The URL can be used to link to this page

FLD2014-03006Property Size .................... 0.099 acres Future Land Use Plan...... Resort Facilities High (RFH) Zoning .......................... Tourist (T) District Special Area Plan .............. Beach by Design; Old Florida District; Adjacent Zoning.... North: Tourist (T) District South East. West: Existing Land Use ............. Proposed Land Use......... Institutional (I) District Tourist (T) District Tourist (T) District Vacant Land Restaurant COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD ter ear C PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ,w Wr *gym STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: May 20, 2014 AGENDA ITEM: E.4. CASE: FLD2014 -03006 REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit a Restaurant in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 4,350 square feet, a lot width of 50 feet, a front (south) setback of zero feet (to sidewalk) and 15 feet (to building), a side (west) setback of 10 feet (to building), a side (east) setback of eight feet (to building), a rear (north) setback of 16 feet (to building), a building height of 21.46 feet (to top of flat roof) and 28 feet (to top of parapet) and zero parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2 -803.1) under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3- 1202.G. GENERAL DATA: Agent ........................... James E. Wilkerson, AIA Applicant/ Owner ............. Mathura Properties 95, LLC Location .......................... 22 Bay Esplanade; north side of Bay Esplanade approximately 95 feet west of Mandalay Avenue Property Size .................... 0.099 acres Future Land Use Plan...... Resort Facilities High (RFH) Zoning .......................... Tourist (T) District Special Area Plan .............. Beach by Design; Old Florida District; Adjacent Zoning.... North: Tourist (T) District South East. West: Existing Land Use ............. Proposed Land Use......... Institutional (I) District Tourist (T) District Tourist (T) District Vacant Land Restaurant deawat Level II Flexible Development Application Review � '" *•w� » r " ""' ! �O�///i/�lll/ll / / / / / / / / / / / / /( %/ rill / /ii % % %`��,, , ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 0.099 acre site is located on the north side of Bay Esplanade approximately 95 feet west of Mandalay Avenue and has 50 feet of frontage. The property is zoned Tourist (T) District and is currently vacant. The site is located within the special area redevelopment plan, Beach by Design, as part of the "Old Florida" District which is an area of transition between resort uses to the south and the low intensity residential neighborhoods to the north of Acacia Street. The preferred form of development is a mix of uses primarily including new overnight accommodations and attached dwellings throughout the District with limited retail/commercial and mixed use development fronting Mandalay Avenue between Bay Esplanade and Somerset Street. To ensure that the scale and character of development in "Old Florida" provides the desired transition between the adjacent tourist and residential areas, enhanced site design performance is a priority, including greater setbacks. The immediate vicinity is composed of a municipal park and parking lot, hotels, retail sales and services, restaurants, municipal fire station and an automobile service station. Structures in the area vary in height between one and three stories, and generally resemble architecture from the 1950's. Site History: The subject property has been vacant since 1994 when three, one - story, 600 SF wood frame cottages of the former Sea Breeze Cottages were demolished. The parcel is located directly across the street from the current day Mandalay Park, which was previously referred to as Rockaway Park and Clearwater Beach Park. The park is bounded by Bay Esplanade to the north, Mandalay to the east, Rockaway to the south and Municipal parking lot 436 to the west and is the location of PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION GLENDALE ST ROYA L'WAY PROJECT SITE j 1 � t � 1 BAY ESPLANADE n -! z - .._.._.._.. - co J a ROCKAWAY ST (� LOCATION MAP cv I cv 4 <v cv Zn 8' 0 - - -- AVALON 4T 608 602 2610 N N cv 111 AN ffd WA V M NDALL ST U, ?� 603 Q Q ,q r 580 Z -. on ° N n &01 Ink BAYESPLANADE f. sm I I osm ZONING MAP NN N NP)810 AVALON ST � F m N •�4NN N 845 ANT.S OVERNIGHT MCKAY PARK ACCOMMOPATIONS KENDALL ST - - -. - - -. - -_ JUANITA WAY a F u } BG s In v Z J WC _ W 41 M Lu w C1 X ate, W ° rry N ...; SG" W o BAYESPLAP,iA&L MANDALAY PARK, MUNICIPAL PARKING AND GOVERNMENTAL USE =$ } EXISTING SURROUNDING USES MAP Community Development Board May 20, 2014 FLD2013 -11041 —Page 1 PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT dea wat Level II Flexible Development A pp lication Review DEVELOP IE NT REVIEW DIVISION ✓ " *. '°," i w rN, ! �O�///i/�lll/ll / / / / / / / / / / / / /( %/ rill / /ii % % %`��,, , Fire Station 446. On October 19, 2010 a Development Order was issued for FLD2010 -08001 approving the "Da Scoop" Ice Cream restaurant. The approval included a proposed 1,500 square foot, one story building with seating for 24 customers, zero parking spaces and building permit, BCP2011- 03212, was issued on June 21, 2013 for the site work and construction. That permit has now expired and the new building design will accommodate building code and flood area "AU construction requirements. Additionally, the current application has been submitted due to a change in franchising to a Dairy Queen. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no active Code Compliance cases for the subject property. Development Proposal: The proposed 1,250 square foot restaurant, elevated on wooden pilings in order to comply with the base flood elevation requirements, includes an outdoor deck with seating for approximately 15 customers. The main entrance to the restaurant will be accessed via the outdoor stairs leading to the deck area; a lift for handicap accessibility will be provided. All customer accessible areas will be located within the elevated portion of the building. The ground level portion under the building will only feature the trash dumpster enclosure. The proposal does not include on -site parking and it is anticipated that the majority of customer base will come from those already visiting and /or staying at the beach rather than serving as a destination in and of itself. FRONT EL_EVATI N (SHORE PERPENDIGU ,Aft.) Proposed Dairy Queen, Bay Esplanade fagade. Community Development Board May 20, 2014 FLD2013 -11041 —Page 2 PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT dea wat Level II Flexible Development A pp lication Review DEVELOP IE NT REVIEW DIVISION ✓ " *. '°," i w rN, ! �O�///i/�lll/ll / / / / / / / / / / / / /( %/ rill / /ii % % %`��,, , Special Area Plan: Beach by Design: Old Florida The City has demonstrated through the creation of Beach by Design and subsequent amendments to this plan that it recognizes the need for pedestrian - friendly development in order to create a vibrant active resort and waterfront destination serving tourists and locals alike. It is understood that a broad range of uses including retail sales and service, hotels and motels and restaurants contribute to the creation of the unique character and atmosphere that is Clearwater Beach. This district is identified as a transition area between the resort uses to the south and the low intensity residential areas to the north. Beach by Design supports the development of limited retail/commercial and mixed use developments with enhanced site design performance being a priority. The following criteria are applicable to properties located within the "Old Florida" district and supersede the Design Guidelines within Beach by Design as well as the Community Development Code. 1. Maximum Building Height This section references height limitations for properties along Somerset Street. The proposed site is not on Somerset Street. It also references heights permitted for attached dwelling and overnight accommodations. The proposed use is a restaurant. Therefore, height is dictated by the CDC. 2. Minimum Required Setbacks This section provides that properties not fronting on Mandalay Avenue are to have front setbacks of 15 feet, and side and rear setbacks of 10 feet. The proposal includes side setbacks less than 10 feet however, subsection 5, below addresses this component of the proposal. 3. Required Building Stepbacks or Alternative Increase Setback for building exceeding 35 feet in height The proposed building is less than 35 feet in height and therefore this section is not applicable. 4. Flexibility of Setbacks /SteRbacks for building exceeding 35 feet in height The proposed building is less than 35 feet in height and therefore this section is not applicable. 5. Flexibility of Setbacks for building 35 feet and less in height While the required setbacks for the subject property, as noted above, are 15 feet (front) and 10 feet (side and rear) buildings equal to or less than 35 feet in height may request a reduction in front setback of up to 10 feet, and side setbacks of up to five feet. As the proposed building is less than 35 feet in height, the requested setbacks include a front (south) setback 15 feet (to building), a side (west) setback of 10 feet (to building), a side (east) setback of eight feet (to building) and a rear (north) setback of 16 feet (to building) which are consistent with the requirements of Beach by Design. 6. Landscape Buffers Community Development Board May 20, 2014 FLD2013 -11041 —Page 3 PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT dea wat Level II Flexible Development A pp lication Review DEVELOP IE NT REVIEW DIVISION The street frontage landscape buffer may be reduced to five feet for buildings with a height of 35 feet or less and the entire setback area must be landscaped. The proposed project features a building height of 28 feet and will feature a street frontage landscape buffer of 10 feet which exceeds the minimum requirement. Beach by Design does not require landscape buffer areas along the side and rear portions of the site. The proposed project will include a five foot landscape buffer along each of the side setbacks and the rear setback which exceeds the requirement of Beach by Design. 7. Parking /Vehicular Access The proposed project does not include on -site parking provisions and the applicant has provided a Traffic Demand Study as part of the application submittal. The results of the study have been accepted by the Engineering Department. The study determined that eight spaces would be required by the proposed use at the peak time period where in the immediate area there are 388 spaces. Additionally, it is anticipated that this type of use will not be a destination location but rather will draw from existing customer populations already located within the immediate area. Beach by Design: Section VII Design Guidelines: Beach by Design provides that the implementation of the document involves more than community redevelopment initiatives, it also involves private development and redevelopment that conforms to design objectives and principles established in Beach by Design. These objectives and principles will help the City promote safety, encourage cleanliness, and provide a comfortable environment. It should be noted that any issue not addressed in the Design Guidelines shall be governed by the requirements of the CDC. Furthermore, the Design Guidelines are intended to be administered in a flexible manner to achieve the highest quality built environment for Clearwater Beach. Section A specifically addresses the issue of density. The proposal includes a restaurant with 1,205 square feet of floor area within a one -story building. The maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.0 allows up to 4,350 square feet of floor area. The proposal is consistent with Beach by Design and the CDC with regard to density and FAR. Section B specifically addresses height and is delineated in three subsections. Section B.1 provides that a height of up to 150 feet may be permitted where additional density is allocated to the development either by TDRs, or via the Destination Resort Density Pool pursuant to the CRD designation, or via the Hotel Density Reserve where the subject property is located between South Gulfview Boulevard and the Gulf of Mexico or on the west side of Coronado Drive. Otherwise, height is governed by the specific Beach by Design district or, lacking such direction, the CDC. The proposal provides for a building 28 feet in height. