The URL can be used to link to this page

FLD2013-11041r � �� MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: CASE: REQUEST: GENERAL DATA: Agent........................... Applicant/ Owner . . ... ........ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT February 18, 2014 E.l. FLD2013-11041 Flexible Development application to permit a restaurant with a height of 24.67 feet, a front (south) setback of 33 feet (to building) and five feet (to parking), a front (east) setback of 38 feet (to building) and five feet (to parking), a side (north) setback of 52 feet (to building) and 18 feet (to parking), a side (west) setback of two feet (to dumpster enclosure) and zero feet (to parking) and 14 parking spaces (7.27 spaces per 1,000 square feet of Gross Floor Area) in the Commercial (C) District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-704.E. and to reduce the front (south) landscape buffer from 15 feet to iive feet (to parking), reduce the front (east) landscape buffer from 15 feet to five feet (to parking), reduce the side (west) landscape buffer from fve feet to zero feet, increase the side (north) landscape buffer from five feet to 18 feet and reduce the amount of required foundation plantings of the proposed building as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the rovisions of CDC Section 3-1202.G. � �. : � a�= �, Steve Spencer CTS Holdings, LLC Location .......................... 1840 Gulf to Bay Boulevard; northwest corner of Gulf to Bay Blvd. and S. Pegasus Avenue Prope/ty S►ze .................... 0.46 acres Futu►'e Land Use Plan...... Commercial/General (C/G) Zoning .......................... Commercial (C) District Special Area Plan............ Adjacent Zoning.... North: South East: w@St: None Commercial (C) District Commercial (C) District Commercial (C) District Commercial (C) District Existing Land Use ............. Automobile Service Station (vacant) Proposed Land Use......... Restaurant �. � �� , -� �� K� �� .,�� :x; r �, „ + s nbGJLF-f2�tIY�L'1J �' � . ��fR;_�� a �� , ! � � i e , � � i �_ � ' � � � ;; � ;� ° ,,�, ,, ,i � �- � � ~ � x` � � :' ,• , :, � �� ;..� } Cleara'�ll.l Level II Flexible Development Application Review -- -r� ...._.�✓i,� �.....'^.. �;+�."�"�.,�� ..�.«� :�n -;:, _ . i.k,- . , . _ �. . 1-�..�°.,..� _ . . . . ANALYSIS Site Location and Existing Conditions The 0.46 acre site is located at the northwest corner of Gulf to Ba y Boulevard and South Pegasus Avenue, wi t h approxima te ly 1 3 5 feet o f frontage along Gulf to Bay Boulevard and approximately 150 feet of frontage along South Pegasus Avenue. The site is accessed via existing driveway ingress/egress along Gulf to Bay Boulevard and South Pegasus Avenue. The parcel contains a single-story, former convenience store buil d i n g w i t h t h e f u e l i s l a n d canopy covering the former gas pump area and the existing building. The building is located in the middle of the lot and directly adjacent the driveway entrance off of Gulf to Bay Boulevard. The site features existing vehicular circulation from the driveways around the building and through the former gas pump area and back out to the driveways. While the site is predominately impervious surfaced with a combination of concrete and asphalt, there is only one designated handicap parking space. The existing trash enclosure is located on the northwest corner of the property directly adjacent the existing drainage swale. The subject property is located within the Commercial (C) District where the intent and purpose of which is to provide the citizens of the City of Clearwater with convenient access to goods and services throughout the city without adversely impacting the integrity of residential neighborhoods, diminishing the scenic quality of the city or negatively impacting the safe and efficient movement of people and things within the City of Clearwater. The immediate vicinity is characterized by a variety of non-residential uses including a Taco Bell fast food restaurant to the west, a McDonald's fast food restaurant across Pegasus to the east, a veterinarian office to the north and an Amscot facility as well as vacant land across Gulf to Bay Boulevard to the south. The PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION ; � � i � �� - ., — — - � � . CLEVELpNDST� � -- _ I I � . __ _ _. �..: i. r � � � : ! � ! �� ' '� � I i I, � <; � I �� > ,m ��1'- r� ��'. o a'' I � I � I y� V 2 ��..< —` � i y I I4j 4 I� w < Jz ;< �� I I IWi �I N � �— a _ — — _ w i ��,'— _.. N _ `" I � fianeowOH ? s I� __� _"— ; ' - , N _ h' ... � ( �'� �- PRO.lECT � I � �� I ``�. , -- �- '� _ i' -� �_ � i� �- GULF-T0.8AV6LVD , GULF•TO$AYBLVD �� —� � —.w I — ioi — I N I '�,. Z � z I � o : � ,m �w �' Io ol 3 � I �o' Ig �I � > x i' > m URNER ST Z �� I I �,I � . � a � �� >� I -�i �� PtNE ST . i i`� ' i , _ -. . � � .. LOCATION MAP L'MDR - ,,; aBa o i i 'e�sm_-�' I,w4 � I�a�?,°°� - - -- im m � ,� ; , ___ I � I �, � , �, ,� _ _� � I ,i ° �� 1a ,� _- w �� ib; � �, N, � � „� i � � .� � � �; � I� ly � � w w I .� � �� _ a, � �, ; y � ; � �_ .� I .m .� , .,, �, ..... � .,, , .,� � ; � i �_ � .., _ � . I . � �. � I B 3 � y � I �I �g 1-�. . _ .. '�aa�iad � . _.. i. .. cvuro-atyai.w -- . i n_ i __ I __ _,� _ ,,` � 3 ��3 ;��,.c �� _ ,_ _ � ZONING MAP s84 L s!`�s�e� `? �s 7 _�L �a , � o:� n�'►° r_ �1 � � � a �. •Y --�---- - r � L ' � ' 3 ''u rt n e 6 �� 11e � 1 5 IO � = H � 0 4 a �� S> n 'n a w '^ O � e � 5 IG T� "° 5 6 z ACC MM DA IONS "' �� E � � RES�AN "� g � a �, a GUiFT0.8AYetVD � $ RE�A>L � � BLEM�T �° .x � TA�� ucJE ' = x EXISTING SURROUNDING USES MAP Community Development Board February 18, 2014 FLD2013-11041 —Page 1 of 18 iill.t�i �1'�141 Level II Flexible DevelopmentApplication Review pLn�vNiNG&navELOrMErrr -� `- DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DMSION ,..:r`�:,✓-�...^�.�`�iE- �,�,W-,€ .,,.. ,-:;: ;, -, . ' .- ,^,. �"�-1�.w1..rV. _ �. -. .. � neighborhood surrounding the subject property is completely contained within the Commercial (C) District with a variety of other fast food restaurants, offices, automotive service stations and other retail sales and service establishments are located farther to the east and west along Gulf to Bay Boulevard. Site History In May of 1961 the Tenneco Oil Company received approval from the City of Clearwater to construct a gasoline service station which featured a mid-century modern designed service station with ample windows, flat cantilevered roof lines and an open floor plan. The strong vertical and horizontal lines of the building combined with the exterior glass and stone fa�ade captured the architectural style which had the intention of opening up interior spaces and bringing the outdoors in. '`�S 1 u ,/� � � I �'/```''y �"�s' ,� �s��a`Y }'�� r�,+ � .;�f ,�- �� -__ -._ . - �' 4� ''� �L � �.�Y�* '.. P 1r -!.. `11��1�La�'�YI�;i7�. J�Y i3_ Yc" -'„° � � . � ;�, � ! ! _�'LSl � �! S iCE-�,� .. _�_S��rv€�E S"i►,"7 ics �i _ �'�v� Sketch from Tenneco Oil Company approved plan set, May 10, 1961. � The structure was demolished and reconstructed as a Texaco gas station with a convenience store and canopy. The current day vacant structure was most recently operated as a Mobil gas station which was established in 2004. The former underground storage tanks were removed in June of 2013 and the business tax receipt expired on July 16, 2013. � '� �- ,� . _ ��_ �. I _�;� 1 � ,�. . _ _ _.._--�-� rc itecturccl rencle�ing foi^ the proposed restaurant, south fa�ade. Development Proposal The existing 928 square foot, single-story building will be renovated and a 998 square foot addition will be added resulting in the proposed 1,926 square foot restaurant in roughly the same Community Development Board February 18, 2014 FLD2013-11041 — Page 2 of 18 ' v�4Ri 1'I �lL� Level II Flexible Develo ment PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT p Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DMSION . . -� � �:, � orientation as the existing, vacant convenience store. Eleven parking spaces will be located along the east side of the site and the two-way driveway will be maintained along Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Pegasus Avenue. The existing islands will be reconfigured with vehicular circulation occurring only on the eastern side of each island. The drive-thru window will be located along the western side of the building, under the existing canopy. The drive-thru pattern will create a circular vehicular circulation pattern around the building from the menu board in the rear, under the canopy to the pick-up window and leaving the site either via one of the two driveways. The existing canopy will be modified with new column finishes and roof mounted signage is proposed as part of the incorporation of the canopy into the new design. It shall be noted that signage is not part of the review at this time and the Applicant is aware that signage will be handled under separate submittal. While landscaping is proposed as part of the project, the existing buffer widths on the subject property, do not meet the provisions of Article 3, Division 12, CDC, and the Applicant has submitted a Comprehensive Landscaping Application as part of the submittal. The proposed buffer along the Gulf to Bay Boulevard frontage will be 5 feet where 15 feet is required, a 5 foot buffer along the Pegasus Avenue frontage where 15 feet is required, an 18 foot buffer along the north property line where 5 feet is required and a zero foot buffer along the western property line where 5 feet is required. The existing configuration of the public right-of-way along the street frontages results in additional open space including the sidewalk and landscaping. The area provides a total of 12 feet from edge of pavement to proposed parking lot along Gulf to Bay and 18 feet along Pegasus. Additionally, the drainage area along the rear property line provides for an additional 15 feet of open space to the proposed landscaped buffer. Special Area Plan None 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 Policy A.2.2.3 Commercial land uses shall be located at the intersection of arterial or collector streets and should be sited in such a wcay as to minimize the inti-usion of off-site impacts into residential neighborhoods. New plats and site plans shall discourage the creation of "strip commercial" zones by insuring that adequate lot depths are maintained and by zoning for commercial development at major intersections. The proposal includes a commercial use located at the intersection of an arterial street and is designed to minimize any impacts to the residential neighborhood to the north by utilizing the existing driveway openings and site circulation pattern designed to encourage vehicular traffic to access the site directly from Gulf to Bay or from Pegasus Avenue. The proposal is largely consistent with this Policy. 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 Community Development Board February 18, 2014 FLD2013-11041 —Page 3 of 18 ' C�L��iL�l Level II Flexible Develo ment PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT j p Application Review nsvELOrMEi.rr �v�w nrvisiox �. �� ,= . . Code in order to promote the preservation of existing tree canopies, the expansion of that canopy, and the overall quality of development within the City; and Policy A.3.2.1 All new development or redevelopment of property within the City of Clearwater shall meet all landscape requirements of the Community Development Code. Gulf to Bay Boulevard is designated as a Primary Scenic Corridor within Section 3-1203 of the CDC and within the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Primary scenic corridors are those roadways expected to have enhanced landscape standards applied to properties along them. Furthermore, Gulf to Bay Boulevard is specifically listed as a "Corridor to Redevelop" within the Linkages section of the FLUE of the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has submitted a Comprehensive Landscaping Application and while responses to the criteria were provided, the applicant did not specifically address the issue of enhanced landscaping along Gulf to Bay Boulevard. 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 C District and a site design generally consistent with other development in the area along Gulf to Bay Boulevard. The development within the vicinity of the subject parcel is predominantly commercial uses with drive-thru facilities. As Gulf to Bay Boulevard is one of the City's main vehicular routes, it has been designed to accommodate vehicular traffic and is an area intended for commercial development. The proposed project will provide upgrades to the existing vacant site and provide for an active desirable use within a commercial area. Goal A. 6- The City of Clearwater shall utilize innovative and flexible Planning and engdneering 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; and Policy A.6.4.1 - The development or redevelopment of small parcels �less than one (1) acreJ which are currently receiving an adequate level of service shall be specifically encouraged by administration of land development and concurrency management regulatory systems as a method of promoting urban infill. The subject property is a former Mobil gasoline service station which has been vacant for the better part of a year and the gasoline storage tanks were removed in June of 2013. The property has been the subject of recent Code compliance issues with the City with respect to debris on-site which have been rectified. The re-use and redevelopment of the site into a use similar to the previous service station is not possible at this point in time. The property has sat vacant and available with no other viable re-use proposals or redevelopment options being submitted to the City. Due to its relatively narrow depth, the site is challenging to redevelop and the current proposal includes the rehabilitation and renovation of the existing structure and canopy into a restaurant with a drive-through lane. The continuation of the existing building and canopy with significant improvements and with an updated and improved site plan including landscaping is Community Development Board February 18, 2014 FLD2013-11041 — Page 4 of 18 '_ li��.R! 17��1 Level II Flexible Develo ment PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT p Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION u . _.. �. e . . .. . . an appropriate reuse of the site. This is the sort of project envisioned as an appropriate recipient of flexibility from the minimum development parameters as provided by the above Goal, Objective and Policy with regard to the size of the site (less than one acre), its location within the urban service area and an attractive, compact redevelopment plan. Therefore, the proposal supports this Goal, Objective and Policy. Community Development Code The proposal supports the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of the CDC as follows: Section 1-103.B.1. Allowing property owners to enhance the value of their p�operty through innovative and creative redevelopment. The location and shape of the parcel is similar to other parcels in the area, however, the size is slightly smaller than the majority of the parcels fronting along Gulf to Bay Boulevard. The proposed restaurant is consistent with the character of the area along Gulf to Bay Boulevard with regard to use and the proposal will result in a project consistent with elements of the Comprehensive Plan, as provided above. As the proposed development will take place on a previously developed site, there are challenges with respect to landscaping buffers, building setback and configuration. The previous use of a gasoline service station provides a greater negative impact to the environment than the proposed redevelopment. 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 subject property include a variety of commercial and non- residential uses consistent with the Commercial District and the redevelopment of the vacant, former gasoline service station into a viable restaurant use will enhance the immediate area. Uses to the east and west include fast-food restaurants, ofiices and retail sales and service. Clearwater High School is located farther to the southeast across Gulf to Bay Boulevard. The proposed development provides not only for a much greater amount of landscaping than exists but a landscape plan which provides for an appearance which will be demonstrably better than the current and previous condition of the site. It is likely that surrounding properties will have their values enhanced. The proposal is consistent with the level of design (both site and building) as applied to surrounding axea properties and others throughout the City. It is anticipated that the proposal will result in a positive impact on those surrounding properties. