The URL can be used to link to this page

FLD2014-040122560 GULF TO BAY BLVD FLD2014-04012 1 Eye Clinic Zoning: Commercial Atlas #: 2906 LL -- o�� ,u er �� :�. rwat k� > �ps > ..��s U .. Planning & Development Department Flexible Development Application Attached Dwellings, Mixed-Uses or Non-Residential Uses IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT COMPLETE AND CORRECT INFORMATION. ANY MISLEADING, DECEPTIVE, INCOMPLETE OR INCORRECT INFORMATION MAY INVALIDATE YOUR APPLICATION. ALL APPLICATIONS ARE TO BE FILLED OUT C�MPLETEIY AND CORRECTLY, AND SUBMITTED IN PERSON (NO FAX OR DELIVERIESj TO THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY NOON ON THE SCHEDULED DEADLINE DATE. A TOTAL OF 1� COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS {1 ORIGINAL AND 10 COPIES) AS REQUIRED WITHIN ARE TO BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BY THE QEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE. SUBSEQUENT SUBMITTAL FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD WILL REqUIRE 15 COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS (1 ORIGINAL AND 14 COPIES). PLANS AND APPLICATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COLLATED, STAPLED AND FOLDED INTO SETS. THE APPLICANT, BY FILING THIS APPLICATION, AGREES TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. FIRE DEPT PRELIMARY SITE PLAN REVIEW FEE: ,¢20� APPLICATION FEE: Si,� PROPERTY OWNER (PER DEED): 255o Gulf to say slvd. , LLC MAILING ADDRESS: 63o chestnut street, clearwater, FL 33756 PHONE NUMBER: EMAIL: AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE: J. Paul xaymond, Macfarlane, Ferguson & McMUllen MAILING ADDRESS: P• o- Box 1669, clearwater, FL 33757 PHONE NUMBER: j727� 441-e966 EMAIL: 7Pr�macfar. com ADDRESS OFSUBIECT PROPERTY: 2560 �u1f to aay slvd., clearwater, FL PARCEL NUMBER(S): le/29/16/85681/000/0010 IEGAL DESCRIPTION: See attached Exhibit "A•' PROPOSED USE(S): Medical clinic DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: see Exhibit "s" Specifrcally identify the request (include all requested code flexibility; e.g., reduc[ion in required number of parking spaces, height, setbocks, lot size, 1ot width, specific use, etc.): Planning 8� Development Department,100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tei: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 1 of 8 Revised 01112 L�H fs. O�� i4. �ater :��:_ _ �� Planning & Development Department Flexible Development Application Data Sheet PLEASE ENSURE THAT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS FILLED OUT, IN ITS ENTIRETY. FAILURE TO COMPLETE THIS FORM WIIL RESULT IN YOUR APPLICATION BEING FOUND INCOMPLETE AND POSSIBLY DEFERRED UNTIL THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION CYCLE. ZONING DISTRICT: FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial (C) Commercial General (CG) EXISTING USE (current►y existing on site): senerai office PROPOSED USE (new use, if any; plus existing, if to remain): General office SITE AREA: 41, 9ea sq.ft. 0.964 6ROSS FLOOR AREA (total square footage of all buildings}: Existing: 2o,ae6 Sq_{�, Proposed: 2o,ee5 sq.ft. Maximum Allowable: zs, 093 sq. ft. acres GROSS fLOOR AREA (total square footage devoted to each use, if there will be multiple uses): First use: 5, 962 sq. ft. Second use: sq. ft. Third use: sq. ft. FLOdR AREA RATIO (total square footage of all buildings divided by the total square footage of entire site): Existing: � • 497 Proposed: 0•497 MaximumAllowable: o.ss BUILDING COVERAGE/FOOTPRINT (1" floor square footage of all buildings): Existing: 6� 692 sq. ft. ( 16. 6 /o of site) Proposed: 6, 962 Sq, ft. � 16.6 / of site) Maximum Permitted: z3� o93 sq, ft, ( ss .6 % of site) GREEN SPACE WITHIN VEHICULAR USE AREA (green space within the parking lot and interior of site; not perimeter buffer}: Existing: 2- 496 sq. ft. ( 5� 9 % of site) Proposed: 2� e sz sq. ft. ( 6- 8 % of site) VEHlCULAR USE AREA (parking spaces, drive aisles, loading area): Existing: z�, 543 Sq ft � 65. 6 Proposed: z�,s43 sq.ft, � 65.6 % of site) % of site) Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 2 of 8 Revised 01/12 , , IMPERVIOU$ SURFACE RATIO {total square footage of impervious areas divided by the total square footage of entire site): Existing: o . ssi Proposed: o.s4� Maximum Permitted: 0.90 DENSITY (units, rooms or beds per acre): Existing: N/A Proposed: Maximum Permitted: OFF-STREET PARKING: Existi ng: 91 Proposed: 90 Minimum Required: los BUILDING HEIGHT: Existing: 42. 4' Proposed: 42•4� MaximumPermitted: Zs_o� WHAT IS THE ESTIMATED TOTAL VALUE OF THE PROIECT UPON COMPLETION? $ 20, 000. o0 ZONING DISTRICTS FOR ALL ADJACENT PROPERTY: N01'th: Commercial (C) $OUtfl: Public Row - SR 60 EaSt: Institutional (I) WeSt: Commercial (C) STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS 5�, 1, the undersigned, acknowledge that all Sworn to and subscribed before me this �'� �� day of representations made in this application are true and ,' . A� ;` �' ;`; ';"� . to me and/or by accurate to the best of my knowledge and authorize Cit re resentatives to visit and hoto ra h the �� i`C �:��` `' "" ' , who is ersonall known has Y p P g p - a.,��.e�.�_.�,.m..X..... �....__ property descri6ed in this application. produced as identification. �:��,�''^�'Y� Signature of property owner or representative ,. }' ' .,� <x . Notary public, My commission expires �'e ;,t�(� , � - e-C. ; � ;? ' � ,;.