The URL can be used to link to this page

FLS2013-11038DEUEL & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS * LAND SURVEYORS * LAND PLANNERS CORPORATE OFFICE BRANCH OFFICE 565 South Hercules Avenue Clearwater, FL 33764 Zephyrhills, FL 33541 Office (727) 822-4151 Office (813) 782-6717 Fax(727)821-7255 PLEASE REPLY TO CLEARWATER OFFICE November 7, 2013 Matthew Jackson City of Clearwater Planning and Development Department 100 S. Myrtle Ave. Clearwater, FL 33756 RE: Request for Additional Information FLD2013-11043 1200 N. Myrtle Ave 120� N MYRrLE F�S2013_ � � 038 A VE 1 Family Dollar Zoning: Commercial Atlas #: 2g86 In response to the City of Clearwater's request for additional information for the above Family Dollar — Myrtle Ave. project dated November, 4th 2013, we offer the following responses: 1. Provide the correct Level One, attached dwellings, Mixed-Uses or Non-Residential Uses application. For the correct flexibility criteria on page seven of the application only provide a response to CDC Section 2-703.V.4. � Response.• The correct application has been provided with response to CDC Section 2-703. V.4. 2. Provide the required typical floor plan. � Response: A typical floor plan is now provided. 3. Provide the square footage for each of the interior landscaped areas. � Response: Square footage for each interior landscaped area is now provided on the landscape plan. If you have any questions, or need additional information, please call me at (727) 822-4151 x203. Sincerely, DEUEL & ASSOCIATES �%.��.��_` � -�.------�- Brian Barker, P.E. Principal Engineer , . 0 � - ��rwater U Planning & Development Department Flexible Standard 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. 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: $475 PROPERTY OWNER (PER DEED): xtzES Myrtle, LLC. c/o Greg Ferrell, Development Consultant MAILING ADDRESS: 510o w. Kennedy Blvd. #100, Tampa, FL 33609 PHONE NUMBER: $13-2a9-ssii EMAIL: caldrich@huntresco.com AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE: Brian A. sarker, PE, Deuel � Associates MAILINGADDRESS: 565 S. Hercules Ave., Clearwater, FL 33764 PHONE NUMBER: 72�-$22-4151 EMAII: brian@deuelengineering.com ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: l20o N. MYRTLE AVE. PARCEL NUMBER(S): 09-29-15-65466-000-0180, 0250, 02�0 09-29-15-25920-000-0330 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PLEASE sEE EXHIBIT '�A'� PROPOSED USE(S): RETAIL SALES AND SERVICE DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Request for flexibility for off-street parking to allow 4.5 spces per 1,000 SF SpeCifiCpl/y identify the request GFA where 5 spaces per 1, 000 SF of GFA is required. (include al/ requested code flexibiliry,• e.g., reduction in repuired number of parking spaces, height, setbacks, lot size, lot width, specific use, etc.J: Planning 8 Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 1 of 8 Revised 01/12 . LL . ° : �rwater �� U Planning & Development Department Flexible Standard Development Application Data Sheet PLEASE ENSURE THAT THE FOLIOWING 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 QISTRICT: FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING USE (currently existing on site): C - COMMERCIAL CG - COMMERCIAL GENERAL AUTO REPAIR AND VACANT LOT PROPOSED USE (new use, if any; plus existing, if to remain): RETAIL SALES AND SERVICE - FAMILY DOLLAR STORE SITE AREA: 51, 29� sq. ft. i .1 a GROSS FLOOR AREA (total square footage of all buildings): Existing: 6,182 sq. ft. Proposed: 8,3s1 sq.ft. Maximum Allowable: zs, ia6 sq. ft. acres GROSS FLOOR AREA (total square footage devoted to each use, if there will be multiple uses): First use: s, 3s1 sq. ft. Second use: N�A sq.ft. Third use: N�A sq. ft. FLOOR AREA RATIO (total square footage of all buildings divided by the total square footage of entire site): Existing: o. i2i Proposed: o.i63 Maximum Allowable: o . ss BUILDING COVERAGE/FOOTPRINT (15` floor square footage of all buildings): Existing: 6� 182 sq. ft. ( 12 • 1 � of site) Proposed: 8� 351 Sq. ft. � 16.3 �o of site) Maximum Permitted: 28� 186 sq. ft. ( 55 � of site) GREEN SPACE WITHIN VEHICULAR USE AREA (green space within the parking lot and interior of site; not perimeter buffer): Existing: 318 sq. ft. (• 6 9� of site) Proposed: 2' 3� 6 sq. ft. ( 4• 6 % of site) VEHICULAR USE AREA (parking spaces, drive aisles, loading area): Existing: $� 917 sq. ft. ( 1�.4 Proposed: 19, 441 Sq, ft. ( 37' 9 � 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 0 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO (total square footage of impervious areas divided by the total square footage of entire site): Existing: . 30 Proposed: �59 Maximum Permitted: • 90 DENSITY (units, rooms or beds per acre): Existing: N/A Proposed: N/A Maximum Permitted: N/A OFF-STREET PARKING: Existing: Proposed: Minimum Required: 6 +/- 38 34-42 BUILDING HEIGHT: Existi ng: N/A Proposed: 2 (�` Maximum Permitted: Zs-3s eT WHAT IS THE ESTIMATED TOTAL VALUE OF THE PROJECT UPON COMPLETION? $ CJ�JU, p-Uc�. �gt� ZONING DISTRICTS FOR ALL ADJACENT PROPERTY: NOftFI: COMMERCIAL SOUtII: COMMERCIAL EBSt: COMMERCIAL WeSt: COMMERCIAL STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all Sworn to and subscribed before me this �� day of representations made in this application are true and �,�i-��,�� i' �,ryd/orby accurate to the best of my knowledge and authorize �, City representatives to visit and photograph the , who i, ersonally kno� has property describ d:'rrqthis application. , _ � �, produced as identification. 1 ,; �-- � r ;", ,.� t`� — icia Sea{ l� a°'� !,`-��' �. - REC�INADAVI& �atr(re of property owner or representative Ndtarjrp'u61ic, �•-•, •-_.._, --- - My comm. expires �iec. �, 2U�� My commission expires: Commission No. "E 3' 11 Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 3 of 8 Revised 01/12 LL o Planning & Development Department ' ' ��a�er Flexible Standard Develo ' pment Application � Site Plan Submittal Package Check list IN ADDITION TO THE COMPLETED FLEXIBLE STANDARD DEVELOPMENT (FLS) APPLICATION, ALL FLS APPLICATIONS SHALL INCLUDE A SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL PACKAGE THAT INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION AND/OR PLANS: � Responses to the flexibility criteria for the specific use(s) being requested as set forth in the Zoning District(s) in which the subject property is located. The attached Flexible Standard Development Application Flexibility Criteria sheet shall be used to provide these responses. � Responses to the General Applicability criteria set forth in Section 3-914.A. The attached Flexible Standard Development Application General Applicability Criteria sheet shall be used to provide these responses. � A signed and sealed survey of the property prepared by a registered land surveyor including the location of the property, dimensions, acreage, location of all current structures/improvements, Iocation of all public and private easements including official records book and page numbers and street right(s)-of-way within and adjacent to the site. 0 If the application would result in the removal or relocation of mobile home owners residing in a mobile home park as provided in F.S. § 723.083, the application must provide that information required by Section 4-202.A.5. ❑ If this application is being submitted for the purpose of a boatlift, catwalk, davit, dock, marina, pier, seawall or other similar ma�ine structure, then the application must provide detailed plans and specifications prepared by a Florida professional engineer, bearing the seal and signature of the engineer, except signed and sealed plans shall not be required for the repair or replacement of decking, stringers, railing, lower landings, tie piles, or the patching or reinforcing of existing piling on private and commercial docks. � A site plan prepared by a professional architect, engineer, certified planner 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: m Index sheet of the same size shall be included with individual sheet numbers referenced thereon. � North arrow, scale, location map and date prepared. ❑ Identification of the boundaries of phases, if development is proposed to be constructed in phases. m Location of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL), whether the property is located within a Special Flood Hazard Area, and the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) of the property, as applicable. m Location, footprint, size and height of all existing and proposed buildings and structures on the site. � Location and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems, both on-site and off-site, with proposed points of access. m Location of all existing and proposed sidewalks, curbs, gutters, water lines, sanitary sewer lines, storm drains, manholes, inlets, lift stations, fire hydrants, underground conduits, seawalls and any proposed utility easements. � Location of onsite and offsite stormwater management facilities, including offsite elevations, as may be required by the Engineering Department to evaluate proposed stormwater management, as well as a narrative describing the proposed stormwater control plan including all calculations and data necessary to demonstrate compliance with the City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria manual. m Location of solid waste collection facilities, required screening and provisions for accessibility for collection. � Location of off-street loading area, if required by Section 3-1406. � Location, type and lamp height of all outdoor lighting fixtures. � Location of all existing and proposed attached and freestanding signage. 0 All adjacent right(s)-of-way, with indication of centerline and width, paved width, existing median cuts and intersections, street light poles, bus shelters, signage and utility company facilities. Planning 8� Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 4 of 8 Revised 01/12 � Dimensions of existing and proposed lot lines, streets, drives, building lines, setbacks, structural overhangs and building separations. ❑ Building or structure elevation drawings that depict the proposed building height, building materials, and concealment of all mechanical equipment located on the roof. m Typical floor plans, including floor plans for each floor of any parking garage. O Identification and description of watercourses, wetlands, tree masses, specimen trees, and other environmentally sensitive areas. ❑ If there is any requested deviation to the parking standards a parking demand study will need to be provided. Prior to the preparation of such study, the methodology shall be approved by the Planning and Engineering Departments. The findings of the study will be used in determining whether or not deviations to the parking standards are approved. m Tree inventory, prepared by a certified arborist, of all trees four inches DBH or more that reflects the size, canopy, and condition of such trees; as well as a tree survey showing the location, DBH and species of all existing trees with a DBH of four inches or more, and identifying those trees proposed to be removed, if any. ❑ A traffic impact study shall be required for any development which may degrade the acceptable level of service for any roadway as adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. Trip generation shall be based on the most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual. ❑ An application for a certificate of concurrency/capacity or a nonconcurrency affidavit. No development approval shall be granted until a certificate of concurrency/capacity is issued or a nonconcurrency affidavit is executed. m A landscape plan shall be provided for any project where there is a new use or a change of use; or an existing use is improved or remodeled in a value of 25% or more of the valuation of the principal structure as reflected on the property appraiser's current records, or if an amendment is required to an existing approved site plan; or a parking lot requires additional landscaping pursuant to the provisions of Article 3, Division 14. The landscape plan shall include the following information, if not otherwise required in conjunction with the application for development approval: � Location, size, description, specifications and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, including botanical and common names. � Existing trees on-site and immediately adjacent to the site, by species, size and location, including drip line. m Typical planting details for trees, palms, shrubs, and ground cover plants, including planting instructions, soil mixes, backfilling, mulching, staking and protective measures. 