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this provision. Section B.2 requires that portions of any structures which exceed 100 feet are spaced at least 100 feet apart. This section also includes overall separation requirements for structures over 100 feet in height as two options: (1) no more than two structures which exceed 100 feet within 500 feet; or (2) no more than four structures which exceed 100 feet within 800 feet. Community Development Board May 20, 2014 FLD2013 -11041 —Page 4 PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT dea wat Level II Flexible Development A pp lication Review DEVELOP IE NT REVIEW DIVISION Since no portion of the proposed building exceeds 100 feet in height this section is not applicable to the proposal. Section B.3 provides that the floorplate of any portion of a building that exceeds 45 feet in height is limited as follows: a) Between 45 feet and 100 feet the floorplate will be no greater than 25,000 square feet except for parking structures open to the public; and, b) Between 100 feet and 150 feet, the floorplate will be no greater than 10,000 square feet; and, c) Deviations to the above floorplate requirements may be approved provided the mass and scale of the design creates a tiered effect and complies with the maximum building envelop allowance above 45 feet as described in Section C. 1.4 of the Design Guidelines. Since no portion of the proposed building exceeds 100 feet in height this section is not applicable to the proposal. Section C addresses issues relating to design, scale and building mass. These topics are quantified in six parts as follows: Section C.1 requires buildings with a footprint of greater than 5,000 square feet or a single dimension greater than 100 feet to be constructed so that no more than two of the three building dimensions in the vertical or horizontal planes are equal in length. The proposed building footprint is approximately 1,205 square feet and no plane of the building extends for more than 50 feet. Therefore, this section is not applicable to the proposal. Section C.2 requires no plane or elevation to continue uninterrupted for greater than 100 feet without an offset of more than five feet. No portion of the building facade continues for more than 50 feet in length. Therefore, this section is not applicable to the proposal. Section C.3 requires at least 60 percent of any elevation (with elevation being defined as that portion of a building that is visible from a particular point outside the parcel proposed for development) to be covered with windows or architectural decoration. The primary facades visible from offsite are the south and east facades. An extensive use of windows, awnings and other architectural features occupy more than 60 percent of either of these two facades. Therefore, this provision is supported by the proposal. Section C.4 provides that no more than 60 percent of the theoretical maximum building envelope located above 45 feet will be occupied by a building. The maximum building height will be 28 feet therefore; this section is not applicable to the proposal. Section C.5 requires that the height and mass of buildings will be correlated to: (1) the dimensional aspects of the parcel proposed for development and (2) adjacent public spaces such as streets and parks. The adjacent Bay Esplanade and Mandalay Avenue rights -of -way are approximately 80 feet in width. The building will essentially be located 15 feet from the south property line consistent with other existing structures along Bay Esplanade. Given the height of the building there should be no negative effect on adjacent public spaces. Therefore, this provision is supported by the proposal. Community Development Board May 20, 2014 FLD2013 -11041 —Page 5 PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT dea wat Level II Flexible Development A pp lication Review DEVELOP IE NT REVIEW DIVISION ✓ " *. '°," i w rN, ! �O�///i/�lll/ll / / / / / / / / / / / / /( %/ rill / /ii % % %`��,, , Section C.6 permits buildings to be designed for a vertical or horizontal mix of permissible uses. The development proposal is for a single use building. Therefore, the application is supported by this Guideline. Section D addresses the issues of sidewalk widths, setbacks and stepbacks. These topics are quantified in three parts as follows: Section D.1 provides that the distances from structures to the edge of the right -of -way should be 15 feet along arterials, and 12 feet along local streets where the proposal provides a 15 foot setback of along Bay Esplanade. In addition, decorative awnings and arcades and public balconies may extend into the public space and even into the right -of -way (provided they do not obstruct vehicular traffic). Outdoor cafe tables are also permitted in the public space, subject to the requirements in Section H, Sidewalks. The proposal maintains the existing 12 foot sidewalk along Bay Esplanade. The 15 foot building setback is appropriate given the existing pattern of development in the area and the desire to locate active uses such as restaurants adjacent to sidewalks and is supported by the Comprehensive Plan as examined in greater detail elsewhere in this report. Therefore, this Guideline is met by this proposal. Section D.2 provides that except for the side and rear setbacks set forth elsewhere in Beach by Design, no side or rear setback lines are recommended, except as may be required to comply with the City's Fire Code. The proposal includes side (west and east) setbacks of 10 feet and eight feet (to building), respectively. Therefore, this Guideline is met by this proposal. Section D.3 addresses setbacks and stepbacks along Coronado and Hamden Drives. The proposal is not located along Coronado Drive. Therefore this guideline is not applicable to the proposal. Section E addresses issues of street -level facades and the incorporation of human -scale features into the facades of buildings in three parts. Section E.1 requires that at least 60 percent of the street level facades (the portion of the building within 12 feet of grade) of buildings used for nonresidential purposes which abut a public street or pedestrian access way, will include windows or doors that allow pedestrians to see into the building, or landscaped or hardscaped courtyard or plazas, where street level facades are set back at least 15 feet from the edge of the sidewalk and the area between the sidewalk and the facade is a landscaped or hardscaped courtyard or plaza. In addition, parking structures should utilize architectural details and design elements such as false recessed windows, arches, planter boxes, metal grillwork, etc. instead of transparent alternatives. When a parking garage abuts a public road or other public place, it will be designed such that the function of the building is not readily apparent except at points of ingress and egress. The proposed building will be constructed on timber pilings to comply with building code and flood prevention requirements. The surrounding character is predominantly two -three Community Development Board May 20, 2014 FLD2013 -11041 —Page 6 PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT dea wat Level II Flexible Development A pp lication Review DEVELOP IE NT REVIEW DIVISION stories of mid - century design with strong horizontal architectural details. The placement, scale and scope of the proposed building have been designed to complement adjacent buildings. The building design incorporates an extensive use of windows, awnings and other architectural detailing on all three visible facades with special care to create a pedestrian - friendly environment on the street - facing facade. No parking spaces are provided so the portions of this section addressing parking garages do not apply to the proposal otherwise, this Guideline is met by this proposal. Section E.2 provides that window coverings, and other opaque materials may cover no more than 10 percent of the area of any street -level window in a nonresidential building that fronts on a public right -of -way. The building will not feature street -level windows and therefore, this section is not applicable. Section E.3 requires that building entrances should be aesthetically inviting and easily identified. The entrance to the building is generous in size and includes an awning. Therefore, this Guideline is met by this proposal. Section E.4 recommends the use of awnings and other structures that offer pedestrians cover from the elements especially at entryways. The applicant has included awnings along the both street frontage and at the entranceway. Therefore, this Guideline is met by this proposal. Section F addresses issues related to the treatment of parking areas. To create a well- defined and aesthetically appealing street boundary, all parking areas will be separated from public rights -of- way by a landscaped decorative wall, fence or other opaque landscape treatment of not less than three feet and not more than 3.5 in height. Parking is not included as part of the proposed project. Therefore, this Guideline is not applicable to this proposal. Section G addresses issues related to signage. A sign package has not been included with the submittal. Any proposed signage will be required to meet the requirements of this section of Beach by Design and any applicable portions of the Community Development Code. Section H addresses issues related to sidewalks (also addressed in part by Section D, above) and provides that all sidewalks along arterials and retail streets should be at least 10 feet in width. The proposal maintains the existing 12 foot sidewalk along Bay Esplanade and the sidewalk width is adequate given the existing pattern of development of the area. Therefore, this Guideline is met by this proposal. Section I addresses issues related to street furniture and bicycle racks. The project does not include any street furniture or bicycle racks. Therefore, this section is not applicable to the proposal. Section J addresses issues related to street lighting. Street lighting installed by the City already exists along Bay Esplanade. Additional street lighting is not proposed with this development. Therefore, this section is not applicable to the proposal. Community Development Board May 20, 2014 FLD2013 -11041 —Page 7 PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT dea wat Level II Flexible Development A pp lication Review DEVELOP IE NT REVIEW DIVISION Section K addresses issues related to fountains. A fountain is not proposed with this development. Therefore, this section is not applicable to the proposal. Section L addresses issues related to materials and colors. Finish materials and building colors are required to reflect Florida or coastal vernacular themes. The proposed building is indicative of the mid - century design style of architecture. Two primary exterior colors are proposed including a light sand and medium brown with two accent colors including dark brown, stainless steel and red /white stripe awnings. The proposed color scheme and material schedule meets the requirements of this section. Community Development Code ➢ Purpose, Intent and Basic Planning Objectives The proposal is supported by the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code as follows: Section 1- 103.B.1. Allowing property owners to enhance the value of their property through innovative and creative redevelopment. The 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 Bay Esplanade. The proposed restaurant is consistent with the character of the area along Bay Esplanade with regard to use and the proposal will result in a project consistent with elements of the Comprehensive Plan, as provided above. The proposed development will be consistent with required setbacks and will exceed the amount of required landscaping. 