`°:. ., r ouA`" °�� Notary Public State of f!orida ; '' Brian D Layton �� ' My Commission EE? 12n79 y'�oirtipo-A Ezpires67/13/?.015 Planning & Development Department, 100 S, Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 3 of S Revised 01h2 o�;" , ` �4� + Planning & Development Department }� ; �al�er Flexible Development Application .:,� � Site Plan Submittal Package Check list IN ADDITION TO THE COMPLETED FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT (FLD) APPLICATION, ALL FLD APPLICATIONS SHALL INCLUDE A SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL PACKAGE THAT INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION AND/OR PLANS: liY Responses to the flexibility criteria for the specific use(s) being requested as set forth in the Zoning District(s) in which the subject property is located. The attached Flexible Development Application Flexibility Criteria sheet shall be used to provide t ese responses. Responses to the Generai Applicability criteria set forth in Section 3-914.A. The attached Flexible Development Application Ge ral Applicability Criteria sheet shail be used to provide these responses. A signed and sealed survey of the property prepared by a registered land surveyor including the location of the property, dimensions, acreage, location of all current structures/improvements, location of all public and private easements including official records book and page numbers and street right(sj-of-way within and adjacent to the site. ❑ If the application would result in the removal or relocation of mobile home owners residing in a mobile home park as provided in F.S. § 723.083, the application must provide that information required by Section 4-202.A.5. ❑ If this application is being submitted for the purpose of a boatlift, catwalk, davit, dock, marina, pier, seawall or other similar marine structure, then the application must provide detailed plans and specifications prepared by a Florida professional engineer, bearing the seal and signature of the engineer, except signed and sealed plans shall not be required for the repair or replacement of decking, stringers, railing, lower landings, tie piles, or the patching or reinforcing of existing piling on ivate and commercial docks. f�" A site plan prepared by a professional architect, engineer or landscape architect drawn to a minimum scale of one inch equals 50 feet on a sheet size not to exceed 24 inches by 36 inches that includes the following information: W Index sheet of the same size shall be included with individual sheet numbers referenced thereon. �orth arrow, scale, location map and date prepared. ❑ Identification of the boundaries of phases, if development is proposed to be constructed in phases. ❑ Locafion of the Coastal Construction Control Line {CCCL}, whether the properry is located within a Special Flood Hazard Area, and the Base Flood Elevation (BFE} of the property, as applicable. [1Y Location, footprint and size ot all existing and proposed buildings and structures on the site. C1Y Location and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems, both on-site and off-site, with proposed points o cess. Location of all existing and proposed sidewaiks, curbs, water lines, sanitary sewer lines, storm drains, fire hydrants and seawalls and any proposed utility easements. ❑ Location of onsite and offsite stormwater management facilities as well as a narrative describing the proposed stormwater control plan including calculations. Additional data necessary to demonstrate compliance with the City of C�arwater 5torm Drainage Design Criteria manual may be required at time of building construction permit. / G�'` Location of solid waste collection facilities, required screening and provisions for accessibility for collection. ❑ Location of off-street (oading area, if required by Section 3-1406. All adjacent right(s)-of-way; with indication of centerline and width, paved width, existing median cuts and intersections and bus shelters. �m sions of existing and proposed lot lines, streets, drives, building lines, setbacks, structural overhangs and building s arations. Building or structure elevation drawings that depict the proposed building height and building materials. Planning 8 Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 4 of 8 Revised 01/12 ❑ Typical floor plans, including floor plans for each floor of any parking garage. ❑ Demolition plan. ❑ Identification and description of watercourses, wetlands, tree masses, specimen trees, and other environmentally sensitive areas. ❑ If a deviation from the parking standards is requested that is greater than 50% {excluding those standards where the difference between the top and bottom of the range is one parking space), then a parking demand study will need to be provided. The findings of the study will be used in determining whether or not deviations to the parking standards are approved. Please see the adopted Parking Demand Study Guidelines for further information. C9Y A tree survey showing the location, DBH and species of all existing trees with a DBH of four inches or more, and identifying �ose trees proposed to be removed, if any. A tree inventory, prepared by a certified arborist, of all trees four inches DBH or more that reflects the size, canopy, and condition of such trees may be required if deemed applicable by staff. Check with staff. �I�❑ A Traffic Impact Study shall be required for all proposed developments if the total generated net new trips meet one or more of the following conditions: ■ Proposal is expected to generate 100 or more new trips in any given hour (directionai trips, inbound or outbound on the abutting streets) and/or 1,000 or more new trips per day; or • Anticipated new trip generation degrades the level of service as adopted in the City's Comprehensive Plan to unacceptable levels; or ■ The study area contains a segment of roadway and/or intersection with five reportable accidents within a prior twelve month period, or the segment and/or intersection exists on the City's annual list of most hazardous locations, provided by the City of Clearwater Police Department; or ■ The Traffic Operations Manager or their designee deems it necessary to require such assessment in the plan review process. Examples include developments that are expected to negatively impact a constrained roadway or developments with unknown trip generation and/or other unknown factors. A landscape plan shall be provided for any project where there is a new use or a change of use; or an existing use is improved or remodeled in a value of 25% or more of the valuation of the principal structure as reflected on the property appraiser's current records, or if an amendment is required to an existing approved site plan; or a parking lot requires additional landscaping pursuant to the provisions of Article 3, Division 14. The landscape plan shall include the following information, if not otherwise required in conjunction with the application for development approval: �ocation, size, description, specifications and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, including �otanical and common names. "sting trees on-site and immediately adjacent to the site, by species, size and location, including drip line. Interior landscape areas