0 Interior landscape areas hatched and/or shaded and labeled and interior landscape coverage, expressed both in square feet, exclusive of perimeter landscaped strips, and as a percentage of the paved area coverage of the parking lot and vehicular use areas. � Location of existing and proposed structures and improvements, including but not limited to sidewalks, walls, fences, pools, patios, dumpster pads, pad mounted transformers, fire hydrants, overhead obstructions, sign locations, curbs, gutters, water lines, sanitary sewer lines, storm drains, manholes, inlets, lift stations, fire hydrants, underground conduits, seawalls, utility easements, treatment of all ground surfaces, and any other features that may influence the proposed landscape. � Location of parking areas and other vehicular use areas, including parking spaces, circulation aisles, interior landscape islands and curbing. � Drainage and retention areas, including swales, side slopes and bottom elevations, and drainage structures and other drainage improvements. m All adjacent right(s)-of-way, with indication of centerline and width, paved width, existing median cuts and intersections, street light poles, bus shelters, signage and utility company facilities. � Delineation and dimensions of all required perimeter landscaped buffers including sight triangles, if any. ❑ An irrigation plan. Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 5 of 8 Revised 01/12 0 LL o ; Planning & Development Department ��=��wa er Flexible Standard Development Application � General Applicability Criteria PROVIDE COMPIETE RESPONSES TO EACH OF THE SIX (6) GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA EXPLAINING HOW, IN DETAII, THE CRITERION IS BEING COMPLIED WITH PER THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. The use will serve residents in the surrounding area and is consistent with low-intensity commercial developments within the area. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. The redevelopment of this property will enhance the area, as it is currently a non-conforming auto-repair center and vacant lot. The upcoming sale and redevelopment of this property for use by Family Dollar will increase the assessed value of the property. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. The project is designed with adequate drainage, parking and convenient access via Myrtle Ave 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. The traffic pattern as shown on the proposed site plan will allow ingress and egress from Myrtle Ave. and also N. Bidwell St. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The proposed retail use is consistent with the commercial zoning. Numerous commercial developments exist in the near vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. The proposed design removes the existing building abutting Bidwell St. and Myrtle Ave. and moves it to the center of the parcel, thereby decreasing the impact to the road. Landscaping will meet current code as the existing site is currently non-compliant. Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 6 of 8 Revised 01l12 � LL .. . :::':.. ° - �a ��rwater �_ U Planning & Development Department Flexible Standard 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). 1. 2. � C� � 6. 7 8. CDC Section 2-703.V.4. Off-Street Parking: The physical characteristics of a proposed building are such that the likely uses of the property will require fewer parking spaces per floor area than otherwise required or that the use of significant portions of the building will be used for storage or other non-parking demand-generatinq purposes. Request for flexibility for off-street parking to be 4.5 spaces per 1,000 SF GFA from the required 5.0 spaces per 1,000 SF GFA. 38 total parking spaces of the required 42 will be provided. Family Dollar has stated that the parking that is proposed will be adequate to serve the retail store. The parking demand is based off historical counts for previously constructed Family Dollar stores. The requested flexibility for reduction of parking is within allowable limits of the flexible code. Please see Exhibit "B". Planning 8 Development Department,100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 7 of 8 Revised O1N2 ° Clear�ater �> Planning & Development Department Flexible Development Application Affidavit to Authorize Agent/Representative 1. Provide names of all property owners on deed — PRINTfull names: HRES Myrtle, LI�C 2. That (I am/we are} the owner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property: See Eshibit "A" 3. That this property constitutes the property for which a request for (describe request): Retail sales and service 4. That the undersigned (has/have) appointed and (does/do) appoint: as (his/their) agent(s) to execute any petitions or other documents necessary to affect such petition; 5. That this affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act on the above described property; 6. That site visits to the property are necessary by City representatives in order to process this application and the owner authorizes City repres ntatives to visit and photograph the property described in this application; 7. That (I�, th 'rsigned authority, hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. - �i F' Property Owner Property Owner Property Owner Property Owner STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS BEFQRE ME THE UNDERSIGNED, AN OFFICER DULY COMMISSIONED BY THE LAWS OF THE ST OF FLOR DI A E3N ,� � THIS i' � DAY OF /r`��t;�--�t'" , , PERSONALLY APPEARED '� _ � — WHO HAVING BEEN FIRST DULY SWORN D . .,�.�In GOVC THAT HF!$}j NDERSTANDS THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT THAT HE/SHE SIGNED. Cl{fIC18� S88A �—`--- l�i�G1NA DAVI� ~"'�`� � �_, Nntary Public, �iste af Flos�ir�a N!y carnm. �xr?irtW Dec. i, 20'� Camin�ssts�n iVu, E��1,.�,�,..._.�... ,.,. Notary Public Signature Notary Seal/Stamp My Commission Expires: Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtie Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562�4865 Page 8 of 8 ' Revised 01/12 r EXHIBIT "A" LOTS 18, 25, 27 AND 29, FIRST ADDITION TO PALM BLUFF, A SUBDIVISION ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED AT PLAT BOOK 5, PAGE 14, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA; LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF LOT 18 DESCRIBED IN THE WARRANTY DEED TO THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, DATED JUNE 1, 1964 AND RECORDED JUNE 4, 1964 iN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 1941, PAGE 471, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA. TOGETHER WITH THE EAST 65.00 FEET OF LOT 17, FIRST ADDITION TO PALM BLUFF SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 5, PAGE14, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, TOGETHER WITH LOTS 33, 34, 35 AND 36, ENGHURST ADDITION TO CLEARWATER, ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 23, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA; LESS AND EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING: BEGIN AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST % OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA; RUN THENCE N00°10'04"E ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SECTION 9, 834.00 FEET; THENCE N78°46'19"W, 10.19 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUE N78°46'19"W, 20.38 FEET; THENCE N00°10'04"E, 117.94 FEET; THENCE S78°46'19"E, ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF BIDWELL STREET, 20.38 FEET; THENCE S00°10'04"W, 117.94 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ALL BEING FURTHER DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GOVERNMENT LOT 2, SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST; THENCE N00°16'46"E, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 2, A DISTANCE OF 648.82 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE EASTERLY EXTENSION OF THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF PALM BLUFF STREET ACCORDING TO FIRST ADDITION TO PALM BLUFF SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 5, PAGE 14, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE N80°33'23"W, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF PALM BLUFF STREET, A DISTANCE OF 63.34 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 29, SAID FIRST ADDITION TO PALM BLUFF SUBDIVISION; THENCE CONTINUE N80°33'23"W, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF PALM BLUFF STREET, SAME BEING THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 29, A DISTANCE OF 15.20 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH A LINE 70.00 FEET WEST OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CENTERLINE OF SURVEY OF THE SEABOARD SYSTEM RAlLROAD AS SHOWN ON A FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY MAP, SECTION 15600-2801, DATED 4-22-85 AND TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUE N80°33'23"W, ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF PALM BLUFF STREET, SAME BEING THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 29, LOTS 27 AND 25 SAID FIRST ADDITION TO PALM BLUFF SUBDIVISION RESPECTIVELY, A DISTANCE OF 134.62 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 25; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF PALM BLUFF STREET, N09°25'13"E, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 25, A DISTANCE OF 139.12 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 25, SAME BEING . 