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 municipal uses consistent with the Tourist District and the redevelopment of the vacant lot into a viable restaurant use will enhance the immediate area. The surrounding land uses of hotels, retail, and municipal park, parking lot and beach areas will benefit from the addition of an ice cream restaurant within walking distance. The proposed development provides not only for a greater amount of landscaping than is required but will develop a vacant parcel of land which has sat idle since 1994 and 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 area 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 CDC 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 parcel of land which is undersized and has remained void of a viable land use since 1994. 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 tax base as a whole, the overall result will be the redevelopment of a vacant land parcel with an architecturally attractive building with enhanced landscaping improvements which will support the intent of the Community Development Board May 20, 2014 FLD2013 -11041 —Page 8 PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT dea wat Level II Flexible Development A pp lication Review DEVELOP IE NT REVIEW DIVISION standards of the CDC. The net result of the proposal will be another attractive development in the community which adds to the enhancement of surrounding properties and therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. Section 1- 103.D. It is the further purpose of this Development Code to make the beautification of the city a matter of the highest priority and to require that existing and future uses and structures in the city are attractive and well - maintained to the maximum extent permitted by law. The proposal includes a new ice cream restaurant with landscape buffers or portions thereof that are beyond the minimum required width and configuration. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed building and site plan are more attractive than what is required by the CDC as well as Beach by Design. Section 1-103.E.5. Preserve the natural resources and aesthetic character of the community for both the resident and tourist population consistent with the city's economic underpinnings. The development proposal will support both the resident and tourist populations with a Restaurant. The proposal will be consistent with regard to the desired form and function of the Old Florida District of Beach by Design and meets the Design Guidelines of that document. Therefore, the proposal supports this CDC Section. Section 2 -801 Intent of the Tourist District and Resort High Facilities FL UP classification. The CDC provides that the Tourist (T) District may be located in more than one land use category. It is the intent of the T District that development be consistent with the Countywide Future Land Use Plan as required by state law. The uses and development potential of a parcel of land within the T District shall be determined by the standards found in this Development Code as well as the Countywide Future Land Use Designation of the property, including any acreage or floor area restrictions set forth in the Rules Concerning the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as amended from time to time. For those parcels within the T District that have an area 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 2.3.3.4.6 of the Countywide Land Use Rules provides that the purpose of the Resort Facilities High (RFH) FLUP classification is to depict those areas of the county that are now developed, or appropriate to be developed, in high density residential and resort, tourist facility use; and to recognize such areas as well- suited for the combination of residential and temporary lodging use consistent with their location, surrounding uses, transportation facilities and natural resource characteristics of such areas. The proposed restaurant is consistent with the permitted secondary uses of the RFH FLUP. ➢ Development Parameters Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2- 801.1, the maximum FAR for properties with a Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) designation of Resort Facilities High (RFH) is 1.0. The proposed FAR is 0.28, which is consistent with the Countywide Plan Rules and the CDC. Community Development Board May 20, 2014 FLD2013 -11041 —Page 9 PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT dea wat Level II Flexible Development A pp lication Review DEVELOP IE NT REVIEW DIVISION ✓ " *. '°," i w rN, ! �O�///i/�lll/ll / / / / / / / / / / / / /( %/ rill / /ii % % %`��,, , Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2- 801.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.95. The existing ISR is zero and the proposed project will have an ISR of 0.30, which is consistent with the Countywide Plan Rules and the CDC. Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2 -803, 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 -802, Flexible Standard Development Standards, the required lot area and width for a restaurant is between 5,000 and 10,000 square feet and 50 and100 feet, respectively. The lot area is 4,350 square feet and the lot width is 50 feet. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2 -803, there are no minimum required setbacks for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project; however, setbacks are established in the "Old Florida" character district of Beach by Design and have been examined in detail elsewhere in this report. It should be reiterated that these requirements supersede the requirements of the CDC. While the minimum required setbacks are 15 feet (front) and 10 feet (side and rear), flexibility may be provided for buildings at or less than 35 feet in height. In such a case the front setback may be reduced to 10 feet with the side and rear setbacks reduced to five feet. The proposed building is less than 35 feet in height and the proposed front setback will be 10 feet, the side setbacks will be a minimum of five feet and the rear setback will be 16 feet which is consistent with the requirements of Beach by Design. Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2 -803, there is no maximum height for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project; however, pursuant to CDC Table 2 -802, the maximum allowable height for Restaurants can range between 35 and 50 feet. The proposed building will be a maximum of 21.46 feet (to top of flat roof) and 28 feet (to top of parapet) which is consistent with the requirements of the CDC. Minimum Off - Street Parkin Pursuant to CDC Table 2 -803, a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project shall have off - street parking requirements determined by the Community Development Coordinator. As a point of reference, pursuant to CDC Table 2 -802, a restaurant shall be required to provide between seven and 12 spaces per 1,000 GFA. Based on the requirements of CDC 2 -802, the proposed restaurant would be required to provide between eight and 15 spaces. The proposal includes zero parking spaces. The applicant has submitted a Parking Demand Study which identifies 388 parking spaces available within the immediate area and that at the peak this site will demand eight parking spaces as 65 percent of the customer base is anticipated to be walk -up. The study further identifies that the eight parking spaces are available at every peak hour on both Friday and Saturday thus the proposed development will not cause adverse impacts to the immediate and surrounding areas. Community Development Board May 20, 2014 FLD2013 -11041 —Page 10 PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT dea wat Level II Flexible Development A pp lication Review DEVELOP IE NT REVIEW DIVISION ✓ " *. '°," i w rN, ! �O�///i/�lll/ll / / / / / / / / / / / / /( %/ rill / /ii % % %`��,, , Mechanical Equipment: 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 proposed mechanical equipment will be screened behind the parapet section of the front building wall line and will not be visible from public rights -of -way or adjacent properties. Based upon the above, the development proposal is consistent with this Code provision. Sight Visibility 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. The proposed project will not include on -site vehicular access and will not impact any existing sight visibility triangles. 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 proposed to be installed 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- 1202.1), there are no perimeter buffers required in the Tourist District for this site. However, pursuant to CDC Section 3- 1202.E.2, foundation landscaping five feet in width is required. The proposed project includes a ten foot landscaped buffer along the street facing frontage, a minimum of a five foot buffer along the sides and rear of the building which complies with the CDC. Solid Waste: A fire proof structure will be constructed at grade, below the main building, which will house a secured two yard dumpster which will be fully screened from view from adjacent properties and rights -of -way. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City's Solid Waste Department. Signage: While signage has been depicted in the proposed drawings, a formal sign package has not been submitted. Therefore signage is not being reviewed as part of the current submittal and will be handled under a separate signage application. All signage will be required to meet the applicable portions of the CDC and the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design. ➢ General Applicability Criteria Requirements The proposal supports the General Applicability requirements of the CDC 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 construction of a 1,250 square foot, one -story ice cream restaurant with outdoor seating. The subject property is located within the T District on Bay Esplanade, Community Development Board May 20, 2014 FLD2013 -11041 —Page 11 PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT dea wat Level II Flexible Development A pp lication Review DEVELOP IE NT REVIEW DIVISION ✓ " *. '°," i w rN, ! �O�///i/�lll/ll / / / / / / / / / / / / /( %/ rill / /ii % % %`��,, , near the intersection with Mandalay, in the beach block directly across the street from Mandalay Park. The area features a variety of retail sales, services, overnight accommodations, restaurants and automobile oriented uses. The majority of the area buildings are one and two stories with the neighboring Palm Pavilion Hotel being three stories. The proposed raised one -story structure will blend in with the existing development pattern, scale and character of the area and therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. Section 3- 914.A.2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. Most of the immediate area is built -out and the proposed restaurant development will provide a viable use for an undersized lot which will provide an additional amenity to the existing combination of area land uses. The proposal will not impair the value of adjacent properties. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. Section 3- 914.A.3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. The proposed development will adhere to current building practices and laws with the future restaurant operations falling under the prevue of the health board further ensuring the health and safety of the customer base and immediate community. 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. The proposal has been designed to have a minimal effect on traffic congestion. It is anticipated that the site will depend on captured trips and that the customer base is anticipated to be primarily pedestrian. The Parking Demand Study has identified that there are 388 parking spaces within the immediate area and during the peak operation times of the restaurant 65 percent of the customer base will be walls -up. The proposal will not negatively impact existing traffic congestion and will in fact minimize traffic to the subject property as the majority of the customer base will be drawn from the immediate area of overnight accommodations and residential units. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 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 tourist 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. A contemporary seaside theme will be utilized through the architectural definition and building materials of the proposed structure. 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 proposed building will be designed to blend into the immediate area and will provide an additional amenity to the Community Development Board May 20, 2014 FLD2013 -11041 —Page 12 PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT dea wat Level II Flexible Development A pp lication Review DEVELOP IE NT REVIEW DIVISION existing combination of tourist oriented uses. The hours of operation will be consistent with other surrounding uses. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. ➢ Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria requirements The proposal supports the specific Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria pursuant to CDC Section 2- 803.D.1 -6 as follows: 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use and /or development standards set forth in this zoning district. The existing lot size of the subject property is 4,350 square feet which is an undersized lot within the T District and significantly limits the ability to develop the lot without deviations from the development standards. There have not been any reasonable opportunities to combine the property with adjacent properties. Since the ability to increase the size and area of the property are not possible it stands to reason that the development of the site is impractical without deviations from the developments standards set forth by the CDC. With that said, the applicant has provided for a development proportionately - scaled to the site of the site and consistent with the pattern of development in the area and as desired by Beach by Design. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. The development of the site will be consistent with a variety of Goals, Objectives and Policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of the CDC as examined in detail previously in this document. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. As mentioned, all surrounding properties are developed with a variety of commercial and tourist 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 proposed building design, orientation, landscaping and site layout is similar to adjacent properties. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of six objectives: Community Development Board May 20, 2014 FLD2013 -11041 —Page 13 PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT dea wat Level II Flexible Development A pp lication Review DEVELOP IE NT REVIEW DIVISION 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 permitted as a Flexible Standard use within the T District and is permitted by the underlying future land use category of RFH. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off - street parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district. As mentioned, surrounding properties are developed with 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 negative 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 located within the "Old Florida" character district of Beach by Design and is consistent with the established criteria of the design guidelines as examined in detail in this report. 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 Clearwater Beach. The property is located within the T 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 fenestration patterns; ■ Building step backs; and ■ Distinctive roofs forms. The proposed one -story building will be elevated approximately ten feet off the grade via wooden timber pilings in order to meet FEMA flood regulations. Although the building will be one of the first structures required to be raised on pilings in the "Old Florida" character district, the stucco veneered elevations with a flat roof, colorful awnings and horizontal banding will soften the transition to the Palm Pavilion Hotel to the west and the one -story canopy of the gas station to the east. The applicant has provided information regarding the proposed architectural design of the building will be pleasing Community Development Board May 20, 2014 FLD2013 -11041 —Page 14 PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT dea wat Level II Flexible Development A pp lication Review DEVELOP IE NT REVIEW DIVISION and the raised floor height will allow for air circulation over, around and under the structure. The building materials will include stucco, glass and prefinished /weather resistant metals. The proposed flat roof is a common roof shape that reflects consistency with surrounding residential and non - residential uses. The exterior stucco walls will feature horizontal recesses with contrasting color banding to accentuate the linear nature of the building and balance out the verticality of the structure. The building will feature awnings and deck seating which are indicative of beach life and offer a reprieve from the sun. Pedestrians are greeted with double the required landscaping leading to a wood frame stairway ascending to an elevated deck area with seating and access to the service area of the restaurant. The materials used in the deck area will be stainless steel cable and connectors which are nautical themed and tie into the seaside architecture. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. The proposed project will exceed the minimum landscaping standards by providing double the required amount of plant materials and through providing buffer areas which exceed the minimum width required by the CDC and through Beach by Design. 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 to show by substantial competent evidence that he is entitled to the approval requested. The applicant has adequately demonstrated through the submittal of substantial competent evidence that the request is entitled to the approval requested as required by CDC Section 4- 206.D.4. 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 Obiective A.3.1 All signage within the City of Clearwater shall be consistent with the Clearwater sign code, as found within the Community Development Code, and all proposed signs shall be evaluated to determine their effectiveness in reducing visual clutter and in enhancing the safety and attractiveness of the streetscape. The proposal does not include a sign package at this time. However, the applicant has committed to complying with all requirements of the CDC. Therefore, the proposal supports this Objective. Obiective A.3.2 All development or redevelopment initiatives within the City of Clearwater shall meet the minimum landscaping / tree protection standards of the Community Development Code in order to promote the preservation of existing tree canopies, the expansion of that canopy, and the overall quality of development within the City; and Policv 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. The proposed project will include landscaping which exceeds the amount required by the CDC. Community Development Board May 20, 2014 FLD2013 -11041 —Page 15 PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT dea wat Level II Flexible Development A pp lication Review DEVELOP IE NT REVIEW DIVISION Objective A.5.5 Promote high quality design standards that support Clearwater's image and contribute to its identity. Policv A.5.5.1 - 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 Tourist District and a site design generally consistent with other development in the area along Bay Esplanade. The immediate area surrounding the subject property is pedestrian- oriented with a variety of commercial uses providing amenities to the visiting tourist as well as resident of the community. The proposed project will provide upgrades to the existing vacant site and provide for an active desirable use within the established commercial area. Objective A.6.1 - The redevelopment of blighted, substandard, inefficient and /or obsolete areas shall be a high priority and promoted through the implementation of redevelopment and special area plans, the construction of catalytic private projects, city investment, and continued emphasis on property maintenance standards. In adopting Beach by Design the City recognized that large portions of the Beach could be classified as blighted, substandard and suffered from "obsolescence and age ". One of the goals of Beach by Design is to reverse this trend of disinvestment. This goal is well on the way to being met (perhaps even exceeded) in many areas of the Beach. The Old Florida District is one area that has not seen a great deal of redevelopment activity. The proposal improves an existing site with a new restaurant and should be seen as one more step in the revitalization of the Beach and supports this Objective. 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 Policv A.6.4.1 - The development or redevelopment of small parcels [less than one (1) acre] 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 small parcel, under 5,000 square feet, and as such provides for limited development and /or redevelopment options which would be consistent with the CDC. The proposed ice cream restaurant will provide a low intensity commercial amenity to the existing neighborhood. Objective A.6.6 - Tourism is a substantial element of the City's economic base and as such the City shall continue to support the maintenance and enhancement of this important economic sector. The proposed Restaurant will support the Tourist base and the proposal meets this Objective. Policv A.6.8.3 - Where appropriate, development shall provide a sense of pedestrian scale on streets through minimal front setbacks, similar building heights, street trees and proportionality of building heights to street widths. The proposal includes a new one -story building. As explored in detail previously in this document, the proposal is consistent with the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design including Community Development Board May 20, 2014 FLD2013 -11041 —Page 16 PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT dea wat Level II Flexible Development A pp lication Review DEVELOP IE NT REVIEW DIVISION ✓ " *. '°," i w rN, ! �O�///i/�lll/ll / / / / / / / / / / / / /( %/ rill / /ii % % %`��,, , those provisions addressing pedestrian scale, setbacks, stepbacks and proportionality vis -a -vis building height and street widths and supports this Policy. 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 -801.1 and 2 -803: I See analysis in Staff Report 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: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Floor Area Ratio 1.00 0.28 X 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of Impervious Surface Ratio 0.95 0.31 X Minimum Lot Area N/A 4,350 square feet (0.099 acres) X Minimum Lot Width N/A 50 feet X 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the Minimum Setbacks Front: South: N/A 15 feet to building X 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including XI Zero feet to paving visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. North: N/A 16 feet to building X Side: East: N/A 8 feet to building X West: N/A 10 feet to building X Maximum Height N/A 28 feet X Minimum Determined by the community Zero spaces XI Off - Street Parking development coordinator based on the specific use and /or ITE Manual standards I See analysis in Staff Report 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: I See analysis in Staff Report Community Development Board May 20, 2014 FLD2013 -11041 —Page 17 Consistent Inconsistent 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, X 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 XI adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons XI residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. XI 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the XI immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including XI visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. I See analysis in Staff Report Community Development Board May 20, 2014 FLD2013 -11041 —Page 17 deawat Level II Flexible Development Application Review � '" *•w� » r " ""' ! �O�///i/�lll/ll / / / / / / / / / / / / /( %/ rill / /ii % % %`��,, , COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal criteria as per CDC Section 2- 803.D. (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION with the Flexibility Project): I See analysis in Staff Report Community Development Board May 20, 2014 FLD2013 -11041 —Page 18 Consistent Inconsistent 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X 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 XI 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 XI development and improvement of surrounding properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed XI development. 