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. Section 1-103.B.3. Strengthening the city's economy and increasing its tax base as a whole. The proposal includes the redevelopment of an existing, vacant gasoline service sta.tion and convenience store with a new fast-food restaurant with a drive-thru. The proposal will be consistent with the character of the area with regard to size, scope and scale as compared with other properties in the neighborhood. While the proposal is expected to have no net increase in the t� base as a whole, the overall result will be the renovation of a vacant building and dilapidated canopy structure through construction of a modified attractive building and the provision of landscaping in combination with site improvements which will support the intent of the standards of the CDC. It is largely beyond dispute that the City of Clearwater is largely built-out where the primary option for improvement is the redevelopment and/or refurbishing of existing sites and buildings. Improving a property typically results in an increase in its value Community Development Board February 18, 2014 FLD2013-11041 —Page 5 of 18 ' C��.bfi TT�I�l Levei II Flexible DevelopmentApplication Review PLANNING&DEVELOpMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION ._..��r�..�W= _. .. . . thereby positively contributing to the City's tax base and overall economy. The net result of the proposal will be another attractive redevelopment in the community which adds to the enhancement of surrounding properties. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. Section 1-103.D. It is the fut-ther 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 stf-uctures in the city are attractive and well-maintained to the ma.ximum extent permitted by law. The proposal includes a new fast-food restaurant with landscape buffers or portions thereof that are consistent with or slightly modified from the otherwise minimum required width and configuration. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed building and site plan are more attractive than what is currently on the site. The proposal with regard to site, landscape and building design is consistent with other beautification efforts undertaken, encouraged and installed by the City and private property owners in the City as a whole and along Gulf to Bay Boulevard specifically. While a specific Corridor Plan has not been adopted for the Gulf to Bay corridor, the intent is clear in that properties along a designated Scenic Corridors are expected to provide enhanced site landscaping. Section 2-701 Intent of the C District and CG FLUP classification The CDC provides that it is the intent of the Commercial (C) District to provide the citizens of the City of Clearwater with convenient access to goods and services throughout the city without adversely impacting the integrity of residential neighborhoods, diminishing the scenic quality of the city or negatively impacting the safe and efficient movement of people and things within the City of Clearwater. Furthermore, it is the intent of the C District that development be consistent with the Countywide Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) as required by state law. The uses and development potential of a parcel of land within the C District sha11 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. For those parcels within the C District that have an axea within the boundaries of and governed by a special area plan approved by the city council and the countywide planning authority, maximum development potential shall be as set forth for each classification of use and location in the approved plan. Section 2.3.3.5.4 of the Countywide Land Use Rules provides that the purpose of the Commercial General(CG) FLUP classification is to depict those areas of the county that are now developed, or appropriate to be developed, or appropriate to be developed, in a manner designed to provide community and countywide commercial goods and services; and to recognize such areas as primarily consistent with the need, relationship to adjoining uses and with the objective of encouraging a consolidated, concentrated commercial center providing for the full spectrum of commercial uses. Permitted Primary Uses include office; personal service%fFce support; retail commercial; commercial/business service; transient accommodation; wholesale/distribution; and storage/warehouse. The proposed restaurant with drive-thru is consistent with the permitted primary uses of the CG FLUP. Development Parameters Community Development Board February 18, 2014 FLD2013-11041 —Page 6 of 18 '��1� RL�.l Level II Flexible Develo ment PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT _ p Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DMSION . '�`�.-.� _ , ' . . .. . Floor Area Ratio (FAR�: Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-701.1, the m�imum FAR for properties with a Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) designation of Commercial General (CG) is 0.55. The proposed FAR is 0.10, which is consistent with Code provisions. Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR� Pursuant to CDC Section 2-701.1, the m�imum allowable ISR is 0.90. The existing ISR is 0.84 and the proposed project will reduce that to an ISR of 0.74, which is consistent with Code provisions. Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there is no minimum required lot area or lot width for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to CDC Table 2-702, Minimum Standard Development Standards, the required lot area and lot width for a restaurant is a minimum of 10,000 square feet and 100 feet, respectively. The lot area is 20,283 square feet and the lot width is 135 feet which meet the Code requirements. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there are no minimum required setbacks for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to CDC Table 2- 702, front and side setbacks to primary structures, restaurant use, are 25 and 10 feet, respectively. Rear setbacks do not apply to the subject site as it is a corner lot with two front and two side setbacks under the provisions of Section 3-903.D., CDC. The proposal includes front (south and east) setbacks to the building of 33 and 38 feet, respectively. The proposed side (north and west) setbacks to building are 52 and 54 feet, respectively and to dumpster enclosure the setback will be two feet (west) and 10 feet (north). Setbacks to parking are 15 feet from the front property line (south and east) and are otherwise based upon the required landscape buffer which is fve feet for the north and west sides of the property. The proposed setback to parking or other like vehicular use areas along the front (south and east) are proposed to five feet and along the side (north and west) setbacks, 18 feet and zero feet, respectively. The proposal does not meet the minimum standards for landscaping buffers to parking or other like vehicular use areas and the applicant has included a Comprehensive Landscaping Application as part of the submittal. Maximum Building Height• Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there is no maa�imum height for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to the aforementioned CDC Table 2-702, the maximum allowable height for restaurant uses is 25 feet. The proposed building height of 24.67 feet is less than the maximum permitted height and is therefore consistent with the CDC. Minimum O� f'f Street Parkin,� Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, the minimum off-street parking requirement, pursuant to CDC Table 2-702, for restaurants is 7-12 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. This results in a requirement of 14-23 parking spaces for a 1,926 square foot restaurant. The proposal provides 14 parking spaces or 7.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. The applicant Community Development Board February 18, 2014 FLD2013-11041 — Page 7 of 18 � viLwl ►IAILl Level II Flexibie Develo ment PLAAINING&DEVELOPMENT p Application Review nEVeLOrMErrr xEV�w nrnsiorr ° ._. � has provided a Parking Demand Study (prepared by Gulf Coast Consulting) that found that a maximum of ten off-street parking spaces were occupied during any hour of the study period (weekday, 7am-l0am) at the comparable quick-service restaurant. As such, the parking demands for a quick-service restaurant with a drive-thru land are easily satisfied with the proposed 14 off- street parking spaces. A copy of the Study has been provided to the Board for their review. Mechanical Ec�uipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-201.D.1, all outside mechanical equipment must be screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. The Applicant has not requested relief from this section and therefore approval of the proposed project shall be conditional upon the required screening of any proposed mechanical equipment. Additionally, this requirement was reviewed with the Applicant during the DRC meeting and the Applicant has responded that the project will comply. S�ht Visibilitv Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, 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. Landscaping planted within the sight visibility triangles will need to be maintained to meet the Code requirements. This requirement was reviewed with the Applicant during the DRC meeting and the Applicant has responded that the project will comply. 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. All utilities which serve the site are currently underground. Additionally, this requirement was reviewed with the Applicant during the DRC meeting and the Applicant has responded that the project will comply. 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 15 feet (south — arterial street), 10 feet (east — local street), and five feet (north, east — non-residential). In addition, Section 3-1202.E., CDC, 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 12,145 square feet requiring 1,214 square feet of interior landscaped area. Section 3-1202.E., CDC, requires that all facades facing a street must include a foundation planting area of at least five feet of depth along the entire fa�ade excluding areas necessary for ingress/egress. This proposal provides buffer widths along the south (five feet), east (five feet), and west (zero feet) which do not meet the requirements of Section 3-1202.D., CDC. The proposal otherwise meets the remaining requirements of Article 3, Division 12, CDC. It should be mentioned that the existing landscaping buffer areas are being enhanced through preservation of some of the existing planting materials as well as additional plantings being provided. Community Development Board February 18, 2014 FLD2013-11041 — Page 8 of 18 ' V�Vtil 1'1fi1.�� Level II Flexible Development Application Review _ �Y3, s�z•s, . PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DMSION As noted, landscape buffer widths do not meet the provisions of Article 3, Division 12, CDC. The applicant has mitigated the dimensional deficiency with regard to buffer width through the provision of landscape material in excess of the minimum otherwise required by the CDC. In addition, the applicant is proposing to incorporate a 504 square foot landscaping island along the western property line. Additionally, plantings will be incorporated along the south, east and north facing foundations of the proposed renovated structure. The landscape plan includes a variety of shade, ornamental and palm trees (live oak, crepe myrtle, Sylvester palm, bald cypress, eagleston holly and washington palm), as well as shrubs and ground covers (fire croton, holly, pringle, jasmin, liriope and ferns). The buffers will be planted in such a manner as to create a tiered effect providing adequate buffers between the subject property and adjacent rights-of-way and properties. It should be noted that where the western buffer is zero feet in width the adjacent use consists of parking and landscaping for the Taco Bell fast-food restaurant. Solid Waste: A dumpster is proposed at the northwest corner of the site. The dumpster area will be screened by a solid wall with a finish to match the primary exterior color of the restaurant. The proposal has been found_to be acceptable by the City's Solid Waste and Fire Departments. Si na e: While signage has been depicted in the proposed drawings, signage is not being reviewed as part of the current submittal and will be handled under a separate future signage application. COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL APPLICABILITY STANDARDS The proposal supports the General Applicability requirements of this Code as follows: Section 3-914.A.1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. The proposal includes the conversion of the existing, vacant automobile service station with convenience store into a Dunkin Donuts restaurant with a drive-thru. The subject property is located within the Commercial District along Gulf to Bay Boulevard which is one of the main vehicular corridors through the City with a variety of retail sales, services, restaurants and automobile oriented uses. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. Section 3-914.A.2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. The proposal will not impair the value of adjacent properties. Therefore; consistent with this CDC Section. development and the proposal is Section 3-914.A.3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safery of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. The proposal will likely have no effect, negative or otherwise, on the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. Section 3-914.A.4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. Community Development Board February 18, 2014 FLD2013-11041 — Page 9 of 18 : C1L(�l ►1�ll.l Level II Flexibie Develo ment PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT _ p Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION ° � ��.,r.�_��:- � The proposal has been designed to have a minimal effect on traffic congestion. The development of the vacant, former gasoline service station into a fast-food restaurant will cause the site to go from underutilized to providing a service within this commercial portion of the City. It is not anticipated that the proposed use will generate any additional traffic above what the previous commercial use generated. The improvements to the site include additional parking than previously provided and increased efficiency in vehicular circulation through the site. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. The Applicant submitted a revised site plan on January 15, 2014 which details that the site will be able to accommodate eight cars stacking in the drive-thru lane from the pick-up window to ordering board and around the back of the building. Section 3-914.A.5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity. As previously discussed, the community character consists primarily of a variety of commercial and vehicular oriented uses including retail sales and service, overnight accommodations, auto service stations and restaurants. The modern architectural style of the building combined with lush landscaping will complement and enhance adjacent properties. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. Section 3-914.A.6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse visual and acoustic impacts on adjacent properties. There should be no olfactory impacts of any kind. The existing building and canopy will be renovated and an addition will be added to the building to provide efficient space to service the walk-in clientele as well as the drive-thru patrons. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT The proposal supports the specific Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria pursuant to CDC Section 2-704.E.1-6 as follows: The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. The proposed project includes the rehabilitation of and renovation to the existing site structures and buildings. Additionally, the existing driveway openings along Gulf to Bay Boulevard and Pegasus Avenue will be utilized for the proposed project. While the proposed project will bring the site into compliance with many of the requirements of the CDC, full and complete compliance without flexibility is impossible due to the existing site constraints. 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, inient 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 Goa1s, 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. Community Development Board February 18, 2014 FLD2013-11041 — Page 10 of 18 ' vi\+(A�l nAL�I Level II Flexible DevelopmentApplication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT --a -. ..✓ .� "��,� � , -, + . . .. . . DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION 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 a variety of commercial and automobile oriented uses including restaurants, overnight accommodations, retail sales and services. The proposal should have no impact on the ability of adjacent properties to redevelop or otherwise be improved. 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 is similar to and will support adjacent uses. In addition, the existing orientation of the building, proposed parking and site layout is similar to adjacent properties. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. S. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of six objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; The proposed restaurant use is a permitted use within the C District and the Gulf to Bay corridor is one of the primary vehicular routes serving the City and providing for similar type uses. Additionally, the proposed project will redevelop a former automobile service station which has sat vacant since spring of 2013 and has not been contributing to the economy of the City. The vacant site has also been the subject of previous Code issues and violations which have been completely abated. 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 sut-rounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district. As mentioned, surrounding properties are developed with a variety of uses typical of a commercial nature including hotels, retail, restaurants, and automobile oriented uses. The proposed restaurant will support and complement surrounding uses with regard to form and function. 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. The subject property is not located within a special plan area and therefore, this CDC Section is not applicable to the proposal. Community Development Board February 18, 2014 FLD2013-11041 —Page 11 of 18 ' Vl�.f�l n�b�.l Level II Flexible Development Application Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT - DEVEI.OPMENT REVIEW DMSION u ,m + , �. , .: � 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 similar in type and site configuration to other existing surrounding uses within this area of Gulf to Bay Boulevard. The property is located within the C District and provides for a permitted use and therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: ■ Changes in horizontal building planes; ■ Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; ■ Variety in materials, colors and textures; ■ Distinctive fenestf-ation patterns; ■ Building step backs; and ■ Distinctive roofs forms. The proposed project involves the rehabilitation of the existing building and canopy structure. The resulting design continues the strong horizontal elements of the existing canopy as well as incorporating additional horizontal banding into the proposed expanded building. The proposed window fenestration will further define the horizontal emphasis and grounding of the structure. The proposed building addition will also provide a physical break in the canopy which will result in a cantilevered look as it extends over the walkway and drive-thru areas. The proposed orange "dunkin donuts" color banding will provide an accent to the building and further reinforces the horizontal emphasis of the design. The proposed new building entrance features a vertical element which helps to provide stability to the building as well as identify the user entrance. The exterior color and finishes include the majority of earth tones ranging from sand to slate gray with each color gradient defined through horizontal orientation. The proposed design also echoes back to similar design elements of a mid-century designed structure which was approved for the site in 1961 by the City of Clearwater. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances beiween buildings. The proposed project includes landscaping buffers and foundation plantings however, the Applicant has included a Comprehensive Landscaping Application. The required buffer areas for the subject property are 15 feet along Gulf to Bay (south), 15 feet along Pegasus (east) and five feet each along the western and northern property lines. The total square footage of each buffer area is as follows: 2,025 SF along the Gulf to Bay frontage, 1,500 SF along the Pegasus frontage, 750 SF along the western property line and 675 SF along the northern property line which results in a total of 4,950 square feet. As the proposed project is utilizing the existing building and paved portions of the lot, limitations exist with respect to landscaping. The proposed square footage of the buffers areas will be 590 SF along Gulf to Bay, 768 SF along Pegasus, 828 SF along the western property line and 2,009 SF along the northern property line resulting in a total of 4,196 square feet. Overall the proposed landscaping buffer area is deficient by 754 square feet of area which Community Development Board February 18, 2014 FLD2013-11041 —Page 12 of 18 ? l�lu�i 17�Le1 Level II Flexible Development Application Review : ° . . .,_ ..� , . .... . PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION is a result of the project utilizing the existing building footprint and existing vehicular circulation areas. In order for the site to accommodate the additionallandscaping buffer area approximately four parking spaces would need to be converted to landscaped areas thus reducing the amount of parking spaces from 14 to 10 spaces. The project is proposing 14 spaces which is 7.3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area and is below the 50% requirement of 9.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area and the Applicant is required to provide a Parking Demand Study. Reducing the amount of off- street parking to accommodate landscaping would negatively impact the site circulation and further exacerbate the deficiency in the amount of parking. Additionally, the proposed project includes foundation plantings beds with extensive plant materials. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. Section 4-206.D.4: Burden of proof. The burden of proof is upon the applicant substantial competent evidence that he is entitled to the approval �equested. The applicant has adequately demonstrated through the submittal of substantial evidence that the request is entitled to the approval requested as required by CDC 206.D.4. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no active Code Compliance cases for the subject property. to show by competent Section 4- COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards for restaurant as per CDC Tables 2-701.1 and 2-704: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Floor Area Ratio 0.55 0.10 X Impervious Surface Ratio 0.90 p.73 X Minimum Lot Area N/A 20,283 square feet (0.46 acres) X Minimum Lot Width N/A 135 feet �{ Minimum Setbacks Front: South: N/A 33 feet to building Xt 5 feet to paving East: N/A 38 feet to building XI 5 feet to paving Side: North: N/A 10 feet to building X 18 feet to paving West: N/A 2 feet to building X� Zero feet to pavement Maximum Height N/A 24.6'7 feet }{ Minimum Determined by the community 7.27 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. Xl Off-Street Parking development coordinator GFA (14 spaces) based on the specific use and/or ITE Manual standards �ee ana[ys:s in J'ta�j tceport Community Development Board February 18, 2014 FLD2013-11041 — Page 13 of 18 ' C��.Nl ►1 alel Level II Flexible Development Appiication Review PLA�r�vnvG & DEV�LOPMErrr DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DMSION . �r 4= r�� COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-704.E.1-6. (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project): Consistent I Inconsistent 1. T'he development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X� 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 X1 development and improvement of surrounding properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X� development. 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X� category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street 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 character of an area; d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: ❑ Changes in horizontal building planes; ❑ Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; ❑ Variety in materials, colors and textures; ❑ Distinctive fenestration patterns; ❑ Building stepbacks; and ❑ Distinctive roofs forms. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and avvrouriate distances between buildine�_ 1 See analysis in Sta,�f'Report Community Development Board February 18, 2014 FLD2013-11041 — Page 14 of 18 � ��L(�l �1��Lt Level II Flexible DevelopmentApplicafion Review � . . _:, � �.. .. . . PLANNING & 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 Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A: 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including yisual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on ad'acent properties. � - . . .. See analysis in Staff Report Consistent � Inconsistent X X 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 architectural theme of the principal buildings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for development; or b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape program shall be demonstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for development under the minimum landscape standards 2. Lighting. Any lighting proposed as a part of a comprehensive landscape program is automaticaliy controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is closed. 3. Community character. The landscape 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 of the 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 area or scenic corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in which the parcel proposed for development is located. Community Development Board February 18, 2014 FLD2013-11041 — Page 15 of 18 Consistent X X X X NA Inconsistent NA ' Cl�.ul ►� �Ll.l Level II Flexible Development Application Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION ° .. ... .`�. `� r . . . . � SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of December 5, 2013, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient, based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: Findings of Fact The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact: 1. That the 0.46 acre site is located at the northwest corner of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and South Pegasus Avenue; 2. That the subject property is located within the Commercial (C) District and the Commercial General (CG) Future Land Use Plan category; 3. That the subject property is not located in a special plan area; 4. That the proposal is to construct a restaurant and is subject to the requisite development parameters per Articfe L Division 7 of the CDC; 5. That the site is currently developed with a vacant automobile service station with convenience store; 6. The subject property is comprised of one parcel with approximately 135 feet of frontage along Gulf to Bay Boulevard and 150 feet of frontage along South Pegasus Avenue; 7. The proposal includes a front (south) setback of 33 feet (to building) and five feet (to parking), a front (east) setback of 38 feet (to building) and five feet (to parking), a side (north) setback of 10 feet (to dumpster enclosure) and 18 feet (to parking), a side (west) setback of two feet (to dumpster enclosure) and zero feet (to parking) and 14 parking spaces (7.27 spaces per 1,000 square feet of Gross Floor Area); 8. A front (south) landscape buffer of five feet (15 feet required), a front (east) landscape buffer of five foot (15 feet required), a side (north) landscape buffer of 18 feet (5 feet required) and a side (west) landscape buffer of zero feet (five feet required); and, 9. 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 consistent with applicable portions of the Comprehensive Plan including Future Land Use Plan Element Goal A.6, Objectives A.3.2 and A.6.4 and Policies A.2.2.3, A.3.2.1, A.5.5.1 and A.6.4.1; 3. That the development proposal is consistent with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of the Community Development Code Sections 1-103.B.1— 3 and D; 4. That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Table 2-704 of the Community Development Code with regard to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project; 5. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2- 704.E of the Community Development Code; 6. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-914.A of the Community Development Code; and Community Development Board February 18, 2014 FLD2013-11041 —Page 16 of 18 ' Vlbfal �t �lt�l Level II Flexible Development Application Review PLANNING & DEVELAPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION 7. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria for a Comprehensive Landscape Program CDC Section 3-1202.G. Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends APPROVAL of the Flexible Development application to permit a restaurant with a height of 24.67 feet, a front (south) setback of 33 feet (to building) and five feet (to parking), a front (east) setback of 38 feet (to building) and five feet (to parking), a side (north) setback of 52 feet (to building) and 18 feet (to parking), a side (west) setback of two feet (to dumpster enclosure) and zero feet (to parking) and 14 parking spaces (7.27 spaces per 1,000 square feet of Gross Floor Area) in the Commercial (C) District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-704.E. and to reduce the front (south) landscape buffer from 15 feet to five feet (to parking), reduce the front (east) landscape buffer from 15 feet to five feet (to parking), reduce the side (west) landscape buffer from five feet to zero feet, increase the side (north) landscape buffer from five feet to 18 feet and reduce the amount of required foundation plantings of the proposed building as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of CDC Section 3-1202.G subject to the following conditions: Conditions of A� rp ova1: General/Miscellaneous Conditions 1. That the final design and color of the building be generally consistent with the elevations approved by the CDB; 2. That all signage be reviewed and approved pursuant to the City's sign ordinance and that the maximum square footage of any freestanding signs be limited to the minimum permitted by the CDC with regard to area, height and number without the opportunity to apply for a Comprehensive Sign Program; 3. That issuance of a development permit by the City of Clearwater does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the City for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law; 4. That all other applicable local, state andlor federal permits be obtained before commencement of the development; Timing Conditions 5. That application for a building permit be submitted no later than February 18, 2015, unless time extensions are granted pursuant to CDC Section 4-407; 6. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the Fire Department may require the provision of a Water Study performed by a Fire Protection Engineer in order to ensure that an adequate water supply is available and to determine if any upgrades are required by the developer due to the impact of the project. The water supply must be able to support the needs of any required fire sprinkler, standpipe andlor fire pump. If a fire pump is required, then the water supply must be able to supply 150 percent of its rated capacity; 7. That prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy that all required Transportation Impact Fees be paid; Community Development Board February 18, 2014 FLD2013-11041 — Page 17 of 18 } 4�Lf�l �1�1��1 Level II Flexible Develo mentA lication Review PL.ar�NING�navELOrMErrr P pP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DMSION :� .� � �..,,: � 8. 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; 9. That prior to the issuance of any permits a final landscape plan which clearly shows all underground utilities on and adjacent to the site be submitted to and approved by Staff; 10. That prior to the issuance of any permits, any applicable Public Art and Design Program Impact Fees be paid; 11. That prior to the issuance of any permits, any applicable Parks and Recreation impact fees be paid; 12. 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 andlor Federal standards including ADA requirements (truncated domes per FDOT Index #304); and 13. That prior to the issuance of any permit, all requirements of the General Engineering, Traffic Engineering and Fire Departments be addressed. �.� i Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: � j`� � `J Melissa Hauck- Baker, AICP, Planner II Community Development Board February 18, 2014 FLD2013-11041 —Page 18 of 18 Looking east at subject property from Pegasus Avenue Looking east at subj ect property from Gulf to Bay Blvd. Looking east along Gulf to Bat Boulevard Looking north at subj ect property from the south property line. Looking south at subj ect property from Gulf to Bay Blvd. 1840 Gulf to Bay Boulevard FLD2013 -11041 Melissa H. �auck-Baker, AICP, NJPP 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater Florida 33756 7?7-562-4567 �855 melissa.hauck baker(�a,mvclearwater.com PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE • Planner II, Development Review Division - July 2013 to Present City of Clearwater, FL : Provide professional urban planning services to citizens, City Offcials and businesses regarding Land Development Review procedures and legal requirements of the Community Development Code for the City. Assist in the day to day planning and zoning operations as well as long range planning initiatives, interdepartmental cooperation and assistance. Conduct pl�n reviews, site investigations, report preparation, meeting attendance and presentation of findings as relating to proposed development projects and required regulatory review procedures. • Professional Planner Consultant - March 2010 to June 2013 Metissa Hauck Baker, AICP, NJPP Provide consulting services to clients as requested for various residential and commercial scale projects as relating to the necessary zoning and planning review processes required by the specific governing entity. Supervise the preparation of reports and plans, conduct site visits, attend and present imdings at municipal and all related public meetings, coordinate with applicant, various municipal staff and related professional consultants. Senior Associate — January 2005 to March 2010 Project Manager - Apri12001 to January 2005 KEPG, LLC, Atlantic City, NJ Oversee consulting services provided to municipal clients in the area of zoning, planning, master planning and redevelopment planning. Review all proposed projects before any required municipal board, authority and commission as well as any additional jurisdictional requirement of other local, state and federal entities. Provide professional guidance regarding planning and zoning concepts, zoning ordinance development, urban design issues, master plans, and redevelopment plans as outlined within the New Jersey Municipal Land Use Law. Supervise the preparation of reports and plans, conduct site visits, attend and present fmdings at municipal and all related public meetings, coordinate with firm staff, various municipal staff and related consultants to effectuate an efficient and thorough review process. Zoning Administrator - June 1998 to Apri12001 City Planner - November 1994 to May 1998 Historic Preservation Specialist - September 1993 to October 1994 City of Reading, PA Staff liaison and administrator to the Zoning Hearing Board, Planning Commission, Historic Architectural Review Board, Reading Redevelopment Authority and Fine Arts Board. Enforcement, interpretation and regulatory cooperation of the following ordinances; subdivision, land development, historic preservation, redevelopment and zoning. Provide assistance with downtown, neighborhood, comprehensive master plan, parks, recreation, and public property planning. Conduct site inspections, process violations, and pursue cases through the court system. Assist with review of proposed development projects in conjunction with planning, engineering, and building code staff as well as with the preparation of the Comprehensive Master Plan. Generate graphics for various presentations as required by the department. EDUCATION Bachelor of Landscape Architecture, State University of New York, Syracuse, 1993 LICENSES AND ASSOCIATION MEMBERSHIPS American Institute of Certified Planners #023351 (2009 to Present) American Planning Association (2001 to Present) Florida Chapter (2013 to Present) New Jersey Chapter (2001 to 2012) Licensed New Jersey Professional Planner #33LI00609500 (2009 to Present) � v ��:. l 1�' � n � �'C � � � �� C� u (.� �n �� ,.YQ. �L��--�� l �� L'� � �'1� " �,1 t? �� ' � `� �C' ��f �� '�? ��C��C�`J�it7 �C7U�� %'l.'��j.J �x � S'i �� 't s oU-�� ,��1�'f� o N ° ��ater U Planning & Development Deparhnen# Fle�uble Development Application Attached Dwellings, Mixed-Uses or Non-Residential Uses li IS INCUMBEIUT UPON THE APPLlCANT TO SUBMiT �OMPI.ETE AND CORRECT INFORMATtON. ANY MISLEADING, DECEPTtVf, INCOMPLETE OR 1NCORRECT INFORMATlON MAY lNVAlIDATE YOUR APPUtATtON. ALL APPLlCATIONS ARE TO BE FIt1ED OUT CQMPLETEIY AND CORRfCTLY, AND SUSMITTED IN PERSON (NO FAX OR DELlVERIES) TO THE PIANNING & QEVELORMENT DEPARTMfNT BY NOON ON THE SCHEDlJLED DEADUNE DATE. A TOTAL OF 11 COMPtETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPl1CATION MATERIALS (1 ORIGINAL AP1D 10 COPIES) AS REQUIRED WITHIN ARE TCi BE SUSMITTED FOR REVlEW BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMlTTEE. SUBSEQUEN7 SUBMITTAL FOR THE COMMUNFTY DEVELOPMENT BOARD WILL REQUIRE 15 CQMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS (1 ORI('a1NA1 AND 14 COPIES). PLANS AND APRLiCATIONS ARE REQU{RED TO BE COLLATED, STAPLED AND FOLDED INTO SETS. THE APPLICANT, BY FILING THIS APPLICATION, AGREES TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPUCABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMf NT COQE. FIRE DEPT PREL{MARY SITE PLAN REVIEW FEE: $200 APPttCATiON fEE: $1,205 PROPERTY OWIVER (PfR DEED): MAILlNG ADDRESS: PHONE lVUMBER: EMAII: AGEfVT Qit iiEPi�E�EhiiAiiVE: MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER: EMAII: ADDRESS OF SUBlECT PROPERTY: PARCEL NUMBER(S): LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PROPQSED USE(S): �L�,,S "(�, � ��c. (� � DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Speci�caliy identify ihe request (include a!I requested code flexibifity; e.g., reduction in required numbe�' of parking spoces, height setbacks, lot size, tot widfh, specific use, etc.%: �� Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Gtearwater, FL 33756, Te1: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-662-488b Page 1 af 8 Revised Q1112 _,, �/� ,�- � ! �f ° ��rwat�r U Planning & Development Department Flexible Development Appiication Data Sheet P'LEASE ENSURE THAT THE FOLLOWtNG ►NfORMATION IS FILLED OUT, tN CTS ENTIRETY. FAILURF TO COMPLETE TH15 FORM WILL RESUIT IN YOUR APPLiCATlON BEIN6 FOUND iNCOMPEfTE AND POSSBLY QEFERRED UNTI! TFtE FOLLOWING APPLICATION CYCLE. ZONIWG DiSTRiCT: FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION: fXiSTiNG USE (currently existing on site): r u �� r PROPOSED USE (new use, if any; plus existing, if to remain): ��/� �� SITE AREA: , t,� � sq. ft. ��'� acres GROSS FLOOR AREA (total square footage of all buildings): r Existing: �j � � � sq. ft. Proposed: Z� � � � S4• �• Maximum Aflowable: � , f� Q sq. ft. ��A�6ROSS FLOOR AREA (total square footage devoted to each use, if there wili be muhiple uses): Ftrst use: sq. ft. Second use: Third use: sq. ft. sq. ft. FLOOR AREA RATIO (total square footage of a!I buildings divided by the ta#al square footage of entire sitej: Existing: Proposed: • Q � q Maximum Allowable: .. Gj�__ BUILDING COVERAGE/FOOTPRliVT (1�` floor square footage of all buiidings): Existing: �• � 1v sq. ft. (�� % of site) Proposed: �i • 0� sq. ft. ( 0' j, % of site) MaximumPermitted: ��.Of1 sq.ft. { 1�Q %ofsite) GREEN SPACE WITHIN VEHICULAR USE AREA (green space within the parkir►� lot and i�terior of site; not perimeter buffer): Existing: �% sq. ft. ( Q % of site) Proposed: �� sq• ft• i �j % of site) VEHICULAR USE AREA (parking spates, drive aisles, loading area): Existing: (� �'"sq. ft. ( f 96 of site) Proposed: 4 Z,- ��. �q• ft. ( t % of site) Planning 8� Development Departrr►ent, 100 5. Myrtfe Avenue, Glearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4855 Page 2 of 8 Revised 01/12 _� 0 IMPERV10U5 SURFIICE R/�iT10 (totai square footage of impervio s are�s divided by the total square footage of entire site): = � � �'� ��. Existing: �' � + t� Proposed: � �j . �p = 7 � � 0 q /� aJ Maximum Permitted: � �� r�?Q %`� U� �� CN�PENSIIY (units, rooms or beds per acre}: Existing: Praposed: Maximum Permitted: OfF-STREET PARKINU: Existing: t'� Proposed: Minimum Required: BUILDiNG ME16HT: { Existing: � � � � Proposed: � � Maximum Permitted_ %�j �' �l� � WHAT tS THE ESFtMATED TOTAL YALUE QF THE PR01ECf UPON COMPLETtON? %$ �� Q�� 2�NtNf North: South: East: W est: FOR r4Ll ADJACEhtT PROPERTY: STATf OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINElLAS ��'�' i, the undersigned, acknowledge that alf Sworn to and subscribed before me this �� day of representations rnade in this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and authorize t� ��-�� .� �►�. to me and/or by City repre tatives o vi ',�and photograph the . who is ersana! y kno as property d s ed i thi a�ation. roduced � � ; j , P ___ _ as identification. or representative Notary pd6lic, � � My commission expires: ,P- � � P�ie Sb1. a Pk�ida � Chetyt F �,�� 1� or- _ - _ ° P(anning 8� Development Departmeni, 100 S. NtyrUe Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tef: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-5G2-4865 Page 3 of 8 Rev'tsed t31/12 � R ��, (` Planning & Development Department � l� ��t�� Flex�ble Developn�ent Applieation U Site Flan Submittal Package Check list IN ADDITION TO THE COMPLETED FLEXISLE DfVELOPMENT (FlD) APPLICATION, AlL FLD APPUCATiONS SHALL INCLUDE A SiTf PLAN SUBMtTTAL PACIfAGE TNA7 lNCLUDES 7HE FOLLOWiNG INFORMATION AND/OR PLANS: j� Responses to the flexibility criteria for the specific use(s) being requested as set farth in the Zoning District(s} in which the subject property is located. The attached Flexib4e [3evelopment Application flea�ibility Criteria shedet shaii be used to provide these responses. � Responses to the 6eneral Applicability criteria set forth in Section 3-914.A. The attached Flexible Qevelopment Application General Applicability Criteria sMeet shall be used to provide these responses, �A signed and seaied survey of the property prepared by a registered land surveyor including the location of the property, dimensians, acreage, location of all current structures/improvements, location of all public and private easements including official records book and page numbers and street right(sj-o#-way within and adjacent ta the site. {"+'�u If the application would result in the removal or relocat+on of mobile home owners residing in a mobi{e home park as provided in F.S. § 723.083, the applicatiora must provide that information required by Section 4-202.A.5. (U�'l�cfl If this application is being submitted for the purpose of a boatlift, catwalk, davit, dock, marina, pier, seawall or other si milar marine structure, then the application must provide detailed plans and specifications prepared by a Florida professiona! engineer, bearing the seal and signature of the engineer, excepC signed and seated pians shaf! not be required fior the repair or replacement of decking, stringers, railing, tower tandings, tie piles, ar the patching ar reinforc'rng of existing piling on ivate and commercial docks. 1d A site plan prepared by a professional architect, engineer or landscape architect drawn to a minimum sca{e of one inch equals 50 feet on a sheeL size nat #o exceed 24 inches by 35 inches that includes the #oilowing information: �l lndex sheet of the same size shall be included with individual sheet numbers referenced thereon. tG1 North arrow, scale, lacation map and date prepared. ,-f3 tdentification of the boundaries of pt►ases, if development is proposed to be constructed in phases. �� Location of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL}, whether the property is located within a Speciai Flood Hazard Area, and the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) of the property, as applicable. � Location, footprint and size of all existing and proposed buildings and struttures on the site. � Location and dimensions of uehicular and pedestrian circuiation systems, both on-site and off-site, with proposed paints of access. � Location of ali eacisting and proposed sidewalks, curbs, water tines, sanitary sewer iines, storm drains, fire hydrants and seawa!!s and any proposed utility easements. C� Loca#i�n of ansite and offsite stormwater management facilities as weil as a narrative describing the proposed stormwater co�tro! plar� including �alculations. Adclitional data necessary to demonstrate compliance with the City of Clearwater Starnt [irainage �}esign��iter.ia tnanual may be required at time of building construction permit. �' .C� Locatian of solid vvaste caltection �ac3littaes, required screening and provisions for accessibility for collection. �,,' j� Location of off-street loading area, if required by Section 3-1406. � All adjacent right(s}-af-way, with indicatian of centerline and width, paved width, existing median cuts and intersections and bus shelters. � Dimensions of existing and proposed lot lines, streets, dnves, building lines, setbacks, structural overhangs and building separatsons. � Building or structure elevation drawings that depict the propased building heigf�t and buiiding materiaEs. Ptanning & Development Deparbnent, 100 S. Myrkle Avenue, Glearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-662-4567; Fax: 727-562-d865 Page d c�f 8 Revised 01/12 _, �Typical floor plans, inciuding flaor plans for each floor of any parking garage. � ❑ Demolition pian. �Ar 0 Identification and description of watercourses, wetiands, tree masses, specimen trees, and other environmentally sensitive areas. �s0 If a devia#ion from the parking standards is requested that is greater than 509� (exeluding 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 o# the study wilt be used in determining whether or not deviations to the parking standards are approved. Please see the adopted Parking Demar�d Study Guidelines for further information. I[� A tree survey showing the location, DBH and species of all existing trees with a DBH ofi four inches or more, and identifying those trees proposed to be removed, if any. � �� A tree irnentory, prepared by a certified arbarist, of all trees four inches DBH or more that reflects the size, canopy, arrd condition of such trees may be required if deemed applicable by staff. Check with staff. ��0 A Traffic Impact Study shaU be required for all proposed developments if the total generated net new trips meet one or more of the following conditions: • Proposal is expected to generate 100 or more new trips in any given haur {directiona! trips, inbound or outbound on the abutting streeis) and/or 1,000 or more new trips per day; or • Anticipated new trip generation degrades the level of service as adopted in the City's Comprehensive Plan to unacceptable