hatched and/or shaded and labeled and interior landscape coverage, expressed both in square feet, exclusive of perimeter landscaped strips, and as a percentage of the paved area coverage of the parking lot and vehicular use areas. Location of existing and proposed structures and improvements, including but not limited to sidewalks, walls, fences, pools, patios, dumpster pads, pad mounted transformers, fire hydrants, overhead obstructions, curbs, water lines, sani ry sewer lines, storm drains, seawalls, utility easements, treatment of all ground surfaces, and any other features tj� t may influence the proposed landscape. t�" Location of parking areas and other vehicular use areas, including parking spaces, circulation aisles, interior landscape islands and curbing. �� ❑ Drainage and retention areas, including swales, side slopes and bottom elevations. Dd Delineation and dimensions of a�l required perimeter landscaped buffers including sight triangles, if any. Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 5 of 8 Revised 01l12 LL S�'� e" 0.;:.. o�� a$: Planning & Development Department �� ,a� ��r Flexible Development Application � General Applicability Criteria PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPQNSES TO EACH OF THE SIX (6) GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA EXPLAtNING HOW, IN DETAII, THE CRITERION IS BEING COMPLIED WITH PER THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. SEE EXHIBIT "C" 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. SEE EXHIHIT "C" 3. The proposed development wiil not adversely affect the health or safety or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. SEE EXHIBIT "C" 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. SEE EXHIBIT "C" 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. SEE EXHIBIT "C" 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. SEE EXAIBIT "C" Planning 8� Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727•562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 6 of 8 Revised 01/12 LL �s. �'`�`me::. � � � r�at�r >� �� :,�: U Planning & Development Department Flexible Development Application Flexibility Criteria PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO THE APPLICABLE FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR THE SPECIFIC USE(5} BEING REQUESTED AS SET FORTH IN THE ZONING DISTRICT(S) IN WHICH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED. EXPLAIN HOW, IN DETAII, EACH CRITERION IS BEING COMPLIED WITH PER THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL (USE SEPARATE SHEETS AS NECESSARY). See Exhibit "D" 1. 3. 4. 5. 6. 8. Planning 8 Development Department,lQO S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562•4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 7 ot S Revised 01/12 �.b o �.�, .rys rwater ,. .., Planning & Development Department Flexible Development Application � Affidavit to Authorize Agent/Representative 1. Provide names of all property owners on deed — PRINT fuli names: �� T�� ,� � �.� �`i ;�et��, t� ,1�w�1 _. - 2. That (I am/we are) the owner(s) and record title holder(s} of the following described property: / /�f p ,, � r-:.� �[''i ,, /' , `" j i. ��!`T ?`� ,�:�/`,- �'/� . ��1�<."f'l� 4�., ft l �dt / ��_ : i-' c �-f 3. That this property constitutes the property for which a request for (describe request): Please see Exhibit "B" 4. That the undersigned (has/have) appointed and (does/do) appoint: MacParlane, Ferguson 6 McMullen as (his/their) agent(s) to execute any petitions or other documents necessary to affect such petition; 5. That this affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act on the above described property; 6. That site visits to the property are necessary by City representatives in order to process this application and the owner authorizes City representatives to visit and photograph the property described in this application; 7. That (I/wej, the undersigned authority, hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. ,.� . { � �_._. � Property Owner Property Owner STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS Property Owner Property Owner BEFORE ME THE UNDERSIGNED, AN OFFICER DULY COMMISSIONED BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ON THIS � r/ � � � DAY OF s-= tJ �- �- �� t � , PERSONALLY APPEARED �� FP l._�� [� ,✓�f �-� G�°��` f i�(.`> WHO HAVING BEEN FIRST DULY SWORN DEPOSED AND SAYS THAT HE/SHE FULLY UNDERSTANDS THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT THAT HE/SHE SIGNED. �. �S1`K� ��y� Notary Public State af F!orida ? � Bri�n U Laytan �� • My Commission EE172079 � ''�� o� Expires 07/13/2015 "�J'a,�✓SP�l'�.�t./�J^v'�,/'� Notary Seal/Stamp ,, , � .., � _�t < �; .. . ", u... l L. . -.... r; { • � ' �. . �� \_. Notary Public Signature'� ., f . ,; My Commission Expires: �` � '� -' d" '�F Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 8 of 8 Revised 01/12 EXHIBIT "A'° LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL 1: LOT 1 OF "STUDEBAKER'S", A SUBDIVI5ION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 92, PAGE 39, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FL�RIDA. PARCEL 2: TOGETHER WITH NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENTS BENEFITING PARCEL 1, CONTAINED IN MUTUAL AND RECIPROCAL EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS AND CROSS-PARHING RECORDED MAY 14, 1986, IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 6226, PAGE 1321; AS AFFECTED BY FIRST MODIFICATION THERETO RECORDED NOVEMBER 5, 1986, IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 6354, PAGE 260; AND BY SECOND MODIFICATION THERETO RECORDED NOVEMBER 8, 1988, IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 6872, PAGE 1462, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA. EXHIBIT "B" TO FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR COMPREHEN5IVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Description of Site: The subject property is the former Tampa Tribune Building, located at 2560 Gulf to Bay Boulevard. The applicant proposes change the use of the Building from General Office to Medical Clinic. Specifically, the Applicant requests: 1. Flexible Development approval to permit the Change of Use in the Commercial (C) District, with a. a building height of 392 feet to roof deck (42.4 feet to architectural feature); b. a side (east) setback of 50.6 feet to building and 2.6 feet to asphalt parking; c. a side (west) setback of 30.8 feet to building and 0.0 feet to asphalt parking; d. a rear (north) setback of 66.9 feet to the building and 1.2 feet to asphalt parking; e. 90 parking spaces f. a side (east) landscape buffer of 2.6 feet, a rear (north) landscape buffer of 1.2 feet, a side (west) landscape buffer of 0.0 feet through the Comprehensive Landscaping Application as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.0 of the Code; Existing Use The property is the site of the former Tampa Tribune Building and currently operates as a variety of general offices. Proposed Use The Applicant proposes to change the use of the site from general offices to a Medical Clinic. There are minimal changes proposed to the site and parking for the clinic will take place in the existing onsite and offsite parking lot. EXHIBIT "C" GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA: 1) The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. The building currently exists and has been operating as various offices for numerous years. There are no proposed improvements or modifications currently proposed for the building. It is in harmony, scale, bulk, coverage, density and character with the adjacent developed properties. 2) The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or signi�cantly impair the value thereof. The office building currently exists and the change of use to an Eye Doctors Office (Medical Clinic) will not hinder or discourage the use of adjacent land. All adjacent land is developed. 3) The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or worldng in the neighborhood of the proposed use. It is proposed to change the existing office building to a professional Eye Doctors Office (Medical Clinic). 'The proposed use will not adversely affect anyone in the neighborhood. 4) The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. The current office building currently serves various different independent offices. The goal of this project is to change the use to serve an Eye Doctor's group and operate a clinic to serve their patients. The existing building currently has an existing driveway entrance and cross access agreement to the neighboring property to the west. The traffic circulation is proposed to remain as existing. 5) The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The office building currently exists and has been operating as such for numerous years. There are no proposed improvements or modifications currently proposed for the building. The site is bordered by commercial and institutional development and it is consistent with the character in this area. 6) The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. The proposed change of use from office to medical clinic would not cause any adverse effects. The professional Eye Clinic would be contained inside the building and not cause any negative visual, acoustic or olfactory affects. The hours of operation would most likely be less than the hours that the existing office building operates. EXHIBIT "D" COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT CRITERIA: 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. The proposed deviations from Code, which are discussed in detail below, are necessary and minimal deviations to Code without which the project would not be feasible at this location. The Change of Use will not modify the external building faqade or structure. Hei ht The building currently exists and it is not practical to reduce the building height to 25 feet as is required by the Code. Buildin� Setbacks/Landscape Buffers The building and site currently exist and it is not practical to increase the setbacks or buffers. There is landscaping on the site and it is proposed to be further enhanced through the Comprehensive Landscape Application. Parkin The parking currently exists on the site. There is also a parking easement from the adjacent property to the west. 91 parking spaces currently exist. It is proposed to reduce the parking by 1 space to allow for additional "green space". The code requirement is 105 spaces. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objecNves of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. A Medical Clinic is allowed in the Commercial (C) Zoning District. The site is fully developed and operating in accordance with this zoning district as Office. The Change of Use requires the Flexible Development Review due to the previously listed items which cannot be met due to existing conditions. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. The proposed project is compatible with the neighborhood, as is more particularly discussed in General Applicability Criteria 1 and Comprehensive Infill Criteria 4 below, and will not impede other development. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development. The existing development has operated in harmony with the other adjoin properties for years. The proposed development will in no way affect the adjoining properties. 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, fle�cible standard or flezible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's economic base 6y diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an ezisting 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. A Medical Clinic is permitted by the "Commercial General" land use. The Change of Use is a significant economic contributor to the City. This proposed use is an economic contributor and is an expansion of the current Eye Clinic which operates at a different location. The proposed project will generate new jobs in the City of Clearwater which will include professional services. 