area. The proposal provides for a use to be located within existing one- and two-story buildings. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development will not change with the proposal. In addition, the ALF will serve as an appropriate transitional use between the residential neighborhood to the east the more commercially developed area to the west. ALFs are also ideal uses to be located adjacent to residential neighborhoods. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: Community Development Board October 15, 2013 FLD2013-08024 — Page 13 ° p�t��g+ p1. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT : C b[tl 11(�LLl Level II Flexible Development Application Review DEVEIAPMENTREVIEW DMSION � �,, e� ,��e � ■ Changes in horizontal building planes; ■ Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; ■ Variety in materials, colors and textures; ■ Distinctive fenestration patterns; ■ Building stepbacks; and ■ Distinctive roofs forms. The existing architecture of the buildings provides for substantial articulation of the fenestration through the use of vary building heights, deep overhangs and an extensive use of windows. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. The proposal includes adaptive reuse of all seven existing buildings as an ALF. The buildings are primarily located on the western half of the site. Parking is provided along the east side, as well as centrally, on the site. Parking will be buffered from adjacent residential uses with landscaping. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. The proposal supports the specifc Residential Infill Redevelopment Project criteria of this Code as follows: Section 2-204.E. Residential Infill Projects. 1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from one or more of the following: intensity; other development standards. The portion of the site that contains the non-residential off-street parking use currently includes 12 parking spaces with a front setback of 12 feet where 25 feet is required. Due to the proposed use only requiring 45 parking spaces where currently 92 exist, four parking spaces are being removed which will allow for a 30 foot front (south) setback. As such, this criteria is not applicable as no deviations are being requested. 2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project will not materially reduce the fair market value of abutting properties. As discussed previously, abutting properties have been developed with a variety of uses include office, ALF and single-family residential. The subject site, developed primarily in the mid- to late-1960s, will be reused as an ALF. Specifically, the existing non-residential off-street parking lot has been place for approximately 40 years without detriment to the surrounding properties most of which were developed concurrent with the parking lot or subsequent to it. The continuation of the non-residential off-street parking lot improved with new fencing and landscaping is not expected to materially reduce the fair market value of abutting properties. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 3. The uses within the residential infill project are othertvise permitted in the district. Non-residential off-street parking is a permitted use within the LMDR district. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 4. The uses within the residential infill project are compatible with adjacent land uses. The proposed ALF along with the non-residential off-street parking lot will serve as an appropriate transitional use between the residential neighborhood to the east and the more Community Development Board October 15, 2013 FLD2013-08024—Page 14 � Clb�ti �7 �ler Levei II Flexible Development Application Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DMSION . :, �?"��a�.. . � intensely developed commercial area to the west along Highland Avenue. ALFs are also traditionally residential in nature. Specifically, the parking lot visually and functionally operates as a part of the larger parcel and has had (and will continue to have) no greater impact than if the lot was zoned O district. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. S. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The site was developed as an offce complex nearly 50 years ago. As the market has changed the site has been marginalized with regard to its capacity to attract new office tenants. Most of the floor area is currently vacant with one tenant occupying approximately 3,000 square feet out of a total of approximately 26,000 square feet. The opportunity to reuse the site for a vibrant new use which will support the residential neighborhood to the east should upgrade the immediate vicinity of the site. Specifically, the parking lot located within the LMDR district will be improved with new fencing and landscaping. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 6. The design of the proposed residential infill project creates a form and function which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. The proposal includes upgrades mostly to the interior of the existing buildings. However, site changes do include the provision of new landscaping to the maximum extent provided by existing site conditions. The site including the non-residential off-street parking lot has been a fixture within the neighborhood for approximately 40 years and is consistent with the size, scale and scope of the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 7. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height, off-street parking, access or other development standards are justified by the benefits to community character and the immediate viciniry of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. The requested flexibility will allow the existing buildings and parking facilities to be reused for a new use. The proposed ALF will serve as an appropriate transitional use between commercial development along Highland Avenue to the west and the residential neighborhood to the east. Specifically, the parking lot located within the LMDR district has been place for decades without detriment to the surrounding area and will be improved with new fencing and landscaping. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. Comprehensive Plan: The proposal is in support of the following Goals, Objectives and/or Policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan as follows: Future Land Use Plan Element Objective A.3.2 - All development or redevelopment initiatives within the City of Clearwater shall meet the minimum landscaping / tree protection standards of the Community Development Code in order to promote the preservation of existing tree canopies, the expansion of that canopy, and the overall quality of development within the City; and Community Development Board October 15, 2013 FLD2013-08024 — Page 15 �Cib�tl ►1 f�l�l Level II Flexible Development Application Review PLANNING& DEVELOPMENT u`,^,I�!`� � f, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION : �..... ..,�... .- __, �� Policy A.3.2.1 - All new development or redevelopment of property within the City of Clearwater shall meet all landscape requirements of the Community Development Code. Barry Road is not designated as a Primary Scenic Corridor within CDC Section 3-1203 of the nor within the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the City's Comprehensive Plan. While the proposal does not provide the required buffer widths along the perimeter of the site the applicant has provided the maximum amount of landscaping within the space available. As mentioned previously, the proposed landscape plan provides for a mix of groundcovers, low- to medium- sized shrubs as well as shade, palm and ornamental trees. Therefore, the submittal supports this Objective and Policy. Policy A.S.S.1 - Development should be designed to maintain and support the existing or envisioned character of the neighborhood. The proposal provides for a use permitted as a Minimum Standard Development within the O district and a site design generally consistent with other non-residential development in the area along Barry Road and Highland Avenue. It should be noted that the subject site was developed primarily during the mid- to late-1960s around the same time or prior to surrounding properties. In other words, the development has existed in its current state for approximately 40 years. Speci�cally, the proposal with regard to landscaping is consistent with other properties which have been subject of Level I and Level II site plan approvals and provides a reasonable compromise between improving the site to the maximum extent practicable and a strict application of the CDC. In addition, the site design is consistent with the intent of the development parameters flexibility set by the Community Development Code with regard to parking, setbacks and landscaping. These development parameters were specifically created because many areas of the City were inconsistent with the appearance and character desired by the citizens of Clearwater as evidenced by the creation and subsequent adoption of the City's current Community Development Code. The proposed ALF will act as an appropriate transitional use between the residential neighborhood to the east and the more commercially developed area to the west along Highland Avenue. Therefore, the proposal supports this Policy. Goal A.6 - The City of Clearwater shall utilize innovative and flexible Planning and engineering practices, and urban design standards in Order to protect historic resources, ensure neighborhood Preservation, redevelop blighted areas, and encourage infill Development; and Objective A.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 site, as mentioned, was developed primarily during the mid- to late-1960s. The existing buildings, while structurally sound and completely serviceable, have not been able to effectively compete in the marketplace vis-a-vis office tenant attraction and retention. The continuation of office uses within the existing buildings, according to the applicant, has become untenable. Therefore, the interior rehabilitation and modification to serve as an ALF on the edge of an existing stable residential neighborhood with an updated and improved site plan including new landscaping. The proposal, which makes an appropriate reuse of the site and buildings while emphasizing enhanced aesthetics (landscaping) is the sort of project envisioned as an apt recipient of flexibility from the Minimum Standard Development parameters as provided by the above Goal and Objective with regard to its location within the urban service area and an Community Development Board October 15, 2013 FLD2013-08024 — Page 16 � Li�.[�� ►7 flL�l Level II Flexibie Develo ment Application Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT P DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DMSION . . .. '�"�;�.� . ..,, ^ � . . attractive, compact redevelopment plan. Therefore, the proposal supports this Goal and Objective. Policy A.6.8.1 - Build active, attractive communities that are designed at a human scale and encourage walking, cycling and use of mass tr�ansit; and Policy A.6.8.3 - Where appropriate, development shall provide a sense of pedestrian scale on streets through minimal front setbacks, similar building heights, street trees and proportionality of building heights to street widths. The proposal includes the adaptive reuse of seven existing office buildings between one and two stories in height with an ALF. The height of the existing buildings (up to 22 feet) is consistent with or lower than other buildings in the area including a one-story office to the west, a four- story attached dwelling to the south across Barry Road, a seven-story ALF to the north and the single-family residential neighborhood to the east consisting mostly of one-story dwellings. Existing front setbacks along Barry Road are minimal and are approximately nine feet to building. Therefore, the proposal supports these Policies. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no active Code Compliance cases for the subject property. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards for an Assisted Living Facility as per CDC Tables 2-1001.1 and 2-1004 (O District): Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Density 15 du/ac (3 beds/du); (plus 90 beds X five beds as permitted within the LMDR District — see table, below); 90 total beds Impervious Surface Ratio 0.75 0.715 X� Minimum Lot Area N/A 82,717 square feet (1.899 X acres) Minimum Lot Width N/A 325 feet X Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A South: 9 feet to building Xl Zero feet to pavement North: Zero feet to pavement Xt Side: N/A East: 74 feet to building X 2.6 feet to pavement West: Zero feet to building X� Zero feet to pavement Rear: N/A North: 33 feet to building XI 4.7 feet to pavement Maximum Height N/A 22 feet X Minimum Determined by the 1.91 spaces per resident (90 Xl Off-Street Parking community development spaces) coordinator based on the specific use and/or IT'E Manual standazds 1 See analysis in Sta,�J`'Report The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards for non-residential off-street parking as per CDC Tables 2-201.1 and 2-204 (LMDR District): Community Development Board October 15, 2013 FLD2013-08024 — Page 17 � 1i��1 Tl' �ll.� Level II Flexible Development Application Review navEi,o MEP NT REVIEW DIV�I ox � ��•�.�� . Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Density 7.5 du/ac (3 beds/du); 5 90 beds 7� beds (plus 86 beds as � permitted within the O District — see table, above); 90 total beds Impervious Surface Ratio 0.65 0.40 X Minimum Lot Area NA 10,380 squaze feet (0.238 X acres) Minimum Lot Width NA 103 feet 3� Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A South: 30 feet to pavement X Side: N/A North: 37.7 feet to pavement X East: 35.5 feet to pavement X Maximum Height N/A N/A 7� Minimum N/A N/A X Off-Street Parkin COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-1004.A. (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project): 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use and/or development standazds set forth in this zoning district. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development. 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. Community Development Board October 15, 2013 FLD2013-08024 —Page 18 Consistent I Inconsistent X� X1 X� X� a��1 11�1�1 Level II Flexible Development Application Review - �� o � . _ PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENI' REVIEW DMSION Consistent 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and of� street X parking aze 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 chazacter of an area; d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appeazance, 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.; ❑ Vaziety in materials, colors and textures; ❑ Distinctive fenestration patterns; ❑ Building stepbacks; and ❑ Distinctive roofs forms. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscane desien and annrouriate distances between buildings. � See analysis in StaffReport Inconsistent The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-204.E. (Residential Iniill Project) (LMDR District): 1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from one or more of the following: intensity; other development standards; 2. The development of the pazcel proposed for development as a residential infill project will not materially reduce the fair market value of abutting properties. 3. The uses within the residential infill project are otherwise permitted in the district. 4. The uses within the residential infill project are compatible with adjacent land uses. 5. The development of the pazcel proposed for development as a residential infill project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the pazcel proposed for development. 6. The design of the proposed residential infill project creates a form and function which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the pazcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. 7. Flexibility in regazd to lot width, required setbacks, height, of� street parking, access or other development standards are justified by the benefits to community character and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. � See analysis in Staff Report Community Development Board October 15, 2013 FLD2013-08024 — Page 19 Consistent Inconsistent X� X� X� X1 X1 X1 X' � V��1 ►1 �1�� Level II Flexible Development App�ication Review 4•d� . .. .�:`�".3:°� . . . . PLANHING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL APPLICABILITY STANDARDS: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards for Level One Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A: l. The proposed development of the land will be in hazmony 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 olfactorv and hours of oneration imnacts on adiacent nronerties. ' See analysis in Staff Report Consistent � Inconsistent X X1 X1 X� X' X' COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM STANDARDS: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Comprehensive Landscape Program as per CDC Section 3-1202.G: 1. Architectural theme. a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall be designed as a part of the azchitectural theme of the principal buildings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for development; or b. The design, chazacter, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape program shall be demonstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the pazcel proposed for development under the minimum landscape standards 2. Lighting. Any lighting proposed as a part of a comprehensive landscape program is automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is closed. 3. Community character. The tandscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater. 4. Property values. The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape program will have a beneficial impact on the value of property in the immediate vicinity ofthe parcel proposed for development. 5. Special area or scenic corridor plan. The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape program is consistent with any special azea or scenic corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepazed and adopted for the azea in which the narcel nronosed for development is located. Consistent X1 X X1 X� NA Inconsistent NA SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of September 5, 2013 and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient, based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: Community Development Board October 15, 2013 FLD2013-08024 — Page 20 � C�LI�1 �� al�! Level II Flexible Development Applicafion Review nEVei,oPMErrr ��w DPrv Is oN ��;�.� .� � . Findings of Fact The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact: 1. That the 2.14 acre site is located on the north side of Barry Road approximately 330 feet east of Highland Avenue; 2. That the subject property is located within the O(1.899 acres) and LMDR (0.238 acres) Districts and the R/OG and RU Future Land Use Plan categories, respectively; 3. That the proposal is to reuse the site and existing buildings as an ALF and as non-residential off-street parking and is subject to the requisite development parameters per Article 2 Divisions 10 and 2, respectively, of the CDC; 4. That the portion of the site to be used as an ALF and which contains all the existing buildings is located completely within the O district; 5. That the proposal is also to continue to use the portion of the site within the LMDR district as a 8-space non-residential off-street parking lot; 6. That the subject property is not located in a special plan area; 7. That the site is currently developed with a seven-building office complex and a non- residential off-street parking lot within the LMDR district; 8. The subject property is comprised of two parcels with approximately 430 feet of frontage along Barry Road and 65 feet of frontage along Jeffords Street; 9. That the proposal includes a front (south) setback of nine feet (to building) and zero feet (to parking), a front (north) setback of three feet (to parking), a side (east) setback of 74 feet (to building) and 2.6 feet (to parking), a side (west) setback of zero feet (to building and parking), a rear (north) setback of 33 feet (to building) and 4.7 feet (to parking and solid waste enclosure) and 90 parking spaces (0.18 spaces per student) in the Office (0) District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-1004.A; 10. That the proposal includes a 8-space non-residential off-street parking lot with a front (south) setback of 30 feet (to pavement) and side (east) setback of 35.5 feet and a rear (north) setback of 37.7 feet (both to pavement) in the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of CDC Section 2-204.A; 11. That the proposal includes a request to reduce the front (north) landscape buffer from 10 feet to five feet (to parking), reduce the side (east) landscape buffer from 12 feet to 2.6 feet (to parking), reduce the side (west) landscape buffer from five feet to zero feet (to parking), increase the number of parking spaces in a row from 10 spaces to 11 spaces and eliminate the required foundation plantings along the front (south) fa�ade of two existing buildings as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of CDC Section 3-1202.G; and 12. There are no active Code Compliance cases for the subject property. Conclusions of Law The Planning and Development Department, having made the above findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law: 1. That the development proposal is consistent with the pattern of development of the surrounding neighborhood; 2. That the development proposal is inconsistent with the Standards as per Table 2-1202 of the Community Development Code with regard to setbacks to building and pavement and the number of parking spaces; Community Development Board October 15, 2013 FLD2013-08024 — Page 21 ��Rl ��Ltl�l Level II Flexible Development Application Review nEVEi.orMEr r�v�wDprv Is ox � -,�>.:� , rr , 3. That the development proposal is inconsistent with the Standard as per Table 2-204 of the Community Development with regard to setbacks to pavement; 4. That the proposal consistent with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of the Community Development Code Sections 1-103.B.1— 3 and D; 5. That the development is consistent with Sections 2.3.3.4.2 and 23.3.1.5 and Article 7 of the Countywide Land Use Rules; 6. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2- 1004.A of the Community Development Code; 7. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2- 204.E; 8. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level One and Two Approvals as per Section 3-914.A of the Community Development Code; 9. That the proposal is consistent with applicable portions of the Comprehensive Plan including Future Land Use Plan Element Goal A.6, Objectives A.3.2 and A.6.4 and Policies A.3.2.1, A.5.5.1, A.6.8.1 and A.6.8.3; 10. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria for a Comprehensive Landscape Program CDC Section 3-1202.G; and 11. That the applicant has adequately demonstrated through the submittal of substantial competent evidence that the request is entitled to the approval requested as required by CDC Section 4-206.D.4. Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends APPROVAL of the Flexible Development application to permit an Assisted Living Facility (ALF) with up to 90 beds with a height of 22 feet, a front (south) setback of nine feet (to building), a front (north) setback of three feet (to parking), a side (east) setback of 74 feet (to building) and 2.6 feet (to parking), a side (west) setback of zero feet (to building and parking), a rear (north) setback of 33 feet (to building) and 4.7 feet (to parking and solid waste enclosure) and 75 parking spaces (0.83 spaces per resident) in the Office (0) District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-1004.A; to permit non-residential off-street parking with a front (south) setback of 30 feet (to pavement) and side (east) setback of 35.5 feet (to pa�ement) and a rear (north) setback of 25 feet (to pavement) in the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) district as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of CDC Section 2-204.A and to reduce the front (south) landscape buffer from 10 feet to three feet (to concrete wall), reduce the front (north) landscape buffer from 10 feet to three feet (to parking), reduce the side (east) landscape buffer from 12 feet to 2.6 feet (to parking), reduce the side (west) landscape buffer from five feet to zero feet (to building and parking), reduce the required number of canopy trees and eliminate the required foundation plantings along the front (south) fa�ade of two existing buildings as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of CDC Section 3-1202.G., subject to the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: General/Miscellaneous Conditions 1. That the final design and color of the buildings be consistent with the elevations approved by the CDB; 2. That the existing chain link fence along the south and east sides of the site be removed and replaced with a solid wood or PVC fence or masonry wall three feet in height with landscaping on the exterior side; 3. That all signage be reviewed and approved pursuant to the City's sign ordinance and that the maximum square footage of any freestanding signs be limited to the minimum permitted by CommuniTy Development Board October 15, 2013 FLD2013-08024 — Page 22 � C��.ta! 11 LtL�l Level II Flexible Develo ment Application Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENI' P DEVEIAPMENT REV�W DMSION � _:§�Sr�"...-..�.. ,... . the CDC with regard to area, height and number without the opportunity to apply for a Comprehensive Sign Program; 4. That issuance of a development permit by the City of Clearwater does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the City for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfll the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law; 5. That all other applicable local, state and/or federal permits be obtained before commencement of the development; Timing Conditions 6. That application for a building permit be submitted no later than October 15, 2014, unless time extensions are granted pursuant to CDC Section 4-407; 7. That prior to the issuance of any permits the freestanding sign located in the Barry Road public right-of-way be removed; 8. 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 fre sprinkler, standpipe andlor fre pump. If a fire pump is required, then the water supply must be able to supply 150 percent of its rated capacity; 9. That a Declaration of Unity of Title and evidence of filing of same with the Pinellas County Clerk of the Court be submitted to Staff prior to the issuance of any permits; 10. That the proposed solid waste enclosure match the existing buildings with regard to fit, fnish and materials and that evidence of same be submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any permits; 11. That prior to the issuance of any building permits the location and visibility of electric equipment (electric panels, boxes and meters) be reviewed and, if located exterior to the building where visible from any street frontage, be shown to be painted the same color as the portion of the building to which such features are attached; 12. That prior to the issuance of any permits, any applicable Public Art and Design Program Impact Fees be paid; 13. That prior to the issuance of any permits, any applicable Parks and Recreation impact fees be paid; 14. That prior to the issuance of any permits all sub-standard sidewalks and sidewalk ramps adjacent to or a part of the project shall be shown on plans to be improved to meet the requirement of Local, State and/or Federal standards including A.D.A. requirements (truncated domes per FDOT Index #304); and 15. That all aboveground utilities along Barry Road be located underground prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy should the owning entity believe that undergrounding these power lines is practicable. Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: atthew Jackson, Planner III ATTACHMENTS: Photographs Community Development Board October 15, 2013 FLD2013-08024 —Page 23 . �� _ , j ��, „ ,' , ��_=- _ . � � C�: r..,, .. ;., u { +� � y ,r _ —_ , � , � ---- , � _. �- y �' _ , ' --•c=�+�"� �� . 'ie .` �""'.��.,�'- *� g . �s.v�". � .., -� , . � ..T'x-,.�n..' . .. � .,;. .,�""� � .. - ... � � �� ' t � ��,",� �'.'�s,s , . ��,��. , �`�s ��s�� ,��.''� a .r � � ' � � ?* a�$.y�.' ,,}, � � �ir <�+�''�c. ��i .s. , �r�.� � r,;��'S�c rw;�n ,,� ��'?� `'a1 i3 �. � '�,t' ��r `�� f,� .rx. . .. - .`. r/;r'•*+1,`,t`�'�`._ , , � � Looking east along Barr�� Roud ':��,,�y� ,; � .A�, : �:#. • ��>^ _ Looking north along east side of parcel. "k� �'�� } � "- . j/ � �` ac�... � .,:�,, �' ;;�;� c . . :n:' _ ys �.�; % : i��l��'`H--. _ �I � s.: . _l:' :Fr��l�� -��_ -- ""^_ - � � 6iRR ?� �'Q� �r-, . `Af"7}:..a.:l:..�,i \ � "-- =�3.�_.,.– „_ .� .. ! . , y. . Looking south centrally along north property line � _ � �... "�' �� _� �� °. ':�� _- "'�` - - -- �'�. �13 Looking north centrally from south properiy ]ine along Barry Road. Looking west at northeast corner of site at westem terminus of Jeffords Street. _� ��as'.�'`�,'; i { __"�.a � �. Looking east from center of site 1510 Barry Road Portion of Site within the O District FLD2013-08024 Page 1 of 3 ' �+��r.r�< � ��d��`!� �'.,"' - .., ,� ' i � � � �a4��,� � �+�;i . � t' x a }�� °��a � � ,� , •� ...,. -:.r �.�j L.�a�},� S �J ��\ti Zjt� 0�~"'Y. thK �.s 'IbF.1 A'T � �1`. �. �'w..� . J ....Y. ^. 1✓J':Y �. _i .1 . �'\: • � y.~ ... ' Looking north along west properiy line. ,. _. � ni� � , ' 4 u�t� i r �� III�IIIIIIf'�IIIliIIiIIIIIIIIIIII��., III�I�i�ll�� . •��..� r N��:!in i t� ` --� f�__ ,._ Looking north from center of site. � �. �� 'alflk�!> �.. i.��Si � '"�:� � - - � . Looking southeast from within the site. :� . , , P� 4 • ` . ��'; ''�� y,, tia , �, ~ � ', ,� (� � � ; � � a`�` � , -, ; . ,. 5 , .__ ��•, i�'`; ''�", ',,,��IINIIiIii . � , ` � - �_ _--__ • — t� '�' � _ - Looking northeast from southwest corner of site. , � ., r„ � , .�, y.. <„��; w�u � „ - / � + `�i� n� ��6 :i .t � F�; , �,;�r ...I � �I t � ! _ �y,. _ , . ._. . _. . � 4 �- �ilYJWifi� °' ` ` � v .�_ _. ,�. .... � ., ,. ;: _�-,� ��YV�� .� Looking southeast from west property line. �� Looking south along west property line. 1510 Barry Road Portion of Site within the O District FLD2013-02003 Page 2 of 3 � `'�° "'� � ? t� �� ;� - - _ .�''e MAR 29 2013 Looking east along Barry Road. ��., � � � �`. .� 's �, ! ,�j� ;. � i 1� ....00tlii�.��:. _ — ' . +�+�� __.. Looking west from center of parking lot. , • .�,��R:,;�,� ' � t,; a ':�'. . ,�� .t; , '�� r i ...�� -.....�-_.�.�.� .....___ �`'�--� y � :- # -_ -�. =w. -, -'�:` �,_.�r�;.,� '°"�'i�! -- _ �,,�,,,.�� „� r� ; ,b .r/ ✓ro'"t�" , � � ��yFb�_tn ' � ...+�� ,.r+^i� „�s , � ��, .�.K= � ...r.°"^'" .,a,.. .r .- , �� .... ..s p.. � ��.. . . �.,,,te . .,,�.. :�.. � '� ��°swr� �.Wi ,�+�'� � �' �. � � � . � :. � �.� �� °°`>' , '�� ,�. . f.L�.. � �,�.., ; ' -_ ,_ , , ::� � _,. .�..,.�. ,,.__._ `�� :.;:. _ ,. � - Looking north along Bany Road. i, .'l' � ,,;Sr` �...,.. Looking west from southeast corner of site.. ,., . ._..-: �..;7 :.. .. �� ' t --�. _-� '��`. _� I� —— w � � _. , .,.,,, • �� :, .r� ` ' :1 ti - �. �._.,,;.:� �4w`'�i��, j �' � - � �Kh L y� ' � i ; '� z; ,* : � t t: .s�:. •;._...� .. � . ..... � . ....�, �.,.� �..,.°w..��f�Hf c� rrc ' __ •----'--�-- ; Looking east along north side of parking lot. 1510 Barry Road Portion of Site within the LMDR District FLD2013-02003 Page 3 of 3 Matthew Jackson 100 5outh Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 (727)562-4504 matthew. i ackson(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. o 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 officials, 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 mai�ager 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. o 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+ staf£ 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 IIS Army, 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 ❑ Master of Arts, Urban and Regional Planning, Florida Atlantic University, 2007 ❑ Bachelor of Arts, Urban and Regional Planning, Rollins College, 2004 K ' �► Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. Land Development Consulting Engineering . Planning . Transportation . Permitting ICOT Center 13825 ICOT Boulevard, Suite 605 Clearwater, FL 33760 Phone:(727)524-1818 Fax:(727)524-6090 September 11, 2013 Matthew Jackson, Planner III City of Clearwater Planning & Development Department 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756-5520 Re: 1510 Barry Road FLD2013-08024 Resubmittal for CDB Hearing Dear Mr. Jackson: Pursuant to the Case Comments from the City of Clearwater and agreements reached at the September 5, 2013 DRC meeting, we have responded to each of the review comments as follows: Enqineerinq Review Prior to Buildinq Permit: Comment: 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). As per FY 2012/13 FDOT Index 310, truncated domes are not required for sidewalks intersecting driveways. Response: 1. Acknowledged. Comment: 2. Please show all existing easements on the site plan. Please acknowledge in writing that if any fences or landscaping are proposed within these easements, that the City has the right to remove, without cost or obligation to replace or restore, any fence or landscaping as may be necessary to maintain the utilities located in the easement as per Community Development Code Section 3-806 - Easements and rights-of-way. �. ,..- ._L Matthew Jackson September 11, 2013 Page 2 of 12 Response: 2. Existing easements are shown on the Site Plan. We acknowledge the City of Clearwater has the right to remove any fence or landscaping to maintain utilities within any easement granted to the city. Comment: 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. Response: 3. Acknowledged. Prior to Certificate of Occupancv: Comment: 1. The Owner shall submit one set of as-built drawings signed and sealed by a State of Florida Registered Professional Engineer for the installation of all water, sanitary sewer and storm structures installed at the site. These drawings shall be sent to the Engineering Department, Municipal Services Building, 100 South Myrtle Avenue, Room 220. The City inspector will field verify the submitted as-builts for accuracy. Once the Owner has a set of City approved as-builts, the Owner shall provide a total of five sets of as- builts to the City and a Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued. Response: 1. Acknowledged. General Note: Comment: 1. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit review. Additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Response: 1. Acknowledged. Environmental Review .r � Matthew Jackson September 11, 2013 Page 3 of 12 Prior to issuance of buildinq permit: Comment: 1. Prior to issuance of building permit, provide erosion control measures on plans sheet and provide notes detailing erosion control methods. Response: 1. Acknowledged. Erosion control measures will be stipulated on the Site Permit Plans at the time of Site Permit submittal. Comment: General Note(s) 1. DRC review is comments may Application. Response: 1. Acknowledged. Comment: a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit 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. Response: 2. Acknowledged Comment: 3. Offsite discharge of produced groundwater from dewatering shall comply with dewatering guidelines from Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), F.A.C. 62-621(2). Response: 3. Acknowledged. Comment: 4. Additional permits from State agencies, such as the Southwest Florida Water Management District or Florida Department of Environmental Protection, may be required. Approval does not relieve the applicant from the requirements to obtain all other required permits and authorizations. r .� Matthew Jackson September 11, 2013 Page 4 of 12 Response: 4. Permits from outside agencies, if necessary, will be obtained during the Site Permit process. Fire Review Comment: 1. Must show the location of Fire Department Connections all buildings shall be protected throughout by an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with 9.7.1.1(1) and provided with quick-response or residential sprinklers throughout to meet the requirements of NFPA-13, 2007 edition. ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO C.D.B. Response: 1. The FDC locations are shown on the plan. Other items are acknowledged. Comment: 2. A water supply plan for fire protection showing location of fire hydrants and Double Detector Check Valves for fire lines to required fire sprinkler systems ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO C.D.B. A Fire Alarm System shall be provided in accordance with section 9.6 ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO C.D.B. Response: 2. Acknowledged. Comment: 3. Where underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, they shall be installed, completed, and in service prior to construction as per NFPA- 241. All underground fire lines and hydrants must be installed by a contractor with a class I,II or V license. ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO C.D.B. Response: 3. Acknowledged. Comment: 4. Fire Department Connections shall be identified by a sign that states "No Parking, Fire Department Connection" and shall be designed in accordance with Florida Department of Transportation standards for information signage and be maintained with a clearance of 7 1/2 feet in front of and to the sides of appliance as per Florida Fire Prevention Code 2010 edition. r ,t Matthew Jackson September 1 l, 2013 Page 5 of 12 Response: 4. Acknowledged. Will be handled at Site Permit stage. ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO C.D.B. Comment: 5. Note: This is a D.R.C. approval only. Other issues may develop and will be addressed at building permit stage. Response: 5. Ackowledged. Land Resource Review Comment: 1. Remove all #2.5 and below rated trees, see arborist report. OR in the instance of the live oaks along the south property line (the adjacent parking lot) have a certified arborist determine if the rating of trees may improve with an increase in area of the landscape island. Specifically if the striped asphalt directly to the north of the trees is removed and the landscape islands increase in size is this enough to boost the vigor of the trees. If this will not increase the vigor and potentially the rating of the trees, remove all trees rated 2 and below. Revise to prior to building permit. Response: 1. As discussed at the September 5, 2013 DRC meeting, a tree preservation plan will be prepared, Sheet LAS, and a maintenance program established to attempt to save most trees rather than outright removal. Based on a follow-up field review by City staff, the Laurel Oak/Live Oak tree in the southeast corner has been proposed for removal due to poor condition. Comment: 2. Removal of trees rated 2 and below does not require an inch-for-inch replacement, however in the instance of the laurel and water oaks in the south east corner additional shade trees may be required for landscape buffers. Proposed shade trees in this area should be centered away from impervious areas and/or property lines. Response: 2. As discussed at the September 5, 2013 DRC meeting, a tree preservation plan will be prepared, Sheet LAS, and a maintenance program established to attempt to save most trees rather than outright removal. An Oak tree has been proposed Matthew Jackson September 11, 2013 Page 6 of 12 for the area where the Laurel Oak/Live Oak was removed in the southeast corner of the remote parking area, see the Landscape Plan, Sheet LA3. Comment: 3. 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. And any other pertinent information relating to tree preservation. Provide prior to building permit. Response: 3. A Tree Preservation Plan, Sheet LA5, has been prepared and included as part of this submittal. Patrick Roberson, RLA is also an ISA Certified Arborist and prepared the plan. Comment: 4. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review, additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Response: 4. Acknowledged. Planninq Review Comment: 1. The total number of permitted beds is 90 where 172 beds are proposed. The application needs to be revised to indicate the permitted number of beds. Response: 1. The application was revised to reflect 90 beds, as this is the maximum controlled by the underlying land use designation. Comment: 2. Revise the application to reflect the fact that there are two zoning districts (O and LMDR) and FLUP classifications (R/OG and RU). In addition, include the area of each portion of the site within each district on the application on page two of eight. Response: t_ � Matthew Jackson September 11, 2013 Page 7 of 12 2. The application was revised to reflect O and LMDR zoning districts with R/OG and RU land use designations respectively. Comment: 3. Add the building height dimensions and building materials to the pictures of the building elevations. Response: 3. These items have been added to the photos. Comment: 4. There are three parking spaces or portions thereof on the west side of the site which encroach onto the neighboring property. Either that pavement needs to be removed or a parking/access easement needs to be provided and the property owner of that adjacent property needs to be a party to the application. As 90 parking spaces are proposed and 45 are required, additional landscaping in this area would be appropriate. Response: 4. The westernmost pavement is not on our property and we cannot remove it. As agreed at the September 5, 2013 DRC meeting, we will install curb and landscaping between the parking spaces on our property and the property line. Comment: 5. Clarify what is going on in the striped area on the south side of the two southern parking spaces in the small lot. Response: 5. The striped area is being removed along with parking spaces to achieve a landscaped area that exceeds the minimum 25-foot setback buffer from the Barry Road right-of-way. Comment: 6. Clarify if any structures are proposed for the play area located to the north of building seven and to the west of building five. Response: 6. No structures are proposed. This is area is not a play area. It is sodded and is open space. Comment: .+ Matthew Jackson September 11, 2013 Page 8 of 12 7. The County and City GIS systems show the subject property as being to separate properties with the off-street-parking as one small lot (0.238 acres) and the rest of the property as another property (1.922 acres). Provide evidence that the properties have been combined through a unity of title. If such evidence cannot be provided then a unity of title (and evidence of filing of same with the Clerk of the Court) must be done prior to the issuance of any permits. Response: 7. These two parcels will be combined through a Unity of Title. Comment: 8. The existing monument sign is not located on the subject property but, rather, within the Barry Road right-of-way. Any proposed signage will need to be place completely on the subject site and meet the requirements of CDC Section 3-1807. Response: 8. The plans show the sign to be relocated onto the property. Comment: 9. Clarify where mechanical equipment is (or will be) located and how it is (or will be) screened from view from adjacent properties and street rights-of- way per CDC Section 3-201.D.1 and 3-903.1. Response: 9. All mechanical equipment is located on the roofs of the existing buildings and will be screened from view. Comment: 10. Confirm that overhead wires serving the site will be put underground as consistent with CDC Section 3-912. Should Progress Energy believe that undergrounding this power line is practicable then this utility will also need to be relocated underground. Response: 10. Acknowledged. We will coordinate with Duke Energy. Comment: 11. As double the amount of required parking spaces are proposed, provide the required 25 foot setback on the portion of land zoned LMDR. Response: � Matthew Jackson September 11, 2013 Page 9 of 12 11. Plans have been revised to removed 4 spaces in this area and achieve the code required setback. Comment: 12. As double the parking spaces required are proposed, provide the required 25 percent pervious area for the portion of property in the R/OG FLUP category. Response: 12. The plans show existing parking spaces to be removed and replaced with landscaping area to significantly reduce the total impervious surface. Comment: 13. Acknowledge that prior to the issuance of any permits a site plan be submitted to an approved by Staff which indicates that a fence a minimum of five feet in height but no greater than six feet in height will be located along the east side of the site adjacent to the Stevenson's Creek outfall. Response: 13. The plans show a 6-foot high fence along the east side of the site near the drainage ditch. Comment: 14. Clarify if it is possible to place shade trees along the north side of the site. 67 shade trees required to be placed on the site. The landscape plan provides 25 trees (or the palm or understory tree equivalent). This results in a deficit of 42 trees. Response: 14. As discussed at the September 5, 2013 DRC meeting, this area is too narrow to install shade trees. The plans have been raised to provide tree islands. Please see revised landscape plans, Sheet LA3. Additional trees have been added in areas throughout the parking lot where additional landscape islands where expanded or provided. A Comprehensive Landscape Application was provided to address the tree deficit with the use of the existing site. Comment: 15. Clarify if it is possible to locate additional shade trees on the north side of the non-residential off-street parking lot at the southeast corner of the site. Response: �. Matthew Jackson September 1 l, 2013 Page 10 of 12 15. The Landscape Plan, Sheet LA3, indicates two Live Oaks for this area with a 30' on center spacing, which has been required by the City for that tree species on previous projects. Comment: 16. As double the required parking spaces are proposed, increase the width of the landscape islands to the Code required eight feet from back of curb to back of curb. Response: 16. Additional tree islands have been added. Comment: 17. As double the required parking spaces are proposed, no more than 10 parking spaces in a row should occur. Response: 17. Plans were revised accordingly. Comment: 18. As double the required parking spaces are proposed, provide the Code required perimeter buffer as much as practicable along the property lines. Response: 18. Plans were revised to increase perimeter buffers. Comment: 19. Criterion 2- It is recommended that you explore and address, at the least the following items from the Comp. Plan - Future Land Use Plan Element Goal A.6, Objectives A.3.2 and A.6.4 and Policies A.3.2.1 and A.5.5.1. Response: 19. We have reviewed these objectives and policies and believe this application is in conformance. The proposed redevelopment will increase the existing tree canopy, increase the green space on the site (reduce impervious) and will be in harmony with the community character since ALF's and senior apartments already exist in the area. Comment: 20. Acknowledge that additional comments may be generated at or subsequent to the DRC meeting based on responses to DRC comments. ;- I R Matthew Jackson September 11, 2013 Page 11 of 12 Response: 20. Acknowledged. Stormwater Review Prior to Building Permit Comment: 1. Project engineer shall assess the existing storm system and call out on plans required maintenance for customer to perform. Response: 1. This will be done during the Site Permit/Building Permit process. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy Comment: 1. If modification to existing system or new system is needed, contractor shall submit a signed and sealed as-builts certified by the engineer of record that the stormwater system was built per design and meets all regulations. Response: 1. The existing storm-water system is not being modified. General Comments: 1. All resubmittals shall be accompanied with a response letter addressing how each department condition has been met. Response: 1. Acknowledged. Comment: 2. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Acknowledged. Traffic Enq Review General Note(s): Matthew Jackson September 1l, 2013 Page 12 of 12 Comment: 1. The proposed project will not incur any Transportation Impact Fee at this time the credits from existing use exceeded the TIF from new use. Response: 1. Acknowledged and agreed. Comment: 2. Additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application Acknowledged. Please find enclosed the following items for the CDB hearing on October15, 2013. 