levels; ar � The study area contains a segment of roadway and/or intersection with five reportable accidents wiihin a prior twelae month period, or the segment and/or intersection exists on the City's annual list of mast hazardous iocations, provided by the City of Ciearwater Police Department; or ■ The Traffic Operations Manager or their designee deems it necessary to require such assessment in the plan review process. Examples include deveiopments that are expected to negatively impact a constrained roadway or developments with unknown trip generation and/or other unknown fattars. �� A Iandscape plan shall be prvvided 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 af the principal structure as reflected on the praperty appraiser's current records, or if an amendment is required to an existing approved site plan; or a parking lot requires aclditiona! landscaping pursuant to the provis+ons of Article 3, Division 14. The fandseape plan shall include the following informatian, if not otherwise required in conjunction with the application for deve{opment approval: � Location, size, description, specifications and quantities of ail existing and proposed landscape materials, including botanical and common names. `'U Existing trees on-site and +mmediately adjacent to the site, by specres, size and location, including drip line. � lnterior landscape areas hatched and/or shaded and labeled and interior {andscape coverage, expfessed both in square feet, exclusive of perimeter landscaped strips, and as a percentage ofi the paved area coverage of the parking lot and vehicutar use areas. � Lacation of existing and proposed structures and improvements, including but nat limited to sidewalks, walts, fences, pools, patios, dumpster pads, pad mounteii transfarmers, fire hydrants, overhead obstructions, curbs, water lines, sanitary sewer lines, storm drains, seawalls, utility eas2ments, treatment of ali graund surfaces, and any other features that may in#iuence the proposed iandscape. [�' Lacatian of parking areas and other vehicular use areas, including parking spaces, circulation aisles, interior iandscape islands and curbing. �Drainage and retentian areas, including swales, side s#opes and battom elevations. C�'Detineation and dimensions of atl €equired pecimeter 1�ndscaped' bu€fers including �t Lriangles, if any. Pfanning & Deve{oprnenE Departrnent, iQ0 S, AAyrtie Avenue, Ciearwater, FL 33756, Fel: 727-56Y-4b67; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page S of 8 Revised 01t12 ., } � ��a�te� �� Pianning & Deveiopment Department Flexible Development Application U General Applicability Criteria PROVIQE COMPLETE RESPOiYSES TQ EACH O� THE SIX (5) 6ENERAL APPtiCAB1UTY CRITERIA EXPLAI(�lIN6 HOW, tN DETAII, THf CRITERtON IS BE{NG COMPLIED WITH PER rtNiS DEVEI�PMfNT PROPOSAL. The proposed development of the land wiil be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent �rnnprt�ac in which it is (ocated. �' �F�'v'� ��i G` �'s - The proposed development wiJl not hinder or discourage the appropriate deveiopmeM and use of adjacent iand and buiidings or significantly impair the vaiue thereo#. ''C�� v' �-�.��' � h� ! l�l, ��l 1� A� � 1�.. '�G� � � ° � � � ��{'�--'�� . The proposed development wii{ not adversely affect the heaith or safety or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. �� r� ��'i �� ,i, P �� . �� i� S -�N 'f �C�,�- c� �� c�i� � �� Q � ��i� C� � �� r� �. �� i .�; � �1 �� `C�, � �.. G-� i P � s 4. The proposed devetopment is designed to minimize traf#ic congestion. �t,-a �. � � �'�s'� � J �'Pf'� �� "� t`'1 l � 1 t1 i Z� `� �r�-� � �( � The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel propased for development. �C�,� � t� � :t � l,,�c� �' i,`1��i� �, � � � s � S�(�.� if 1ni �'C� �G� �- 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes ad�erse efFects, inciuding visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. �i� � � �%� �1�� t�I��t" t� � �,3 t �� S ,��'�`�� '��!�� et�� P��" � 1 �s.T`:!l"� � � Ptanning 8� Revelopment Depariment, 100 S. Myrtfe Avenue, Clearwater; FL 33756, TeC 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-552-4865 Page 6 of 8 Revised 01/12 y ��r��a�t�� Planning & Devetopment Department Flexible Development Application � Flexibility Criteria PROViDE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO THE APPLICABIE FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR 7HE SPECIFfC USE(S} BEING REQUESTED AS SET FORTH IN THE ZONING DISTRICT{S) IN WHICH THE SUBIECT PROPER7Y IS LOCATED. EXPLAIN HOW, IN DETAII, EACH CRITERION IS BEING COMPtiED WITH PER THlS DEVfLOPMENT PROPOSAL (USE SEPARATE SHEfTS AS NfCE55ARY). � � � � J � � � � r � * . ,�. t � � � � R � ,� i � � � � ! � � � � ` ♦ � � j � ► � a � '' J►� � � �t p � � � � i � , ` � �` ;�,� '.r� r . .1 �` II� �r :. /t « �,. ' *' w � �' � s .�/ +� � . ' 1� 1� � . , , � � � � �� 1 -'C �-i,� 'D (�'� �'�o� 1'� �i�� t1 �l�i t � ��1�''� � � � � . b.�'j� IF. V �� . , . , . ,.. i � .. rI'��/�.ir��;�•��l��1�uY R r � � � � ,a * � ;,�� 'i ,�� „� ° �" .+�t �.. � � i ► � . � , • !► . r - . ,. — ,!� — " I ' � i . � , :� � � 1► � . � � w � � � - +Ilf� L.. 1 � _ r �� '�� ' � , �� , ` �� +►. � � i a. J • Planning & Devebpment Department, 100 S. Myrtie Avenue, Ctearxater, FL 33756, Te{: T27-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page ? of 8 Revised 01/12 _t �e� 3�, 2013 s of Pine�las, LLG do a�rizEd Steve rtner of CTS Hoiding ose obtaining perrr�ts and t, Aaron Stuart, mana9a��z�� a�� for the p P Spencer to act�as oY � at 1840 Gulf to Say, Clearwater, FL 34625. developing sai p Pe --�; ",�-..�-.__. , c-z.�,---,.-"-,, C.<�...-�.,1` qaron Stuart State of Ftorida CQ�n�y of Pi�el(as �n t?ctober 30, 2Q"13, be�re me, Audrey Tate Fuson, persanally ap�eared, Aar� Stuart, personaliy known to me W1TNE� �Y �and ar�cl official (t�otary signaiure) My Com�ssion Expires: �� t 2-� 1�—___ Atl��'f �'''t� � �cr �'� �,�,; �p,�M,�„r 3�, �9v !l IiM�9' �1p"1t �i'""°" tA LL a M1 ' � `` �� k U Qlanning & Development Department Comprehensive Landscaping Application tT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE APPLICANT 70 SUSMIT COMPLETE AND CORRECT INFORMATIOPI. ANl( MtSIEADlNG, DECEPTiYE, IPi�MRLETE OR INCORRECT INfORMATION MAY INVAUDATE YOUR APRlICATWN. qLt APPt,{CATiONS ARE TO BE FIU.ED OUT COMPIETEIY AND CORRECTIY, AND SUBMITTEO IN PERSON (NO FAX OR DEilV€RlES) T4 THE PLANNING 8� DEYELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY NOON ON THE SCHEDULED DEADUNE DATE. A TOTAI.Of li COMPLETE SETS Of PLANS ANO APPUCATION MATfRlALS �l QRlGINAI AND 10 CAPIESy AS REQUiRED WlTHIN ARE TO Bf SUBMCRED FQR REViEW BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Ct?MMITfEE. SUBSEQUfNT SU�MlTTRL fOR THE COMMt�NITY DEVELOPMEN7 B�ARD, 1� NECESSARY, Wlll REQUiRE 7S COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPUCATION MATERIALS (1 ORIfifNAl AND 14 COPIfS). PIANS AND APPUCATIONS ARE REQUfitEO TO BE CQLLATED, STAPLED AND FOIt?ED INTO SEl'S. THE APPUCI►NT, BY FIUNG THIS APPUCATICIN, AGREES TO COMFLY WITH ALL APDItCABLE REQUIREMEM'S OF THE COMMUNITY DEi/ELOPMENT CADE. PROPEft'fY QWNER (FER DEED): MAiIIMG ADDRESS: PHOI�lE NUMBER: EMAIL: AtsEM' UR t�fPRESENTATIVE: MAIUN6 ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER: EMAII: ADDRESS OF SUB1ECf PROPERTY: � � �,'G DESCRIPTION �F RE4UEST: Specifically iaentrfy the request (indude a11 requested code flexibi�rty: e.g., reductivn +n required number of purkinq spaces, height setback� lot sfze, toi width, specijic use, etc.j: STATE OF FLORIDA, COUMTif OF PINELLAS J--�- i, the undersigned, acknowiedge ihat all Sworn to and subscribed before me this �� day of representations made in this application are true and �.�,�, .,, �., „ e �1'�' accurate to the best of my kr�owledge and authorize � ��'"�*� ,�+4-�t-��—. to me and/ar by City re ntativ s t and photograph the who is ersonalty known' as praperl�� ri in a tication. � produced as identiHcation. or My commission exp�res: Piannin� 8� Dwek►pmerrt [JepartmeRk 100 S. MyrW Avenue, Cioarwaber, FL 337'36, Tei: 727-b62-4587; Fax: 727-682�1865 Page 1 of 2 Revi�sed 01172 � � �? � ° a�ter > � Planniag & Development Department Comprehensive Landscaping Application Flexibilitv Criteria PROViDE COMPIETE RESPONSES TO EACN t3f THE FIVE (� FLIXiB#LITY CRlTERIA EXPLAtNING HOW, IN DETAII, TNE CRITERION i5 BEiNG COMPLIED WITH PER THIS COMPREHENSII/E LANDSCAPING PROPQSA4 1. Architectural Theme: a. The landscaping in a Comprehensive Landscaping program shail be designed as a part af the architectural theme of the principal buildings proposed ar developed on the parce! proposed for the development. � OR ' b. The design, character, iacation and/or materials of the landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive landscaping program shal! be demonstrabty more attractive than landscaping othervvise permitted on the parcel proposed for development under the minimum landscape stanciards. 2 tighting. Any tighting proposed as a part of a Comprehensive landscaping program is automatically controtled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is close+d. }� �► � 3, Community Cf►am,cter. Tt�e landscape treatment proposed in the Camprehensive tandscape Program will enhance the community character of the City of Ciearwater. 4. Property Values. The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscapi� program witf have a beneficial impact on the value of the property in the immediate vicinity of the parcet proposed for develonment. 5. Specia/ Area or Scenic Corridor Plon. The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprellensive Lartdscape Program is consistent with any specia! area or scenic corridor pian whicfi the City of Clearwater has prepa�ed and atiopted for the area in which the parcel praposed for deuetopment is located. � �r � PMnni+�9 8 Devebpnwrt Depar6nartt. 100 S. Myrde Arenue. C{ae�et, F� 33T+,i6. Tel: 7Z7-6B2166T; Fax: 72T-�82-4865 Page Z� 2 Revised 01M3 �- � �p= �p"1'3 of Pin , LLC do ae�hanzed Steve !, Aa�'em St�, �� er �# CT� Haid�ngs � obiaining pe� and �ncer tt� aet as my authorized ag�nt #or the purpo ' _ a# 1840 Gutf tt� 8ay, �learwat�r� F� 34625. �. developic� ss�►iti Pt'oPe�Y � �-,_._._"""_ � l�q , � �� . Aaron �tuart Siate fl# F{orida C��y gf pan�lias On tJctober 30, 2t1�i 3, before rr�e, Ai.�drey T�ie Fuson, personalty appeareci, Aar� �ivart, persvnaily knQwn to rne my hand a�d afficia! .�/t ,r("i •1 .s .n . ,/ �� .. {lJ,a�� °°-�,...-�"f" (notary signatur�� M�r �mm�ssion E�Pires: _ � � � � �i ' �'A ��, �l,i,n�rni, iii3 !l ii� �rlltll�� C3e� . • •�`'�� ° CITY QF CLEARWATER , �.. :cs .,i� �: Pta.vvmc & DEV�.c�s�.-�v1� D�nxrn�ar ��' _ _ '_� ;,r++= —� Q P(riT O11�ICG BnX ��43, Cu.nxv�:A�rex, FLO�nn 33778-47�3 :,9� =__ Qb� =9`j.��' ��r�i*� MU!VI(:IP_AL SERF7f.E5 BUILI)ING; tOO SOt,"TH 1bIS1iPi.E AVF.tiL�, C�nxtr•ar�t, FLOam,� 33 %�6 �A7ER�d}'' T�c�rxo.vE (72� �62�767 �ax <727) 562-4">?6 #Error Case number: FLD2013-11041 — 1840 GULF TO BAY BLVD Owner(s): C T S Holdings Of Pinellas Lic 4830 W Kennedy Blvd Ste 300 Tampa, FL 33609-2521 PHONE: No phone, Fax: No fax, Email: No emaii Applicant: PHONE: No phone, Fax: No fax, Email: No email Representative: Steve Spencer Po Box 306 Indian Rocks Beach, FL 33785 PHONE: 7275041175, Fax: No fax, Email: Sjs@spencerarch.Com Location Atlas Page: Zoning District: The subject property is located at 1840 Gulf to Bay Boulevard and consists of 0.46 acres (20,283.75 SF). The parcel is located along the north side of Gulf to Bay at the northwest corner of the intersection of Gulf to Bay with South Pegasus Avenue. 289A Commercial Request: Flexible Development application to permit a 1,926 square foot fast food restaurant use with a drive thru in the Commercial (C) Zoning District with a lot area of 0.46 acres (22,283.75 square feet), lot widths of 135 feet (along Gulf to Bay), 150.25 feet (along Pegasus), a building height of 24.66 feet (top of parapet wall), front (south) setback of 31.92 feet (Gulf to Bay), front (east) setback of 38.5 feet (Pegasus), side (west) setback of one foot to dumpster enclosure, rear (north) setback of t5.25 feet to dumpster enclosure, and 10 off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project pursuant to Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-704.E. along with the reduction in the required foundation plantings and required buffer plantings as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program pursuant to CDG Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: Neighborhood Association(s): Presenter: Restaurants Melissa Baker, Planner II 11/27/2013 1 DRC Comments °E�LU E:�mL�Y�uEVT a:vn ��arrc� �.c��v EupLC�t�n° The DRC reviewed this application with the following comments: Engineering Review Prior to Building Construction Permit: 1. As per Community Development Code Section 3-19076, 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 pa►t of the project up to standard, including A.D.A. standards (raised detectable tactile surfaces or truncated domes per FDOT Index #304 and 310 FY 2012/13). 2. As per Community Development Code Section 3-1908.6-Utilities- Generally, all utility facilities existing and proposed throughout the property served or to be served shall be shown on the construction improvement plans. 3. As per City of Clearwater Development Code 4-201, please show all existing public utilities on the plans. 4. !f the proposed project necessitates infrastructure modifications to satisfy site-spec�c 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. 5. A City right of way permit is required for any work in Pegasus Avenue. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy: 1. Please provide a copy of an approved right-of-way permit from FDOT for any work in the Gulf to Bay right-of-way prior to the issuance of a building permit. General Notes: 1. Only Sheet AS1 was reviewed for General Engineering criteria. The additional details provided in the plan set may have been necessary for other departmental reviews to provide flexible development approval. Construction plans shalt be reviewed in more detail prior to receipt of the building permit. 11/27/2013 2 DRC Comments ��E�t�. E:ti�rLOS�At��r a:��v ��ric� Ar,n�� E�trL��x" Environmental Review Prior to issuance of Building Permit: 1. Removal or abandonment of fuel tanks require approvals from Pinellas County Health Department and/or Florida Department of Environmental Protection; copies of approvals wil{ be required at the time of Building Permit Review. 2. An Asbestos Survey is usually required prior to conducting any demolition or renovations. Contact Pinellas County Air Quality (727/464-4422) for more informa#ion. 3. Provide erosion control measures on plans sheet and provide notes detailing erosion control methods. 11/27/2013 General Note(s): 1. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. 2. Oifsite discharge of produced groundwater from dewatering shall comply with dewatering guidelines from Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), F.A.C. 62-621(2). 3. 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. °Ec�L�, E:�irLO��r ��rD �,�ta��rt« Ac.�rla� E�tpL��Ex" DRC_Comments Fire Review 1) Show location of fire hydrant for fire fighting use. Must be within 300 feet of building as hose lays and on same side of street as building. ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO C.D.B. 2j Plan shows the canopy. Must meet the requirements of NFPA-1, 2009 edition (Florida) Chapter 18 Fire Department Access and Water Supply 18.2.3.4.1.2 Fire department access roads shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 ft 6 in. (4.1 m). Please note that the City of Clearwater Fire & Rescue has a vertical clearance of 14 feet and signage showing height shall be posted ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO C.D.B. 3) Must meet the requirements of NFPA-1, 2009 edition (Florida) Chapter 18 Fire Department Access and Water Supply 18.2.3.4.6 Grade. 18.2.3.4.6.2 The angle of approach and departure for any means of fire department access road shall not exceed 1 ft drop in 20 ft(0.3 m drop in 6 m) or the design limitations of the fire apparatus of the fire department, and shall be subject to approval by the AHJ.ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO C.D.B. 4) Provide and show on the plan minimum 30 foot turning radius for emergency vehicle ingress and egress at all entrance and exits. ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO C.D.B. 5)Provide and show on the site plan 24 ft width at driveways / drive aisles for emergency vehicle ingress and egress for front and rear parking lots ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO C.D.B. 6) Property Address Requirements, must meet the requirements of City of Clearwater Ordinance 4138-86 and the Florida Fire Prevention Code all non- residential properties must have numbers at least 6(six) inches in height on the street side it faces in contrasting colors. ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO C.D.B. 7) This is a D.R.C.approval only. Other issues may develop and wil! be addressed at building permit stage. ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO C.D.B. 11/27/2013 4 DRC_Comments "EQLai E:4�rLOY-��;T �:vn �.��a�� Ac�oti E�rr.nt�R" Land Resource Review Land Resource Review 1. Prior to CDB: Provide an accurate tree survey showing ali existing trees. Spec�cally there are two oaks in the northwest comer of the property and three bottle brush trees along the north property line. Also trees within 25 feet of the property that may be impacted by the developmenUredevelopment must be addressed. 2. Prior to CDB: Provide a tree inventory conducted by an ISA Certified Arborist rating all trees on the site and any adjacent trees within 25 feet that may be impacted by developmenUredevelopment. The City of Clearvvater uses a 0-6 scale for rating trees. I can email a summary on this scale if needed. 3_ Prior to CDB: Provide a Tree preservation plan (TPP) clarifying how the existing trees will be retained and protected in a viable and healthy state during and after the construction/redevelopment. The TPP must be developed by a certified arborist. TPPs typically clarify the location of any root pruning, tree barricades, etc. Specifically the asphalt by the 19 inch oak on the east property line is lifting/cracking presumably from roots. Clarify if and how this will be resurfaced and how damage to the tree and its root system will be mitigated. In the TPP clarify any/all crown raising needed for the proposed dumpster location under the existing tree canopy. Any and all pruning must be done by an ISA certified arborist. 4. Prior to CDB: Revise the proposed landscape plan so that the proposed landscape material meets City standards. Specifically palms must have a minimum of 10 feet clear trunk, not 8 or 6. 5. Prior to CDB: Clarify the dimension of the proposed landscape island. It appears to be 17 feet in width and this would be more appropriate for a shade tree or more than one palm. Or the site plan could be better revised to have additional landscape are added to the southwest buffer along Guff to Bay to give the existing oaks more room as well as provide more buffering. 6. Prior to CDB: Revise the landscape plan to clearly and accurately show property lines and sight visibility triangles. 11/27/2013 5 DRC_Comments ��Qti�i. �:i{PLnY'h{EtiT :�:'�'D �FFIR,1L4T14'E t�.CTlO�i �MPLO��R" Planning Review Planning Review General Site Plan and Application Comments 1. Please provide all dimensions on site plan and/or plans that are to scale. 2. Please provide accurate existing tree survey prepared by ISA Certified Arborist. 3. Please provide more details regarding the proposed landscaping materials, number and location. 4. Please provide site signage package for one-way drive aisles and circulation through site. 5. Please provide the proposed materials used for the exterior of the building. 6. Please provide all required sight visibility triangles on the site and landscape plans. 7. Please describe how the dumpster enclosure will be consistent with the proposed building. 8. Section 1406.B.2 requires that drive-thru facilities for restaurants shall provide sufficient stacking distance to accommodate eight vehicles as measured from the first point of transaction; please provide information regarding how the proposed layout meets this requirement. General Applicability Criteria 9. Criterion One: Please be specific regarding the way in which the proposed use is in harmony with the character of adjacent properties. 10. Criterion Two: Describe how the proposed project is appropriate for the subject property and specifically how it will enhance the adjacent properties. 11. Criterion Three: Describe the specific ways in which the proposed development will not adversely affect the health and safety. 12. Criterion Four: Please provide specific information regarding the site layout, drive-thru stacking area and vehicular movements through the site reducing the potential traffic congestion. 13. Criterion Five: Please describe how the proposed use is consistent with community character. 14. Criterion Six: Describe the unique design of the site, specific hours of operation and how the new landscaping will minimize adverse effects of the proposed development. 11 /27/2013 ��EQLat E:�mcoY��v�r �:ti� ��,rs�rn� Ar,n�v E�pLO��h" QRC_Comments Planning Review Flexibility Criteria: Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment 15. Criterion One: The application provides that the development is practical without deviations from the use set forth in the zoning district. Perhaps the Applicant was intending to state that the development is impractical without deviations from the parameters set forth in the zoning district, otherwise there would be no need to submit FLD application. 16. Criterion Two: Please provide specific information regarding the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and General Purpose of the Commercial Zoning District. 17. Criterion Three: Please describe how the development will not impede development of and improvement to surrounding properties. 18. Criterion Four: Describe how the surrounding properties will not be negatively impacted by the proposed development. 19. Criterion Five: Please provide specifics regarding anticipated number of jobs created by proposed development. 20. Criterion Six: While commentary regarding the proposed design of the building has been provided specifics regarding architectural elements being incorporated has not been addressed. Actditionally, the Applicant is requesting reduced landscaping through the Comprehensive Landscaping Program and yet states that enhanced buffering will be provided as part of the proposed project. Flexibility Criteria: Comprehensive Landscaping Application 21. Criterion One: Architectural Theme; The submitted Landscaping Plan does not provide enough detail to show how the landscaping design is part of the architectural theme. 22. Criterion Two: Lighting; The submitted plan does not identify proposed site lighting. 23. Criterion Three: Community Character; Please provide specifics regarding how the proposed landscaping will enhance the community character. 24. Criterion Four: Property Values; Please provide specifics regarding the way in which the proposed landscaping will increase the property values. 25. Criterion Five: Special Area or Scenic Corridor Plan; Not Applicable. Stormwater Review 1. Add'rtional conditions may be forth coming based on the responses to the above conditions or to new information not on hand at time of review 11/27/2013 7 DRC Comments nEQ��L E:1iPLOFME�;T 9:�� !�,FFI$MATIVE ACTIO�f E�'iPL�t°ER" Traffic Eng Review Prior to Community Development Board: 1. For the drive through, provide provide su�cient stacking distance to accommodate eight vehicles as measured from the first point of transaction. (Community Deve(opment Code Section 3-1406 B.). Passenger vehicle length shall be 19' per AASHTO standards. 2. Provide typical parking dimensions for all regular and accessible parking stalls including drive aisle widths. 3. Please show pedestrian access from the front entrance of the building to the public sidewalk per Florida Building Code. Prior to Building Construction Permit: 1. Show 20' x 20' sight visibility triangles at the driveway. There shall be no objects in the sight triangle over the City's acceptable vertical height criteria at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade. (City's Community Development Code, Section 3-904). 2. Provide accessible parking stall and accessible sign details compliant with City standards. The details can be accessed through the City's web address below, please use Index No. 118 & 119. http://www_myclearwater.com/gov/depts/pwa/engin/Production/stddeUindex. as P 3. Please provide a copy of an approved right-of-way permit from FDOT for any work in the Gulf to Bay right-of-way prior to construction in the right-of- way. General Notes: 1. Applicant shall comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule and paid prior to a Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.). The TIF amount for the new dunkin donuts is $13,251.67 2. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. 11/27/2013 8 DRC_Comments °��caL E:��rLO��r a:tin �� r.no� Exrto��x" , �� 'C� ��-� C�o �, I� ��'C� �! � . _ _ . _ � ,, � , f� � � � a � � ��_�._�w��__�__..�_�e__,.� _ �___�._�__� LL.��___ o��-��_��.��m.��...�� .�._ ��_..�� .�v�_� _.a..n.� �__.__�._�.�� ___��. . __�_. �r �. � � Q �c_., t 1-f'� �' : _. ��'�� . .�� a � _� t�1 ____ _ _ _ �.� _ __ .� ___m . v ._ .___ . _ _ s_�� a_ _ � . ��..�� :�.� �?.1.�__ _ _�� .�' _._ .� � c�t � ,�.� t� � ---- - _ _ _ ___�.._T.�.�.._ � ._y.�_N�,.w ._�..�_r_: �. ..s _. __� � ��___.�.��" _ _ l� �'��. _.�w_ ._ _ __ ..�.�_._� �ert_.� n_ .n�_ ____.______ --� _ �� r:�� _.. .. � �� .M� . _. � _. � . ., . . _ . _. . ._.� __� ��..__,.r___ _ .� _ � � � Q;� � ❑R _!r_C�le-�r.! _��'s�-�!� �.__..___..___.__.____�_.__ � _ __ _..__ . _ _. _ . ._.__. -t _ :v ��_� _��.v,_ �. _ :: .�_ m� _ _ v _ _ __. _. ___ _. . �� __w __ � a �. . ___ .�__n ��. _� _ _.. �.�� _�.� ___�:.�_ � s .��r � .r _�..�� ! �-� .___ � .. _. _ __ :_ _ _ _._ __.___ _ __ _ __ � _ __ __. _ .__e . �.. _, � _�.�=� � �_�� .._..��-� . ��r� y �. .. __r_�. _ ._�._ __ _ � � �� . ___ _ __ _� .w_� . .. d�.. ._ . _ r �.�_..�o :� � __ _ ,C:,�� _��c�'� r�..��.�.�__ __ . a . ___ ___ � _ . � _ � . _��.t._ ��? �� '%,P ._._ �?�� ..t.�N�?��- . __ _ �.. .m _ .�r �,�� _._� ._ �� .� Q!�- � � ��_ �t�� . . � _ _ .. �_� �_ �_'��.�.� ��1� �. � ��C� _ _�5�� . � �� _. � � . ___ ... __ � . ._. ... � __ __. __ _.�� .C�c�_ � �t'Ci�� _ _ . __ .___ _� __ _ _ �__ . �._ �� o�_�.� � ��_�l, .�� ___� . . . __. _ _ _ _ . _ .� �_ .�-�.�_ ��- � P�S�'�-1 ��' ��c��'I�� . _ v___, .�.��_�__ ��?��U�' ___.��___ __��s�� _. _ _ _ .__ _��_�. �� __ � �,��' �.___�s�� ._ _..�.�_� . _ � ___ _ __ __ _�. ___.� �_m�_..�.� ._�_ �� _ T,�'__ _ .,��'"�_�'� __.��-. �� __ _ _ _ _ __. _ _�._._� ___�� .��_�...�'_U� _.� �� .--� .-- .L�� rl,_. � . _ _ _ __�...._Y �:_ . ��_� �� _ _ � � .� �"��- . .___ . _ . _.� . _ . . � _ _ �� ..� __ ��1� _. n�'�� '- .� �- . j�� .x�� .��. �- : _ _ _ _. . ��._ �n�_ .��.��_ ._ � __ _ ._ _ _ ._v_, � �:��- � .� �? � t� � ��-� � . . _�. __.� �.�_�W�_ t��,��_S _ ._ ___. �_ �_ _ _. 0 / � - � � a ______ w.!��'.�s _�t�.�� .�y'___.___._____�_..________ _____________ ___ ___________ .__�.._� �. � � , � �� ,Q � � �j.r� - / ♦ v � �+ � — .i P i � p � � O ' �' v � cr � � ' �I ��" � � �i �' '' s � i � 1 �� t �� .� �. � > � � ;, � �r�� 4� � �� ¢ � �� k v k i , '��.. � . `t � �; �� } ,;. f i 3` . �k M � . p �" �� i �� . � . .. . ,.... ��. ': , x+�," �� Q. � �� . � �n ;>w � u � � ��. ,� � �` �� N `� }� 1 4 �1 �. � . . . :��:�. �s%�} S v �. . .� P ; � Y S � r �� d � t �+' �' # '.� �'4 qi� �ti�y �` 9 �� ; �# �k' ryp�'✓ r � 1 R �f . � �� ,��yr. � �' ��k .: � � + �y � i �� i� � � �i� .� � %� .�k��. � � . t�"�* t";:. � � � � � � � � � � � O G �--� � �� "' t .�. . �C � , � »r � _ _ -G>>`� ---- - �� --- -- -- � �� _ _ � � -- -- _ _ , �� .�� ,. � � �, , • � " � ortave �r►+au __, .. _ w _.. _ �� _� �s� � _ �n � � � _ — � - �.�yc ,}yn�, °� ��" . _ ; � COFFEE MONE � � �+' . ._._.__ — --- v.,. ' '�+�`' t' - ,� ... . . . ,y� .�._ . - _____.�___._ u� � � � � r ,. . �.�.�_.__,.<. � ._.._ ._,.. — `_ t -� � - � ; , � _ _ �� .�� _.� a .�..�..� � _ _ �., �, ,. � � �"� �� ,�� .. ' � ��0�0�'J�� 'J��-i ��..��,4�� SCALE: 1/S" = 1'-0" '�.. �`�Z'�";4�.K.1� �� y. � � � 2 ��0��5�� ,�r'J� ��..�Y,��O� scaLe. v8�� = i�-m�� --�- �. :.�;:� - . � ` �. �:. ; � � �[' ,� � y � .. ` ,f �' '� . �� + ' �` COFFEE . MORE' � � , ..: 24'-6" A.FF. -��`----------�`� TOPOF MONOL f TH �-� 19' - lm" AFF. _____�.-�' TOPOF PARAPET 16'-5" A.F.F. tOP OF GANOP7 -� , 14'-(d" A.F.�. BOTTOM OF GANOPY �:� ,.� n 0��I ��.L. � TOP OF SLAB ..,s� .� ,��:. 24'-6" A.F�. .<. - , � „. � TOP OF �4 — .�;,. .._ ..,� .--�': � -*- — — — �' ,� �� '=�� — — MONOLItI-� � � �� . y • �: - : � 19' -10" A.PP. .� ��.� ' ;�� -- � _ -------� tOPOF � �� PARAPET � � ,�� ,. � �� 16'-8" A.FF. ' - — — — — — — — — TOP OF CANOPI' — — — — — — --, ` _ 14'-m" A.F.F. BOTTOM OF CANOP7 0 �' �" �.�.�. — — — — — _� ` TOP OF SLAB _z - ;� _ � -_�. =.=_:v -_�,: �== y ��=-._ � - r — __�- =ti: _f� _ _ i ,�� t�� °� �' �`��z�� U �Aa�.�x �� ,{ �� :�i�o ~ w ZWm C9 a W � pW= GN 0 w w oN�d �° �. F- > ° � m o 'o Z �, �. � p m o � � • + � O O � Z � O V W � � U O Z o � � � C � Q � d � } c Date: 10. 30. 13 REF � : N/A Drown: AZP Job: 13-771 �� r� �, ��"� �ab� +, t�. 41 � ,z �. � � r > 4� � � �. � ��, .� �" x ' �` `s � { a . � � �4 �' ' �� ; ��°° , _� �� '� �..:� . �� M•� �� TY a . > j .,,�' i " �� } .^ti..'�. ., .:}. .�� . k ' �X R � a: :. �v. .., �t � ... f � � °�;' i .� . . . v; a,� ..� a^ �� , 1� y( �t � 4 � . � � � -%d.t �.+�"j"? � � y�: �. � �,,� � �' �� Y � }3 � � , s ., � ,. tli .��. y.�.� t alt . q ` . . �w'�� ,,:�. t �,'.��:` X'��.5�4� i�,�'��„�,y�, � y II � � `. , i ,� ,�� a'3j j �� . a � `y`� �- ? �' � '}: � �at*;. YI I� � �> >�I��ill'i� � ii � '�I �� II �' � I ^�°. p, � �` •� Yy,�t , � �:a r IY � � � ..� :k� �f I � �� s� � �, ��1 a * �S � . y, :i � ; �,u �;'°' : i "' .�,My� . + Rs��"'.�. R� _ �.� ,�,,+.�„_ . �2 F �� ?' � .; fi ai��`�'- � tc � ��`� �� .,..r¢,ac . . ... _ � �M'a+Y��:. . .. h . . � _. ``�:� .aA � _,, s - , � ,,� r+`�r .. � �'��ii, I �r. �" *`A�� f ��'' � � r� � � ,� � � � ��; �� ei t� �. O � ri � � � O! R eY '" � � � � � � � � � � ��i�'C'�( � � � � � � � � N N (1 D r rn � ��- 0 0� �rn n z � rn r rn � � � � � � a m g �•• ;� W Intsrior / Extertor Renovatlons for D u� D o DUNKIN' DONUTS � � � 1840 Gulf to Bay Bivd. � J u V�earwater Plnellos Countq, Florlda DESIGN DEVELOPMENT SCHEME 'B' � C1 D r m O a� � p- 0 0 V± -rn d � N � rn r rn � � � _ � i � � �� -�-� , . � r,� ��, RI�X�Rt A�C�. ��'�'i�'ER1Li+TitiN �ON�A�B ]�1 TAIB DRAIRNG I9 THB �f�I.F{ PROPERTY QF ��''' nsctnt�crs. _ iiT3 RE3�RYEp, '-� �\'1 (N111_x)�I hl� ml ci ol� Ihi :Ani ur�n lu lilulc of .Ai hil rt� 327U� USlh�y. 19 • laluillm�6oi IL i#Gn4 Ph n� r 27 . 751 7,L5 • F u� r'L7 . 7h I( l 23 . ��c4�.olireriarchu�rtscom • . H ��i � WA� .��s-a�"°`x� PARC�' ��2�7' ��A , . • F.LR.-5/8' . NO LD. � I ( ' Y� a � ��y/p ��°� m� LsN�'�' N � � t�sTa"w�+Tt►''c• zjo-o,°° g PAII�';1�3-z�"��. Z z 3 � ad 0 cF.'a��a � /� _ . � • k R/1Y WE, •_ . ctxn�r ra. � rE7' AOE FUEi. 1f� ,�, row�vskrr � svvrrt �►u�,s 1'�LLAS COIMTY, iLOR/DA �� vN�T � �� s��,a P.8• � �,i, �AN1�' � ��Ad C pA��{ '#�3'x�rK"� � S� 22'� ' E 13Q�.05�'� s txvE �•F 8 4: DRAINAGE St1�ALE � $ VAl�!!!M CASPFUlT PARK�NG, ' P.O.B. TF� CORNER oF LOT 5. A Fr.rt.-s�l►' i. . 1s.2' • . . • e.. ° V e ' - a ? a ` Q� e Qv � �., e�� .. ' Y g �� h � ^ �. � �° � ° ° . Q Q a� � l.coNCr�7E P�narrc-l` � e; �p e , d � �� °� ��`g°��_��e.�.' ,� 27.9-L. � e a � s e�° , ' � _�=.!.��_��= � ' , ° _ p ._ � 6 �ti�z s..:i--i-'�; �.- -� �-- — " � o ►�� ' �' ' ?5 `_ �� ( �j ` J � HIJILDMG. , � ' ' ' ^ � � � ^ �44c�l�JL�� 4 a ' � Y � ` ` � � a TO HAY � a ' � - ( °°� � BLVD. L J e �,° i Q _L ' ( `� �at ' � e LLL_t_L.l_L }� Q ' ❑ � �t.! �� a 1 � � � , � � �`�� ° ' ° `� LL� p.LLL( 1 _ � r 'se.�s• �a - . ' OY�I�Ai� . � �. � � � � o - J . P/�CBVG ° . � , �, `AS?HAt7 PARKMG, e c r s f+a.aHCS � ar�u.� ua m PARC£L jt3-29-15-00000-230-d/00 � 0.48 ACRES, 1/ORE QR L£55 DOU9LE � e I * CHEp( VAiYES e � ca+c� ams N 89' 22' S3' W 135.00' D ' M GVLf TO 8AY BOVLfVARD sr�tF rt�o so 100' PUBUC �FI7 OF WAY 78' PAtiEA�NT IMDTH 9 � 7 � �> < �� t �� n� � SV . � a d $� s � �S � . N � [ W W � � � : � � y N � �� r' cv� s �7k�Ns 9�� Ci PAMJElfT � SWiARY AiWIQF D/11 �i[MY � 4t�Ri1pRD � IUIlRI� e � � �� . ■ .�� F.G4R FA�fO GPPID RpV IffD /.Cl.lt /OlW G+IPP� �IOI IIOD ft.K.�d!( iGINO PJt MAr. ! 