0 THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 17 SAID FIRST ADDITION TO PALM BLUFF SUBDIVISION; THENCE N78°47'44"W, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE OF LOT 17, SAME BEING THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 23 SAID FIRST ADDITION TO PALM BLUFF SUBDIVISION, A DISTANCE OF 49.47 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH A LINE 65.00 FEET WEST OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 17; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH LINE OF LOT 17, N15°19'S5"E, ALONG SAID LINE 65.00 FEET WEST OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF LOT 17, A DISTANCE OF 49.84 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 17, SAME BEING THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 36 ENGHURST ADDITION TO CLEARWATER, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 23, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE N78°42'03"W, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF LOT 17, SAME BEING SAID SOUTH LINE OF LOT 36, A DISTANCE OF 0.04 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 36: THENCE N16°30'18"E, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 36, A DISTANCE OF 116.97 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 36, SAME BEING TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF BIDWELL STREET (BIDWELL PLACE ACCORDING TO SAID ENGHURST ADDITION TO CLEARWATER); THENCE S78°47'01"E, ALONG SAID A SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF BIDWELL STREET, SAME BEING THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 36 AND LOTS 35, 34 AND 33 SAID ENGHURST ADDITION TO CLEARWATER RESPECTIVELY, A DISTANCE OF 164.32 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST LINE OF THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY AS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2048, PAGE 535, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, SAME BEING THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF MYRTLE AVENUE, SAME AL50 BEING A LINE 30.00 FEET WEST OF AND PARALLEL WITH SAID EAST LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 2; THENCE S00°16'46"W ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY AS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2048, PAGE 535 AND THE WEST LINE OF THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY AS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 1941, PAGE 471, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA RESPECTIVELY, SAME BEING THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF MYRTLE AVENUE, SAME ALSO BEING A LINE 30.00 FEET WEST OF AND PARALLEL WITH SAID EAST LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 2, A DISTANCE OF 161.06 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH SAID LINE 70.00 FEET WEST OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CENTERLINE OF SURVEY OF THE SEABOARD SYSTEM RAILROAD, SAME BEING TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE 70.00 FEET WEST OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CENTERLINE OF SURVEY OF THE SEABOARD SYSTEM RAILROAD, SAME BEING SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 11529.19 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00°43'04", AN ARC LENGTH OF 144.43 FEET , AND A CHORD BEARING S19°29'46"W FOR A DISTANCE OF 144.42 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING CONTAINING AN AREA OF 51247 SQUARE FEET, 1.176 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. r Exhibit "B" November 6, 2013 City of Clearvvater Community Development 100 S. Myrtle Ave. Clearwater, FL 33758 RE: Proposed Family Dollar Store, N. Myrfle Ave, Clearwater, FL Dear Sir/Madam, The attached site plan has been reviewed and approved by Family Dollar, and we have no objections to the 38 parking spaces (including 2 HC spaces) for the above referenced site. This design more than meets our minimum requirements. Thank you, � Courtney B. Yancy Director, Store Construction Family Dollar Stores, Inc. Office: (704) 708-1694 E-mail: �ancx@familydollar.com EXHIBIT C ` CONSENT FOR PERMITTING Re: Proposed Family Dollar to be located on tax parcel ID 09-29-15-25920-000-0330 Clearwater, FL ,.t Page �13 To Whom It May Concern: Please accept this letter as authorization for Mark Haeger or Greg Ferrell, representatives of Hunt Reai Estate Services, Inc., to act on behalf of the property owner regarding correspondence and representation of all notices, approvals and permitting matters required for the above referenced project. If you have any questions, please contact me at Sincerely, Sam Pagano, i Dat : � �/ : STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF Pinellas Before me personally appeared � who being duly sworn, swears and affirms that the above information is true to the best of his knowledge. Signed and sworn to before me this �� day of �, 20✓�, who I personally know. Notary Public /I � ��i f�'� Sea l MyCommissionExpires: �� DEBORAHI..BRI7T _ � Notary Publlc, State ot florida CommissionA EE 122588 My comm. expires Aug. 16, 2015 0 PROJECT NARRATIVE FAMILY DOLLAR - MYRTLE AVE CLEARWATER, FL PRESENTED TO: CITY OF CLEARWATER AND SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FROM: DEUEL & ASSOCIATES 565 S. HERCULES AVE CLEARWATER, FL 33764 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NO: 26320 :4 <: �` �� v,, � y�: a , , r __ ° a � � ' ", ,,- ��}�� a�a � , � : r ., A 4\;. �'+�e !b f y `� Cy ' i �... �/�i � i .J � � A� 4 �� ' e . _ a ,f `. _ BRIAN �:��;�° �;�P �; #S6'%2`�. SEPT��k�I��:�07� , ;. �Y . " � ' ' d t �,,� FAMILY DOLLAR - MYRTLE AVE PROJECT NARRATIVE 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed `"Family Dollar — Myrtle Ave" project is located on the west side of N. Myrtle Ave (aka US-19A) between Bidwell St. and Palm Bluff St. in the City of Clearwater. The scope of the project will involve the construction of a commercial building, parking lot, and associated stormwater management system. 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS The southern portion of the site is currently undeveloped vacant land. The northern portion of the site contains a 6264 SF coinmercial building with associated parking. The total lot area is 1.18 acres. According to the NRCS Soils Report and confirmed by the geotechnical investigation the site has a low water table and well drained soils. The site is relatively flat and the drainage pattern is directed towards Myrtle Ave. 3.0 PROPOSED CONDITIONS The project will involve the construction of a 6,182 SF commercial building and associated parking and associated parking and drainage system. The proposed stormwater management system will consist of a dry detention pond and will provide water qualiry treatment via infiltration. The pond will treat the first Yz" of runoff from the entire site. 4.0 CONCLUSION The stormwater management system for this project has been designed in accordance with the criteria established by the City of Clearwater, Southwest Florida Water Management District., and the Florida Department of Transportation. Summary: ♦ Treats'/z-inch of nznoff (for SWFWMD) ♦ Attenuates the pre/post 25yr/lhr storm event (for City of Clearwater) ♦ Meets critical duration analysis (for FDOT) ♦ Provides 1' of freeboard (for FDOT) ♦ Discharge rate is less than the pre-development rate ♦ Erosion control measures will be in state prior to any construction ♦ The ultimate discharge of the site is "Clearwater Harbor (North)" which is NOT an impaired water body for nutrient parameters. � _- . .. �RCP"_:D i_ _ 4L r�.�„a O .� . �.�.�vKa� b.r !_ _�• -.: �� _ �� ' ..� X � -0+` ti-�� o. � ��. er ��^ �� MP /`� �u� CpvSi. � ^ 1 B .�_�E. � . CO T. ] lf � t � RCP g• � an. GRT..10.35 i 0042 '"`"'cv' E I�uv. 26.1) `-�_�� ' S. I�IV. 2fi.Z) ,�. � � � � . s � � 'aY3� �� . �� "rt � l 1 I 1 r� - - �M .. o r i PosT - �•� ,ao r;CONSTRUCT °'�8 ��`� DRAINAGE � ''" , BASIN i �� . o:• rr, o; �- � f � . . � I io- � � y � 91 ` , , �,�)�- y+�' ,, 4 ,�: .,� _ � � � ; ' ��I . � ��t� � � a'9�1�'1 ` , ° �i �" ��t�t� ' A ��` ; a �2�`.�s � �" e \� � � � � � a� � r `� � - p Y r 3.� fi� �a,+ '� y ,.'" e �� r � �x� � � ,, m — � .. , „9;� 29 Ja � ... ....q0y . 2) 18 s . ... • 9P ]3.5 ]6 32.BT . �{ its.i0' y� �—��,y' :* + R �- �. � 'o , ss; � � :�� : � � _ _ �� _ . �. �.. �' .r:. �a _ �4 , . . e. � �-- � -0�, . . �y � r., . . a ' �'s' 1= �� • . . -0e ` � � —� �e�,� qd�gY° a *r... . � � � � ,, � .: . � n 4 �� _ _,.� �y .� .� -0` i ... ,� a... 8 � � '�,�� . tea ' _ � S na „� * � , � �-'° '' .� ��S � � a r ' / �� ! coNSr s oEEO ca+s . o R� °v� +� SIHULNXE (SEE �0 ST 3 5 L � �r.^�� OETAII SHi aJ �5" RCP O I.SS / _ �° � B � x�ro �� . 'J ��,_.. 'C-ME' GI LAT. .HI.JS .9 W. INV.26.60 I ^d � � <�� ,�, I r s„ � y�' :a � ' I I . ��c v � �rC� I ��. � 'R .;'T�> DEUEL c�ASSOCIATES E FA,ei�YOO�laR POST–CONSTPUCT/C OR,9lN9C�' BASIN ...�� a. c[[io rvsu�nncencneerts e'ons w+ovisnrvrns �c[ns[oeusnFSSrvuneEAio� ��pexniEF.at�ELU5C0�Mtt N �--�. � Can M r�wn ona. w a�y 1 ^`�1 �i , I �� i /) � � 7 9CALE� t' - 20' ;'S TNE`lAW'� ! -600- 3]-�))0 � �ce�,o �ROVOoeo �EC�na u - ��„� � CONC. wn H arv0 C � '' 0 9E REMOVEO 5 FEO�eFEO ��W,�n � ..��LL�~�.� ert .,.�d�� , V_l a.0 u ... f� .. ... ,�'�+ I � I . EM o �.�a U .�,mk, oN.,W ,._ , f ,, r ,,�,, — �� ,�, „ =�.{ � �.�a,. . � 9 � ��' � � . f . "�'�.�,. ,� �- .�,� R ��'� fi � �,; . . � `a''`,a, s� 3.� .y .. ��*`` . . � art � w n�K a" 5 �.� . �.,�. ' ro ec Ac o�o � '� � � � ."r8 . � �, i.i �..m �. �n' • � � a "" �"oo u.,b. .-0' ' f � '� C.L FFNCE 0 �. $ >��. I .W.r �cr"�im..m �an BE °ENOVEC c: . fENCE. ASP PLT . . � � �. I .. . ........ �,a��, ' ... . ANO CONC. 0 BE � Y�.. ua i.oa� REAIOKD 0/X N1RE5 t0 � �' ��w ` ,� 9E REMOVED S r ��. //// I �;' ;8 i0 BE�REMO�EO t0 6E J -�� '�� .� ( I wm '� � ' ' � POLE ANO MRES REMOVEO .. r tI . . . � ' . .. -0 i0 BE REMOVEO . �R� � .. .. �-0+ � I I .. ..mart. op.::� .. � .��9 ,�I ,°�. . . � ¢;$ .. . �4 . . �a ?" � . � ... x. TO BEJHEMOVEO . . .. ' .:��..�, ��j/ T {/�.� � � . BNO'S TO ', i�i\IS�,1 IN V� �e • . � 9E REM04£DI � r > >° -0 � a � . 9 �� . �+•f . �•• � � 4 �� T� ;�.> DRAINAGE ; � BE RE�IOeE� - �� • � -%'�� O`' O � 0/H MRES i0 BE FENO�E'0 � d � r�... I . .�... .. � -0C . .. �_ �� r BAS�IN . �, i1ii1C 9GH TO BE RELOCRiEO X I q r o p�� .. c PoLF TO BE REA10YE0 .. . � .. \ U11LItt POLE RNP'�' D/W R�MP, ADEWAIX \ O�YEFNEAO MiRES i0 BE ANO CURBIHC ME ttl BE � . ELOCAiED BY OTIERS _� RENOVED �5 REWIRm � � - . y� � �� .�.�. �. , �� . . _ . ro��a� . - ., �, ,:�,_.. , � � - . � �� , � . �',I�III�f'��6111f1 '��... ,¢,� , ��p: k_ , , , � � ..� ,, ��i � °��e�-� , . � �� . � � ; e� � � r —____ . , �� — — —�::�_ . � . ,,9 . . .nv '^ -£.� 9'a . . 9 . �� ' '9 qy' ` n �'9 �:�� .... �9 :. � _ . y q .. � . oi . `F—�. . V� i � .p� .,�p � "� I � , _ ��` �.. , � . .. e � _ "�� ' . r F. , ».n� ,.. a.rb � e :".°9 e ,� ��--.� 4 �°� •° �" � �`�q 4 �g , �� : a . �+ a" ,� +: ; �� = _ -0,^ ' _ ,r° .: ,Mri ° 9*� � � .� _�. —r: — —� � � ., ° �. : fi ° i � � - =—� � , � . , .. o . �a � , � ` : . _ �, � . � � , x , y � � . -0 i . / ;�r . . . . : . '�j , sr'W'"� I ,we� - �0.9 : �.f:.. � DEUEL & ASSOCIATES E 32 PRE �o,�. °T°`�`� oti� , . .._ _..,. e. ._. Eo P= ��s��,,,.�E,.��EEas �..�o��,�+oAS ,.�.�oa..�� ,.�EO��,��.�,�,�a��, „r.R.,,. � ,F�� DR4INAC�' B9S/N �1 ��' �\/ i ._,� : �_ .` .