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 narmal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district. Flexibility is not being requested for lot width. The proposed use is a use permitted in the Commercial zoning district without this approval. The building and parking lot currently exist and the site is constrained and will require flexibility to setbacks, height and off street parking. Surrounding properties to the west, east and north are already developed. b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City. The development is existing. The use is proposed to be changed to a Medical Clinic, which is allowable in the Commercial {C) zoning district. Shared Parking between 2560 Gulf to Bay Blvd and Greek Orthodox Church of the Holy Trinity Total Shared Parking Spaces = 30 2560 Gulf to Bay has an easement to use the easternmost 30 spaces that is owned by the Church 7 days a week prior to 6pm. The office hours of the proposed Eye Clinic will be 8am - 5pm Monday through Friday. It is anticipated that they proposed Eye Clinic may utilize 25-50% of these spaces during their office hours. The Church does not use these 30 spaces except on the weekends or during special events and sometimes after 6pm during the week. There is not anticipated to be any overlap in usage. � 0 � FLD2014-04012 — 2560 Gulf to Bay Boulevard ELEVATION VIEWS NORTH ELEVATION � . �:. �., , M,. . .� . �-. _ .:. � �w. �w, a,� ,� ._ , . „�,� � �� .�`��'�� ` � .�.�± ?s,.. � a �.�� w�s��a�,'��a�€u��` � x � . �`��, f . �.� � fq . . �+*��+� � '� _ � �v� ,��-.+� y�,� � �'�< < � ��.� i �;� � � � - . ' �` � «. „a�.�i�.�wvt ��.?°�' � ' : . �. � w# v't�'.� t .: Y ��tt�p 4 � �_ . .� . . ... . . S ' �uJC 4 �:' °�� ` ��LNi"'�t,w�a.��d � .�„�� WEST ELEVATION (OVERALL) WEST ELEVATION (FROM SOUTH END TO NORTH END) x,��, :� r� rR�Bra,-� SOUTH EAST BUILDING HEIGHT = 39.2' MATERIALS = STUCCO & MASONRY � Mayberry Tree Consulting LLC Tree Inventory/Gulf — to - Bay Clearwater, Florida . April 19, 2014 Prepared bv: Alan Mayberry, Consulting Arborist ISA Certified Arborist #SO-0305 Tree Risk Assessment Qualification Prepared for: Deuel and Associates The following report is submitted by Alan Mayberry, Consulting Arborist, and includes findings that I believe are accurate based on my education, experience and knowledge in the field of Arboriculture. My findings are clinical in nature and based on scientific research in the field of Arboriculture. In addition, my findings are based on personal observations of over 30 years of experience in the broad field of Arboriculture. I have no interest personally or financially in this property other than the preparation of this report and I believe my report is factual and unbiased. The purpose for this report is to conduct an assessment of trees at the subject property in respect to their health and structure and considerations for preservation potential. Tree Inventory and Site Overview The following tree inventory provides an overall condition rating for trees and palms defined as protected species by the provisions of City of Clearwater Code. The inventory also includes species that are identified as Category one or two invasive species in the Florida Exotic Pest Plant council's (FLEPPC) 2011 invasive species list. Protected trees 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, trees located within 25' of the property lines are evaluated for the overall condition rating. This site contains a mixture of live oak (Quercus virginiana) and laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) trees that were planted to meet landscape codes when the site was developed. Several of the trees were planted in ill-advised locations and have grown too large for the space they occupy. Several trees are growing just outside the boundaries of this property and are in need of maintenance as their canopies are growing too low over the vehicular use areas. Trees in this category will be noted in the tree inventory. An area on the adjacent site that abuts this property to the east contains a proliferation of the category one invasive exotic Woman's tongue tree (Albizia lebbeck). This area is just east of the east property line. If possible, these trees should be removed as they are growing into the subject property and will continue to reproduce. In addition, they will grow farge and their branches and root systems will cause � future maintenance problems. I recommend contacting the adjacent property owner and 1 • informing them of the situation and requesting that they remove the trees before their branches and root systems cause damage to the site. These trees will be noted in the tree inventory. Off-site tree. See note #1 above. The following tree inventory rates each tree using an overall condition rating that measures the quality of the trees health and structure and to a lesser degree the tree's aesthetic contribution to the site. The overall condition ratings range from 0(a dead tree) to 6(a specimen quality tree). Increments of 0.5 are used for accuracy. A tree rated 3.0 is an average tree that has sufficient health and structure to warrant consideration for preservation. A tree rated 2.5 is slightly below average but may improve with minor remedial maintenance. Trees that are rated 2.0 or less are recommended for removal. Trees rated 4.0 and above are high quality trees that warrant consideration for site plan modifications to incorporate them into the site. The tree inventory includes specific arboricultural terminology justifying the overall condition rating. The Tree Inventory Data section that follows the tree inventory provides a more thorough explanation of the rating system and how individual trees are scored and evaluated. The following notes preceding the tree inventory contain information relative to understanding the tree inventory in general and understanding specific recommendations that appear in the tree inventory. • The methodology for conducting this tree assessment is defined in the arboricultural industry as a Visual Tree Assessment (VTA). Trees are assessed by visual observation of the foliage, major scaffold branches, secondary branches, the trunk and portions of the root system that are visible. NOTE: A tree inventory is typically valid for 3-5 years. However, events such as drought, lightning, mechanical root damage, freeze, improper maintenance and severe storms can downgrade the rated value of a tree. Conversely, remedial maintenance can upgrade the value. If you suspect that a tree has been adversely affected, have the tree inspected by a qualified International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist. NOTE: Whenever possible it is advised to adhere to inventory recommendations when selecting trees to be preserved. For example, trees or palms rated 4.0 and higher are strong candidates to be considered for preservation, while trees or palms rated 2.0 and lower should be removed unless otherwise noted in the inventory. Trees or palms rated 2.5 are generally recommended for removal unless remedial work is performed to upgrade them. Trees or palms rated 3.0 and 3.5 are average trees that have good potential and are worthy of preservation efforts. NOTE: Tree size references trunk diameter in inches for trees (measured at 4.5' above grade unless the tree forks below that point - then the diameter is measured at the narrowest area between grade and the fork. Patm species are measured in feet of clear trunk (the distance in • feet from grade to where the first frond emanates from the trunk. 