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use XI 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 XI parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: • Changes in horizontal building planes; • 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 appropriate distances between buildings. I See analysis in Staff Report Community Development Board May 20, 2014 FLD2013 -11041 —Page 18 PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT dea wat Level II Flexible Development A pp lication Review DEVELOP IE NT REVIEW DIVISION ✓ " *. '°," i w rN, ! �O�///i/�lll/ll / / / / / / / / / / / / /( %/ rill / /ii % % %`��,, , COMPLIANCE WITH BEACHBYDESIGN DESIGN GUIDELINES I See analysis in Staff Report. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of April 3, 2014, 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 0.099 acre site is located on the north side of Bay Esplanade, approximately 95 feet west of Mandalay Avenue; 2. That the subject property is located within the Tourist (T) District and the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use Plan category; 3. That the subject property is located within the "Old Florida" character district of Beach by Design; 4. That the proposal is to construct a restaurant and is subject to the requisite development parameters per Article 2 Division 8 of the CDC; 5. That the site is currently a vacant parcel of land; 6. The subject property is comprised of one parcel with approximately 50 feet of frontage along Bay Esplanade; 7. The proposal includes a front (south) setback of zero feet (to sidewalk) and 15 feet (to building), a side (west) setback of 10 feet (to building), a side (east) setback of eight feet (to building), a rear (north) setback of 16 feet (to building), a building height of 21.46 feet (to top of flat roof) and 28 feet (to top of parapet) and zero parking spaces; 8. A 10 foot landscaped buffer is required along the street frontage of all properties and buildings 35 feet and below in height may be granted flexibility; the proposed project features a building with a height of 28 feet and will provide a street frontage (south) landscape buffer of 10 feet which will be landscaped; and, Community Development Board May 20, 2014 FLD2013 -11041 —Page 19 Consistent Inconsistent 1. Section A: Density. XI 2. Section B: Height. XI 3. Section C: Design, Scale and Mass of Buildings. XI 4. Section D: Setbacks. X 5. Section: Street -Level Fapdes. XI 6. Section F: Parking Areas. XI 7. Section G: Signage. XI 8. Section H: Sidewalks. XI 9. Section L Street Furniture and Bicycle Racks. N /Al 10. Section J: Street Lighting. N /AI 11. Section K Fountains. N /Al 12. Section L: Materials and Colors. XI I See analysis in Staff Report. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of April 3, 2014, 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 0.099 acre site is located on the north side of Bay Esplanade, approximately 95 feet west of Mandalay Avenue; 2. That the subject property is located within the Tourist (T) District and the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use Plan category; 3. That the subject property is located within the "Old Florida" character district of Beach by Design; 4. That the proposal is to construct a restaurant and is subject to the requisite development parameters per Article 2 Division 8 of the CDC; 5. That the site is currently a vacant parcel of land; 6. The subject property is comprised of one parcel with approximately 50 feet of frontage along Bay Esplanade; 7. The proposal includes a front (south) setback of zero feet (to sidewalk) and 15 feet (to building), a side (west) setback of 10 feet (to building), a side (east) setback of eight feet (to building), a rear (north) setback of 16 feet (to building), a building height of 21.46 feet (to top of flat roof) and 28 feet (to top of parapet) and zero parking spaces; 8. A 10 foot landscaped buffer is required along the street frontage of all properties and buildings 35 feet and below in height may be granted flexibility; the proposed project features a building with a height of 28 feet and will provide a street frontage (south) landscape buffer of 10 feet which will be landscaped; and, Community Development Board May 20, 2014 FLD2013 -11041 —Page 19 PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT dea wat Level II Flexible Development A pp lication Review DEVELOP IE NT REVIEW DIVISION ✓ " *. '°," i w rN, ! �O�///i/�lll/ll / / / / / / / / / / / / /( %/ rill / /ii % % %`��,, , 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 the Old Florida District of Beach by Design; 3. That the development proposal is consistent with the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design. 4. That the development proposal is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; 5. That the development proposal is consistent with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of the Community Development Code; 6. That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2 -801.1 and 2- 802, Community Development Code; 7. That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Table 2 -803 of the Community Development Code with regard to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project; 8. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility Criteria as per Section 2- 803.1) of the Community Development Code; 9. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level One and Two Approvals as per Section 3 -914.A of the Community Development Code; and, 10. That the application is consistent with the requirement for the submittal of substantial competent evidence as per CDC Section 4- 206.D.4 Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends APPROVAL of Flexible Development application to permit a restaurant in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 4,350 square feet, a lot width of 50 feet (along Bay Esplanade), a front (south) setback of zero feet (to sidewalk) and 15 feet (to building), a side (west) setback of 10 feet (to building), a side (east) setback of eight feet (to building), a rear (north) setback of 16 feet (to building), a building height of 21.46 feet (to top of flat roof) and 28 feet (to top of parapet) and zero parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2 -803.D and a reduction to the foundation landscape requirement on the front (south) facade from five feet to zero feet as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3- 1202.G., subject to the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: 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 all irrigation systems be connected to the City reclaimed water system where available per Clearwater Code of Ordinances, Article IX., Reclaimed Water System, Section 32.376. Community Development Board May 20, 2014 FLD2013 -11041 —Page 20 '_ vll.(�l 17 Rl��l Level II Flexible Develo ment lication Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT p �p DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DMSION L . +k�+S',k.�'P�..S `�'� ` . � . 4. That issuance of a development permit by the City of Clearwater does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the City for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law; 5. That all other applicable local, state and/or federal permits be obtained before commencement of the development; Timing Conditions 6. That application for a building permit be submitted no later than May 20, 2015, unless time extensions are granted pursuant to CDC Section 4-407; 7. That prior to the issuance of any permits all design considerations for construction within a flood zone be submitted to and approved by Staff; 8. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the Fire Department may require the provision of a Water Study performed by a Fire Protection Engineer in order to ensure that an adequate water supply is available and to determine if any upgrades are required by the developer due to the impact of the project. The water supply must be able to support the needs of any required fire sprinkler, standpipe and/or fire pump. If a fire pump is required, then the water supply must be able to supply 150 percent of its rated capacity; 9. That prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy that all required Transportation Impact Fees be paid; 10. 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; 11. 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; 12. That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the sidewalk and any associated sidewalk amenities damaged or displaced due to construction of the proposal be repaired and/or installed to the satisfaction of City Staff. That prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy a copy of an approved SWFWMD permit shall be provided to Staff; 13. That prior to the issuance of any permits, any applicable Parks and Recreation impact fees be paid; 14. That prior to the issuance of any permits all sub-standard sidewalks and sidewalk ramps adjacent to or a part of the project shall be shown on plans to be improved to meet the requirement of Local, State and/or Federal standards including ADA requirements (truncated domes per FDOT Index #304); and 15. That prior to the issuance of any permit, all requirements of the General Engineering, Traffic Engineering and Fire Departments be addressed. Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: � r�¢� ��C�'�� Melissa Hauck- Baker, AICP, Planner II AT"TACHMENTS: Photographs Community Development Board May 20, 2014 FLD2013-11041 — Page 21 0 � � . .. ,. . .. . ' 1�' ;'� i , � I �� i ��r � � � , �.. . r '` .1� n �� ` � '�, -,,i ' , , ., . . s . , :�v� - _ � . � � ::.�.. � ��.w,�� Lookine north from Bay Esplanade. m,,;f ;rv �.�,�,b northeast from Bay �,splanauc ��+i'� � _ _. - _ - - -- �� -- c; _ , — ,,, _ ._._..� - � Rt _ ,µ � :;�;;,.�.� , � .. r,. .,, � . _� .�.. _ _ _ _ MA�r_.�u , __ �� . � Looking southeast from rear ut�subject property � � _ '!ll i ' �:�;:. . •_^� � �� -,._ .• • - - ;�-- Looking south from rear of subject property. , ��,�h�:,�� ,�.,�,i,��,t trom Bay Esplanade. ��. � "° J �.:,�r � �. {:;� _. , __._.... ti„ li��i� ic�u ��t suu�cct Fyivp��rt} 22 Bay Esplanade FLD2014-03006 Melissa Hauck-Baker, AICP, NJPP 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater Florida 33756 727-562-4567 x2855 melissa.hauck-baker(u�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 Officials 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 plan reviews, site investigat�ons, report preparation, meeting attendance and presentation of iindings as relating to proposed development projects and required regulatory review procedures. � Professional Planner Consultant - March 2010 to June 2013 Melissa 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 findings 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 KE�G, 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 fndings 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 April 2001 • 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 Certifed 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) ► , 4 � 22 BAY ESPLANADE FLD2014-03006 1 DQ Corner Stone Zoning: Tourist Atlas #: 258A di� «t r�-- I �� Planning & Development Department Flexible Development Application �d Dwellings, Mixed-Uses or Non-Residential Uses 1� �, �rv�.urv�o�rv� urvi� tnc r+rr��w+n� .�, .,�........ ...,..