-... :. _ . �Q .; . . .. � Cover Building Paved Area Pond Green Area SWFWMD ��C�� _ PRE— FAMILY DOLLAR - MYRTLE AVE. WEIGHTED "C" CALCULATIONS PREDEVELOPED"C" Area (SF� 6,182 SF 9,194 SF 0 SF 35,871 SF CLWArea (SF�/2 3,091 SF 4,597 SF 0 SF ��C�� 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.20 �6,182)(0.95L(9,194�(0.95)+(�(1)+(35 871�0.20� 51,247 SF Clearwater (3,091�0.95)±�4,597)(0.95)+O(1)+(35,871�(0.20� ��C��P�= 51,247 SF SWFWMD CLEARWATER ��C��PRE= 0.43 ��C��P�— 0.21 POSTDEVELOPED "C" Cover Area (SF) "C" Building 8,351 SF 0.95 Paved Area 22,026 SF 0.95 Pond 6,427 SF 1.00 Green Area 14,443 SF 0.20 "C��POST— �g,351Z0.95)+(22,02620.95L6,427Z(1)+(14,443)(0.20� 51,247 SF ��C��POST 0.74 Treatment Volume Required (1/2")(51,247SF)(1'/12") = 2,135 CF City of Clearwater Attenuation Volume Required RUNOFF RATE(PRE) 25YR-1HR STORM RAINFALL INTENSITY(I) 3.72 IN/HR �Q = (CPOST —CpRE)(i)(A) _ (0.74-0.21)(3.72)(51247/43560) = 2.34 CFS V= ToC * Q= 3600 SEC*2.34 CFS= 8408 CF ." POND LICENSED TO: DEUEL & ASSOCIATES STAGE-STORAGE PROJECT NAME FAMILY DOLLAR - MYRTLE AVE. PROJECT NUMBER 2013-56 DESIGNER BAB DATE 09/24/13 COMMENTS: SWFWMD / CITY OF CLEARWATER / FDOT AREA @ T.O.B. 6427 EL............ 31.00 AREA @ DHW 5389 EL............ 30.00 AREA @ DLW 3312 EL............ 28.00 AREA @ BOTTOM\NWL 717 EL............ 25.50 AREA VOLUME AREA VOLUME STAGE SQ\FT CU\FT STAGE SQ1FT CU\FT 25.50 717 0 28.30 3628 6091 25.61 829 83 28.41 3740 6489 25.72 941 179 28.52 3852 6898 25.82 1053 286 28.63 3964 7320 25.93 1165 406 28.74 4076 7753 26.04 1277 538 28.84 4188 8199 26.15 1389 681 28.95 4300 8656 26.25 1501 837 29.06 4412 9126 26.36 1613 1005 29.17 4524 9608 26.47 1725 1185 29.27 4636 10102 26.58 1837 1377 29.38 4748 10608 26.69 1949 1581 29.49 4860 11126 26.79 2061 1797 29.60 4972 11656 26.90 2172 2025 29.71 5083 12198 27.01 2284 2266 29.81 5195 12752 27.12 2396 2518 29.92 5307 13319 27.23 2508 2783 30.03 5419 13897 27.33 2620 3059 30.14 5531 14488 27.44 2732 3348 30.25 5643 15090 27.55 2844 3649 30.35 5755 15705 27.66 2956 3961 30.46 5867 16331 27.76 3068 4286 30.57 5979 16970 27.87 3180 4623 30.68 6091 17621 27.98 3292 4972 30.78 6203 18284 28.09 3404 5333 30.89 6315 18959 28.20 3516 5706 31.00 6427 19646 VOLUME ABOVE TREATMENT 8701 CF DESIGN TREATMENT VOLUME 5037 CF TOTAL VOLUME 13738 CF 0 MODRET SUMMARY OF UNSATURATED & SATURATED INPUT PARAMETERS PRO]ECT NAME : FAMILY DOLLAR - MYRTLE AVE POLLUTION VOLUME RUNOFF DATA USED UNSATURATED ANALYSIS INCLUDED Pond Bottom Area Pond Volume between Bottom & DHWL Pond Length to Width Ratio (L/W) Elevation of Effective Aquifer Base Elevation of Seasonal High Groundwater Table Elevation of Starting Water Level Elevation of Pond Bottom Design High Water Level Elevation Avg. EfFective Storage Coefficient of Soil for Unsaturated Analysis Unsaturated Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity Factor of Safety Saturated Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity Avg. Effective Storage Coefficient of Soil for Saturated Analysis Avg. Effective Storage Coefficient of Pond/Exfiltration Trench Hydraulic Control Features: Groundwater Control Features - Y/N Distance to Edge of Pond Elevation of Water Level Impervious Barrier - Y/N Elevation of Barrier Bottom Analysis Date: 9/24/2013 757.00 ft2 5,037.00 ft3 2.00 0.00 ft 24.00 ft 25.50 ft 25.50 ft 28.00 ft 0.10 8.00 ft/d 2.00 11.50 ft/d 0.20 1.00 Top Bottom Left Right N N N N 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N N N N 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Analysis Date: 9/24/2013 MODRET TIME - RUNOFF INPUT DATA PRO7ECT NAME: FAMILY DOLLAR - MYRTLE AVE STRESS PERIOD NUMBER Unsat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 INCREMENT OF TIME (hrs) � •, �� : �• . �: �: �: �: �: i: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: �: 1: �: �: VOLUME OF RUNOFF ift3) � G�'li�r � �� 1 11 � �� CUMULATIVE TIME (hrs) 00.00 - 0.00 0.00 1.90 2.77 3.65 4.52 5.40 6.27 7.15 8.02 8.89 9.77 10.64 11.52 12.16 Analysis Date: 9/24/2013 MODRET SUMMARY OF RESULTS PRO�ECT NAME : FAMILY DOLLAR - MYRTLE AVE WATER ELEVATION (feet) 24.000 24.000 26.269 26.132 26.027 25.942 25.870 25.806 25.749 25.698 25.650 25.606 25.565 25.526 25.500 INSTANTANEOUS AVERAGE INFILTRATION INFILTRATION RATE (cfs) RATE (cfs) o.000 * 0.00000 0.08369 0.08552 0.08735 0.08819 0.07745 0.06671 0.06052 0.05434 0.05035 0.04635 0.04354 0.04073 0.03861 0.03650 0.03484 0.03317 0.03182 0.03047 0.02933 0.02819 0.02723 0.02626 0.02542 0.02458 0.02385 0.02311 0.02245 CUMULATIVE OVERFl.OW ift3) � �� . � �� i � � �� - � �� . � �� . � �� = MODRET SUMMARY OF RESULTS CUMULATIVE TIME (hrs) 13.27 14.14 15.02 15.89 16.76 17.64 18.51 19.39 20.26 21.14 22.01 22.88 23.76 24.63 Analysis Date: 9/24/2013 PRO7ECT NAME : FAMILY DOLLAR - MYRTLE AVE WATER INSTANTANEOUS AVERAGE CUMULATIVE ELEVATION INFILTRATION INFILTRATION OVERFLOW (feet) RATE (cfs) RATE (cfs) (ft3) 25.456 25.424 25.393 25.364 25.337 25.310 25.285 25.260 25.237 25.215 25.193 25.172 25.152 25.133 0.02122 0.02011 0.01911 0.01820 0.01737 0.01661 0.01590 0.01525 0.01466 0.01409 0.01355 0.01306 0.01262 0.01223 0.02179 0.02064 0.01958 0.01863 0.01777 0.01697 0.01625 0.01555 0.01496 0.01436 0.01381 0.01329 0.01283 0.01241 � �� . � �� . � t� . � �� t � � �� CU M U LATIVE TIME (hrs) 25.51 26.38 27.26 28.13 29.01 29.88 30.75 31.63 32.50 33.38 34.25 35.13 36.00 MODRET SUMMARY OF RESULTS PRO)ECT NAME : FAMILY DOLLAR - MYRTLE AVE WATER INSTANTANEOUS AVERAGE CUMULATIVE ELEVATION INFILTRATION INFILTRATION OVERFLOW (feet) RATE (cfs) RATE (cfs) (ft3) 25.114 25.096 25.078 25.061 25.045 25.029 25.013 24.998 24.983 24.969 24.955 24.942 24.929 �� : _ � � - _ � � �: _ � � � - _ � � �- _ � � ��• _ 1 11• • _ � ��• � _ � ��• _ 1 11:• _ � ��: _ 1 11:• • Maximum Water Elevation: 26.269 feet @ 1.90 hours * Time increment when there is no runoff Maximum Infiltration Rate: 3.782 ft/day Analysis Date: 9/24/2013 �� _ �� . _ �� _ � � �•� _ � � � _ � � � � _ � ��... _ � ��•.� _ � ��• _ � ��•�• _ � ��::. _ 1 11:.1 _ � ��: : � �� . � �� i � � �� . � �� . � �� . 1 11 . � �� . 1 /1 � � �i Recovery @ 12.159 hours 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 x �1 m �1 w c E� � 0 > INFILTRATION : FAMILY DOLLAR - MYRTLE AVE 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Time (hrs) Total Volume Infiltrated = 2,135 ft' r c 0 .@ > d w d m � 26 25.F INFILTRATION : FAMILY DOLLAR - MYRTLE AVE 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Time (hrs) Max Water Elevation = 26.27 ft � - Andreyev Engineering, Inc. SL PETERSBURG OFFICE 3%40 54fh Avenue North St. Retsrsbtrrg. Florida 33794 727-527-5735 Fax: 72 7-527-8084 � Groundwater � Environmen*.ai � Geotechnicai � Construction Materiais Testing June 28, 2013 AEI Project No.: APGT-13-0080 TO: Hunt Real Estate Services, Inc. and Family Dollar Stores of Florida, Inc. 5100 West Kennedy Boulevard Suite 100 Tampa, Florida 33609 Attn: Mr. Charles Aldrich SUBJECT: Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Family Dollar Store, North Myrtle Avenue and Bidwell Street, Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida. Dear Mr. Aldrich: Andreyev Engineering, Inc. (AEI) has completed a geotechnical investigation for the proposed commercial development. The results of the investigation together with recommendations for foundation support of the proposed building and the proposed pavement areas are included herein. AEI appreciates the opportunity to participate in this project, and we trust that the information herein is sufficient for your design. If you have any questions or comments concerning the contents of.this-�eport, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, ANDREYEV ENGIME,� ft�1�1��rIC. � /� \��`�� \ Rc E w��y" �1i�i �, ki � � .� � � i >�� , , � � � r; '� Na �037�3� �?.,, * �,_ 6-28-13� * � � ' * , � Jeffery E. EIISP,.B�E. � � " STAi� OF ;� �t/ � Vice Presider� ��•,, ; ��+ � Florida Registr�d�N�f��:•"G� 4�� i��lrss�oNA ;l��\�� ; _. / , r �__ .� �' _ _ .. iazeff, E.I. �gineer _ .-------._____�__._.�_ �_. The ViHages Clermont Sanford ;[,:?- � n � -2a ?8 352-241-OSCB 407-330-7763 ; <;x :�b � :%5! 2(;:; ? �ax 352-241-0977 Fax 407-330-7765 Geotechn ical I nvestigatlon Proposed Family Dollar Development Clearwater, Florida. Page 2 Proiect Description Based on the plans provided for our review, we understand that the proposed project consists of the design and construction of an 8,320 square foot commercial retail building. The remainder of the site is planned as paved parking, driveway and retention areas. Our study herein addresses geotechnical design and construction recommendations for the proposed project. Proiect Aaproach The objective of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed project was to obtain information concerning the subsurface conditions over the site in general, in order to make geotechnical engineering estimates and recommendations in each of the following areas: 1. Soil stratigraphy at the boring locations and the development of the approximate soil profile within the depth of foundation influence at the proposed structure location and within the depth of influence of wheel loads in pavement areas. 2. General location and description of potentially deleterious materials which may interfere with construction progress or new structure performance, including buried or surticial existing fills, organics, construction debris, etc. 3. Identification of some critical design or construction details, including present groundwater levels, estimated wet season levels, and seasonal fluctuations in the building, pavement and retention areas. 4. Feasibility of supporting the proposed structure with conventional and/or slightly modified shallow spread foundation systems (strip and pad footings). 5. Design parameters required for the feasible foundation system alternative recommended for the structure based on the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow counts obtained in each boring, including allowable bearing pressures, foundation levels and foundation soil subgrade treatments for shallow spread foundations. 6. Suitability and availability of materials found on-site, that may be excavated or moved during site grading, for use as structural fill in the building and pavement areas and as general backfill. 7. Provide engineering criteria and recommendations for the placement and compaction of approved fill materials in and around all structure areas. 8. Provide some design and construction recommendations for the recommended pavement section considering the estimated limerock bearing ratio of the subgrade soils and the water table conditions. Geotechn ical Investigation Proposed Family Dollar Development Clearwater, Florfda. Page 3 9. Develop approximate lateral earth pressure criteria for the design of walls or structures below grade. Scope of Work In order to address the above objectives, our scope of work for this project included the following: Reviewed available published information on the site, including the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soil survey data for Pinellas County and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps. 2. Conducted a subsurface exploration program consisting of soil borings, subsurface sampling and field testing. Our exploration program for this project consisted of conducting six (6) standard penetration test (SPT) borings to depths of 15 to 25 feet below land surface (bls) and five (5) auger borings to depths of 10 feet bls. Our testing included the collection of representative soil samples and recording the SPT blow counts during the drilling of the borings. 