018K AC1R �I GW'!m Nal IM� l.t I/CYII� /UB/�ES4 (►� fEtD 1rA�/E1pR PYCY PIrMACY rQl(� � P1A7� "' M+mr vKic �,c �v�t oaqHa�or D4 rpr +roao �cc �r � �T � aarMac rr.ar �� KcF Mo caisoe rot�o at sEr o� auMOUr rtr �rw�r cwnex rayr � rNaar e�,, ru�ex aar.c e �ra �,,. L�GAL D�ESCRlPT'TON: n�nr p,vrr oF n� sounfs►�sr �/4 oF n+e Norrtrn�sr �/4 aF �ctroN �s, ro►xv�� 2s sourri, � �a �sr, ar�cc�s C�UNn; fZpHDA. OE� AJ FqJ.01k£ BEGWNfNG AT TME SOU7HE/ST (�ItNER OF LOT S, BLOpC A, UlNT C SKYCREST SUBDf4�Sl0P� AS R�OORD£D tN PUT BOOK 2$ PAGE 30, QF iFlE PUB!!C RECQRDS OF P�I.LAS COUNTY, ROR�A. f012 A �s�rr aF �� Kcn�r n+avcF s oo�s'2a' � �r.avc n� ufsr RIGH7 OF WAY LA� OF PEGASlIS A4� 15Q0 FEEi; 7FIEIVCE' N 89 �'ss' w, �carc n� Hoan� �arr aF w,�r t� oF cxxif ro snr 801H.EVi1RD, f35.0 FEET• � N 0033Y8' W, t50.0 fEE7• n�exce s as� ss' � N.aoc n� soutH � aF s� �or �, �a�.n �r iii ii'iE aow% oF eECw� svxv�vous Horfs: Y} 'MIS IS A 80UNDARY SURYEY QF 7kE A�YE OE� 1RACT QF LAND ONLY, AUDE QN YHE dt0UN0 Ul�ER 7HE SUPER4/SION QF A FLORIDA REK�7S7ERm LAND SUR4ENDR AND AUP�ER AND EXCEIDS 7f� ANNIAHJM 7FCNI�NCAL STAND��RD fCiR NOIbZqVTAI Al� VER7tCAL ACL'!lRACY FQR it#S PROPET2TYS E�ECTED USE 2) BEARINGS RffERDJCEO T1� 7F� NEST LNVE QF PF.CA�JS A4ENtlE AS �iNG S 0033'28' � PER DEEO. 3) THIS SURVEY WAS COWDUCTF� FYY7 77� PtXtPOSE AF A s0lM1QARY 5(lRVEY ONLY, MID 1S Hor a�m�EV ro o�� n� ra�c�a.nmRr ru�sacnow a� �n►r faonz,�u, sr�� t�dp�lA! QR LOCAL AGENCY, BOARD, CAAIAM�I OR OrMfR � avnrr. 4) 1FMS SURVEY Wi{S CONOl1C7ED N17HOUT TFIE 6�7Ti0F AN ABSTRACT OF flTL� 71#1�'FOR� 7NERE AUY BE OTFIER EASEA�EN75r RK7175-UF-11AY. SE78Apf LN�S A(�Ed[a►7S RESE1iVATfOMS, RESTRlC710fV$, QR 07►IER 91A�iAR NAT7fRS OF Pl1BUC RECORD. MOT O�EPnCTED QN iHIS StM?VFY. 5) NO UI�ERl�7fOlA� U7MJ7� lN�OIMD OyQR�DA�17� BUILDING FOt!l�A7TOM5 MEJtE 08SERYED AS A PART QF 7FpS SUR4E'Y, llNLESS 07HERNISi SHONlV. � NQtE' NOT LOCATED IMrtESS OTHERiMSE 57�ONN. 8) THfS SURVEY NOT VillJD 1N7NWT THE StGNATURF ANd 7F� ORK,YUL RAISFD SEAL OF A FLORIDA C�NSEU Sl1RYEYqVt APfa NAVPER. �) n� �rr s+ow�u r�x�oa �s ro F�u. wn� �oao za� 'x ;�s sHOwN av iHE Ft00D 1NSi1RANC£ RATE MAP 12103f`n �XrITY PNMEL � 0190 H, MAP RENSED s/n/oa. oat. syn.� R�erod ��N ��l811appx tast Dots of F7Nd Survs� 11-13—t2 � � � � � �� ^ 0p '�'�^ 1� b n .,� � �� Z O � �.L.� � w1 q m � � � Z y dU� � � 1-�- (/) q � J� j W� �Z o� �i" � DRAWN BY: DfP CHECKED BY: ABT SCALE: DATE: t"=20' 12-1-12 PARTY CHiEF: DP FIELD BOOK: - PAGE: - CAQ FILE: ACAD-MOBiLE JOB NUMBER: f212-100--104 SHEET 1 of 1 � � � � � Int�rior / Ext��tor R�novations for D�� N DUNKIN' DONUTS DESIGN (n � ' N 1840 Guli to Bay Blvd. DEVELOPM� I�T y� ', °�'�':: ' i A`'o°°z�2' t � Member oi ihe Amencan Irw4ti.ite of ArchiCect, � w ri��OrYYQt�i' SCHEME B ��}�'' ;� `. ��ij 32707 US Hwy 19 Valm Hartni. F'L 34G&4 Pindlos Couniy. Florida '�!� !*-!� Phone 7'L7. 781 . 7525 � F'�x 727 . 78I . 6623 �._� .. • www.ohvrriarch�tech�.cotn • Mayberry Tree Consulting LLC Tree inventory Report 1840 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard Clearwater, Florida December 9, 2013 Prepared bv: Alan Mayberry, Consulting Arborist ISA Certified Arborist #SO-0305 Prepared for: Spencer and Associates Architecture Inc. 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. Site Overview The subject property is a commercial site composed of trees planted for landscape code purposes. The tree canopy is dominated by live oak (Quercus virginiana) trees and the majority of the trees are growing within landscape buffers that are too small to accommodate shade tree species. In general, the condition of the site trees reflects overall neglect. The irrigation system if it exists is not operable evidenced by dieback in tree canopies. The trees have not been structurally pruned and consequently most of the trees have developed codominant trunks with some having included bark. The pruning cuts are mostly improper flush cuts performed to raise branches for clearance. Tree roots have damaged the sidewalk and pavement in a few locations and curbs have caused some roots to circle within the narrow landscape buffers. In addition, essentially all of the previous shrub species have died and the landscape buffers have been infiltrated by the invasive exotic Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) and carrotwood (Cupaniopsis anacardioides) trees. The existing landscape buffer adjacent to Gulf—to—Bay Boulevard is not wide enough to contain the live oak tree or any shade tree species. In addition to rooting area constraints there is an overhead utility wire present. I recommend accent tree or palm species for this location. The buffer along Pegasus Avenue is also too narrow to accommodate shade tree 1 species unless the sidewalk is shifted to the east and part of the landscape buffer is located in the city right of way. The rear green space which includes a retention area contains to live oak trees that have good structure and health. These trees represent the best opportunity for tree preservation if the area is preserved as green space. The following tree inventory provides an overall condition rating for all 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. In addition, all protected trees located within 25' of the property line which will be impacted by the proposed site development will be assessed. 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 a Leve! 2: Basic Assessment Process, as defined in the lnternational Society of Arboriculture's Best management Practices, Tree Risk Assessment. 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 Pprt 1: Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Maintenance — standards 2 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 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 December 8, 2013 The following tree inventory starts with tree #1 and ends with tree #12. Numbered aluminum tags are placed on the trunk of each tree in the field. All trees and palms are numbered on the proposed site plan. Tree Inventory Tree # Size Species Rating NOTE: Trees #1- #3 are located within a 4.5' wide landscape buffer adjacent to Gulf- to-Bay Boulevard. 1. 12" live oak (Quercus virginiana) 2.0 Comments: This tree is located in a 4.5' wide non-irrigated landscape buffer adjacent to Gulf to Bay Boulevard. The tree has an overhead utility wire through the upper canopy. The trunk forms codominant scaffold branches with included bark 6.5' above grade. The trunk and lower scaffold branches have previous flush cuts. The main leader is 75% dead. The crown density is low and the live crown ratio is 35%. The trunk flare is against the sidewalk. Recommend removal of this tree due to poor overall health and structure. Recommend removal. 3 2. 15"' live oak (Quercus virginiana) 2.0 Comments: The trunk of this tree forms a tri-dominant trunk 5' above grade with tight angled v-shaped crotches that will soon become included. The three major scaffold branches have considerable dieback preventing the possibility of developing a central leader. The trunk has a flush cut that stripped during pruning on the east side 7' above grade. The overall pruning is poor. The tree also has a branch graft that now appears to be a branch with a hole as one of the grafted branches was removed. The foliage reflects a tree in stress as the tree has uncharacteristically small leaves with some chlorosis present. The crown density is below average. Recommend removal due to poor health and structure. Recommend removal. 3. 12" live oak (Quercus virginiana) 2.5 Comments: This tree has average health. The leaves are somewhat small for a live oak but the branch tips are foliated and the crown displays growth at the tips. The crown density is average and the live crown ratio is 55%. The trunk forms 2 codominant branches 5.5' above grade that will soon be included. Two additional codominant branches are formed 6" higher. There is a flush cut in the crotch of one of the codominant branches where another codominant branch was removed. The wound is not closing properly and the resulting decay will weaken the structure at this point. This tree currently has sufficient health but the poor structure and location of the tree do not warrant preservation. Recommend removal. Note: Trees #4 &#5 are located in a landscape buffer along Pegasus Avenue. 4. 17" live oak (Quercus virginiana) 3.0 Comments: This tree is located in a triangular shaped landscape island that is 9' wide where the trunk is located. The trunk is 2' 7" from the sidewalk. The crown density is average and the live crown ratio is approximately 55%. The leaf size is normal and the tips are foliated. The trunk forms a codominant 9' above grade that has a wide u-shaped crotch. The tree would be difficult to prune into a central leader tree but the crotch will not develop included bark, so the best strategy for pruning if the tree is preserved, is to periodically perform reduction cuts to reduce weight on the two codominant branches. The tree has experienced numerous pruning cuts made to accommodate the tree to its environment. The tree has good structure and sufficient health to warrant preservation. The tree however, will likely cause structural damage to the sidewalk in the future and is too close to be root pruned. If this tree is preserved, the sidewalk may have to be shifted to the east in the future. This appears to be a viable option as there is sufficient green space between the sidewalk and the edge of pavement of Pegasus Avenue. The vehicular use area to the west of the landscape island will not be disturbed during the construction process so root loss is not expected to occur. Recommend preservation as this tree provides tree canopy along the Gulf-to-Bay corridor. If preserved the tree canopy will need to be raised to a minimum height of 15' over the street and vehicular use area. Recommend preservation. 4 5. 20" live oak (Quercus virginiana) 2.5 Comments: This tree is located in a 4.5' wide landscape buffer with the trunk located 1' 4" from the west island curb which also appears to be next to underground storage tanks. The tree appears to already be damaging the concrete on the west side and the sidewalk on the east side. The trunk of this tree forms a codominant 5' above grade that has a very small u- shaped crotch that will likely become included in the future. One scaffold branch then forms an included codominant branch just above the main codominant. The crown density is above average with deep green leaves of normal size. The live crown ratio is 50%. The tree would require a lot of structural pruning over a long time period to develop good structure. In addition, the roots will continue to damage the asphalt and sidewalk. The only possibility for preservation for this tree is to increase the landscape buffer east and west and attain a minimum width of 12', otherwise recommend removal. Recommend preservation. 6. 6" laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) 2.5 Comments: This tree is growing within three trunks of a bottlebrush tree. The trunk has a straight central leader form but has some damage from the bottlebrush trunks that appears minor. There is a flush cut 4' above grade which has produced considerable callus tissue and should close without significant decay. The crown is very restricted and would need structure pruning to develop a single leader tree. The crown density is average and the tips display vigorous growth. The tree has sufficient health and structure to warrant preservation, however the existing swale 2' north of the trunk and the proposed pavement on the south side are not favorable for future growth and stability. Recommend removal. 7. 6", 6", 8" bottlebrush (Callistemon rigidus) 2.0 Comments: This tree has three trunks that are attached at the base forming a basal codominant attachment that is showing some deterioration. There is a small wound on the tension side of a trunk leaning to the west and some dieback in the crown. The bottlebrush is prone to basal failure when it reaches maturity. Recommend removal. 8. 6" bottlebrush (Callistemon rigidus) 2.0 Comments: This tree has sufficient health but has a structural concern. The trunk is leaning and attached to the decaying stump of a previously existing and larger codominant trunk. The previous trunk prohibited the formation of adequate tension roots needed to support the lean. In addition, the decay will likely progress into the subject tree as there is a graft present. Recommend removal. 9. 6" bottlebrush (Callistemon rigidus) 2.0 5 Comments: This tree has a severe lean and is also attached to the decaying trunk that tree #8 is attached to at the base. The tree leans to the west and is also compromised in its ability to form adequate tension roots. Recommend removal. 10. 28" live oak (Quercus virginiana) 4.0 Comments: This tree has very good structure and health. The crown density is good and the live crown ratio is 75%. The foliage is deep green and the tips display vigorous growth. The trunk is located 7' behind the existing curb. A large branch was removed from the trunk via a flush cut 6' above grade on the south side but it has closed successfully. The trunk forms a codominant 12' above grade but the attachment appears strong as it has a wide u-shaped crotch. The two scaffold branch fork and support healthy canopies with good structure. This is a high quality tree and is recommended for preservation. There is a shed west of the tree that does not have a floor. It is recommended that all existing structures not related to the new site development be removed from this area by hand labor. In addition, prevent any grubbing activities in the existing green area that will disturb roots. Recommend preservation. 11. 19" live oak (Quercus virginiana) 3.5 Comments: This tree is growing adjacent to the wooden stockade fence surrounding the shed and the trunk is growing into and damaging the roof of the shed. The trunk forms codominant scaffold branches 6' above grade with a wide u-shaped attachment and the codominant branches continue to fork and produce u-shaped crotches giving the tree overalt good structure. The tree is one-sided due to its location of 6.5' from tree #10. The live crown ratio is 40% and the crown density average. The tips are foliated. This is a good tree that has an underdeveloped canopy due to competition from the larger 28" diameter live oak. The trees can coexist in this green space. Recommend preservation. NOTE: Tree #12 is an off-site tree growing within a landscape buffer of the adjacent site to the west. 12. 10" live oak (Quercus virginiana) 3.0 Comments: This tree is located off-site growing within a landscape buffer of the adjacent property to the west. The tree is located behind a 13" high concrete retaining wall. The proposed site development should not cause a significant impact on this tree's root system due to the retaining wall. The canopy of this tree will need to be raised. 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. If 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) 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 7 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, 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. � � m �� s�� b U NI�-lN Po N U S � ° � $ � l� V (� 'Co �Y �I.� —,a � � C.�.,�A{��►�cr�-� r �- N � � T�� t�1 v �nr'lo�O-Y C'��N Spencer and Associates Arc��ecture, Inc. EN J. 3PENCER, AR 0001�708 Architectu�e Planning P.O.Box 308 Indian Rodcs Beach, Fbrida 33785 727/448-ARCH 727/442-7192 fx www.spencerar�ch.c�m sJst�spencerarch.com A110oCi2Y2 � 'i""R�.E 4#. i l r�w DU'1P8TER � �� .`� � ,� � Ex18TING cu� EXISTING PI�OPERI'1' �R� ,t"� �c i� ! O N T�W ' �.a�ccsc�,t� AREA � EXISTING OVE1�.4D — GANOPt' � — — — � r � � � I�W LAN1ixAP� AR�A , � � _ A�tEp fa 8E F= r - ' / ��i -- i �.��.`��.��a.��illf Illlf II �1 EXISTIhKs cu� —_.__. �XISThJCs 81DEWALK ExIBTING �an' LME 8W�4LE 1�W LANDSCAPE A1E�A ---- GULf TO !��►Y l.�l.Y1� Tree Preservation Plan prepared by Alan Mayberry '�Cx XX - 7'"R�� ,Ba Q �2 �'c,� oES X�?C� X• X. H�l�vd �Poa-� ,o�¢�,vi.v6 � � � Tree Preservation Specifications EXISTthIG EXISTlNG ��Y � LR� a. :�� 1�W CtJR�! t�W LANDSGAPE AiiEA _� � � � Y ! v � � � � � � I _J TR�� 4 � � ..�.�..