1. Fifteen (15) copies of the Flexible Development Application and Narrative Suimnary 2. Fifteen (15) copies of Affidavit to Authorize Agent 3. Fifteen (15) copies of the Comprehensive Landscaping Application 4. Fifteen (15) copies of Storm-water Narrative 5. Fifteen (15) copies of Traffic Assessment 6. Fifteen (15) copies of Signed and Sealed Surveys (one 8-1/2 inch by 11-inch copy) 7. Fifteen (15) copies of Preliminary Site Plan (one 8-1/2 inch by 11-inch color copy) 8. Fifteen (15) copies of Landscaping/Irrigation plans (one 8-1/2 inch by 11-inch color copy) 9. Fifteen (15) copies of Photographs of Buildings in Lieu of Building Elevations Please call me if you have any questions or need any additional information regarding this matter. Sincerely, Robert Pergolizzi, AICP PTP Principal Cc Steve Band, Clearwater Professional Plaza, Ltd. Roni Herskovits, DHS Investments. 13-006.01 1 ° Clearwater U 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): Clearwater Professional Plaza, Ltd. MAILING ADDRESS: 1991 Main Street, Box 183, Sarasota, Florida 34236 PHONE NUMBER: 941-365-8200 EMAIL: sband@cpmgrp.com AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE: Steven Band MAILING ADDRESS: 1991 Main Street, Box 183, Sarasota, Florida 34236 PHONE NUMBER: 941-365-0200 EMAIL: sband@cpmgrp.com ADDRESS OF SUBIECT PROPERTY: 1510 Barry Road PARCEL NUMBER(S): 23-29-15-00000-210-0100 & 23-29-15-30366-000-0700 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Attached Legal Description PROPOSED USE(S): Assisted Living Facility DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Looking to establish a 90 bed assisted living facility with reductions in setbacks to reflect existing conditions . Specifically identify the request (include all requested code flexibility; e.g., reduction in required number of pa�king spaces, height, setbacks, lot size, !ot width, specific use, etc.): Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 1 of 8 Revised 01/12 1 i ° Clearwater � U 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): Office and LMDR Residential / Office General (R/OG) and Residential Urban (RU) Offices and parking PROPOSED USE (new use, if any; plus existing, if to remain): Assisted L'IVing FaCllity and parking SITE AREA: 93,097 sq. ft. 2•�4 +�- acres GROSS FLOOR AREA (total square footage of all buildings): Existing: 26,394 sq. ft. Proposed: 26,394 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable: 46,548 (.50 FAR) sq. ft. GROSS FLOOR AREA (total square footage devoted to each use, if there will be multiple uses): First use: 26,394 sq. ft. Second use: sq. ft. Third use: sq. ft. FLOOR AREA RATIO (total square footage of all buildings divided by the total square footage of entire site): Existing: •2$ Proposed: •28 Maximum Allowable: .50 BUILDING COVERAGE/FOOTPRINT (15t floor square footage of all buildings�: Existi ng: 18,363 sq. ft. ( � 9•7 % of site) Proposed: 18,363 sq. ft. ( 19.7 % of site) Maximum Permitted: 46,548 Sq, ft. ( 50% % of site) GREEN SPACE WITHIN VEHICULAR USE AREA (green space within the parking lot and interior of site; not perimeter buffer): Existing: 5,168 Sq, ft. ( 11.6% % of site) Proposed: 7�789 sq. ft. ( 18.9% % of site) VEHICULAR USE AREA (parking spaces, drive aisles, loading area): Existing: 44,606 Sq, ft, ( 48.0% Proposed: 41,205 Sq, ft. ( 44.3% % of site) % of site) Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 2 of 8 Revised 01/12 1 / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATtO (total square footage of impervious areas divided by the total square footage of entire site): Existing; •75 Proposed: �.`i � IVlaximum Permitted: a•75 DENSITY (unitst rooms or beds per acre): Existing< N/A Proposed: Maximum Permitted: OFF-STREET PARKING: Existing: 92 Proposed: % S Min�mum Required: �5 1 V BUILDING HEIGHT: Existing; 2 Story Proposed:. Maximum Permitted: C! UtiIHAT IS THE ES3IMATED TOTAL VAIUE OF THE PROJECT UPON COMPLET(�N? $ Not Yet Determined ZONING DISTRICTS FOR ALL ADIAGENT PROPERTY: North: HDR (High-Densify Residenfial) and O(�ffice) South; HDR (High-Density Residential) and C�Gommercial) East: LMDR (Low-Medium Density Residenfial). West: O (Officej STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY O'' ^'"•--�•��*'_'_�"_; I, the undersigned, acfmowledge that all Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of representations made in this application are true and ''"`� ,.-.�,� accurate #o the best of my knowledge and authorize �� - —��!�-1—�. to me a.nd/or by City repre5entatives to visit and photograph the �` U��_� �\C , who is personally known has property described in this application. produced as identification. Signature o� roperty owne'r or representative o�PaY Pup{i ANN H: �WNES ��a��..� MYCOMMISSION#EE049432 Bonded Tiw Budget Nptary Setvices Notary public, My commission expires: Planning & Development Department, 400 S. Myrtfe Avenue, Clearwater; FL 33756, Tei; 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 3 qf S Revised 07l12 o , Planning & Development Departmeni � � ea�vater Flexible Development Application � Site Plan Submittal Package Check list IN ADDITION TO THE COMPLETED FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT (FLD) APPLICATION, ALL FLD APPLICATIONS SHALL INCLUDE A SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL PAGKAGETHAT INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION AND/OR PIANS: � Responses to the flexibility Griteria 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 Deuelopment Applicafion Flexibility Criteria sheet shall be used to provide khese responses, � Responses to the General Applicability cCiteria set forth in 5ection 3-914RA. The affached Flexible Development Application General Appiicability Criteria sheet shall be used to provide these responses, �j A signed and sealed survey of the property prepared by a registered (and surveyor including the location of the property, dimensions, acreage, locafion of al) eurrent structures/improvements, locaiion of all pu66ic and private easements including official records book and page numbers and str.eet right(s)-of-way within and adjacent to the site. N� ❑ Cf the appl.ication woufd result in the removal or relocation of mobile home owners residing in a mobile hame park as provided in FS, § 723.083, the application must provide that informatiorl required by Section 4-202.A.5. ��' ❑ If this application is being submitted for the purpose of a boatiift, catwalk, davit, dock, marina, pier, seavrall or other similar marine structure, then the applicafion must provide detailed p[ans and specifications prepared by a Florida professiona[ engineer, bearing the seai and signature af the engineer, except signed and sealed pfans shall not be required for the repair or replacement of decking, stringers, railmg, fower fandings, tie piles, or the patching or reinforcing of existing piling o� private and commercial docks. fSl A site plan prepared by a professionaf 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 sl�eet of the same size shail be inciuded with individual sheet numbers referenced thereon. � Narth arrow, scaie, location mapand date prepared, L�F Identification of th.e boundarres of phases, if deve(opment is proposed to be cpnstiucted in phases. �! �qcation of the CoastaJ Construction Control Line (CCGL}, v,whether the property is lacated within a Special Flood Hazard Area, and the Base Flood Elevation (BFEj of the propertyt as applicable. ,)81 Location, footprint and size of all existing: and proposed buildings and structures on the site. �S( Location and dimensions of vehicular and pedesti-ian circulation systems, both on-site and off-site; with proposed pn.ints of access. �] Location oF a11 existing and ptoposed sidewalks, cu�bs, inwater fines, sanitary 5ewer lines, storm drains; fire hydrants and seawalis and any proposed utility easements, � Location of onsite and offsite stormwater management faCifities as well as a narrative describing the proposed stormwater control plan including cafculations, Additional data necessary to demonstrate compJiance with the City of Cle�rwater 5torm Orainage Design Criterie manual may be required at firne of 6uilding construction permit. ,� Locafion of solid waste colfection facilities, required screening and provisions for accessibility for col(ection. � Location of off-street load'ing area, if required Fiy Section 3-1406. � All adjacent right(s�-of-way, with indicafion 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, setbaeks, structural averhangs and building separations. � Building or structure elevatiart drawingsthat depict the proposed buiCding height and building materials. �,, �s4>�� Planning & D�velopmsnt DeparEmenf, 700 S. Myrtle Av2nue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Teh 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 4 of 8 Revised (f7l12 ❑ Typical floor plans, including floor plans for each floor of an� parking garage. ❑ DetYtolifion pian. ❑ Identification and description of watercourses, wetlands; tree masses, specimen trees, and Qther environmentally sensitive areas. ❑ If a deviation from the park'ing 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 wiil be used in determining whether or not deviafions to the parking standard.s are approved. Pfease see the adopted Parking Demand 5tudy Guidelines for further information: k� A tree survey shnwing the location, DBH and species of all existing trees with a DBH of four inches or more, and identifying those trees groposed to be removedi if any. �J'f� ❑ A tree inventory, prepared by a certified arborist, of all trees four inches pBH or more that reflects t6e size, canopy, and copdition of such trees may be required if deemed applicable by staff. Check with staff. ��i ❑ A Traffic Impact Study shall be required for all ptoposed developmerits if the total generated net new trips meet one or more of the following conditions: ■ PCOpo.sal is expected to generate 100 or more new trips in any given hour (directional trips, inbound or outbound on the abutting street�j and/or Z,000 or more new trips per day; or I ■ Anticipated new trip generation degrades the level of service as adopted in the City's Comprehensive Plan to unaccepfiable levels; or ■ The sfudy area contains a segment of roadway and/or intersection with five reportable accidehts within a prior twelve montit period, or ihe segment and/or intersection exists on the City's annual list of rriost hazardous focations, provided by the Gity of Clearwater PoCice DepartmenY; or ■ The 7raffic 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 andJor other unknown factors.. � A fandscape 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 remodsled in a value of 2S% or, more of the valuafion of the principal structure as reflected on the property appraiser's current records, or if an amendment is required to an existing appfoved site plan; or a parking lot requires additional landscaping pursuant to the provisions of Article 3, Diuision 14. The lartdscape plan shall include the following informafion, 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 botanicaJ and common names. t� Exisfing trees on-site and immediately adjacent to the site, by species, size and location, incfuding 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 cove�age of the parking lot and veh icular use a reas. �I, Locafion of existing and proposed structures and improvements, including but not limited to sidewalks, walls, fences, pools, patios, dumpster pads, pad mounted transfarmers; fire hydrants, overhead obstructions, curbs, water lines, sanitary sewet Iines, storm drains, seawalls, uiility easements, treatment of all graund surFaces, and any other features that may influence the propased fandscape. '� Location of parkin,g areas and other vehicular use areas, includ`ing parking spaces, circulation aisles, interior landscape islands and curbing.. ;f� Orainage and reteniion areas, inciuding swales, side slopes and bottom elevafions. `� Delineation and dimensions of all required perimeter landscaped bufFers inclUding sight triangles, if any. Pianning & Qevelopment Dsp:artment,lOQ S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727=56Z-4865 Page 5 of 8 Rev�sed 01112 ° Clearwater 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. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. The land and existing buildings on the site are already existing and have been since the mid 1960's Thereby, the existing neighborhood has grown around and developed in conjunction with adjacent properties. The buildings are 1 and 2 story and other properties in the area range from 1-4 stories. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. The proposed development is currently designated or zoned office use. Currently the buildings are, for the most part, vacant and have existed since the 1960's in their current form. Being used as an ALF will not be a detriment to the existing area. It is compatible with uses in the area which include Sr. Apartments and ALF. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. The property to be used for an ALF would not adversely affect the neighborhood. The proposed ALF is a use that is naturally harmonious with adjacent residential uses which include senior apartments and assisted living as well as single family detached homes. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. ALF's are very low traffic generators. According to ITE, the 90 bed ALF would generate only 239daily trips, 13 AM peak hour trips, and 20 PM peak hour trips. The property sits between two roads, Jeffords Street & Barry Road. Having access to two roads will help dissipate traffic. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. Since the building & surrounding neighborhood have been growing together since the mid 1960's and for the most part the surrounding area being fully developed. The buildings are 1 and 2 stories and surrounding buildings are 1 to 4 stories . 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. Much of the property already has in place perimeter landscaping of shadow box fencing. Landscaping will be improved as part of the site improvements. Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 6 of 8 Revised 01/12 f s ° �learwater U Planning & Development Department Flexible Development Application Flexibilitv Criteria PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO THE APPLICABLE FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR THE SPECIFIC USE(S) BEING REQUESTED AS SET FORTH IN THE ZONING DISTRICT(S) IN WHICH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED. EXPLAIN HOW, IN DETAIL, EACH CRITERION IS BEING COMPLIED WITH PER THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL (USE SEPARATE SHEETS AS NECESSARY). �. z. 3. 4. 5. 6. �. s. See Attached Narrative See Attached Narrative See Attached Narrative See Attached Narrative See Attached Narrative See Attached Narrative NA NA Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 7 of 8 Revised 01/12 o (� Planning & Development Department �:..1„� �� Flexible Development Application � Affidavit to Authorize Agent/Representative 1. Provide names of all property owners on deed — PRINT full names: Clearwater Professional Plaza, Ltd. 2. That (I am/we are) the owner(s) and record title hoider(s) of the following described property: Steven Band 3. That this property constitutes the p:roperty for which a request for (describe request); Change use �rom Office to Assisfed Living Facility (�LF) 4. That the undersigned (has/have) appointed and (doesjdo} appoint; Steven Band as (his/their) agent(s) to execute any petitions: qr other dacuments necessary to affect such petitTon; 5. That this affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act on the above described property; 5. That site visits to the property are necessary by City reptesentatives in order ta process this. application end the owner authorizes City represen#atives to visit and photograph the property described in this applicatior�; 7. That (1/we), the undersi ed authority, hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Property Owner Property Qwner Property Oviwner STATE QF FLaRIDA, COUNTY OF Property Owner BEFORE ME THE UNDERSIGNED, AN OFFfCER DULY COMMISSIONED BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ON p.,.. _._.-- THIS I (� DAl'OF �� A �,�,3� , GtC�' � , PERSONALLYAPPEARED . WHO HAVING BEEN FIRST DULY SWQRN DEPOSED AND SAYS THAT HE/SHE �ULLY UNDERSTANDS THE GONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT THAT HE/SHE SIGNED. �o�t�:: ��ic ANN H. JONES l� �i T��, �.�,!„� ' * MYG4MMISS10N4EE449432 Notary Public Signature •', , Q EXPIRES: February 19, 2015 ��.,,�,� �,�� `�,b run� E Q�� Notary Sea(/Stamp My Commission Expires: Planning & DevelopmenE Department, 900 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-456T; Fax: 727-5fi2-4865 Page $ of 8 Revised 01/12 , T`' CLEARWATER PROFESSIONAL PLAZA, Ltd � 99� � Main Streef, Box 183 Sarasoia, FL 34Z36 February 13, 2013 Mr. Mark Parry � Planning & Development Department � 00 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 Re: Clearwater Professional Plaza, Ltd. 1510 Barry Road, Clearwater, Florida Dear Mr. Parry: Please accept this letter to serve as authorization for 5teven Band to serve as Clearwater Plaza, Ltd authorized . agent, as he is a partner as well for the above- mentioned property. If you have any questions or need additional clarification, please free to contact me. Sincerely, � i ,- avid . and General Partner State of Florida County of Sarasota The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /3�day of February, 2013 by DAVID S. BAND, as General Partner of Clearwater Professional Plaza, , Ltd who is personally known fo me or who has provided as identification. 4YP(i� �fiARE�-�L��V� WITI-1ROW ��-...; -. c:F' �?, .�,��,��; ti9Y C;OC9NIl8SbN # DD9103a9 '°•�o;�;; EXr lFc�S Jul� 23, 20i3 497� 3��9 91E3 .�,y�+��yj �� Not ry Public Print Name: My Commission Expires: � LEGAL DESCRIPTION LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (PER O.R. 5662, PG. 1443) PARCEL 1: Starting at the Northwest corner of Section 23, Township 29 South, Range 15 East and run South 89'03'13" East along the North line of said section 23, 1374.07 feet; thence South 0°02'03" East along the East right of way of Highland Avenue 33.0 feet; thence South 89'03�13" East 33Q.6 feet to a POINT OF BEGfNNING; thence continue South 89°03'13" East 330.05 feet; thence South 00°10'16" East 209.38 feet; thence North 89°01'30" West 33.00 feet; thence South 0°10'16" East 12.69 feet; thence North 89°03'13" West along the Northerly right of way of Barry Street 297.57 feet; thence North 0°02'03" West 222.04 feet to the POINT OF BEG1NNiNG. PARCEL 2: The East 297.05 feet of the North 33.00 feet of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 23, Township 29 South, Range 15 East, Pinellas County, Florida, as described in Special Warranty Deed recorded in O.R. Book 1112, Page 115, Public .Records of Pinellas Coun.ty,..Elori,da...,.... PARCEL 3: Lot 70, FIRST ADDITION TO GATES KNOLL, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 38, Page 43, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. , COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT Project Criteria 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. The parcel is nearly fully impervious with buildings and parking lots very close to the property boundaries. As such, deviations to the front, side and rear setbacks are necessary to use this building at all. Otherwise complete demolition and reconstruction of a smaller building would be necessary which is impractical. In addition, the site is paved to the property line due to access and parking areas. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. The building is presently mostly vacant and re-use of the building with a viable assisted living facility (ALF) is consistent with the policies of the comprehensive plan. The intent of the "O" zoning district is furthered by the re-use of this building. In addition, the ALF use is consistent with the ALF to the north, senior apartments to the south, and provides a transition between the office and commercial directly abutting Highland Avenue and the residential homes to the east. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. The re-use of this building will not impede development or redevelopment of surrounding property. All surrounding property is currently developed with residential or office uses. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development. The re-use of this building as an ALF is compatible with adjacent land uses. All surrounding property is currently developed with residential or office uses. In addition, the ALF use provides a transition between the office and commercial directly abutting Highland Avenue and the residential homes to the east. 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use category, be 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: Page 1 of 3 w 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 spot land use or zoning designation; f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront use a. The proposed re-use as an ALF is a permitted use in the underlying R/OG land use category. b. The proposed ALF use would contribute to the local economy by providing jobs in a building that is primarily vacant. c. The proposed occupancy is the use of what is currently a non-economically contributing site. d. The reuse does not involve affordable housing. e. The area is characterized by predominantly office uses. The re-use as an ALF is consistent with the underlying R/OG land use and a land use plan amendment or is not needed. The re-use as an ALF is compatible with the ALF and senior apartments in the area and would provide a transition between the office/commercial uses on Highland Avenue and the residential homes to the east. f. The project does not involve waterfront uses. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height, and off-street parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; c. The design, scale, and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: Changes in horizontal building planes Page 2 of 3 Use of axchitectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc. Variety of materials and colors Distinctive fenestration patterns Building stepbacks; and Distinctive roof fortns e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhances landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. The reuse of this building as an ALF will not impede the development of surrounding properties since they are mostly already developed with residential or office uses in the "O" zoning district or LMDR zoning district. The existing building cannot be changed. The design and scale are consistent with surrounding restaurant and offce developments. The 2-story building is adjacent to multi-story senior apartments to the south, offices to the west, and multi-story residential to the north. The site will be upgraded with significant landscape features. Page 3 of 3 � Non-residential off-street parking in LMDR zone Section 2-204 E 1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from one or more of the following: intensity; other development standards. The redevelopment of the site as an ALF is impractical without the continued use of the existing portion of land within the LMDR district. The office complex was built in 1965. The land is question has been part of the overall property for 40 years and has served as a small 12-space parking lot for over 40 years. Additional landscaping will be added to the non- residential off-street parking lot within the LMDR district and will increase the existing inadequate front setback to a 13-foot front (south) setback along Barry Road. The existing chain link fence on the south side adjacent to Barry Road will be removed and replaced with a 30-inch high solid fence. In addition, the southernmost 4 parking spaces will be removed and replaced with landscaped area. The site will be buffered from the adjoining single-family home to the east with the existing chain link fence with extensive landscapin� provided alon� the external side of the fence. The otherwise required side and rear setbacks of 10 feet are met with this proposal with setbacks along the side (east) of 35 feet and rear (north) of 37 feet. All other development standards per CDC Section 2-204.0 for non-residential off-street parking within the LMDR district are met with this proposal including: 1. The parcel proposed for development is contiguous to the parcel on which the non- residential use which will be served by the off-street parking spaces, is located and has a common boundary of at least 25 feet, or the parcel proposed for development is located immediately across a public road from the non-residential use which will be served by the off-street parking spaces, provided that access to the off-street parking does not involve the use of local streets which have residential units on both sides of the street. 