3. Performed constant head permeability testing in order to determine the hydraulic conductivity of the shallow soils within the proposed stormwater management area. 4. Measured the stabilized groundwater levels at each boring location. 5. Reviewed and visually classified the recovered soils in the laboratory using the Unified Soils Classification System. Developed the general soil stratigraphy over the site. 6. Performed geotechnical engineering studies and analyses in order to develop geotechnical engineering recommendations for each of the above nine (9) objectives previously discussed for the proposed project. 7. Prepared a geotechnical report which summarizes the course of our study, the field and laboratory data generated, the subsurface conditions encountered, and our geotechnical engineering recommendations for the proposed project. Existina Site Conditions The subject property is located on the west side of North Myrtle Avenue, bound to the north by Bidwell Street and to the south by Palm Bluff Street in Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida, and consists of approximately 1.13 acres of commercial land. The northern parcel is currently developed with a single-story commercial building that is approximately 6,264 square feet in size. The remainder of the property consists of vacant, woody and grassy areas. A vicinity map is included as Figure 1. Geotechn ical I nvestigation Proposed Family Dollar Development Clearwater, Florida. Page 4 The U.S. Geological Survey, "Clearwater, Fla." Topographic Map, dated 1974, photorevised 1987, showing the area on which the property is located, was reviewed. Based on this review, the site is estimated to occur at an elevation of approximately +30 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). The topography is generally flat. Subsurface Soil Conditions According to the U.S.D.A. "Soil Survey of Pinellas County", the soils within the study area are classified as Astatula soils and Urban land type soils: mixture of nearly level excessively drained sandy soils and areas of Urban �and. The seasonal high water table is generally at a depth of more than 6 feet below ground surface. Field Exploration Proaram For our study, we conducted six Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings (B-1 through B-6) to depths of 15 to 25 feet bls within the proposed building and pylon sign areas. In addition, five auger borings (AB-1 through AB-5) were conducted to depths of 10 feet in the proposed paved parking/roadway and retention pond areas. The borings were approximately located in the field according to the site plan provided by the project civil engineer. The approximate boring locations are indicated on Figure 2. The SPT boring procedure was conducted using rotary-mud drilling techniques. Soil sampling using a 1-3/8 inch I.D. split-spoon sampler was conducted continuously through the first 10 feet and at 5 foot intervals thereafter. The number of successive blows required to drive the sampler into the soil constitutes the test result commonly referred to as the "N"-value. The "N"-value has been empirically correlated with various soil properties and is considered to be indicative of the relative density of less cohesive soils and the consistency of cohesive soils. The recovered split spoon samples were visually classified in the field, and representative samples were placed in jars and transported to our office for further review and confirmation of the field classification. Generalized Soil Stratiaraphv The results of the subsurtace exploration program including the soil stratification profiles and some pertinent exploration information such as SPT "N"-values and groundwater levels as well as a legend describing the different soil types encountered are presented on Figure 3. Soil stratification was based on the review of recovered soil samples and interpretation of the field boring logs by a geotechnical engineer. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types; the actual transition may be gradual. The soil strata were visually classified using the Unified Soils Classification System. Minor variations in soil types not considered important to our engineering evaluations may have been abbreviated or omitted for clarity. In general, the SPT borings encountered fine sands (Strata 1 through 4) from the ground surtace to depths of 15 to 25 feet. All six of the SPT borings terminated in the fine sands at depths of 15 to 25 feet. The auger borings encountered fine sands which continued to termination depths of 10 feet. Geotechnical I nvestigation Proposed Family Dollar Development Clearvvater, FloNda. Page 5 Based on the SPT "N"-values taken from our SPT borings, the sandy soils over the site to a depth of about 20 feet (+/-) are generally considered to be loose to dense materials. Very loose soils were encountered in borings B-1, B-4 and B-5 between depths of 2 to 7 feet. The SPT-N values are presented adjacent to the soil profiles on Figure 3. Correlation of the SPT-N values with relative density is provided in the following table: Coarse-Grained Soils Penetration Resistance N Relative Density of Sand (blows/ft) 0-4 Very Loose 4-10 Loose 10-30 Medium-Dense 30-50 Dense >50 Very Dense Shallow Water Table Conditions The shallow groundwater table was not encountered within 10 feet of the ground surface in the SPT borings and not encountered in the auger borings conducted. The shallow groundwater level should be expected to vary during wet seasons and heavy rainfall events. Seasonal fluctuations of groundwater levels can be anticipated in response to variations in rainfall. The level recorded during this investigation is estimated to be lower than the normal seasonal high levels. Based on review of the SCS soil survey, boring results, measured groundwater levels, adjacent surface water features and antecedent rainfall, the normal seasonal high groundwater table is expected to occur at depths of greater than 7 feet below the existing ground surface over the site. Foundation Recommendations Based on our understanding of the proposed construction, a conventional shallow foundation system consisting of perimeter wall footings and isolated pad footings should provide adequate support for the proposed structure, assuming proper subgrade preparation, as described later. Based on the proposed construction, maximum foundation loadings for the structure are expected to be approximately 4,000 plf with maximum column loads of 40 kips or less. Based on the SPT "N" values obtained from the soil borings, a net allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf (in excess of overburden) is estimated for the existing shallow soils found over the site. This bearing capacity estimate is based on the over-excavation of the very loose sandy materials encountered in SPT borings B-1, B-4 and B-5. The excavation should extend 5 feet beyond the foundation limits. The very loose soils should be replaced with clean sandy fill as detailed in Attachment A. Settlements for the proposed structure, based on a bearing capacity of 2,000 psf, are estimated to be about 1-inch total and a'/2-inch differential. Geotech nical I nvestigation Proposed Family Dollar Development Clearwater, FloMda. Page 6 The above settlement estimates are based on the implementation of the site subgrade preparation recommendations discussed herein. A minimum footing width of 24 inches and a minimum depth of embedment of 22 inches should be used for footing design. Slab on-grade foundations should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and should contain wire mesh reinforcement. An approximate vapor barrier should be utilized below building interior slabs. Pavement Desipn Considerations In general, the existing shallow soils are suitable for construction and support of a flexible (limerock base) or semi-flexible (soil cement base) type pavement section. Fill materials should consist of reasonably clean fine sands uniformly compacted. Sandy soils (Strata 1 through 4) excavated from other areas of the site should be suitable for re-use as fill. Either limerock or soil cement could be considered as a pavement base course material at this site, dependent upon the degree of site drainage improvements and filling. Normal wet season groundwater levels should be controlled to at least 12 and 18 inches below a soil cement and limerock base, respectively, at all times. Detailed recommendations for site soil preparation including minimum compaction efforts are included as Attachment A of this report. Recommended minimum sections for both semi-flexible and flexible pavement are as follows: Soil Cement Base 1-1/2" asqhaltic concrete wearina surface 6" soil cement base designed and constructed in accordance with current Portland Cement Association recommended methods. A minimum 7-day compressive design strength of 300 pounds per square inch should be used for the soil cement base course. 12" subarade consisting of free draining natural fine sand or fine sand fill. Subgrade to be compacted to a minimum density of 98 percent of the Modified Proctor Maximum Density (AASHTO T-180). Limerock Base 1-1/2" asphaltic concrete wearinca surface 8" limerock base course Quality of limerock to be in accordance with current Florida Department of Transportation specifications and compacted to a minimum density equivalent to 98 percent of the Modified Proctor Maximum Density (AASHTO T-180). The limerock should have a minimum Limerock Bearing Ratio of 100. 12" stabilized subqrade with a minimum LBR of 40. The subgrade should be compacted to a minimum density equivalent to 98 percent of the Modified Proctor Maximum Density (AASHTO T-180). Asphaltic wearing surtace normally consists of Type S-1 or S-3, meeting current Florida Department of Transportation specifications. The wearing surtace should be compacted to a minimum density of 98 percent of the Laboratory Density as determined by the Marshall Stability Test method for the approved job mix formula. Geotechn ical Investigation Proposed Family Dollar Development Clearwater, Florida. Page 7 Concrete Pavement 6" of 4,000 psi Concrete with fiber mesh reinforcement 12" stabilized subgrade with a minimum LBR of 40. The subgrade should be compacted to a minimum density equivalent to 98 percent of the Modified Proctor Maximum Density (AASHTO T-18�). The light duty recommendations presented above are minimum assuming normal light passenger car and pick-up truck traffic with an occasional garbage or delivery truck. Traffic should not be allowed on the subgrade prior to placement of the base course to avoid rutting. The final pavement thickness design should be checked by the project civil engineer using the data contained in this report and anticipated traffic conditions. Recommended minimum sections for heaw truck traffic areas are as follows: Flexible Pavement (Limerock Base) 2" asqhaltic concrete wearina surface: Asphaltic wearing surface normally consists of Type S-1, S-3 or Superpave, meeting current Florida Department of Transportation specifications. The wearing surtace should be compacted to a minimum density of 98 percent of the Laboratory Density as determined by the Marshall Stability Test method, or approved equivalent, for the approved job mix formula. 