2 • NOTE: Any references in the following tree inventory recommending tree pruning should only be performed by International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborists skilled in pruning to the standards defined in the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) publication, ANSI-A300 Part 1: Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Maintenance — standards Practices, Pruning and the International Society of Arboriculture's companion publication: Best Management Practices, Tree Pruning (Revised 2008). NOTE: Any reference to future monitoring of trees or further inspections of trees should only be performed by ISA Certified Arborists who have verifiable proof that they have attended and received CEU's (continuing educational units) in ISA supported tree hazard risk assessment seminars. NOTE: Any recommendations for cabling and bracing of trees in this tree inventory should only be performed by ISA Certified Arborists skilled in this arboricultural practice and in 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 April 19, 2014 The following tree inventory starts with tree #540 and ends with tree #574. Trees located on adjacent properties within 25' of the subject property will be noted as such in the comment section of the tree inventory. All trees inventoried will be tagged with numbered aluminum tags with the exception of trees on adjacent properties and palms. Tree Inventory Tree # Size Species Ratin� 540. 21" laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) 3.0 Comments: This tree is growing in a large green area at the northeast corner of the property. The structure is very good and the health is above average. The canopy has been subjected to • pruning to clear branches from adjacent overhead wires to the east and from a power pole 3 � with a transformer located southwest of the trunk and within the island. Several branches have been stubbed off. The tree will need continued pruning due to the position of the poles and wires but the tree has sufficient structure and overall health to warrant preservation. Recommend pruning to maintain adequate clearance from utility wires and over grade and remove all stubs. Recommend preservation. 541. 27" (est.) live oak (Quercus virginiana) 4.0 Comments: Off-site tree. Diameter was estimated as this tree was growing within a locked fenced in area. Raise canopy a minimum of 15' above the vehicular use area. 542. 32"' live oak (Quercus virginiana) 3.5 Comments: Off-site tree. Raise canopy a minimum of 15' above the vehicular use area. 543. 19" live oak (Quercus virginiana) 3.5 Comments: Off-site tree. Raise canopy a minimum of 15' above the vehicular use area. 544. 33" live oak (Quercus virginiana) 4.0 • Comments: Off-site tree. 545. 17" Comments: Off-site tree. • live oak (Quercus virginiana) � 546. 16" live oak (Quercus virginiana) 3.0 Comments: Off-site tree. Raise canopy a minimum of 15' above the vehicular use area. 547. 11" Comments: Off-site tree. 548. 16" Comments: Off-site tree. 549. 14" Comments: Off-site tree. laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) live oak (Quercus virginiana) live oak (Quercus virginiana) 4 2.0 2.5 � • 550. 21" live oak (Quercus virginiana) 3.0 Comments: This tree has good structure but its health is average as the crown is slightly thinning and the leaves are under-sized. The declining health is likely due to compacted soils and lack of water due to surrounding impervious area. Recommend the removal of all deadwood 1" and greater in diameter and raise the canopy a minimum of 15' clearance above the vehicular use area. Recommend preservation. 551. 7" laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) 2.0 Comments: This tree has poor overall structure and health. The crown is anemic and dieback is present in the crown. Recommend removal. 552. 29" live oak (Quercus virginiana) 4.0 Comments: The tree has good structure and health. In addition, the tree has a spreading symmetrical crown. This is the best site tree. Recommend the removal of all deadwood 1" and greater in diameter and raise the canopy a minimum of 15' clearance above the vehicular use area and 10' over the adjacent sidewalk. If possible increase the green space around this tree. Recommend preservation. • 553. 22" laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) 2.0 Comments: This tree has very poor structure as the trunk forms included codominant scaffold branches. The tree has a significant wound with decay on the south side of the trunk 7' above grade where the codominant is attached. The north codominant has a large area of decay 15' above grade. In addition, the tree is located on a raised landscape island adjacent to a parking drive that prohibits proper root development to the west. Recommend removal. 554. 27' C.T. sabal palm (Sabal palmetto) 4.0 Comments: This tree has a minor trunk restriction but is healthy with an appealing curved trunk. Recommend preservation. 555. 14" woman's tongue (Albizia lebbeck) 1.5 Comments: This tree appears to be on the property line. The trunk forms a codominant trunk 1' above grade which has a wound with decay spreading into the codominant area. Also, 25' above grade the leader broke and decay will affect remaining branch likely leading to future branch failure. This tree is also a noxious invasive species. Survey to determine ownership and remove this tree if it is on the subject property. 556. 24" laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) 2.0 � 5 • Comments: This tree has a large wound with decay 6' above grade on the west side of the trunk where the tree needs tension wood for support. The tree is essentially one-sided and leaning to the east and needs sound tension wood for support. The tree has little root flare and the adjacent building acts as a root barrier prohibiting adequate support. As this tree is a weak compartmentalizing species and as the decay is progressive and as this tree lacks response growth, I recommend removal. 