3. Off-street parking spaces are screened by a wall or fence of at least three feet in height which is landscaped on the external side with a continuous hedge or non- deciduous vine. 4. All outdoor lighting in this supplemental parking lot is automatically switched to turn off at 9:00 PM. 5. All parking spaces shall be surface parking 2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project will not materially reduce the fair market value of abutting properties. The land is question has been part of the overall property for over 40 years and has served as a small 12-space parking lot for that time. The site serves as a transitional area between the more intense commercial activities along Highland Avenue to the west and the single-family a • neighborhood to the east. Surrounding uses include high-density residential to the north, high-density residential to the south, single-family houses with LMDR zoning the east and office uses to the west. The parcel in question has been used as non-residential off-street parking for over 40 years without negative effect of abutting properties. The proposal will include improving the parcel with extensive landscaping. 3. The uses within the residential infill project are otherwise permitted in the district. Non-residential off-street parking is a permitted use within the LMDR district through a Flexible Development review. 4. The uses within the residential infill project are compatible with adjacent land uses. The parking lot has existed for over 40 years and there have been no issues with adjacent property owners. The use of this parking lot is expected to be limited. 5. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. New buffering and landscaping will be provided on the north, south and west sides of this lot. The non-residential off-street parking is helpful to the success of the proposed ALF which will provide a new use for a mostly vacant building. The overall site will be upgraded with new landscaping. 6. The design of the proposed residential infill project creates a form and function which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. The parking has been there for over 40 years, upgrades to the parking lot and the overall site are proposed for the new ALF. The parking is critical to the overall redevelopment of the site with an ALF. 7. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height, off-street parking, access or other development standards are justified by the benefits to community character and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. The pavement in the southern area will be removed and replaced with landscaping to a setback of 30 fee meeting the setback requirement along Barry Street. All other criteria for non-residential off-street parking are met. The parking has been there for over 40 years has not had any negative effects on adjacent properties or the neighborhood as a whole, and will make the redevelopment of the site as an ALF possible. ° Clear�water U Planning & Development Department Comprehensive Landscaping Application IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT COMPLETE AND CORREGT INFORMATfON. ANY MIStEADtNG, DECEPTIVE, INCOMPLETE OR INCORRECT INFOFtMATION MAY INVALIDATE YOUR APPLICATION. ALL APPLICATIONS ARE TO BE FILLED OUT COMPLETELY AND CORRECTLY, AND SUBMITTED IN PERSON (NO FAX OR DELNERIES) 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 REQUlRED WITHIN ARE TO BE SUBMI7TED FOR REVIEW BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMI'ITEE. SUBSEQUENT SUBMITTAL FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, IF NECESSARY, WILL REQUIRE 15 COMPLETE SETS OP PlANS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS (1 ORIGINAL AND 14 COPIES). PLANS AND APPLICATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COLLATED, STAPLED AND FOLDED INTO SETS. THE APPUCANT, BY FILING TNIS APPLICATION, AGREES TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. PROPERTY �WNER (PER DEER); Clearivater Pt�nfessional Plaza, Ltd MAILING ADDRESS: I991 Main Sfreet, Box 183, Sarasota, F134236 PHONE NUMBER: 941-365-0200 EMAIL• sband@cp�ngrp.co»s AGfNT OR REPRESENTATIVE: Steve Band MAIUNG ADDRESS: 199I Main Street, Box 183, Snrasota, FL 34236 PHONE NUMBER: 94i-365-D200 EMAIL: sba�ld@cptugrp.con: ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: ISIO Barry Road DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: PYOVide landscapi�rg within setbnclrs fhat are narrorver tlran code requiren:ent Specifrcally 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.J: STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF•WP}��t1-1k3 � I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all Sworn to and subscribed before me this 1 day of representations made in this application are true and _� —��i 1 i-�-, to me and/or by accurate to the best of my knowledge and authorize ,j City representatives to visit and photograph the ��V °l.'S� �i�- , who is personally kno�nrn has property described in this application. produced � 1_ as identification. .�'`/.� _ � ,�, � �'r��,�� Signatur�'of properfy owner or representative atPar "u�ii ANN H. JONES � : ...,, � �.�,� . MY COMIMISSION # EE 049432 Page 1 of 2 Notary public, My commission expires: S. Myrtle Avenue, Ciearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Revised 01/12 o Planning & Development Department � C earwater Comprehensive Landscaping Application � Flexibility Criteria PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO EACH OF THE FIVE (5) FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA EXPLAINING HOW, IN DETAIL, THE CRITERlON IS BEING COMPLIEQ 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 principai buildings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for the development. OR b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive landscaping program shall be demonstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed fior develapment underthe minimum landscape standerds. Tlre proposed �n�tdsc�pe »iaterinls ivrl! provide visual inter�est r�nd aestlretres by utilizing a'cceni plrcntir�gs, sarch �rs Hibiscrrs, Palnrs �rzd Crape Myrtles alorig tlle street fi•o�itage ivitlr in a typically older neiglzborlaoo�l T/iese planting will fill tlre available existirrg a��ea along tlre sh•eef. Accent pTant �naterials Ittcve also been trsed in m�ri:t focal areas elsewhere ivit/ai�z tl:e project. p 2. Lighfing. Any lighting proposed as a part of a Comprehensive Landscaping program is automatically controlJed so that the lighting is turned off when the business is closed. Tl:e brrilding, sig�iage and arry laiulscape accer�t liglrting will be designed to li�nit lighting off site and retluce gla�e to adjacent �:eigJrbors. Reasonable ligltting Ievels will be provided for ilte building secr�rity dr�ring the nigltt ti»te Irorcrs 3. Community Character. The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater. Tlre project rvill provide It�ndscape treatn:e�zt �rlong tlie roa�lxvc�y frontage, wlticl� ►vill act to softe�z tlre over•nll visrtad aestltetic of tlre older �iisting buildings tltrrt nre Ueing renovaterl. The t•ecesit brrilding �,rieriof• pninting a�id tl:e nddilio�z�rl landscrrpittg �vill frrrtlier i�rrpr�ove tlte visrral rnrpressiorz fi•o�tt t1:e roadfvay. 4. Property 4�alues. The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscaping program will have a beneficial impact on the ualue of the property in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The additional landscape�lant rnnterials wiil be pai�t of tlie site's renovation /rentodeTing of tlre older existing brrildi�:gs. The new plm:t �naterials and f•ecentpainting/renovatio�a of t1:e building exteriors will er2lrance tlte overall visirrrl impressior2 of tlre project site nnci therefore the perceived valrre of tlre srn•ron»di�rg neigTibolliao�l 5. Special Area or Scenic Corridor Plan. The landscape treatment proposed in the �omprehensive Landscape Program is consistent with any special area or scenic corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for #he area in which the parcel proposed for development is located. Tl:ere is no special ar•ea o�• scenic corridor pl�rn for t1:e project a��ea. Hofvever, the pt�oject iiicorporates sonre of tlte srrggestecl plunt n�atel•ials, serclz as Hrbrscr�s �nrl Palnrs, tl�at are fvitl:ifi son:e of'tlre corridor• pla�zs nar•rative. Planning & Development Department,100 S. Myrtte Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 2 of 2 Revised 01/�12 STORMWATER NARRATIVE 1510 Barry Road Assisted Living Facility The subject property consists of 2.137 acres. The site consists of existing residential office buildings, parking and open space. The site has an impervious surface ratio of 0.752 in the pre-development condition and an impervious surface ratio of 0.714 in the post-development condition. Drainage collection is managed by drainage inlets currently in place. Therefore flow patterns and rates of discharge will remain essentially unaltered or slightly improved in the post-development condition. TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT 1510 BARRY ROAD ALF The proposed 90 bed ALF would generate 239 daily trips, or which 13 would occur during the AM peak hour and 20 would occur during the PM peak hour. Excerpts from ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition are attached. This is less traffic on an AM & PM peak hour basis than office space, and significantly less traffic than a school that had been recently approved for this property. a r e4ssisted Living (254-) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Beds On a: Weekday Number of Studies: 16 Average Number of Beds: .121 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per Bed Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 2.66 1.86 - 4.14 1:74 ; � Data Plot and Equation ,:; _ '� � J soo I � : ' : : ; 500 •------- - ---- ----------;-----,--•- , ----,._......._.,....-,•----,----x- -,----,-... y. . , . , � � . . . . � ' � . . � , . . � . � � � . . � � , C. . . . . . , . . . . . . W, . , � , � � . . , � . , . � 4�� "' ; " ; " ; "• ; "' ; "• ; "' ; _" ; "' i '••�'": "'' _ _, " i '. 1 ... � . . , . , , . . , . . , . > � : : XX ; : X . , : , � , X ; ' � : : : . , . X 'x , . , , � , , � , . , . � , , . � . . . , , � 300 '- ; -�-; -- ; -- ; --- -'��-� -� ; --- ; --- ; --- . --- .-----.--- . -- .---- ¢ . , , . . , , , . : : : : : 11 : : ' , �' : : : : : : : : : : � . . - . . . . � . . . . . . , x , . 'i� . ; , . ; . . ; . . . zoo -- � -x-' -- � --- : --- � �-- � --- � -�--� --- � ----�-----�---� � --- �--- ; -- ;---- '� � ; � x : � ; ; ' : : ; : ; : , . . , . , . . , , , , , . . 100 , . , , . . . . . . . . . , , 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 14d 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 X = Number of Beds X Acival Data Points Fiited Curve ------ Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.56 Ln(X) + 3.07 R2 - 0.55 Trip Generation, 9th Edition • Institute of Transportation Engineers 529 e .e �SSiSteCO LlVltlg (254) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Beds On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Number of Studies: 7 Average Number of Beds: 121 Directional Distribution: 65% entering, 35% exiting Trip Generation per Bed Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.14 Data Plot and Equation U c W Q F- a� U L N J a� � m a� Q II F- 2E 25 24 23 22 21 2D 19 18 17 16 15 t4 13 12 11 � �: 0.37 -----;------•,•--••--,--••---� ......:......:.�-----.-------;-•-----.•--- •.r�--•-• •----=---------------;..-•---;------;----•-;------;----...:._..-- ��---...;_..-- -X-----------= ---•• , ---•- ,--•-- , -----,----•-, •---• - •--; ------,----- ---- ; ------r---•-- ; ..__. f__... . --'- :-•--- -•----, ----• ;••-•• -X••- ----- i --••-; •-•-->E;---•-. • ----- -------- ---; ..--- ; ---•• ; -•--• ; -•-- ..._;.....1 ...........:... ��-"';..