8" limerock base course: Quality of limerock to be in accordance with current Florida Department of Transportation specifications and compacted to a minimum density equivalent to 98 percent of the Modified Proctor Maximum Density (AASHTO T-180). The limerock should have a minimum Limerock Bearing Ratio of 100. 12" stabilized subarade: Minimum LBR of 40. The subgrade should be compacted to a minimum density equivalent to 98 pe�cent of the Modified Proctor Maximum Density (AASHTO T-180). Semi-Flexible Pavement (Soil Cement Base) 2" asphaltic concrete wearing surface: Asphaltic wearing surFace normally consists of Type S-1, S-3 or Superpave, meeting current Florida Department of Transportation specifications. The wearing surface should be compacted to a minimum density of 98 percent of the Laboratory Density as determined by the Marshall Stability Test method, or approved equivalent, for the approved job mix formula. 8" soil cement base: Designed and constructed in accordance with current Portland Cement Association recommended methods. A minimum 7-day compressive design strength of 300 pounds per square inch should be used for the soil cement base course. 12" subgrade: Consisting of free draining natural fine sand or fine sand fill. Subgrade to be compacted to a minimum density of 98 percent of the Modified Proctor Maximum Density (AASHTO T-180). Geotechn ical Investigation Proposed Famfiy Dollar Development Clearvvater, Florfda. Page 8 Lateral Earth Pressures For purposes of estimating lateral earth pressures against walls constructed below grade assuming fine sand backfill soils, we recommend a Rankine passive earth pressure coefficient of 3.0 and an active earth pressure coefficient of 0.33. The soil to wall friction coe�cient for the soils encountered on-site is approximately 0.38. These earth pressure coefficients are recommended because fill will be compacted against the walls and the walls are not free to move or yield. One method of calculating the estimated lateral earth pressure is to assume an equivalent fluid pressure distribution with a soil unit weight (compacted structural sand fill) of 120 pcf above the water table and 65 pcf for sands below the water table. The equivalent fluid pressure is calculated by multiplying the earth pressure coefficient by the vertical effective soil pressure (unit weight multiplied by depth). This earth pressure criteria does not include a factor of safety or effects of surcharge loadings at the surtace. The walls (and slab) should be designed for hydrostatic loads (and uplift), with the water table at a depth of 7 feet below the existing ground surface. Retention Pond Testinp As part of our investigation, we conducted an open borehole constant head permeability test in a shallow piezometer installed at the location of AB-1 in the proposed retention pond. The piezometer was installed by first drilling a hole to the desired depth using an auger with a 3-inch diameter. The piezometer was constructed of 2-inch dia. SCH 40 PVC pipe and .010-inch slotted screen. The piezometer was surcharged for a period of 5 minutes prior to testing to saturate the surrounding soils. Then a constant head test was conducted which consisted of ineasuring the flow of water into the test hole in order to maintain a constant water level. This procedure was repeated several times to ensure consistent results. The results were then calculated and an average permeability value was derived using the formula provided in Designation E-19, Earth Manual, 1974. Based on the results of our permeability testing, the horizontal permeability value at the location of boring AB-1 was determined and is provided with additional soil parameters in the following table: Parameters AB-1 Depth of Seasonal High Groundwater >7 foot Depth of Seasonal Low Groundwater >10 feet Estimated Vertical Hydraulic Conductivity 8 feeUday Average Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity 11.5 feeUday Estimated Porosity 0.30 Storage Coefficient 0.30 Geotech n ical I nvestigatio n Proposed Family Doliar Development Clearwater, Florida. Page 9 The normal seasonal high groundwater level over the site is estimated to occur at a depth of greater than 7 feet below the existing ground surface. To simulate the field conditions as closely as possible, the average aquifer parameters, shown on the table above, estimated from the field and laboratory program, should be used to design the retention pond. Limitations of Reqort The analyses and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the anticipated location and type of construction discussed herein and the data obtained from the soil borings perFormed at the locations indicated, and does not reflect any variations which may exist between these borings. If any significant variations become evident during the course of construction, or if the structure location, type or loading changes, a re-evaluation of the recommendations contained in this report will be necessary after we have had an opportunity to observe and evaluate the characteristics of the conditions encountered. Significant shifting or moving of structure locations may require additional evaluation. When final design plans and specifications are available, a general review by our office is stronqlv recommended as a means to check that the assumptions made in preparation of this report are correct, and that earthwork and foundation recommendations are properly interpreted and implemented. ATTACHMENT A Preparation of the foundation soil should proceed in a conventional manner, consisting of excavation of the surFace organics and/or filling to the foundation elevation and densification of the soils. The following recommendations are for overall site preparation work and mechanical densification. The recommendations, parts of which may be incorporated in the project general specifications, are made as a guide for the design engineer. 1. The entire structure and pavement areas plus a 5 foot margin beyond the edge of these areas should be stripped and cleared of all building and pavement materials, surface vegetation and root laden top soils. 2. All structure areas should be leveled sufficiently to permit equipment traffic, and then proof-rolled using a loaded front end loader or equivalent. Careful observations should be made during proof rolling of the stripped subgrade area to identify any areas of soft yielding soils that may require over-excavation and replacement. 3. The very loose soils encountered over the structure area should be over-excavated to a depth of 2 feet below the bottom of footings, replaced and compacted in 1-foot lifts. These very loose soils would create excessive settlements if left in-place. The excavation should incorporate all structure footing areas extending beyond the outside edges of the footings a minimum distance of 5 feet in all directions. 4. The excavation bottoms should be compacted with the appropriate equipment prior to placing any fill. Compaction should continue until a minimum density of 98 percent of the Maximum Modified Proctor Dry Density, as established in accordance with ASTM D-1557, is achieved for a minimum depth of 2 feet below the subgrade surface. This should be determined by a series of field density (compaction) tests conducted during proof rolling operations. Any areas that will be filled on the site must be compacted prior to any site grading operations. 5. Following satisfactory compaction of the stripped subgrade, the excavations may be brought up to finished subgrade levels. The fill should consist of fine sand with less than 10 percent passing the No. 200 sieve and should be free of rubble, organics, clay, debris and other unsuitable materials. Fill materials should be tested and approved prior to placement. Strata 1 through 4 materials over-excavated on the site are suitable for re-use as fill in structure areas. Approved sand fill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 12 inches in thickness and should be compacted to a minimum of 98 percent of the Maximum Modified Proctor Dry Density (ASTM D-1557). Density tests to confirm compaction should be performed in each lift before the next lift is placed. 6. Individual footing areas (i.e. excavations) should be re-compacted with hand tampers (plate tampers or jumping jacks) to achieve 98 percent of the Maximum Modified Proctor Dry Density. 7. Backfill soils placed adjacent to footings or walls below grade should be carefully compacted with a light rubber-tired roller or vibratory plate compactor to avoid damaging the footings or walls. Approved sand fills placed in pipeline excavations should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 12 inches and should be compacted to a minimum of 98 percent of the Maximum Modified Proctor Dry Density (ASTM D-1557). 8. Earthwork operations should take place under the full-time observation of a field technician from AEI's office. � �...„. _ �t Ftdl . T i Es�•/ ---__�.._._..._.,__.+, _._—__r..� T29S � ` }r 3i , � �r . �, � �'�� 3 � � � i: !_ � x, 4 � t � G s. �P � � ( ? , �.. �M � � � �r �; > fl �: � � ;s �g �� '� , : s�«�r�: °�P,r�� a,.�°��"�~ 4 1 , � "��., � _ ' ' -�� &� fafal �� ', L,Qht z�, , FIiL 1 � ` �� w x � �ktt: �'`.:.. ,.;., �.. b?'.' � . .L•ght 11i ili4 REFERENCE: U.S.G.S. CLEARWATER, FLA. QUADRANGLE MAP DATED 1974 PHOTOREVISED 1987 SECTION 9 TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH RANGE 15 EAST ':i""�" e ` - -L ' /p . �-- � ' WE _ -_ , � � � ST _ _ _ _ _ y- - _ , - _ EET '� _ _ , _;:. __.__ ._ �. _., � �.�_ � � � ♦ � ; _ .� „� _,. ��b � F, !'` / .... . ' �... , , 1 "' .�..,. � #d __ r A� _ � � . � .. 7 7 ,. _. .. �� ,_ � � � � . _ ,, _ , � I �� --; (� �'' � ( � - � I � - �__. — � �� — � �, ._Y►B-2 , : — _ _ ' ' -( _... � ' � AB3 A� �, x:��}� + ♦ I �.� � � _, , � � r �� ,��; � � � �� l.sr� / , J "� � ' `�e �; i - . . _ 1 a� �r" � �.. � ; , : ,•-�.,.a�..,.,�, •- � ;t , i � �' ' � . �'•�� r , , . .... . ,. �. '�'` +��'' -'r•' '.;r� �'` � �P1 � .. �:5� .�. �•R... �-l.�i._.. . ,; ' o ^ : lr.: M�1 �..�1 PG � '� , � � �i � � ,k . � �' ' � � � , �,� �_ _ gy � � , ♦ 1 ' A&1 ��'" - � � � �__� p �� ; � : � �� % � f �� _ '�� • . � (, . P � B �� __ _,_ ___ ___ _ � L __ , ' UF ` __ F ST _ __ -- _ � � '-�� _ z , , _ ._ _. . _ , _ _ � _ � �, LEGEND: �APPROXIMATE SPT BORING LOCATION 1 APPROXIMATE AUGER BORING TLOCATI ON • r ,°. � u� ;Q W'� i■ , �`i I I f� Z� 0 25 50 100 � � � � GRAPHIC SCALE: 1"=50' C�] 5 F- W w 10 L� Z 2 � � 0 15 2� 25 � F-- W W l� z 5 _ � 0.. W � �� B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 AB-1 AB-2 AB-3 e N e N e N e N e N ^ 16 HA . O 10 HA O 10 NA O 12 HA . O 10 HA O O O O `J 10 HA O IS HA O 8 HA O 6 HA O 8 HA � O 4 < O 5 3 6 O s s , 2 � O O 7 9 3 3 9 O 4 3 ^ 9 9 � <�� O 5 12 `J 1? O 9 8 7 13 O 4 13 � f0 8 � f0 � 15 . .. ... ... O4 GNE 6NE GNE O � 16 17 1B O CN£-10 O to �r O GNE-10 GNf-10 GNf—)0 AB-4 AB-5 O O O O O CNE GNE :�e fL 6NE-10 GNE-10 LEGEND: � 1O DARK BROWN FlNE SAND (SP) � 2O LIGHT GRAY TO GRAY FlNE SAND (SP) � 3O LIGHT BROWN TO ORANGISH BROWN FINE SAND (SP) ❑ 4O LIGHT BROWN TO PALE BROWN FINE SAND (SP) (SP) UNIFlED SOIL CLASSIFlCATION SYSTEM GROUP SYMBOL CNE-f0 GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED WffHIN UPPER 10 FEET OF BORING GNE GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED N STANDARD PENEfRAT10N RESISTANCE, IN BLOWS PER FOOT P HAND PENETROMETER READING HA BORING ADVANCED USING HAND AUGER � Mayberry Tree Consulting LLC Tree Inventory Report 1200 N. Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida September 19, 2013 Prepared by: Alan Mayberry, Consulting Arborist ISA Certified Arborist #SO-0305 Prepared for: Deuel and Associates The following report is submitted by Alan Mayberry, Consulting Arborist, and includes findings I believe are accurate based on my education, experience and knowledge in the field of Arboriculture. My findings are clinical in nature and based on scientific research in the field of Arboriculture. In addition, my findings are based on personal observations of over 30 years of experience in the broad field of Arboriculture. I have no interest personally or financially in this property other than the preparation of this report and I believe my report is factual and unbiased. The purpose for this report is to conduct an assessment of trees at the subject property in respect to their health and structure and considerations for preservation potential. Tree Inventory and Site Overview The following tree inventory provides an overall condition rating for trees and palms defined as protected species by the provisions of City of Clearwater Code. All protected trees on site with a trunk diameter of 4" and greater and palm species with a 10' clear trunk and greater are included in the tree inventory. This site is forested with second growth native tree species such as the sand live oak (Quercus geminata), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), red bay (Persea borbonia) and the native sabal palm (Sabal palmetto). There is a minor presence of invasive exotic trees including the Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) and Chinaberry (Melia azedarach). The native understory and groundcover vegetation has been removed and the existing groundcover is a composite of native and non-native herbaceous species. Tree species such as the Brazilian pepper tree that are exempt from tree protection status by City of Clearwater code are not included in this tree inventory. In general, the condition of the site trees reflects neglect. Many trees are saturated with vines to the extent that it was difficult to assess tree trunks due to large woody vines covering the trunk. Vines have been allpwed to proliferate through the canopy of trees and are in some cases causing decline. In addition, several trees had accumulated deadwood. However, the 1 overali structure was good as few trees had the structural defect of codominant trunks with included bark. In addition, few trees were over-pruned. The overall condition rating used in this report reflects an assessment of a tree's health, structural integrity and to a lesser degree its aesthetic contribution. The Tree Inventory Data section which follows the tree inventory provides an explanation of the rating system and how individual trees are scored and evaluated. The methodology for conducting this tree assessment is defined in the arboricultural industry as a Visual Tree Assessment (VTA). Trees are assessed by visual observation of the foliage, major scaffold branches, secondary branches, the trunk and portions of the root system that are visible. NOTE: A tree inventory is typically valid for 3-5 years. However, events such as drought, lightning, mechanical root damage, freeze, improper maintenance and severe storms can downgrade the rated value of a tree. Conversely, remedial maintenance can upgrade the value. If you suspect that a tree has been adversely affected, have the tree inspected by a qualified International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist. NOTE: Whenever possible it is advised to adhere to inventory recommendations when selecting trees to be preserved. For example, trees or palms rated 4.0 and higher are strong candidates to be considered for preservation, while trees or palms rated 2.0 and lower should be removed unless otherwise noted in the inventory. Trees or palms rated 2.5 are generally recommended for removal unless remedial work is performed to upgrade them. Trees or palms rated 3.0 and 3.5 are average trees that have good potential and are worthy of preservation efforts. NOTE: Tree size references trunk diameter in inches for trees (measured at 4.5' above grade unless the tree forks below that point - then the diameter is measured at the narrowest area between grade and the fork. Palm species are measured in feet of clear trunk (the distance in feet from grade to where the first frond emanates from the trunk. NOTE: Any references in the following tree inventory recommending tree pruning should only be performed by International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborists skilled in pruning to the standards defined in the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) publication, ANSI-A300 Part 1: Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Maintenance — standards Practices, Pruning and the International Society of Arboriculture's companion publication: Best Management Practices, Tree Pruning (Revised 2008). NOTE: Any reference to future monitoring of trees or further inspections of trees should only be performed by ISA Certified Arborists who have verifiable proof that they have attended and received CEU's (continuing educational units) in ISA supported tree hazard risk assessment seminars. NOTE: Any recommendations for cabling and bracing of trees in this tree inventory should only be performed by ISA Certified Arborists skilled in this arboricultural practice and in 2 � conformance with the methodology as defined within the International Society of Arboriculture's publication: Best Management Practices, Tree Support Systems: Cabling, Bracing, Guying and Propping (Revised). NOTE: Any recommendations in this tree inventory for structural pruning should only be performed by ISA Certified Arborists skilled in this type of pruning and in conformance with the methodology as defined within the International Society of Arboriculture's publication: Best Management Practices, Tree Pruning (Revised 2008). This tree inventory was conducted on September 19, 2013 The following tree inventory starts with tree #200 and ends with tree #233. Numbered aluminum tags are placed on the trunk of each tree in the field. Palms are not tagged as nail holes can cause stains and blemishes and reduce the aesthetic value. All trees and palms are numbered on the proposed site plan. Tree Inventory Tree # Size Species Ratin� 200. 13' C.T. Sabal palm (Sabal palmetto) 4.0 Comments: Remove dead fronds. Recommend preservation. 201. 11' Sabal palm (Sabal palmetto) 3.5 Comments: Remove dead fronds. Recommend preservation. NOTE: Palm Pruning Recommendations: Remove dead fronds, fruit and Ioose boots. Only remove live green fronds for clearance purposes. Semi-green fronds should also be retained until they are nearly dead. No live frond should be removed if the frond stem (petiole) emanates from the trunk at a 45 degree angle or less measured perpendicular from the trunk. This is referred to a 9-3 pruning cut with the petioles resembling the hands on a clock at the 9 and 3 positions. The 9-3 pruning cut is considered to be acceptable in the industry but ideally, no green fronds should be removed, period. 202. 12' Sabal palm (Sabal palmetto) 4.0 Comments: Remove dead fronds. Recommend preservation. 203. 7" laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) 2.0 3 Comments: The canopy of this tree is smothered with a heavy vine infestation of trumpet vines (Camsis radicans). The tree lacks secondary branching and has poor overall health and structure. A portion of the chain link fence is embedded in the trunk of this tree. Recommend removal. 204. 12" laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) 2.0 Comments: The fence post of the chain link post is embedded in the east side of the tree trunk 2' above grade. In addition, a large portion of the chain link is also embedded causing a swelling in the trunk. The upper canopy is saturated with vines but could be pruned into good structure if a codominant 11' above grade is structurally pruned. However, the wound from the fence will cause decay in the trunk and as the laurel oak is a weak compartmentalizing species, this tree is recommend for removal. Recommend removal. 205. 8" cherry laurel (Prunus caroliniana) 2.5 Comments: The trunk of this tree is asymmetrical probably due to the fence, but the overall structure and health are above average and if the heavy vine infestation is removed the tree could develop into a good tree if maintained properly. Recommend preservation. NOTE: Off-Site Trees: Off-site trees or palms are trees or palms that growing on adjacent properties within 25' of the property (ine of the subject property. City of Clearwater code requires that these trees to be inventoried for the purpose of assessing impacts that the proposed development may have on the trees. The trees are rated but no maintenance recommendations are included. Off-site trees will be noted by an asterisk (*) preceding the tree's number. *206. 14' Sabal palm (Sabal palmetto) 3.0 NOTE: Trees #207 —#211 are a stand of sand live oak trees and are characteristically growing awajr from each other. Consequently, they have natural leans and have mostly one-sided canopies with restricted branch spread. It is important to note that trees growing in such conditions cannot typically develop optimal tension roots. However, as the canopies are restricted and the weight in the crown minimal; the stability is satisfactory. I do recommend the removal of tree#208 as this will facilitate the development of additional tension roots and avoid basal codominant attachments. These trees should onlv be preserved as a stand and not as individual trees apart from the stand. 207. 15" sand live oak (Quercus geminata) 3.5 Comments: This tree is one-sided but has very good structure and health. Remove vines and preserve as a member of the stand. (See note above). Recommend preservation. 208. 9" sand live oak (Quercus geminata) 2.0 4 Comments: This tree has a severe lean and the canopy is very low over grade. In addition, it is prohibiting the formation of tension roots in adjacent trees with better health and structure. See note above regarding this tree. Recommend removal. 209. 15" sand live oak (Quercus geminata) 3.5 Comments: This tree has good overall health and structure. The canopy is restricted and grows one-sided to the northeast. Remove dead wood and vines. Recommend preservation. 210. 14" sand live oak (Quercus geminata) 3.5 Comments: The canopy of this tree grows mostly straight up and slightly to the west. This is the best tree in the stand with good overall health and structure. Remove dead wood and vines. Recommend preservation. 211. 16" sand live oak (Quercus geminata) 3.0 Comments: This tree grows to the south-southeast. It has good health and average structure. There is a slightly included codominant 7' above grade that needs to be structurally pruned. Remove vines, dead wood and perform structural pruning to remove included codominant. Recommend preservation. 212. 20' C.T. Sabal palm (Sabal palmetto) 3.5 Comments: Remove dead fronds. Recommend preservation. 213. 