557. 27" live oak (Quercus virginiana) 2.5 Comments: The trunk of this tree forms a codominant 7' above grade that is slightly included. The codominant scaffold branches are growing in a twisting fashion and as the tree is relatively young they will grow against each other and cause internal fracture. The tree is healthy but the live crown ratio is only 30%. Consequently, there is little structural pruning that can be performed to reduce the aspect ratio of the branches and mitigate the inclusion. The foundation of the building is located 5' from the trunk and acts as a root barrier; a factor that will contribute to instability as the tree grows larger. As this tree has poor structure and an inadequate rooting area, I recommend removal. 558. 30" laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) 2.0 Comments: This tree was topped when it was younger. The tree has several large wounds that • lack woundwood development most likely due to low energy levels after the tree was topped. The laurel oak tree is a weak compartmentalizing species and the tree witl not be able to solve the decay issue. In addition, the tree has a weak extended branch and is located in an island that is too small. Recommend removal. NOTE #1: The remaining trees are off-site trees and contain a quantity of the category one invasive exotic Woman's tongue trees (Albizia lebbeck). If possible, the Woman's tongue trees should be removed as they are growing into the subject property and will continue to reproduce and produce seedlings that will cause maintenance issues in the existing landscape buffer. In addition, the existing trees will grow large and cause future maintenance problems as branches grow into the site and low over vehicular use areas and as the root systems uplift asphalt. I recommend contacting the adjacent property owner and informing them of the situation and requesting that they remove the trees before the branches and root systems cause damage to the site. 559. 11" woman's tongue (Albizia lebbeck) 1.5 Comments: Off-site tree. See note #1 above. 560. 10" woman's tongue (Albizia lebbeck) 2.0 • Comments: Off-site tree. See note #1 above. 0 i � � 561. 8, 8, 9" woman's tongue (A/bizia lebbeck) Comments: Off-site tree. See note #1 above. 562. 8" woman's tongue (Albizia /ebbeck) Comments: Off-site tree. See note #1 above. 563. 24" live oak (Quercus virginiana) Comments: Off-site tree. 564. 35" live oak (Quercus virginiana) Comments: Off-site tree. 565. 5" woman's tongue (Albizia /ebbeck) Comments: Off-site tree. See note #1 above. 566. 5" woman's tongue (Albizia lebbeck) Comments: Off-site tree. See note #1 above. 567. 7" woman's tongue (A/bizia lebbeck) Comments: Off-site tree. See note #1 above. 568. 5" woman's tongue (A/bizia /ebbeck) Comments: Off-site tree. See note #1 above. 569. 8" woman's tongue (A/bizia lebbeck) Comments: Off-site tree. See note #1 above. 570. 5" woman's tongue (Albizia lebbeck) Comments: Off-site tree. See note #1 above. 571. 7" woman's tongue (Albizia lebbeck) Comments: Off-site tree. See note #1 above. 7 2.0 2.0 3.5 3.5 � 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 • 572. 14' C.T. sabal palm (Saba/ palmetto) 3.0 Comments: Off-site tree. � • 573 20' C.T. Queen palm (Syagrus romanzoffiana) 2.0 Comments: This palm has a small anemic crown and a trunk restriction. The queen palm has very low wind resistance and is subject to failure during hurricane events as it is weakly rooted. Recommend removal due to condition and species characteristics; however, if aesthetic contribution to the site is desired, this palm could be preserved as it has a small crown and the wind sail effect is minimal. 574. 25' C.T. Queen palm (Syagrus romanzoffiana) 2.0 Comments: This palm has also has a small anemic crown and a trunk restriction. Recommend removal due to condition and species characteristics; however, if aesthetic contribution to the site is desired, this palm could be preserved as it has a small crown and the wind sail effect is minimal. This concludes the tree inventory Treelnventory 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 structural strength 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 vs. several branches emanating from the same area on the trunk, codominant stems vs. single leader trunk, presence of branch collars vs. included bark. Elements of systemic health relate to the tree's overall energy system measured by net photosynthesis (food made) vs. respiration (food usedj. A tree with good systemic health will have a vascular system that moves water, nutrients and photosynthate around 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 i.e., 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. 2— A tree exhibiting serious structural defects such as codominant stems with included bark at or near the base, large cavities, large areas of decayed wood, crown dieback, cracked/split scaffold branches etc. In addition, a tree with health issues such as low energy, low live crown ratio, serious disease or insect problems, nutritional deficiencies or soil pH problems. A tree with a rating of #2 should be removed unless the problem(s) can be treated. A tree with a#2 condition rating will typically require a considerable amount of maintenance to qualify for an upgrade of the condition rating. 3- A tree with average structure and systemic health and with problems that can be corrected with moderate maintenance. A tree with a codominant stem not in the basal area that will be subordinated or cabled and braced or a codominant stem that will soon have included bark can be included as a#3. A tree with a rating of #3 has average appearance, crown density and live crown ratio and should be preserved if possible. 4- A tree with a rating of 4 has good structure and systemic heatth 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. 0 • 5— A tree with live crown ratio of at least 60%, very good crown density, exceptional structure and systemic health and virtuatly free of 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. • 10 ��:- � �.�. . - Southeast Elevation View .;, �:;: .�. ;t �,�.�.�.�--,.: . -: _... _�Y .r. _ , . .,,�.»..