--;"'•-;'••-';•"";"-' '--x-� -•-- , ------� ---- ,-•--- � ---- ' -••-•�------- -------------• �---- -•-X-• ��---•------•;..-----�-------•-•---�•--�•-------•--•----•--•---••- •----• ,- --;----•--,-----••;-----•-'-••--._i....---;------:--X-•-°-••----� ------;----• 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 x Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Equafion: Not given X - Number of Beds 530 Trip Generafion, 9th Edition • Institute of Transportation Engineers -'�"' Average Rate R2 ` *,r,r* ♦ l � �'..::�",'..':.: �.,.:.:�...::�.. , As�isted Living (254) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Beds On a: Weekday, � Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour �etween 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: 7 Average Number of Beds: 121 Directional Distribution: 44% entering, 56% exiting Trip Generation per Bed Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.22 0.11 - 0.30 0.47 Trip Generation, 9th Edition a Institute of Transportation Engineers 531 , �- -- - — - -- --- - _ ri ! � • f � k . 1 � ti . ., i i � ., � . . . _ ..L ;�•y.. ' � . . 'f. ;j, ` � � . . . � ��i�t � � j. . � I`'.kr . . � ' c� �, `, , ...� . . , . . . . � �k {, P- � .° � . .. S _' � 7 . . � �r�.�� .� s .�� r-, .. . - . � � � . . . . . . � .. � � � �:�'� .. . � . j ' 14 ,� ` � 1 ` � {. •) .� - . . i • 1 .4:��' . �. . . . � , � � ..1 f S� vf:• �,'y . .�, ` � . . i .. .�. } ` . ` � ' j �, . ! ' � `y . • ? � 3 . 1 MS�)'( � s r a�� . � * 't,��x� . .�'�.'. . ' � . - �� 3 . . � ; . . �- . .,-�;.� ��p{!�; � . �. i`: �: . . . iK . . � � . x . � . � ';.: �.., ' a, . i . . �+ . r . , . M p.�? r...t ; � .{ � � �p . i , `,� �+ . '.t� T' . � � � .. . v �A�7�°�� i c� � ti . � �� . . .l k. f . . i �` ; J �, 1 g '�+�ir `��.jj�. 1 � ��'f�� .a ' � � ' � � �� , �� {_ , �•.4 ' � • 1 ;,.,� f ; } � � ;. . . �� C �. . _t r , , E� , �• � � , ''.� . ,t . ', � � Ir ` t~ �ti, ` � �'�' ,�'�� \. R{ ' t S , k$�p+ [ i � ` [' • �' � 1 � �" k � }'. '' � � 4�`, ' �� ,.. �4� ��5� _ ��i � ,F ��.3�. i ,. �»'� t �z' d � �:. s � t t�i ;; � . . '.£.. .x Y.�.R�. ""= »i . �t � � � � � � ' �r L Jr1 � _�. � � �� r � I _ __.. ...._ �1,�1IAs"�� !?� R K, \ �T� �� :,, �_--_ �, - . .�.�o. � � �� ! � �� . . . �.; ,� -- �� , ,-, ` j ,.... , 11 � . ��.._��._'°�++..,� `.. R A v \�� _ �.._ �T . .�.:� Kr . ' `�.. . �' -_ . . , ��- ... 's " ' -__-, - l "-_ � �I ' - � ` _,_ .�_`_.� ti i 'S , , _ _ . _„ - — .,�,::-- _ _ . --- '�.,__,_,_ _ - -. - - � -- _. _ __ . . � �r � � � „3�"�,,.. �Y'" „�n�� s' .. i . : ��^� .. ` 3Ci"_A$➢ � �i t .�:. .._, `" ��'_ �--..__�r.___. � —.'�� i ^-- —._'... __ .... __� ��_'.iia lI1��9��if�� _ __ ------- � `;�... " . _ k � f. - ��,_.(, -- — , � _ . C .. � L� �,� � � �� w-^L� � .. ' � �+ . _" � ._..^� �,,,,s-,�. '..�-�+,.... 5 �� b r � I , �TAMPn � . � � Y,% ,�g ��- . . .. �� 9FY �i,� p' �� 'OMPUTER . �y��„!" ��„ �.y SOCIETY � . 4 �' V a r' � ,� § � �� . � f � `%.f�i�^."K"i..�" � �,�h ' ,...,..� , . --'--:•_°-�.,,;�+�ys ."w,. ✓«,• � �,. �,�' f �t.",n..,-.. r � •.a.. A +.r._s" . j[ `.+*� 5?�,,. . K v�� r w+�.G ��'� i '�. � �.u-sGr� �at -�:..'... 4r _, . . �a.,�r°.tiH _ �.`'.'�.__,....... ___. -�-- . . .._ . _ r� '�'a'" � .�"P ��p_ _ _.. ��yd�". . _ _ _. .. _. a� r, k , � ;,� r '�C'�Y�t`4'$� Z";� "4K*y. # :�: � . { � q-: Y�� wA '� " ��Y1 , -r.., "slGr,a, ..S .:.: �. � •t ,\, - _ � �2.. fttl� - . ..�, _ ...�' J " Idlillll.__-_ �a_—_ -- --.:._._ ----- . �.� .- .,..b ��'}�' ��!t� .'" � r ��(�� "j�•�h��^r�+'3 _� - , t� � � � �,� � ,I� , ��, �, � , � „�Y i a �� p r�'� 1 , J � �. `2i+ � t: ;��]:t F 7`� K �i,"� j v��,� � � ; � �`. �e�,;: r �� 4 �� '#, ,, l ;: , 'w �.; ; , �w'r 4Apv „f� ; 4t^,° �� / , r ri. ' t' �iS r , a. �i „ �,� f�� 1 J ��*� ��x• "� � }�� '; ;',. ,� �� ' t ��: ta� ..5.� ri.:. 1 ..�' . r` � , � � l �� i ✓: �. �. � � i, '� � ��;�� ...� � �r ,. a< . � 7 w4;�� l� �i �. #._ . .� ��°� �n;� r �-;;°.�� ; �. , � ��i� < �� -j ,_ ', �. �� J!�r+ _��;w6 �� ,�� `y�' ' �� ., I `�7 :> ! ., � �, �r , ,, x� �` �.� ��r� �'wt r' s i�t a :M1_�G'T'4'�?��'.t! ?�.� . �. �`"`v� '� rt '�i`.�'�'' �� r � -T -'+%`� i3 r.� '> . `Y � er �1�� "�� . _ � �' � : � i�Q,, �.r-<> � . : ,� � . �- , � _ "M�" �, �� .� � �' � ��.:. r :, ,,• _ .�. - . k '�"„- . ti Ray. }� . r�� x'. � '.L .v . � �d:. .. ,_'t!: r , r ��15 � \y _ . ��`, �{,� i �t.�`'��F �.. ��Sa` E'._a�.�i.�� P��';�. °'"""*'"�g� j � _�. C�,^ � 1 :� : , Y r �:''. ...�Y� — � -�3� . ^'"�I �� L_1 f ti � .ri .� k �. `�� X ��Y�$'�_@j , , �{ ? ` �. �...�....... i ;�,a�� , .. �_ __. ._.__ . ;�� ,.. N R t ;� � � �13-286-2964 �� .A: {�� ,� coldwcllbankcrcammrrcialnrt rum _ � . I � . ��w� ,.� M.�.Mn. .��,... " � �: I � . ��OM DOIAi� E��224� �� .:�� . .,�-r � . � - . _ _. i �IFFIC �Rl�EAS G ', . SALE I � ` "�C _ __ _ _ __. __ _�...-----_. ___ -----__.,..�._.._._ �___. �__._.�.. ---- p , �; � � ��'� �� , � � ,�,,.�� %� : � 4 � `°� � �-� : ;� �' "� � a� � .;r': ,, ; . ! - __ � `.:� �;: � . , - � � � � m :�� , � �� .: � �� : � ;,:� � � x�� . �ii � �,,,�� xu,� . .,-.� , #�� > � _ �;� , .� - � . _.' � s $ 5#. ; '�' � � �_, � - j � „ ,� .._, . .� �,,.w��. a � ;�.� � . - � _. ,� t a _ . , .. . � _ _-- �;,: - � '�ie �il l � . 1' JLL _ r� - � s,_ . . . ' ._ - . -�z- .y .�. - � � _ 3 [�� '" �r � s " . .,; i ��'' S�"" f�...'�°'"'�,„,,,,ri+'^�`�"��y,.•-��-. � . ' . . , ai, •� -• ,, . ,� k�:9 , � .."��ek..-§�i,�tt�i w.r �c,�;,, �-_ � . F YtE� ,rW{�e ;,,a� .a �,�.r. �.. A��k�7sY„'�,;a� #,�.��'�*'`^a#+'fia'r�e4r �he�+v'.`e Yt,e` �\. � , � . . a��"� •�w.- 'u•:" , '�E�t'�`�*.. .^�'"_� �, F' �. ��" "r`�,�y; ` . ,�r*� �e a "�' a..,,� . � � � `�,,� �p � �i� �� . '� �"�t;"� � s��.� �{� �?ti _. , �� ' "T ,,. i' ��` �` .1« � �' , '" - ` �°"�y.,,,: ' • • �, ,� , „ ��,s� ��yt � d��#°'x � � � :._ _ ,� ,a., .. ,, , � . - k ' .�� " ��, , , ,� 4, �- ` . � r a- `� -� � .. s�,. � ks'4sr�` ' .f•; 4` z � ,. Y �}�7�� °�i�,--`*,. "t, �,' r � c:.-..,, � �. . . �� +.s� -ai6...� , . .a , w a e �`y�'e: Y .. � '" GYr� -�'p`'ex ,4+•�� ' J�.. y.. �,�^ " d ��"�� `..-y � _ - "` ''�:. '�` "'^� ^ , . _ �� - '.� . -- ..... -. .. , - :'^.. : i �,;"�'g-''�. �—^� - x- _ . : . _ r_. Yn.�� ... "\. �i '�x ' n��'- z�'< a�;. e' *� �'�n'1 � C�" j� '.*{.;�''q. � w +w�.' .. . �"b".,�:-. . .,� x'"; '�"�'�-`r.,�x� ��.��'�� "�'4a. a:�-�.,.,,��5' w•�� i"'w- .,.a ,� �'�,� _ � �+" ' ' � d"^ �`� ,�� *�r� � x � �&° ?� a* �,x'�.,,.. ..d� , $.� , 4 � t' ._x .... �4 `�"+„ . >_i . ..� ._. .'�'�_. . ,.. . . ._ .�„ .a�s.. . .. .. .. _. / _— __�— _`__'_____ �� j �.I. 3 �� x� � r ��` � � �� ,� ; �� a��E .� . . �. �t � p � ,.� �; i �,�,�� + � " � #�.`��' $�' � ; �t�' � ,�.� � > { �' - � o �� ,I�i � g� �. ,� } ��,. � �� ef$kiN'd` S ��rY ' �\ �. �7 S .` 7� � N. '��° *t'� k r �� { � . � k ��'A �� P .F � �4 g� ��•� _ . 4 � �� r ��, �! �� . . � x �� g`.,* k� _�) . f ��[`'t-F _� �. . : # t $ .�� Y".��4�',+^ . f � � � ' � , .. �Ij ;, �' � ' l i � � ��d �, ii � t t� � 4 t"P g% 4 �, J ��t ) �, .. , � . . . '' . �� ' . _ {'/, � �t � { . _ � 1�' �I` �� ( � �, _ . . .�!' . ��-� +'�� ?t. . . . i + . � ' } � �. . . � � . � . � ��:. t �''�. 1{� `�'��` 1. .. -> . � �r��- %f t . � Z. � ` �-� �•;. it �� a ''.� iti .,� . "}w .;; � � �,1 �� { � '': `�� ° _� �� E ��' � r ,� � , ; `� # �' � �s � °"�'��" �€"�� "�� `�� - � ` C� r � ` ; � .l � *{, t� � , ' � , � � ,'� { `t� f -t ` �' �., r p c t � �^ iy! : 4,,,F� j. a J ��i�,� o'� ?��. � tt`�� e ; � � � � }+; �� s �; '�'� - i � �� . �� 'I; %��r r'{ �G � + t � �� :. � ��' � � � i�: . . � w k. .�.;�� ' � �x� � ,+ � �"j . �� 5 �� . � � i ! r� �, '� , `.'t i . ,. . � I ' � ' �:��r.`.��: � �"'� I �.. �.�'' I j �y? y�<�,°��. ��-�- , 1��4 �7ni?9 ;i � t+� � � �:�r� �; i Iq!� IQri!i �� , � ' - �c�i ;� . .�.r.-..^,... � ,�� , �� .:'�': ':F 1i;. � . _ _ . �� i ;��i ; ,,,. - '�/�j1�1�\ ;� I � f � ��..tl �� T�� . { -:' j n ~ � y. � I {��,- , - � i -- _�-�..._�,.,_ . _.,_. F �,j t . af�.�� (� 4 � � � � �. I �� Z .w � � '_ i 1 � `t, a., �� y � � !s1 � ; N � _ i � ' '�"��-' — !_ 1 ` ��_�� . ! ��- , � := r �,c �,- ,-= ; ,� -� �:.�° .r � O 1!�. —� _ ' � � _ . �� 'n �`� ° .s ' ��t Ei �� W ir�— �! - ' __. � �n �� 'v _ ■ . - ��. ��. - � 00 � `m . j �C ;.•�. _ 3 �'! a � �� '�. ��' ; � � . - i.D ''`1 9�- . ` )�r"T ° �� ; �� `� t� � �i �� fl,A T 1�5 �. � f.,� i � .t� ' i i} 1 .� '� �� 'i r� 1 :��, �. � _ � :y a -' � 't'ro��i�iJ �C 1.�1 �c�t 04�-� g�� NG, --; : -_�� , �� , �y� �� '� �.=> �-_+ ��x� �� 9�� f�4�� ,* vk l. :3 , �' � �.��` ,'' � ,f.,�. r n' �w .f',if :hp' �`� �, """'.�W7�� .rii. .r�� . ._" � y �'. R . . , , Yf prY' w`"M-x�Ti �. � � l,r..• . . ... V .. _ J � _ .. _ . . �..�� -' �� I' 'ti,.�/ . . .,.�_. - ' � � .__� i -_ ^1 i�. .4rM '�-� � _:: y . _ � . � � ..... ;' ., . . . G::_ .CS .. r � .. � t:... .E, ' -- . . � _'.� _. . . . � {��'�'".,��» �:.wdws G...�+� , � " .. __; . . ry . __.. ..._. .... . „ � w.� — r �J . _ _"_ . _�"' '_ . .. � � ..��. .�. ' w..,.yg..... < . ' 0.w� . . _.__ ... - -- y�yuin ' � ° e _.. . �.° :r^• � �.. � ._. .. .�. , ___ _. .. -cr,:z,s-..._:..+.:.,._. _ .__ .. .-�:...�.. ._—.---__ m- =._,:=%�.,%- � -- � � '�£;�?_'; . .. � . - . f.. l_ _ , . . �,, l .:. `a`'-�- T' <Y riq'. F „ � rv .. �. r��.* e . .. . . i + Ty. �� --- � a. x..�s� . z;' �r, ?^'- k �". n 2W�3�� 4'� .r.... ., °' . �� y{t .. .. � R � ..,,. ...n..�ye ...�`Y^'+^:T ..� . � _ . "...4. r .... ":-r ... _ ...�,� ., ..� . .._ . , ... . . , � .. .. - . . . � .- � . .:. . . w:..... . x ... ... ..: : > ° . ..: .. iy. p,+R .-: � - . . ..:, a . �.:.. �. ✓. .. .. . d � K , ,. " . . � ... � . . . " .. .. _ . ._ .,....._.�._.-- . . . ' � d� �,� p t �� .:i� . . . � . . . . . ' . . . . . � . . � , Y:. � y 'r w t K�'��+t"�,;~�• , . . . .. . . . . . ' . �,. �. ... � . . . ^` ' ,. .. �_ ' , �.. . . . � •. , � ._�,R}.,.. . .,: �.. �� .. . ..... .... . . . . , - .�?' H..a: Ayy�hy3 . Td" 5'-.�C'�1�"G�N+.�4`i.iP ant�%C4t.i�+i`+4?��.w:ryii: v+. wV++wa.4u �w+#J�s,�l�'S�,... . , . y., - '; . . . . ':�+ras H an3#. ! , �A': . .,.� � ..,. , . . - . � _ ' .. . ' . . , . . . ' . , y ?r,� �. x...to-..w_� ea rr.�..SIF.� . w�,..� ,,, �_. . .. . . .., . _ . . � . � . _ . . . . , . . .,. . . ..f . . ...v_ _... ..��, . .. _... , �`�.,.�,.. . � � .a r � � r � ' ` � . . "_" - - _\ ';"� • .� - _-_ � B�,r� . � .wki 1.::J W� �•.J �:.: .-��'..`i* �., i ��7.i..e��% +'� "J �..J y`2j1J� �I s�N 1� � '` , . , � ..., � i�'�,�j�'�� -� � �3r �� y 71} � d �}. Y.. t ki i `� Y Y l, p. F � . � r�y R`y5y.:�� ilr , . �.. �e 'q ��.. „ � � � •� • N "+.�Sy. i1 : yy �lil 3`:�..: �, _ _ i , ..�:: � � # �� i� �A�,ti� �,� �� ,�5 . � � � - ,r"';+,��.�Y '�'�� a i P � . . :: . , . � , : .. t ' '�- -j ' � '� i i . a , , ». _ . . �� .�d� .� � . �� r �; ,,i: x,.4�^�� : �•,. �� °P �1� a � �`.£� ��tr �lx � �� n y s "�. �Y �' ` ,�� 1 e'� � �°��' ,-� R�Q� t�t ' f �-- ..�. ��.��7 Y�� {.1 �obt ,L..nT"` '� r 9sw a�1{(I13� w'3", .�� _ VA! �'trs S .. , - tM . �_ ��,... � �_' _ : . ;��r'� � � �'�N�4'��ii� Sra�y�dl�� t°'��l��rn ; N'�3j=v..�oc�t 4 .. .. _._.."_..._.__ _ .._ ...... .. � �� . . t �`i :�� >� i h: r�'u ; � ` � ��. ��` .3 ��i ; � � � �� i f �� M ( �.. 1 µ f ` i�# � ,� C ,_ � `, i � dp �� {�SDI 1 �� p 3j ��I I 4�i � � ��,�.I�� '�� s � ' 1,. +�� t s . �� )kl � � `�� t� ` �� ' �kl i, E 1' � f, 1f '.` I�P { 11 � � � I �;'� �i ��.i� �. tl 5 + � t �.� �� I t � � �� t ��` �� i� 5 �� ;`j I� t �� 4��; } � S � ,: , , � �'' ' � ' m� a �� ` :;��` � i+ i� �� i :� . { ..,e (t ;�l�is i f �� .. � i�: — - �_� �:t �w� �- �t ;�Y �r� � �G'�.� � YF.'., � Z � � �' �� q+ � �;�; , , ��. - - �..; � .�' 1 � �.�� . � .� � k. 1 'r,'; A �,r � � ^,�� m� � *� � � ,, J � ' � O � � � � , �'eS �. ��s � �`'' ,�, .� z�.-� :'�`� � ,�� .�....,.�.�, � �-� �" ��.� ° -- - .. __ x ; � �� \ � � ,� fi � � � �. . . \� �} ss '' r..i �' �` - . .. . .:*'.� �c z �" . . ��. ,- . .. �� . . . ..: �r , . .. . . _ . . . .. � '"'""„�i.v. ,«. .a.s�� ;.�+."4'cy,'�" ,� y. .rr.k �st° ''^.s�e � x si" p� ��u i71",t� � t�uafwt:. (�'I��I f�!, ", i�e �kr.+°y��'..#�"�a�," � ra� 4��+Pir��'r�d,�p . $i '.4� 0 . � i� �r * r �a��,N �1.EV � i o�-�5 b� ��t� tN�. S �. - �- .. - __ __�__ _.. � .-. � � � . . .. ._.. ... . � .-� . ' 7 1 "'_ "".___-__" . � ..� 1 *.�__ .... - � : ' . . _ . . ...... ..... _ __----�- . : � � „� � � . � _�. '.-._�- .�..._. __ F � ` ` ` ..�'`. i � - • s0�} � .�-�•"_ 3.e. L.. � \ ti • W� - �°SC�i+� ?►r ... � "� y � . 7 � ' ' t ��i�"„ ' ' "' C` = . y , -� %f,ic�?' .. . �'-�it ' �a.. t � . � - _-- - �� .��.. jt - _.-== _ ___ ��_ � � ____ �i� ;: _ , :�,,,_ .__- _____._-_-- � �� _.�.��.�;. - __ � � _ � . ;� = �`-� �� . �� .::�9 , ,, �,-� � ��`� lYy�,�� y �� 1 � r