�. � � EXISTp+Ki SIDEUlALK : ISA Certified Arborist #50-0305 1 � � � � � � � w Q � 4 � � W � Z � } � � � �Q � W � � � � � 1. All pruning shall be performed by an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist and in accordance with the pruning standards and practices defined in the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) publication, AN51-A300 Part 1: Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Maintenance – siandards Practices, Pruninq and the International Society of Arboriculture's companion publication: Best Management Practices, Tree Pruning (Revised 2008). Pruning locations shall be delineated by cross-hatching. The canopies of trees #4 &#10 shall be raised to a minimum height of 15' over streets and on-site vehicular use areas and to a minimum height of 10' over sidewalks or grade. All deadwood one inch in diameter and greater shall be removed. All defective branches shall be removed or corrected. Tree #4 shall be structurally pruned using reduction cuts to reduce weight over codominant scaffold braches. 2. All pruning shall be performed prior to construction equipment entering the site. 3. Tree barricades meeting the City of Clearwater specifications shall be installed around protected trees in the locations delineated by XXXX-ing on the tree preservation page. Tree barricades shall remain ' erected at all times until approved for removal by the City's Land Resource Specialist. Specification for tree barricades are as follows: Barricades shall be constructed using 2" x 2" lumber for upright posts. Upright posts are to be 4' in height with 1' anchored in the ground and 3' extending upright above grade. Upright posts shall be placed at a maximum distance of 6' apart. Horizontal rails are to be constructed using 1" x 4" lumber and shall be securely attached to the top of the upright posts. X 4. The dumpster pad within the critical root zone of �� tree #10 will be constructed to a depth of no greater � than 4". The area for the pad will be graded by hand ' in the presence of an ISA Certified Arborist. Any visible roots impacted by the dumpster pad preparation will be pruned via a hand pruning saw at a minimum distance of 6" from the pad and then backfilled with existing soil. The area to be hand root pruned is delineated by a dotted line within the tree � barricade line. � �5. Existing landscape material located within the driplines of trees #4, 10 & 11 and that will be replaced, shall be removed by hand labor. � 0 TREE PRESERVATION PLAN c � � �, m �� N � � c` � � �'a �N� Q gsg�, � � LL A� � m�n�� E � a�� r �� ¢ g�� 3 � � �-'� 1i- Z� � � ; �� z� �'�'� � �A. � J W �� g� W< Z � 2 O d � � l� �-' Drawn S � SJ o� �Z•q. s�ade c�, Job No Sheel �'P� c5 c m � � � a ¢ � � �� L �a � � E 8 �� N M W n '.�O N � _ � �, ��^� m � om=� o:�� g��. � � �$ W< �g� wa � 7 � i" �m� �� z�' o�.� �� ?�� o 2 �� --� � � � � � � � �!. � Drawn Check -�jr Date � • s� jJ Job Na Sheet � � PARHING STUDY FOR PROPOSED QUICK SERVICE RESTAURANT 1840 GULF TO BAY BOULEVARD CLEARWATER , FLORIDA PREPARED FOR: SPENCER & ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTURE, INC. PREPARED BY: GULF COAST CONSULTING,INC. FEBRUARY 2014 PROJECT # 14-007 � Robert Pergo zz', AICP/PTP AICP #9023/PTP #133 I. INTRODUCTION The applicant is seeking approval to utilize the building located at # 1840 Gulf to Bay Boulevard as a small quick service restaurant with drive-through service. The property is located on the north side of Gulf to Bay Boulevard between Pegasus Avenue and Orion Avenue. (See Figure 1) The redevelopment of the property is the subject of a Flexible Development Application. This application requires an assessment of the parking adequacy for the operation and it was determined a parking study should be completed. As part of the redevelopment a parking lot will be constructed to include a total of 14 parking spaces. The building is proposed to contain 1,926 square feet of floor space and will be equipped with a drive-through lane. The exact user is unknown, however it is anticipated the quick service restaurant model will rely heavily on drive-through service, as well as walk-up service due to its proximity to Clearwater High School. II. METHODOLOGY Prior to conducting this analysis a methodology was established with the City of Clearwater staff. It was agreed GCC would conduct a parking accumulation study of a similar quick service restaurant on a normal weekday between 7 AM and 10 AM. The agreed to comparable restaurant is the Dunkin Donuts which is located at #600 S. Missouri Avenue, just south of Turner Street. The Dunkin Donuts is open for breakfast, lunch and dinner, is located on a 0.48 acre site with 2,100 square feet of gross building area, and contains 25 code-compliant parking spaces. (23 standard + 2 handicapped) This Dunkin Donuts restaurant contains 8 tables and is open daily between 5 AM- 10 PM except for Sunday hours of 5 AM — 9 PM. The study area included the existing parking lot only since public parking lots are not in close proximity to the site. Both the existing Dunkin Donuts and the proposed quick service restaurant at the subject property are similar in building size, similar in lot size, and are both located in mixed-use areas containing some retail/commercial, offices, and moderate density residential uses nearby. Per the Community Development Code there is a minimum parking requirement of 7-12 spaces per 1,000 square feet of restaurant space. According to strict interpretation of the code, the 1,926 square foot quick service restaurant would require between 13 and 23 parking spaces. The code provides for reducing the required number of parking spaces to recognize the special situations that exist. The Community Development Code allows a reduction in parking if the property will require fewer parking spaces due to unique operations or non-parking demand-generating functions. The applicant believes the quick service nature of the proposed development being located in a mixed-use area containing retail, residential, office and institutional uses will encourage drive-through and walk-up 1 Y:\PINELLAS\1840 Gulf to Bay (14-007)\Drawings\14-007 TCA �..,. .. - �1 , i _.. � i k J ,� . ...,,r -y � , K '.r i� , t'� � ,�,�� i ( [��1 � �_� , � �� ,:�5�+ �.►;�[� `�� : �..•r�l �.�.��. �� ..�• w 6u�. "'.'. ��&y�-� �pjA�_� �.. _, -.. . � .�.. F�iM �,,�,��,�� .�{'. , { � �It 1 .xr.:.. +.�.t �..•+�a�� «� , '�"� a �,' �,�' ��r,.;.rt,� � 4•� � � ` � �.�1► , tkti � I_� �xJEas, f �°'i� M.lI ",��.+5 �i�i3FY� �g, `.:� �'L �� : ,a�� . F f, .. _ .! . , � I,��C� g �, � ��C�F`,� s ��'�� '��a7� ` ��j`�u��n1 '��1he��r��1�"�� '��i��i t_ _ kb I.. d ` � � ��'�! �@"+�R�� ` , `!J� � � � ! � �'e � I� �' � �: . � �LJ [� �� , � .� � ��., � ��' ��p��- i��;.�� :.� � L�� - ,.�„� ��l�� `�� ►��?��-...� : . � f6.,�L_ T._i �� 1^ L�MyQF Y.�nJti ('°`_"'» I 1. � f!►� s� u i �� ,,� �/ � �� .n��o-� � �y-��1...+�V!df,.,�� "'"� �,} �,.. :r, �rc�y g,�. y .:�•..i_. � P�� 0,� yy,na:.r;��+. �� i6Jr ' :s. 1 � �yi % � `�� ;'� -ky p � J�' j��,Jr��l ��16�' .� ��z„�„_J� '' .'�.'#1llJ�1�P�1�"!�l��'FS��;= ��`��-1�'�..... �f.mp� �A LS � , „I� .. .: :r ,. � �-�c � � � �'i��'+ '" '°" '�"a ""'� , ` ,y �y F ' :,�! I'";!��-q�' �^�.� � �"y � ��e � , q �j . . `� �z �- a3. - .�r�- �°:�f�` '� i � J� �'t'��-.� �T ��...� . � -� � a �'' � ,� ''� + ' 1'S �t � � � �z�;�� ,��" 's��-�l• ��;��,,;� � � =� -- - C �� '�1��[�►��t(�i� : � :�� -,�► ��. .....�. .�-� �� = .. .:� .��:�:��_ �.� - � .o� ,--.-_ + -. +I � � . .� � ,-,�x-a�f �M � ,.- „ yr� * � �" ,.� � � a� ��.s�R� :t��1 � �, r,'�iy 1 t `"�a � I . (/��) � � a M a� ..: � ��c�rh��fi" . : • �+��e��g�� ?� �'°!� `i� -�� -.i�Y ��9 � r a� ��' I ��' ,3�� J � ��!!�, �� r `�I` � ��' � .�i .� � .:y� �_- �.-.. .. �dWs`'� _.�s�A "1 � � .:MI �:��_`__l49�i� t � � M�.�.'.�� 1�:%� . ,.z,.,Fi°.��f�i� ...- � ��' _ J � ��t�a.� L� �- �� ,t � �a — �.,�.. ��......�v �._._W .._ _.. = _ � , . � . _ .�_ _ - � � � �s-x.r�. �� ` • ' s'm=-.�: . _ -- _ _ _._.._ . ,� ..._,,r. -��a. ,`1 � "" i � , �, : -. '�` ` ' ; . ' ` , - � ,E^, ' 1 " } - �--� 1--F� C ��',�:��5� � ,� 1�J�,, _ ""'�.-� ;�e,�w.+w ,r,ts Ii, a" �� ,cLj"�j @R' , - 'J � � .� ' Y .:a�..` � _�. �. � � a i �iuetC�' 'lf"i�';'� r��.'��"�,�� '"� �_` :adl�i'� +1�:�L.,�� _ � � �� __ C� '� �q�{,�,,'�'��r` �1�� - � .�-` `� �•�, . �j �j��j� � {+�'t: �y�t�t],'� k ��ry ��_ i � , � o I� . . ...41'��:`I `VI��M-F'�:I�I�� iF 1+..�� ;`L`��'� ��'�, T��,i' :4 �� i��' 1�i 3� K"4'`i, JJ'��i��.. '��'i. ��I��1�^ i�r ' � „�; � CJ] � 5,��i.�l'is�4�'�'.,��o� ��t 1��'�r�;��l�tl �� ... _ .� 'r _ �_,�,,-� ' "°",�_�,� � - O �n. ,.� �_ , ` _ , p.. •-�--�. � �-z . .r� ,y � , ,,� "� _ > �' -t � l� � " 5 A , � '�3i . _�<_ aYi � � �. 4��k � ��P� � �.1 _ , �,�;�, `��i n , �-_ , .,.�, .�� -� i �`�-"" �� _ � � � � co � � . _� J= � t�f �� s�. � ':4�.''� �; . .—r ,..]�.",1 .�J ,�.��., �,;�� - ,� '�� - y�l` x' � '. , - 1w11�P� ' o � ��,?� �y.pp�� :�. _� ��-��, .�� q�' !��y� _�- � � ^ �i"�.t��..a8� ',�,��. a��P f,t � ....r ..q� ,��v..`�'�.� c .�.+�,qv�L...,.� ^YL � �.AJ�. — i� _,�._ ( � � � � i 1 ` � .YC. _ a.. . Q � b� � . �'.. � . ..,y;'�..:,°.�. ��-'� . . "�� . � �" - �.. t ^l.`� I' .:, , �FY. _ � �� '�e--...� ,j . I ��,,. -- , _ . '57 f�1 �• � . � � � .��e p� .�:�{.� �`y�,.� ��.�� :� �� {��p� ' j�, y �� -i�.� �—' � � �R��.� I �y��G +.y�rl�`,i¢2f�� ,�,':�. G ��' E .11.: �'� ��_.��1��7��1�1� t r �� `� r � ''.� � � �� M I � �� _,. �� ,�--� ,•� �-� � � � �� , _. �'�'��!�� '��4. .� � � �; � ��-��..�� , �:�� .� _ - � �� a4 Ir'�n I ��r� ��, �..'..■, �--•. _ ; ��, •��r� ` � •�,D ,.�,-. , _ :,� ,. -a��1 ., "� _ - �_�� _� - - �' I 9 .� „ ,� - - �'�', .�z-g, :�,, g�t�� m Fs ^'� 'p� �. �`'� � ei'�j' � �� fA��'i�C�� r��.��`� "� �'_�,_ I aF�_ _:a . 11r`�� i ��ly ;�; o ��:��t �� .� ��.�--F , ,: -�-.� � ,__ : , ,�`..�� .�� r';,� , �—�+ ,� �Rr �"-.i I�=� � '�. �° �� ' �;: -� �� F F'y��,,i; ` .� n p�I _,�. +rn��V ;,� � � , "'�' -� .I -;� r�� +=' ��,"7� �� x �� _�6ui�iJ��„�" � , ;I�� . . . W aj .. . �,. . . _ t � .. �. . n . _„ .�. vy�¢ � _ ..w..., - �.� y � � ; �' '* �'"'�� .^.�,,.�..� • .,' . r � �� +� �"�"` -. . � � ��r f .�F �i.�� !"� T, ; ;�,�� ,� ,� ;�- � - � j . _ � j ! �. �, � ��'� a � � .. .� i .��'�� ¢ : �� ,.;,� y : , ; .w� �� a � � „ �� . � � � I : T � F :� � � _�. _ � �� -• . , , a .�`t.:;�� ,� � � .. � � f� � :_ a � �� . �' �� . � � � �� : � . . , .v � � �.� d 'n `�.' i�D �� :� .. '-,��t � ;` _ � -, ,,', L . . � r �_ ��.. "�vf�yD�;��'� ' !�.`s w � � h_ � , , Ir , , �r.,. �,y� ( n��r I��y��js.p 1,� rtl I. I��, . ,,.0 6+� � ` �y � � � �l � . � , ` ' �' ' . . � � �� .. • ��! � � \ m � ��' ��.� !!yi i 42a- a 9>'��'�� I . � r I�� ,�� '1"."� !G%1C��lddty�d"dlLiit�'f..2 .,� 4��6731�P r �ka�� . �Jf �� ° f�""; ,.: n � o �� >�I z� 'y ,� _ �r-.�--*.,� r ► ��R��y� �q[�� - _:��,�.�.r _. . Y � ��C�' �� } � �:.� , � �:[� .�;,,� _ �� , �. � . . � I �I 1 �' � Jn y7j: . �� , ,a+ . MI- � �� F y�4y� : �L � � � = i . � '�� ^'�le.• , � - e � �r I`� i � , r�* � �; �, ��'��.�' � , : , ; �,�--� ��,'� ��, :��,� y��y��j��..�'I�� -� � �. �, � f ,��r ; � ��ri;, „� `�; �''p{ � }�� a : �� Np x�� a T "1 A �v' � ` - � �t � �'"� �� `�� ' ST�k . �i�l � L �',,,�� ` . �r.. �''� .i 'i .9� �I��.,� � ��``�iiar;i�^�'�R"""��'n'4`J�{irlsuLr-,��'. ��i F'��,��--� C '' c e � u � � r�'�� CI �--�- �"„--i � � y � K �w .- _ ,�+�. ' -� u- r -.y_j�.py� ql�� ` � :� t . : �!* �1�1�' � ; �l�E� t'� ,,. I IaiJ � � 1 ' �arJ�,Ils� !' �a1`�py��-�ryk��tt) r` i��.s�� v�rag�ui'9[��@l�sC�:' ��r��?l��aiOl�v�'�Eid� �.i IF �p�� 'T1 � _ _ ��j; ��* j € I ��l. � �I,' �"°�I� 'a��l- `y 1 �R fM' 9. '!� ��_ -'� ."`� _ ��I � �� -. � � � � �. , . *.:� T_ " � j � � �: �� _ _� � " �� c � ?'� �,j�� ,,.�;1� �,�� .��. �.�,,� � m� ��-�.��t ��' "�'�., r ! '� �� _ �: � �- � �en� : , } � ,� w... � ;,yj � �► �. �+ -� _ _ � - - p r, �a,�"'y� ,,.�....,�:�.. ..�,..- -�.�. � J C ��y` ��1�' ,�fi��`° � ��°m�� '� II �.��1;� � ,�n��w�p'..�''�I�Y�!�� 3�� L.J��i�`'iC��e►,�� i �._ � :�� ,,�„` / -. . �.�j�!� :'' � �- �i�� :`i��e�� !"'��I�,-:�a,�� F ��,L.,� i'.�• � , . , _ , H .;�i �M ' ' LL ' �� ,i � ' `-�---- �� °� ::; - _:_ � .+-� „_�.� �. 4 R��'`�� ,�,_ ��;�„� , o� � ��,R � .F� � _ ��?� - ��i�� d��_ r ;�.�,. �'i ' � ':�� '��a�� +� �, _�� .�� `� �M `3�� r�._. �.. �g�-- f ,r�, r'� �s �j�l =�� -��I�h�--,��_,� �--�� •��'�r�� ..lR�i�-�;�--�� :f'. ':� ��8��'..'�s� �.,,_�....; �,...N. �.:....• � - �.��.a'.�� patrons such that parking needs will be reduced. Clearwater High School is a large institutional use which is only 2-blocks to the east of the site. III. EXISTING PARKING CONDITIONS OF DUNHIN DONUTS Existing conditions were established by conducting parking lot counts between the hours of 7:00 AM and 10:00 AM on Tuesday February 4, 2014. The parking lot was checked every thirty minutes for the number of spaces that were occupied. The number of occupied spaces was noted and an accumulated total was obtained. Tuesday Februarv 4, 2014 On Tuesday (normal weekday) parking demand varied significantly throughout the study period from a low of 3 occupied spaces (12%) at 7 AM to a peak demand of 10 occupied spaces (40%) at 8 AM. Table 1 provides a sub-hourly tabulation and Figure 2 provides a graph of sub-hourly parking space occupancy. Based on the data collected the Dunkin Donuts site has an actual peak parking demand of 4.76 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area. This ratio (10 spaces / 2,100 s� may be transferred to similar quick service restaurants in similar areas. As such, the parking demand for the proposed quick service restaurant at 1840 Gulf to Bay Boulevard was calculated at 10 parking spaces. IV. FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH REDEVELOPMENT The proposed modifications would result in 14 on-site parking spaces. The site would require between 13-23 parking spaces according to strict interpretation of the code. Using the data obtained from a comparable quick service restaurant the maximum demand for the proposed redevelopment would be 10 spaces, and 4 additional spaces would be available for overflow if needed. Therefore, the construction of the parking lot to contain 14 spaces will still provide adequate parking for the proposed operation at this site. V. CONCLUSION This analysis was conducted in accordance with a specific methodology established with City of Clearwater staff. This analysis demonstrates a maximum of 10 parking spaces were occupied during any hour of the study period at a comparable quick service restaurant, and that equates to 10 spaces for the proposed development. As such, the parking demands for a quick service restaurant with a drive-through lane are easily satisfied. With the redevelopment of site providing 14 parking spaces, the parking demands can be accommodated. The proposed 14 spaces falls within the range allowed by the Community Development Code and the flexibility may be granted by the Community Development Board. 2 TIME 7:00 AM 7:30 AM 8:00 AM 8:30 AM 9:00 AM 9:30 AM 10:00 AM TABLE 1 TUESDAY FEBRUARY 4, 2014 DUNKIN DONUTS PARKING LOT OCC. TOTAL % OCCUPIED 3 25 12% 7 25 28% 10 25 40% 6 25 24% 5 25 20% 6 25 24% 7 25 28% 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 � v 12 a 11 � p 10 w a 9 � U $ U O 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 FIGURE 2- TUESDAY FEBRUARY 4, 2014 � --- - �',-; - , - _ -, _' _, '- , `` !- _ ',� -' -' ''. -- �- -' - _ _ - - ,_',' ,� '_' '_! _, -' - -! _ ',- ,_' I- _'! _': - -. ''- i_, _'. ;- _i _i, j-'i 7:00 AM 7:30 AM 8:00 AM 8:30 AM 9:00 AM 9:30 AM 10:00 AM TIME OF DAY /, . J � �I �.,;_ , - a��.-� ��;�? � *��.�`:� �� s � �, �� , ��`� 'y 5 . � �';� : j �� n�� f �� aa`�, � :- -.. � .. - wK• 'z ,�� --: e ..', ,;' -� �... ' . �. � � �r�'*yi,;,, y .�s�� .�. ''o� ... .A'.� -�.x .f.� D 9 _�.7 :.7 �—�.-,.s.�. �. so-.� I �' 7 �.:.�� .nr ` z - . . _. �,W ; , .. ._ . . _...: _ ,��'- . „ - w=..�^"�,��..,.,. .,�-e.;. _...,.w .,.�� . ,.._ ,.� �,. ,� . _, �..� _ ' - _.:A�. __: ..... _ ._--c�. �a, .`..:- �, . - ..:�. _ : .' ,._. ` . . �r � .. ;.� �y � T� ,.� z., ,. � ,. . _, . ,.' � _. � ._, r. _�, _ .. .,�__ � .... .._._._.'. _ _ . . . .._., , _ .. . _ r _ _ _ f r r- , � e . t ..__......, _ . ,�. . _,� _ --- -: _. .__ _ . _ , — , .,- _ — ., .� , ..�,�, � , _ � �. .3 .:�I k.-f�' a`�{�� e +,: . �3 - � i � r :� .. �t ��; t 'R #%� fr�,,Y�£ �yt }.�' 3g .:L,' { ' f.t� . �i� �i �.`!� i�Yt�-s.#r `i`"<* / / • : � �� , , � �'°�� , � . -- _;� l � � f �' � _ . i _ � � _ i` . , � , > �.�, - ' , � � � �°� � _L�. �� '" 4� V - � 'D � �`".,, V — y ! \� �1 � JY� _];;., \ 1 tiJ �/� ��O��C� ( J i'lv,� �� 1 � l .� 5 �.( I �� k DI. � ' � t^ ✓, \I� �S fT�� J � r"1' � I�. I--' 0 � A `.: ' I � � ,,U O ;� O �;� ' �'-� �i �=''�j.s,l r•a 1 �� C{R �) � u��u �t� 5 c ,,�-;..: `�,��_. :-` � i�' ; _J