�PLETE AND CORRECT INFORMATION. ANY MISLEADING� DECEPTIVE� INCOMPLETE OR INCORRECT INFORMATION MAY INVALIDATE YOUR APPLICATION. ALL APPLICATIONS ARE TO BE FILLED OUT COMPLETELY AND CORRECTLY, AND SUBMITTED IN PERSON (NO FAX OR DELIVERIES) TO THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY NOON ON THE SCHEDULED DEADLINE DATE. A TOTAL OF 11 COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS (1 ORIGINAL AND 10 COPIES) AS REQUIRED WITHIN ARE TO BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE. SUBSEQUENT SUBMITTAL FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD WILL REQUIRE 15 COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS (1 ORIGINAL AND 14 COPIES). PLANS AND APPLICATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COLLATED, STAPLED AND FOLDED INTO SETS. THE APPLICANT, BY FIIING THIS APPLICATION, AGREES TO COMPLY WITH ALL APP ICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CObE. D � FIRE DEPT PRELIMARY SITE PLAN REVIEW FEE: $2�0 APPLICATION FEE: $1,� � Pv" j";°? �# ^?�� j� PLANNING 8 D�VL'LO='ic�ENT QEPT � PROPERTY OWNER (PER DEED): Mathura Prope�ties #5, LLC __ CITY �F CL AR JATEF��_ MAILING ADDRESS: �901 South John Young Parkway, Suite 101, Kissimmee, F� 34741 PHONE NUMBER: (321) 284-4631 EMAII: AG�NT OR REPRESENTATIVE: MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER: EMAIL: ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: PARCEL NUMBER(5): LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PROPOSED USE(Sj: cdmathura@hotmaii.com James E. Wilkerson, A.I.A. / Wilkerson Architects, LLC 119 East Tallulah Drive, Greenville, SC 29605 864-370-2582 wilkpoe@charter.net 22 Bay Espianade, Clearwater, FL 33767 05-29-15-16362-008-� 120 Lot12, Block 8, Plat Book 11 and Page 5 of Pinellas County Restaurant - Ice Cream Shop DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: 1,500 sf (gross floor area under AC) ice cream parlour (one story building) Specificafly identify rhe requesr designed mainly to serve walk-up customers from nearby beaches and resorts. (include a11 requested code fiexibility,• Code deviation - Lot size is only 4,350 SF, which is less than 5,OOOSF required. e.q., reduction in repuired number of Request approval of 24ft flat roof / 28ft parapet height. (Building raised on timber piles per parking spaces, height setbacks, lot size, lot width, specific use, etc.): Section 3109 of the Pinellas Gulf Beaches Construction Code) Originai approved ht: 15.33 flat roof / 17.33 top of parapet Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtie Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tei: 727-b62-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 1 of 8 Revised 01112 ° ear�vat�r �C U Planning & Development Department Flexible Development Application Data Sheet PLEASE ENSURE THAT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS FILLED OUT, IN ITS ENTIRETY. FAILURE TO COMPLETE THIS FORM WILL RESULT IN YOUR APPLICATION BEING FOUND INCOMPLETE AND POSSIBLY DEFERRED UNTIL THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION CYCLE. Z�NiNG DlSTRICT: �UTURE LAND U5E PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING USE (currently existing on site): PROPOSED USE (new use, if any; plus exisfing, if to remain): SITE AREA: 4,350sf Tourist District (T), Old Florida District Resort Facilities High (RFH) �'�" � a� �ac-k al Dairy Queen Ice Cream Restaurant sq. ft. 0•099 acres GROSS FLOOR AREA (total square footage of all buildings): Existing: � sq. ft. Proposed: 1,205 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable: 1,860 sq. ft. GROSS FLOOR AREA (total square footage devoted to each use, it there will be multiple uses): First use: �,20� sq. ft. Second use: n�a sq. ft. a i nird use: � ' Sa• �� o ��1�U� MAR � � �� PUNNING b DEVELOPME ��17Y [� r� �......._�T DEPT FLOOR AREA RATIO (total square footage of all buildings divided by the total square footage of entire site): Existing: n/a Proposed: 0•28 Maximum Allowable: 1.0 BUILDING COVERAGE/FOOTPRINT (15t floor square footage of ail buildings): Existing: n�a sq. ft. ( % of site) Proposed: 1205 sq, ft. ( 27•7 % of site) Maximum Permitted: 1,860 Sq, ft. ( 42•7 % of site) GREEN SPACE WITHIN VEHICULAR USE AREA (green space within the parking lot and interior of site; not perimeter buffer): Existing: 4,350 sq. ft. ( 100 % of site) Proposed: 3,005 Sq, ft. ( 30•9 %a of site) VEHICULAR USE AREA f parking spaces, drive aisles, loading area): Existing: n/a sq. ft. ( Proposed: 0 sq.ft. ( % 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 01l12 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO (total square footage of impervious areas divided by the total square footage of entire site): Existing: D Proposed: 3 � •� !d Maximum Permitted: � �J % DENSITY (units, rooms or beds per acre): Existing: N /A Proposed: 1� �A Maximum Permitted: j�,/A OFF-STREET PARKING: Existing: Proposed: Minimum Required: � � � BUILDiNG HEIGHT: Existing: Proposed: Maximum Permitted WHAT IS THE ESTIMATED TOTAL VALUE OF THE PROJECT UPON COMPLETION? $ ZONING DISTRICTS FOR ALL ADJACENT PR( North: TEV'1/1 �j'f" �T � South: �—�T5'� East: T��Z�S"1" LT� west: Td�R15T (T 1J /� 2$ FT s s r-r STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all Sworn to and subscribed before me this }� t�� day of representations made in this application are true and �j � r�- r� a`" Y �' D�`� . to me and/or by accurate to the best of my knowledge and authorize City represen ta tives to v i s i t a n d p h o t o g r a p h t h e l% `'—�� r' �� ' af %'�''r � , who is personall y known has property described in this application. produced ��— ��-- as identification. Signature of property owner or representative V��k:� L . ��k--ke.� Notary public, My commission expires: � � '"� � �— � � � � �P `?OSSRY PV;��' VICKY L. KOEHLKE : : Notary Public - State of Florida =N '�: My Comm. Expires Jan 12, 2016 ., o, �'':,',F,�F�o?�'' Commission # EE 159381 Planning 8 Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, TeI: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 3 of 8 Revised 01112 � o ��uu� � MAR � 3 �'O�i� ��'' ; o • Planning & Development Department }� ear�vater P�NNING & D�U��a� .. �,.;�:1�� ible Develo ment A lication ��no- ��r��.r,:�:,;=�,, P Pp � Site Plan Submittal Package Check list IN ADDITION TO THE COMPLETED FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT (FlD) APPLICATION, ALL FLD APPLICATIONS SHALL INCLUDE A SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL PACKAGE THAT INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION AND/OR PLANS: ❑ Responses to the flexibility criteria for the specific use(s) being requested as set forth in the Zoning District(s) in which the subject property is located. The attached Fiexible Development Appiication Flexibility Criteria sheet shalt be used to provide these responses. ❑ Responses to the General Appiicability criteria set forth in Section 3-914.A. The attached Flexible Development Application General Applicability Criteria sheet shall be used to provide these responses. ❑ A signed and sealed survey of the property prepared by a registered land surveyor including the location of the property, dimensions, acreage, location of all current structures/improvements, location of all public and private easements including official records book and page numbers and street right(s)-of-way within and adjacent to the site. ❑ If the application would result in the removal or relocation of mobile home owners residing in a mobile home park as provided in F.S. § 723.083, the application must provide that information required by Section 4-202.A.5. ❑ If this application is being submitted for the purpose of a boatlift, catwalk, davit, dock, marina, pier, seawall or other si milar marine structure, then the application must provide detailed plans and specifications prepared by a Florida professional engineer, bearing the seal and signature of the engineer, except signed and sealed plans shall not be required for the repair or replacement of decking, stringers, railing, lower landings, tie piles, or the patching or reinforcing of existing piling on private and commercial docks. ❑ A site plan prepared by a professional architect, engineer or landscape architect drawn to a minimum scale of one inch equals 50 feet on a sheet size not to exceed 24 inches by 36 inches that includes the following information: ❑ Index sheet of the same size shall be included with individual sheet numbers referenced thereon. ❑ North arrow, scale, location map and date prepared. ❑ Identification of the boundaries of phases, if development is proposed to be constructed in phases. ❑ Location of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL), whether the property is located within a Special Flood Hazard Area, and the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) of the property, as applicable. 0 Location, footprint and size of all existing and proposed buildings and structures on the site. ❑ Location and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems, both on-site and off-site, with proposed points of access. ❑ Location of all existing and proposed sidewalks, curbs, water lines, sanitary sewer lines, storm drains, fire hydrants and seawalls and any proposed utility easements. ❑ Location of onsite and offsite stormwater management facilities as well as a narrative describing the proposed stormwater control plan including calculations. Additional data necessary to demonstrate compliance with the City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria manual may be required at time of building construction permit. ❑ Location of solid waste collection facilities, required screening and provisions for accessibility for collection. ❑ Location of off-street loading area, if required by Section 3-1406. ❑ All adjacent right(s)-of-way, with indication of centerline and width, paved width, existing median cuts and intersections and bus shelters. ❑ Dimensions of existing and proposed lot lines, streets, drives, building lines, setbacks, structural overhangs and building separations. ❑ Building or structure elevation drawings that depict the proposed building height and building materials. Pla�ning & 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 environmentaliy sensitive areas. ❑ If a deviation from the parking standards is requested that is greater than 50% (excluding those standards where the difference between the top and bottom of the range is one parking space), then a parking demand study will need to be provided. The findings of the study will be used in determining whether or not deviations to the parking standards are approved. Please see the adopted Parking Demand Study Guidelines for further information. ❑ A tree survey showing the location, DBH and species of all existing trees with a DBH of four inches or more, and identifying those trees proposed to be removed, if any. ❑ A tree inventory, prepared by a certified arborist, of all trees four inches DBH or more that reflects the size, canopy, and condition of such trees may be required if deemed applicable by stafF. Check with staff. ❑ A Traffic Impact Study shall be required for all proposed developments if the total generated net new trips meet one or more of the following conditions: ■ Proposal is expected to generate 100 or more new trips in any given hour (directional trips, inbound or outbound on the 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�Yo or more of the valuation of the principal structure as reflected on the property appraiser's current records, or if an amendment is required to an existing approved site plan; or a parking lot requires additional landscaping pursuant to the provisions of Article 3, Division 14. The landscape plan shall include the following information, if not otherwise required in conjunction with the application for development approval: ❑ Location, size, description, specificafions and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, including botanical and common names. ❑ Existing trees on-site and immediately adjacent to the site, by species, size and location, including drip line. ❑ Interior landscape areas hatched and/or shaded and labeled and interior landscape coverage, expressed both in square feet, exclusive of perimeter landscaped strips, and as a percentage of the paved area coverage of the parking lot and vehicular use areas. ❑ Location of existing and proposed structures and improvements, including but not limited to sidewalks, walls, fences, pools, patios, dumpster pads, pad mounted transformers, fire hydrants, overhead obstructions, curbs, water lines, sanitary sewer lines, storm drains, seawalls, utility easements, treatment of all ground surfaces, and any other features that may influence the proposed landscape. ❑ Location of parking areas and other vehicular use areas, including parking spaces, circulation aisles, interior landscape islands and curbing. ❑ Drainage and retention areas, including swales, side slopes and bottom elevations. ❑ Delineation and dimensions of all required perimeter landscaped buffers including Planning 8 Devetopment Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL Page 5 of 8 triangles, if any. 2 - $�3 • :. LL ° � ear�vater u �-s� Planning & Development Department Flexible Development Application Flexibilitv Criteria PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO THE APPLICABLE FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR THE SPECIFIC USE(S) BEING REQUESTED AS SET FORTH IN THE ZONING DISTRICT(S) IN WHICH THE SUBIECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED. EXPLAIN HOW, IN DETAIL, EACH CRITERION IS BEING COMPLIED WITH PER THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL (USE SEPARATE SHEETS AS NECESSARY). 