� ...� _ 5��. � ; �_y^ e " ��'' i �a9. a..s.,�':�,�'#�:. w � 4 q . . 1�� K � � �,� a �W i :i F . �� S� � � �„ L 1f y. `.. • 1,�" ;r � .�..,. , . .. y i s.. y�,.,�,�� -� L �� ; n� � � ;- E �� x �.t.�'�! �r `'�'� t��. � . , � r ,rtg .� � ... � � � # < � �,� �. y � �� ' fs,ti h 1 �.rfi �*. �; �` p il '� �`�' I �� "� � � w� ��-�e, � . '!�r< t�r ;; �i' "_ � � � �.,�f� "� � ,'� ' „t �.,. ..� ��- �;;� � ',Ayy .� ` _, "'s , �: � � .� �- i��<. q ,�",s.P . , ,,4.:i y 4,a� /�' : i �r� `. � , �.`,„j � , ;� , ,,r�, w_ ., �- ,, � ",.tL '� {i 1 F �RI �'� + d ',,ti,�,y�Ap�. h .r� j. ,., ii '�i� 4. r+ .� : , �� `"� ��' - � +°�'"� T�1�'"'i" � ci y��["r1 y 'a jr ,� ; �"` � � � � ��. �• Y`�+.�.+1 / � yrm� : ' � J, ¢��f'+� 4 �' d �,� � s' -�"1�-� .. � - '�,p � � „t.`,.� ; �i�� d''�"..� � `,°�r..c � a" ,,.� �:.y �+5n.'.. ,�LS. r �'hy' �' � �r" , . .,'��'IC�i. � s;�r r '��yR_ •;_ ' �� r. .i��. y/ w ��. +�, . . ,� ;. .. �I�M±��' F � y � '� 1 . • d ��y � � . T ' i ' r � , ..; � , ��:� _ ✓'� ° ° . . -t>��: � s, — I�III�'' � � =� � , , _ , �i r . �'�x�*a^'x� •P��-t� '� -�.� �. ' - , . ..., m.,-� "` �� r «� . � � '.°" . �, .��s� ` :�*zb,. s �o �:.. °.- "' i' . . . .. . . �. . , , .. . .. . . .. .. a�' `"N"'� . ,. . . ... .-., . , Q • � �� ,� � ��. '�,� ��' � 1 Planning & Development Department Comprehensive Landscaping Application IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT COMPLETE AND CORRECT INFORMATION. ANY MISLEADING, DECEPTIVE, INCOMPLETE OR INCORRECT INFORMATION MAY INVALIDATE YOUR APPLICATION. ALL APPLICATIONS ARE TO BE FILLED OUT COMPLETELY AND CORRECTLY, AND SUBMITTED IN PERSON (NO FAX OR DELIVERIES) TO THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY NOON ON THE SCHEDULED DEADLINE DATE. A TOTAL OF 11 COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS (1 ORIGINAL AND 10 COPIES) AS REQUIRED WITHIN ARE TO BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE. SUBSEQUENT SUBMIITAL FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, IF NECESSARY, WILL REQUIRE 15 COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS (l ORIGINAI AND 14 COPIES). PLANS AND APPLICATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COLLATED, STAPLED AND FOLDED INTO SETS. THE APPLICANT, BY FILING THIS APPLICATION, AGREES TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. PROPERTY OWNER (PER DEED): 2560 Gulf to Bay Blvd., LLC MAILING ADDRESS: 630 Chestnut Street, Clearwater, FL 33756 PHONE NUMBER: EMAIL: AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE: MAILING ADDRESS: J. Paul Raymond, Macfarlane, Ferguson & McMullen P. O. Box 1669, Clearwater, FL 33757 PHONE NUMBER: 727 441-8966 EMAIL: 1Pr@macfar.com ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Specifically idenNfy the request (include alf requested code flexibility,• e.g., reduction in required num6er of parking spoces, height, setbacks, Iot size, lot width, specific use, etc.): 2560 Gulf to Bay Blvd., Clearwater, FL See Exhibit "B" STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS o_, ,; �_ I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all Sworn to and subscribed before me this -' %� day of representations made in this application are true and ,: L}�,. � ->�t• ';'';� , to me and/or by accurate to the best of my knowledge and authorize `�" City representatives to visit and photograph the ��f �`�' m� �� a 4'�� t.'�{ �� %� ^, who is personally known has ___ _ property described in this application. produced as identification. �____.",.�a,� '��.�____ Signature of property owner or representative �.�,J � <� . Notary public, My commission expires: % , , ' fC« it,�.t ,% J , Planning 8 Development Department,100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 1 of 2 Revised 01/12 � �o�'' °�4 Notary Public S2ate of F!orida ; Brian d Layton � � = -, �; My Cammission FE�1207s '?oF f�o Expires C'7113/2015 ��a� :�......._ «k� � 'j 'r o. ,,,�T�� C Planning & Development Department } � 1 �� omprehensive Landscaping Application � Flexibility Criteria PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO EACH OF THE FIVE (� FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA EXPLAINING HOW, IN DETAIL, THE CRITERION IS BEING COMPLIED WITH PER THIS COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPING PROPOSAL. 1. Architectural Theme: a. The landscaping in a Comprehensive Landscaping program shall be designed as a part of the architectural theme of the principal buildings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for the development. The proposed landscape design is an extension/addition to the existing well established landscaping that is present on the site and suitable forthe commercial development. OR b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscaping program shall be demonstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for development under the minimum landscape standards. The landscape design provides an appropriate theme for the commercial development. The proposed design consists of multiple layers with several different species which are all suitable for this environment. 2 Lighting. Any lighting proposed as a part of a Comprehensive Landscaping program is automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is closed. This is noted and will be adhered to. There is no additional lighting proposed. 3. Community Charocter. The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive landscape Program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater. The landscaping provides aesthetically pleasing views and utilizes plant material which are conducive to the Commercial Environment. 4. Property Values. The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscaping program will have a beneficial impact on the value of the property in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The proposed landscaping is consistent with the general theme of the area and will have a positive and beneficia� impact on the surrounding properties. 5. Specia! Area or Scenic Corridor Plan. The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program is consistent with any special area or scenic corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in which the parcel proposed for development is located. The proposed landscape design is well suited for the commercial/corridor. Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 2 of 2 Revised 01112