9" cherry laurel (Prunus caroliniana) 2.0 Comments: The trunk of this tree is embedded with barbed wire 5.5' above grade. The trunk is constricted to the extent that it could break off. The canopy is anemic and covered with vines. Recommend removal. 214. 9" Chinaberry (Melia azedarach) 1.5 Comments: This tree species is a Category Two invasive exotic with very poor characteristics and is a menace to property owners. Recommend removal. 215. 14' C.T. Sabal palm (Sabal palmetto) 3.5 Comments: Remove heavy vine saturation and dead fronds. Recommend preservation. 216. 18" cherry laurel (Prunus caroliniana) 0.5 F� Comments: The top of this tree has been broken off 12' above grade. Recommend removal. 217. 10" Chinaberry (Melia azedarach) 1.5 Comments: This tree species is a Category Two invasive exotic with very poor characteristics and is a menace to property owners. Recommend removal. *218. 27" jacaranda (Jacaranda mimosifolia) 1.0 *219. 24" red bay (Persea borbonia) 1.0 *220. 15" red bay (Persea borbonia) 2.0 *221. 18' Sabal palm (Sabal palmetto) 3.5 222. 11" laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) 1.5 Comments: One half of this tree is dead and saturated with vines. The remaining canopy is declining. Recommend removal. 223. 26" sand live oak (Quercus geminata) 4.0 Comments: This tree has very good overall health and structure. It has good crown density for a sand live oak. Remove vines, dead vuood and stubs. Recommend preservation. 224. 32" sand live oak (Quercus geminata) 4.0 Comments: This tree has a very good appearance as well as good health and structure. This tree is one of the best site trees. Remove dead wood, stubs and vines. Recommend preservation. 225. 21" sand live oak (Quercus geminata) 3.5 Comments: The canopy of this tree is one-sided growing to the east. The structure is very good and the crown density is good for a sand live oak tree. Remove vines and stubs. Recommend preservation. 226. 21" sand live oak (Quercus geminata) 3.0 Comments: This tree has average health as the crown density is only average due to the presence of vines. The structure is good. The tree will improve with removal of vines and proper future maintenance. If possible, trees #225 and #226 should be preserved together due to their close proximity and to the likelihood of root grafts. Recommend preservation. 0 �i 227. 13" sand live oak (Quercus geminata) 3.0 Comments: This tree has a tight restricted crown due to competition with adjacent trees. The tree is healthy and the structure is good. Remove vines and dead wood. Recommend preservation. 228. 30" red bay (Persea borbonia) 2.5 Comments: The canopy of this tree is experiencing severe decline in the form of deteriorating leaves with a chewed-up anemic appearance. The real threat to this tree however is the new epidemic laurel wilt disease that is caused by a fungus vectored in by the Red Bay Ambrosia beetle. I did not observe the initial wilting symptoms indicative of the disease but this tree will almost certainly incur the disease as other red bay trees in the vicinity have died from the disease. The tree is rated 2.5 only because it does not currently have this disease and the structure is good. However, as this disease is imminent it is recommended for removal. There are more valuable trees that should be considered for preservation. Recommend removal. 229. 11' C.T. sabal palm (Sabal palmetto) 3.5 Comments: Remove vines and dead fronds. Recommend preservation. 230. 15" sand live oak (Quercus geminata) 2.0 Comments: This tree has two cavities that will likely coalesce and create a large trunk hollow. Both cavities were probed to a depth of 14". One cavity is on the east side 7' above grade and the second cavity is located on the west side 6.' above grade. The health is average but as the wounds will coalesce and as the ratio of decay to trunk diameter is so great and as this tree will likely evolve into a hazardous tree it is recommended for removal. Recommend removal. 231. 32" sand live oak (Quercus geminata) 3.0 Comments: The trunk of this tree is covered with very large diameter woody vines to the extent that the diameter was estimated and the bark was barely visible. We removed vines as much as possible to examine the trunk which appears to have good structure. The trunk forms a codominant but it has a wide u-shaped crotch. The crown is saturated with vines but vigorous shoot growth is protruding from several branches. A large branch growing to the south is dead and has conchs present. Recommend preservation with removal of dead branches and vines. Recommend preservation. 232. 22" sand live oak (Quercus geminata) 3.5 Comments: This tree has good overall health and structure. The tree's trunk leans to the west and the crown spreads to the north and south. The tree has space to develop tension roots. Recommend preservation. 7 , 233. 26" sand live oak (Quercus geminata) 4.0 Comments: This tree has good health as evidenced by shoot growth and crown density. The structure is very good. Recommend preservation. This concludes the tree inventory. The following is an explanation of the tree inventory rating system. Tree Inventory Data A tree inventory is a written record of a tree's condition at the time of inspection. It is a valuable tool to prioritize tree maintenance and remove trees with problems that could lead to failure and cause personal injury or property damage. The tree inventory lists four codes, tree#, trunk diameter, tree species, and overall condition rating. It also includes a comment section with specific supportive data for the rating. The following is an explanation of the data used in the inventory: Tree# - location - Each tree is assigned a number for reference in the inventory that corresponds with a number on the site plan or a number on a tree tag that identifies the location of the tree in the field. Size — Tree size is a measure of the tree's trunk diameter measured at 4.5' above grade. tf the trunk forks at 4.5' above grade the diameter is measured at the narrowest trunk diameter below the fork. Palm species are measured in feet of clear trunk (C.T.). Species — Each tree is listed by its common and botanical name the first time it is listed in the inventory. For simplicity, the tree is listed by its common name thereafter. Condition Ratin� — The condition rating is an assessment of the tree's overall structure and systemic health. Elements of structure include: 1) the presence of cavities, decayed wood, split, cracked, rubbing branches etc., 2) branch arrangements and attachments, i.e., well- spaced scaffold branches vs. several branches emanating from the same area on the trunk, codominant stems vs. single leader trunk, and presence of a branch bark ridge vs. included bark. Elements of systemic health relate to the tree's overall energy system measured by net photosynthesis (food made) vs. respiration (food used). A tree with good systemic health will have a vascular system that moves water, nutrients and photosynthate within the tree as needed. Indicators of a healthy systemic system used in the overall condition rating include: 1) live crown ratio (the percentage live crown a tree has relative to its height, 2) crown density (density of the foliage), 3) tip growth (foliated branch tips and shoot elongation) n The overall condition rating also takes into consideration the species, appearance and any unique features. The rating scale is 0-6 with 0 being a dead tree and 6 a specimen. Increments of 0.5 are used to increase accuracy. Examples of the tree rating system are as follows: 0- A dead tree 1- A tree that is dying, severely declining, hazardous, harboring a communicable disease or a tree designated by the State of Florida's Exotic Pest Plant Council as a category #1 ecological pest e.g., Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius). A tree with a rating of 1 should be removed as it is beyond treatment and is a threat to cause personal injury or property damage or is an invasive species. 2— A tree exhibiting serious structural defects such as codominant stems with included bark at or near the base, large cavities, large areas of decayed wood, crown dieback, cracked/split scaffold branches etc. In addition, a tree with health issues such as low energy, low live crown ratio, serious disease or insect problems, nutritional deficiencies or soil pH problems. A tree with a rating of #2 should be removed unless the problem(s) can be treated. A tree with a#2 condition rating will typically require a considerable amount of maintenance to qualify for an upgrade of the condition rating. 3- A tree with average structure and systemic health and with problems that can be corrected with moderate maintenance. A tree with a codominant stem not in the basal area that will be subordinated or cabled and braced or a codominant stem that will soon have included bark can be included as a#3. A tree with a rating of #3 has average appearance, crown density and live crown ratio and should be preserved if possible. 4- A tree with a rating of 4 has good structure and systemic health with minor problems that can be easily corrected. The tree should have an attractive appearance and be essentially free of any debilitating disease or insect problem. The tree should also have above average crown density and live crown ratio. Mature trees exhibiting scars, old wounds, small cavities or other problems that are not debilitating can be included in this group particularly if they possess unique form or other aesthetic amenities relating to their age. A tree with a rating of 4 is valuable to the property and should be preserved. 5— A tree with live crown ratio of at least 65%, very good crown density, exceptional structure and systemic health and virtually free of debilitating insect or disease problems or nutritional deficiencies. A tree in this category should have a balanced crown with exceptional aesthetic amenities. A tree in this category should be of a species that possesses characteristics inherent to longevity and withstanding construction impacts. A tree with a#5 rating lends considerable value to the site and should be incorporated into the site design. A tree with a#5 rating is worthy of significant site plan modification to ensure its preservation. 6— A specimen tree. A specimen tree is a tree that possesses a combination of superior qualities in regards to systemic health, structural strength, crown density, live crown ratio, � �'� } , k form (balanced crown), overall aesthetic appeal, size, species, age and uniqueness. A great effort should be made to preserve a specimen tree including shifting structures that would adversely impact the tree. In addition, a specimen tree should have an undisturbed rooting area equal to its dripline (equal to the branch spread) to grow in. Only an experienced and competent International Society of Arboriculture (I.S.A.) Certified Arborist should be allowed to perform maintenance on a specimen tree. Comments: The comment section serves to note observations relative to the tree but not covered in the inventory data or expands on information in the inventory data. It may include maintenance recommendations to improve the tree's overall condition rating. It may also have recommendations on whether to remove or preserve a tree. 10