1 The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderiy development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district 2 The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines by offering changes in horizontal building planes, use of balconies with outdoor seating, railings, awnings and a variety of colors and textures 3 The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings as set forth in the Beach By Deisgn guidelines for the Old Florida District The proposed development will utilize existing off street parking allowing to enhance the site with landscape beyond the 4. 5. 6. 8. minimum required standards. Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 7 of 8 Revised 01l12 ° learwater �� & Development Department ipment Application � Affidavit to Authorize Agent/Representative 1. Provide names of all property owners on deed — PRINT full names: i�e�a� `(. M�n+��.�r 2. That (I am/we are) the owner(s) and record title hoider(s) of the foilowing described property: 2 2 B��( E�Pc.�+►b C 3. That this property constitutes the property for which a request for (describe request): hVB.� DJGJM�T� �IZ ��%�C13(.�% Fjt%�PMC�`lr (�LS�VfI�� 4. That the undersigned (has/have) appointed and (does/do) appoint: ��'A�1111L�, C• VV`LL,KLi�-�J� d� UJtUG�1'�2.�aU�1 }�RC;�}i,'G�j �(,(.C� 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; �. T�'13� �� :"lo� Y�o �;nr�cr,c,�gnorl 3Yith�rit� hereh� rorFif`� th�t tha f.^.�2ad^ing i� tr�io �.^.'�j �flS'f°Ct. �� i�z��.. f �;�� Property Owner Properky Owner Property Owner STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS Property Owner BEFORE ME THE UNDERSIGNED, AN OFFICER DULY COMMISSIONED BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ON THIS �� t h DAY OF �� r v a r�! , `�' Q t� , PERSONALLY APPEARED �� 'E- d a h � 'v� `�' r�� '�f � WHO HAVING BEEN FIRST DULY SWORN � � UNDERSTANDS THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT THAT HE/SHE SIGNED. �.,��,,,, �?o;�a`' °�s;�' VICKY L. KOEHLKE � s Notary Pu61ic - State of fiorida , r� L �� '� :N„ o,; My Comm. ExpireS Jan 12, 2016 � �`JL�Y�, "'%,',foFF��::� Commission #� EE 159381 �,,,��• Notary Pubiic Signature Notary Seal/Stamp My Commission Expires: 7 d. n- �� '� ��+ __ _ , Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tei: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page S of 8 Revised 01h2 � DQ CORNERSTONE - ----- - -- s_. _::__�� _ ---- --- -------__-_-___-------- Parking Demand Study PARCEL ID: OS-29-15-16362-008-0120 City of Clearwater, Florida SUBII�IITTAL TO: CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT Flexible Development Application 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 (727) 562-4567 (727) 562-4865 Fax LAND OWNER AND APPLICANT.• NIATHURA PROPERTIES # 5, LLC 1901 S. John Young Parkway, Suite 101 Kissimrnee, FL 34741 (3l i ) 284-463 I CONSULTANT; REGIONAL CONSULTING �NGINEERS, LLC 2442 Grand Central Parkway, Unit 16 Orlando, Florida 32839 (407) 812-5480 (office) (�47) 340-5713 (mobile) E-mail: tuan rcefl.com JULY 2010 TUAN K. HUYNH, P.E. Florida License No. 54Q35 Certitic�ate of Authol-ization ��10. 26762 TABLE 4F CONTENTS 1.0 introduction 1.1 Proposed Development 1.2 Primary lmpaci Area 2.0 Existinq Conditions 2.1 Public Parking Facilities 2.2 Parking Analysis for Friday, July 16, 2010 2.3 Parking Analysis for Saturday, July 1i, 201U 3.0 Proiect Parkinq Demand and Customer Use Profite 4.0 Summary and Conclusions Paqe 1 1 1 5 5 5- 6 11 1 'i D ��l��Uls :; E� MA� D 3 �Di4 � PLANN�NG 8� DEVELOPiUtENT D�PT FIGURES 1 2 3 4 5 TABL.ES 1 � APPENDIX 1 LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Project Location Map Proposed Site P(an Primary Impact Area (within 1,000 feet) Parking Conditions on July 16, 2010 (Graphj Parking Conditions on July 77, 2010 (Graph) Parking Conditions & Data Collection for Friday, July 16, 2010 Parking Conditions & Data Collection for Saturday, July 17, 2010 PAGE 2 3 4 8 10 7 0 Existing City of Ctearwater Beach Parking Facifities Map !D ��(�UUL� MAR 0 3 �Q�4 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DE?i � p l5l�L5U U L� 1.0 lNTRODUCTION MAR 0 3 2014 1.1 Proposed Development PLANNING 8 DEVELOPMENT DEPT Regional Consulting Engineers, LLC, has been retained to perform a Parking Demand Study for the proposed "Da Scaop Ice Cream Parlour" develapment in the City of Clearwater, Florida. The proposed site (tax parcel ID 05-29-15-16362-008-0120) is located at 22 Bay Esplanade west of Mandalay Avenue (Figure 1). The proposed development consists of a one-story commercial retail building totaling 1,500 sq-ft {gross floor area). The site area is 4,350 sq-ft {50' x 87' lot). The site is developed mostiy for wafk-up costumers from nearby beach areas, surrounding hotels, and visiting tourists. Please see attached site plan (Figure 2). This report documents the methodology and analysis for the parking demand study. The purpose of the study is to determine the potential project impacts to the existing city public parking facilities within the primary impact area. The parking demand study is required to suppart the project Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application for DRC staff and Community Development Board (CDB) review. 9.2 Primary Impact Area and Methodology Per the City of Clearwater LDC and Ffexible Development Application, the proposed project will require a parking demand study within the primary impact area. The impact area is determined to be one-thousand (1,000) feet radius of the site. All public parking spaces (with meters) will be counted and tabulated within the impact area. Far this study, the peak demand hours are on Friday between 6:00 PM to 10:00 PM and Saturday between 10:00 AM to 10:04 PM. The parking demand analysis will be done at every one hour increment during the peak hour period. "Google Earth" program was used to determine the approximate 1,000 feet radius primary impact area. The project impact area is bounded by Idlewild Street (to the north), Bay Esplande running narth-south directiQn (east), Baymount Street (south), and Clearwater Beach limits (west). Please see Figure 3 for the Primary Impact Area map. �titttlrt!-� `_.t {t;,•�r�=� �4�tiF�' � �-q,� i !i=_'!I�'.�:at� Sl � � � ,:�vzlu�i5t � �"� � _ �<. � �. ,Z��. '�ti.% �. , j �- C:: r'SS .... ��,� �: .�.�iil�llli��.�}� � �+''. . . 't ; C.i �. ts.. � ' Cv :: �� ' ; BAY :ESPLANADE "' ;� 3 �.�,,,�. r� � �E �� LZ,� �s �� :� � � ,�. �{ a �, �� : _ , �� _f� � � � � ; y am ��r �t � �: , . � :, ��3 �y� ` � C3�y1T!#�111:5[ � °; �; �; z , , �, ,y ' � .,� �:. � !�� c� . : � �-i � � �,,,' � � : � 'c� ,�' � 2 .,–i _ LLl ��'�� L � � � , � } �� Q � ' �t � .. �;yy Jr..i.ef'4.�=�.14-ji'�yf YSiVS..k -,�,ew�P.. \!v .�b PAF�CEL ID� 05-29--15-1fi362—aC18-0120 PROJECT NA�AE: DA SCOUP ICE CREA�A PARlOUR PROJEGT SITE AREA: 0.099 ACRE (4,350 SQ—FT) PHY5ICAL SITE ADQRESS: 22 8AY E�PLANADE, CLEARWATER, FL 33757 PROPflSED USAGE: COM�iERCIAL RETAIL SERVICES — ICE CREAM PARLOUR (i,5q0 Aegiona! CmaWth9 fnginaa'a, lLC 2N2 �d Canhai Pkxy, Unii 18�c.i�� Orlar�O, Glnrkla 3i839 �,�' fl �' � �� -�/��, r,. ,M 1 .,. <�=l � , � xry :�t;y �i. °� '�' , _ +�. �e: {.u,t� �-:',� �.—;*�a6: ec�2t"f.i�A attr:Nt _._._w..d... _..__._.�_`. `�oE: h;an� r�A.�:�n � t � ; w p ��u�s �+[A� � � �D14 • '�,ANki �' & DEVELOFM�NT �r' i+It" �' , �' , •' � • � 1 __ _ __ _ ___ _ _ . __ i i �I�",t ��;� I � �, � _._ _._._�._— � � � �, p Z A.i Z � �VJ � � v � �rn � 0 v � mz � � 5' CLEARANCES AROUNO ENTIRE BUIIIOiNG PERIMEfER FOR FIRE DEPT. ACCE55, NO � O&S7RUCilON ALLOWEO WITHIN 7HISAREA 10' SIDE BUIIDING SETBACK—� (TO FACE OF BUItDING) 6' WIOE CONCRETE WALKWAY r (nREA = 90 SF) .� r o I SS' FRONT BUILDINO SETBACK � :,, i (TO FACE OF BUIL�ING) 2' x B' STOftE SIGNAGE NiU 10'iRONTIANDSCAPE- BUFFER LiNE FIVE (5) PROI'OSED CANUW TREES — i �' SIDE BUILDING SEfB (TO iACE OF Bl11LO1NG) �_: J � � � � � i� 0 _ii �' —_ ..J J' �I > 10' ---� �� 'C �, L 1-; 5' SIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFER L1NE (ON 80TH SIOES) _ ]� ._ .. T._. I ONE-STORY BUILDING I ICE CREAM PARLOUR ,° �.A. = 1,500 SF 50' _L_� BUFFER L�NE S SIQE LANDSCAPE BUFFER �INE (ON BOTH SIDES) _ �%' _ PROPERTYLENGTH SITE 1D0-YEAR BASE F1000 ELEVATION ='12.0 NGVO PER FIftM MAP iN 2103CA102G (EGFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 3, 2003) 21.6' PERIMETERLANOSCAPE BUFFER 11NE i— DRV RETENTON POND � TOPARG=8805F o OEPTN=1E' � .� v' a MINIMUMBUILOING I � SE'T6�GKUNE y 27.6' ftEAR BUILOING SETBACK (TO FACE OF BUILDING) �. � SITE PLAN NOTES: /_ALl01MEN510N5 SMCX/N ME NEASUPEp TO THE FACE OF CURB, IINLE53 OTHEHW�SE NdIEO. 2. el16DiN� PLANS UYOUT SHOWN ON TN@ CIVILSITE PLXlS ME fOR fg.FEAENCE PURVOSESONLV. CONSTRIICTIONUYOIRfOATHEPROPOSEDBURDMGFOUNDATKN! 5lW19E PER THEARCNREGTUNAL BU0.DdV0 PUNS E%ACf ONIENBIONS. 7. ALL GURB RMP SW1ll BE J FEET AND NEA3l1RE TO F�LE OF CURB UNLESS OT/ERW ISE NOTEO ON THE PUWB. �. M!Y 016CREFANCIf.8 9Ef WEEN PIEID MEASUREMENTSAND THESE CANSTqUCiION oUNSSHALl9EBROUGHTTOTHEATTEMIONOF'�p16WEEftIMAEDNTELV. � 6, FiNISH CONC0.E7E WPLKW�Y ANO TOP Oi LURB EtfVAT10N 51 W19E 8'IHOVE FINISX PA4EMENT GRADES. 6. ALL VERPGL AND HORRONTAL CONrROlS 9HOWN ARE IN PEFERENCE TO SURYEY PROGERTY CORNERB ANO BENGNMNU(6 AND SIULL 8E VE1tIFlE08Y THE COMMCTOR PRlOHTO CONSTAUCTION. 7. PPoO(t70 �65lIANCE OF BURDINO PEiiMR, BUIL➢INO PLV/6 NV3T DEMONSiMTE PROPOSED 6EAT1RTtEFRIENDLY LIGNTIN6 N! ACCORDMICE wrtN CrtV CWE (CAC SECTWNYi70i)M/DSTATEUW(FAGeY&66). NDIIGiRWfii1M700fEEfS�WLBE VISBIE OR IXTENO W APPJS IOENfIF1ED 0.5 SEATURTIE NE9TINC AREAS WRING T!E NESTWASEA60NOFMAYITOOCf98ERi1.ARE�9VAIEFESECURRYANOPU8UC5tlEfY �'�. REWIRELIGHfING,KTERNATNELIGMTWWAGEMFX�APVR0.ACFfE38FW.L9EMPLIFA. � w m�� ,� u� �u�,..,.�� a a n xe� y(,t Y 0 F tw� aa-s�w y� d n�1W5Y e�Lo�l GRAPHIC SCALE (wr�r� SYf E DATA: i.51TEN2EA �,7508F (0.10AC.) I.PA0.G£LID: OS2415�18382-006U120 IPINELlASCO. PROPFRTYMPRN3F.ft) 1 SITE �DDRESS: 129�Y EBPW+A�E, CLFARwAiER FL ]3]6] 4. IEGAL UESLAIP1lON: lOT 12, �LOC!( B. VUT BOOK 11. i PA6E 5 OF PINEI.LAS GOl1NN E.IANDO�+t1EA: MAMUMPftOPEFT1E3p5.LLC &EXISTING ZONING: TOUPISTOISTRIGTR) IPERGITYOFCLENitWATERZONING) 1.PqOPQSED20NIN0: TOUfiI8T015TRICTjT� L.LANOUSE RESORTFACIUTIESHIGH (RFX) 8. PROPO6ED USE: ICE CRFrM PMIWft iD. GRO55 fIOOR AIiEA (GFAI: 1,500 SF 71. FLOOR ARE� RATIO (FAitj 0.345 (MAYJMUAI FAii ALLOWABIE 1.0) 12. PROPOSEO BUILpNG MFJGHT: 15 FEET ( MA%. AILOWABLE 35 Ff.) 13.MIN.REOUiREDBVIIDINOSETBACI(3 FEROtDFI�RIDA�I5IRIGT'UEACHBYOESIGN' FftONT(SOt1THF lY SiDE�VlESn: t0' s�oE�nsn: io� REAR�NORTH} 10' 1l. PROPOSm BUILDIN4 SETBACK9: SETHACK TO FnCE OF BUII�IHG FRONT�SOVfHy /5' (8AYE6PtAN�DEYUBUCRhY) SIDE�nESTk �Q (EJ(�STINGMDIEL) SIDE (F.AST)� td (EJUSTNG iF63S GAS STATION) AF�INORiIIZ 21.8' IE%�7iN('+MOTELPOOII 15, PROPQ4ED tMPERV40U$ ARFJ1: 1.590 SF (]fi.e X OF SITE) (MA%. N.LOWAeIE 95X) auiwiNC: i.soo si ('ANCHEfEWNKWAY: 90 Sf +,sso u 18.PROG09EDOPENSPACEARFA 3.]605F (W.aXOFS?E) t7.PROVOSEDORYRETF.N110NMEA 9005F (225%OFSITE) iB.87SE FLOOU EItVAT10N: 12 FEET M�DI (PER FIRM MM /2103LOt01fi d1TFD 09�0'l�0.1) 1B. PROPOSEO BURDING Wlll BE FLOOD PROOi FHOM iIN15H FLOOR TO ELEVATiON • 120 20.NUMBEFOFEMP�OYEES(AN%.9HIFf) 3EMhD�EES NOTE EMVIOYEES W0.1 USE FUBLIC PAANING MEA �QIA(;ENT TO SRE (SP TO TME SW� OR?UDLFG TRANSPORiATbN MEMODS hMxin�u� W M16} FYAM �b! vJ1A DA SCOOP ICE CREAM PARLOUR a�� "" """ FIfVAL ENGINEERING PLANS •_ �� SIl"E PLAN . n" ��:.u�o-snr CRY OF CLEARWATER FLORIDA n��m �sw�u .• � e-rat _ ol �� . .. .. �. . . ro��Q�� "�f�`� ,'' � .�"' . . . -�.�. a , '° A'f�F � � �� 4 � ., ''� Y�� % -�� `'� ,A°,t � . _ ,� � �.�_ � �p "'� � ,�`W.�'v �y�� yh�� E � ��"u,��a �ect +�' s •� ��,o � . . , � � 9 '�'i .� L �'k o °� � �� -,z� } � �� +� �� °°'�. ;m `p �'�`S� ,# +�r d�m ,. � � .: "�''�' ,� �' > at,j� `� a �,'.�a gx+�t• �� Wa +"!�� _ . ��y�,� `§'�. a'� e. � ;'. t,. . � � • �'P'�qCa�.��4 '�g�z¢¢=��.. , .,!"S 'l�A��a �,� �,si_;# a ' �t. p ,' 6'a! {'j,�i ��.� `"�A "��.a° �.�� w�� "`�, � '� .. ' .�� ff "�i:� � � �; �� =�""„ `> �'� -` �'�" y �,�` �.:;., �_. '� � � �s��„o�s�c �se � ��—" � -`` ° ` � � �' y `m� � � � e '�' �* � � �� = �� , � � �� vm* � °c. 5^� �� . �� ` �� anibna at '� w� �+M r� � ��` � �'° ''��,' � �°,� �� * '.� . , � ew t° �ildi�allci5f��9'° .� a., �°.° K , ��y� � t �` �� 'f»� � ... . �� '�� "'�i1L�;g��t��' �� .af'^t:5 � " �.'��ti � � � . � �'�`�` -,� '" ' "fi sr � : �` �� - . i �� asrQ�eaie"95t �1 �. � 4� t +! �' �` P�e.iJ!lay e� y y.-; �. v �`■ � .�' ��,�w � ,a �,''��'y� *��° . "i�° �+�Y(., � � - , v F. . :;� s .". �t �,y�: s�.� ? 4.�+ ��+�►'.,' .. �i1��.oedyS! c�'��, ;�Y � 1�1��c�� S � L4�, i �� ... �,�. ?� �,„,, [� y �' �� '� .. 3 �� f ; . L'`s i `��'�'J'�� 4 � -4e� �� a� � ,d�.�,;; � ��. : � .'i�,�, ' ��_ = 4�rs'�. �ot � . �t, � �a ' �"� � �' �� `a � , . +� �. �' �+tpiw f .�"�� g�iwe � �P'a'"^''sp`P�` r �^'�*S�ao-� 'a ` � � ` �4��, . � ��, i311�D ,ak4" dl$C� � �,.. ; �� d� � . � a � �-"° ,�� t� �' }, � b�.L. � •�+� �� ,i. � �� 1� L: y � ° �, � � �6 _ ar��,� .� � �� v+� fi�,'��-�+ 4� � � � �� a 4, t* � ��V �'�F .c a �i', � �'4 �� •�. -Y P'� �'� % _,� '� ^t s , ��.��,w e .� �i+�� _, � �� , �., � 6 � aac�n�v4a; • , '-�.��,�°r°" ` �: � a ... A4e t .`� - fp'�,°" > � ..1 � 91 t . � " � � ` k �,��'�� e,� .��. �.� 1 ��_{ ��;�_ �`'�s�,�"� � x��ATdtP � na�.� �" � � � ,mm�+" ..+ °;x �t` µ �f° � � j "'x e�� -'t � � '••� � ��:��- � � F�R � pS �� .-S.' g .< � r , .:.� �y��+�:�� a " .� ` _ ; � s, , y . .... . . . � 2ayr�n t'" . _. . . . . . . ` �, . .� 'cy:, m _.. _ _ .. . � . ,�.� _ `"��.��'s��n �w . �w ��. �Ctl rW�� . "r « �' �`� �. "� �'! a�4�� x .r �+ � 'i a�_' . a ,��.�• :� f a � . � g�� 9r /95 C¢�,'.E ,g�� -. �• �S• � � � � ' � � �Y a �' �r �r ,,� � � � �* ��M+. "� � � , k� � , � � hr >.. �,� _ + � ,,.,°'°». �� ,�.a��;� � � � "i � �.�, ��J � z°•u�;n�Pa n �.`� { . � . �sYF .- qf F� � fkt � k �, �faara oe . y" `=� �' �a .,a� - , �,�� . � � �:� � �� W „ ��+r �Q �� ,��' ,e. ` W �� 4 �`'#�� `�e,�� `". � ° �..�.�- � r �„ f �� Im,a�� S aea,togica! Sur�,�eY � �' � ,� '�, f-�°"""'°� � � ,� reR a!'d_.�,_ 4 . �^ ^,� �a- d2 � m � xs .�. � _..._ _ __ . r � _ � � a �'� s��;�� i,� . 2.0 EXISTING CONDITfONS 2.1 Public Parking Facilities There are four (4) public parking facilities and ninety-four (94) on-street parking spaces (with meters) within the 1,000 feet radius primary impact area. Public Parking Facility No. 36 is located just southwest of the project site near the beach entrance and has 145 spaces (handicap spaces are not counted). Public Parking Facility No. 37 is located northwest of the site and has 53 spaces. Public Parking Facility No. 38 is located east of the site near the City recreational and tennis facility and has 79 spaces. Public Parking Facility No. 39 is located northeast of the site near the city public park and has 17 spaces. The number of on-street public parking is 94 spaces. The tota! availability public parking spaces with the project primary impact area is 388 spaces. Please see Appendix A showing the existing Clearwater Beach Parking Facilities. 2.2 Parking Analysis for Friday, July 16, 2010 This day represent a typical peak summer time vacation period with school out and plenty of students, locais, and tourists visiting the beach areas on the weekend. The weather was cleared sky and sunny with temperatures �roun� 95 �egrees at 6:O�J PM an�+ dro��inr ±e 85 degrees at 10:00 PM. Public parking spaces occupied were counted starting at 6:00 PM and every hour thereafter until 10:00 PM. According to the results an Table 1, the peak use occurred at 8:00 PM with almost 79.6% (309 spaces} of the available 388 public parking spaces being occupied. The percentage of occupied parking spaces ranges from 44.6% (173 spaces) to 79.6%. Please see Table 1 and correspondin representation. D � MAft � 3 �� 2.3 Parking Analysis for Saturday, July 17, 2010 I p�qNNING & DEVELOPNIENT DEPT C�TV nF �i FARWAT�R The weather was cleared sky and sunny for most of the day with temperatures starting at 88 degrees at 10:00 AM to near 100 degrees in the afternoon and dropping to 85 degrees at 10:00 PM. This Saturday represent a typical busy weekend with many visiting and overnight stayed tourists, local residents, and students enjoying the nearby beaches, 0 restaurants, and tourist areas. Public parking spaces occupied were counted starting at 10:00 AM and every hour thereafter until 10:00 PM. According to Table 2, the parking facilities starked out with a 35.1 %(136 spaces) occupied at 10:00 AM and quickly increased to 89.2°/o (346 spaces) by noon and peak at 97.7% (379 spaces) at 2:00 PM. The spaces occupied remained in the mid-nineties between the hours of 1:00 PM and 4:a0 PM and then dropped ta 87.1 %(338 spaces} occupied at 6:00 PM. It then went up again at 8:00 PM with 95.9% (338 spaces} occupied due to the evening crowds visiting the nearby restaurants and eating establishments after sunset. At 10:00 PM the occupied spaces went down to 60.3% (234 spaces) and the study was ended. Please see Table 2 and corresponding Figure 5 graphica( representation. c, 0 � _ �, � � v_ �a� o � �o�� : PLANNING & DEVELO? � .A�_ � F MENT v�,�� A ER f'RUJEC7 NAME: SUBJECT: J1aTE dF DATA: INEATI-t'ER: DA SCOOP ICE CREAM PARLOUR PARKING DEMAND STUDY FRiDAY, JULY 16, 2010 SUNNY & CLEAR, 85 TO 95 DEGREES TABLE 1 6 ?IME PARKING tOT 36 PARKING LOt 37 PARKINCa LOT 38 PARKING LOT 39 ON-STREET PUBLICSPACES PARKWG DEMAND 5TUDYRESULTS f(NRS) NUMBER SPACES NUM9ER SPACES NUMBER SPAGES NUMBER SPACES NUMBER SPACES TOTAL TOTAL 70TAL TOTAL SpACES OCCUPIED SPACES OCCUPIED SPACES OCCUPIED SPACES OCCUPIED SPACES OCCUPIHD NUMBER SFACES SPACES PERCENT SPACES OCCUPIED AVAiL.ABIE OCCUPIED I--_--- b:00 PPvi 145 114 53 18 79 13 17 1 94 27 388 i73 215 44.E � ;' D!i (� \il I 145 145 53 24 79 24 17 2 94 43 388 238 150 61.3 I � i � u:�Ji) �R%1 ; 145 145 53 45 79 54 17 0 94 65 388 309 79 79.6 ! ( � s 9:�G !'��i 145 125 53 27 79 43 17 0 94 54 388 249 139 64.2 i ; z 1p�[?0 PM 145 102 53 11 79 24 17 0 94 49 388 186 202 47.9 [( I a ----= i � z �� o r� � � �m° � >� � � �o �,' � : c� i� c � v -�' r� � � �-r-�. ; 350 300 0 w n. 250 � c� U 0 200 w U a � 150 � z � 100 ¢ a 50 0 v � � � z z � � � °° � � v < �' � m c�' o � � v � --� m c ��-= �� o - -� i `-,-_-- - FIGURE 4 PARKING ANALYSIS - FRIDAY, JULY 16, 2Q10 NUMBER OF PUBLIC PARKINC SPACES (WITHIN 1,OOU FEET) = 388 SPACES 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM TIM� OF DAY (HOURS) [7 Series1 ■ Series2 ❑ Series3 ❑ Series4 ■ SeriesS � Series6 � Series7 ❑ Series8 ■ Series9 PROJECT NAME: QA SCOOP ICE CREAM PAf2LOUR D `-' �� U U L5 SUBJEGT: PARKING DEMAND STUDY p� DATE OF DATA: FRIDAY, JULY 16, 2010 M�AR �! ��a�� 1�/E�TNER: 5UNNY & CLEAR, 85 TO 95 DEGREES TABLE 2 P�H�NG 8 DEVELOPMENT DEPT ITY F RW TER i TIP�.�E PARKtNG LOT 36 PARKING LOT 37 PARKING LOT 38 PARKING LOT39 ON-STREET PUBLtC SPACES PARKING DEMAND STUDY RESULTS �{NRS) NUMBER SPACES NUMBER SPACES NUMBER SPACES NUMBER SPACES NUMBER SPACES TOTAL 70TAL TOTAL TOTAL ` SPACES OCCUPIED SPACES OCCUPIED SPACES OCCUPIED SPACES OCCUPIED SPACES OCCUPIEO NUMBER SPACES SPACES PERCENT I SPACES OCCUPIED AVAILABLE OCCUPIED �___ — a � 10;00 AM 145 118 53 4 79 3 17 0 94 11 388 136 252 35.1 � � 1 ��i)0 AM �45 145 53 27 79 31 17 2 94 33 388 238 150 69.3 �� !?''SC) ;'f�,1 145 145 53 53 79 70 17 5 94 73 388 346 42 II9.2 i � � ?:;i0 Pf�A � 145 142 53 b3 79 78 17 1i 94 85 388 375 13 96.6 € i � �'liU °^.4 145 145 53 52 79 78 17 16 94 88 388 379 9 97J I ' ;�t){) pN�1 145 144 53 52 79 79 17 14 94 86 388 375 �3 96.6 i � 1:i)0 PM 145 145 53 51 79 75 17 15 94 86 388 372 16 95.9 � � ^:OQ PM 145 140 53 47 79 78 17 S 94 72 388 345 43 88.9 l 9 � 6:0 Q P P�1 1�5 144 53 43 79 78 17 3 94 70 388 338 50 87.' � %:t�Q r i�1 � 145 143 53 41 79 79 17 1 94 75 388 339 49 87.4 E � � £;;�)il i-'Pv1 f 145 145 53 52 79 7II 17 17 94 80 388 372 16 95.9 � I ; 9:Ci0 Pivt � 145 138 53 24 79 60 17 13 94 80 388 315 73 812 ! i � = 10:Q`� P�v1 I 145 129 53 8 79 33 17 1 94 63 388 234 154 60.3 i 400 350 Q 3d0 w a. � V 250 O � U 200 a a � Z 150 Y d' Q a 100 ' S0 0 � � O z iz � � � s v � �� v � ir �, � o �.� � �'' m -�- z � � 0 m v �—_ -i FIGURE 5 PARKING ANALYSIS - SATURDAY, JULY 17, 201Q NUMBER OF PUBLIC PARKING SPACES {WITHIN 1,000 FEET) = 388 SPACES ❑ Senesl ___ .� t0:00 AM 1 I:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM TIME OF DAY (HOURS) 3.0 Project Parking Demand and Customer Use Profile The proposed 1,500 sq-fit ice cream parlour is designed with no on-site parking facility since most of ihe customers will be walk-ups from the nearby beach areas and hotels. Based on City code for retail services and restaurant, the required number of parking spaces is 15 spaces per 1,000 sq-ft of gross floor area under AC. Therefore, the proposed building area will need 23 parking spaces per City code (1,500 sq-ft/1,000 sq-ft x 15 spaces). However, mos# of the customers and tourists staying at the nearby hotels and resorts have their own parking on-site and will not be driving to the ice cream shop. This project is not a driving destination shop serving mostly by pedestrian walk-by or walk-up customers. The walk-up rate is estimated to be around 60°/o to 70% for a typical ice cream snop near the beach at this location. We wiA use an average of 65% walk-up rate to determine the required parking spaces needed for this development. Therefore the remaining 35% wiil be calculated for the off-si#e parking demand. This demand equates to 8 parking spaces needed for the proposed ice cream parlour site (0.35 x 23 spaces = 8.0 spaces). 4.0 Summary and Conclusion The parking demand study report and analysis performed on Friday, July 16, 2010 and Saturday, July 17, 2010 showed that adequate off-site public parking is available to support this development. Furthermore, the study was performed during a sunny and cfeared weekend with lots of local residents and tourists visiting the beach areas. Furthermore, the data collection dates above represent the peak summer vacation period when schools are closed and many tourists are visiting the area. It can be assumed that the data collected represent one of the peak demand period annually. Per Table 1 and Table 2, the required eight (8) parking spaces needed for this development are available ai every peak haur increments on both Friday and Saturday. We can reasonable assume that this small development will not cause adverse impacts to the surrounding area public parking facilities within the 1,000 feet radius primary impact area. ;I Appendix 1 Existing Clearwater Beach Parking Facilities Map o ��L�� ; MAR � 3 2014 � t C�f PLANNING & DE�ELOP�yEN7 p�n i ____ CI7'Yn��,-....-.-- -- __ _—_ - --- r-- - _..___ _ , (��-,. �o� � __. . ....__�:^ � ��'�� a��'� _____ � ' `__/ P —.. 1? � =�c�:s c�.En�oAt� Cki �TF6o�.r�y Eiat °s I � � � � � R YAl � d..tY. _:r�<l'�i4t1. ��a�,iii"5 D� � `� EGF..... � �`�.,,� '� w�Y �� C�`o.� �"�e` t��' 1 EF�farr.e�t«�i�t i4ours . HEILWOOD �.i I�•��+p-�Ci �' NORTH � _ _ ______ � S@r"35Jf'aRI �� _' �_._.. r � ast�r�;, Not fn Scale r'� ' � �-r- �;� l�l,.'.� � . [� � �q �i �'�=ItE)c � r. f;{.,['"��i�X.if`�'+ � lJ �..1 . r ?!V i .. i �+Ei.d`�'��-' ..,S.�CQ t �AY� L -t 1� i' ti..$i'Y 3l �i��i�l'f. a.3�` � F'%i:...F:3� �33 �S�'A�?GL'�S ST S . N � . i . . T � �pM1Tl. : � ��'r G�.?E�} '. �—� . _-- -.._._... . _� . .._..._... � wAY 1 f'ia�r �is1 �,R,50 #ti st = � > � eti � Gcs§# taQEt [�:t�c9 � . �..,, . ar�� 1�rr: � C;c«t? , _ � _..�. ..—�...„_ _ �__.� eAV � g �2^r33? �. fii.!!fv a>,�,r Lis<a 51.50 �2.a� I f..�tz-lnrsl I f;EtrScci' ' , -s �� _ _ _� ._....._ — 3S :��2 *�<�rnc#en L�r. i�1.(30 S1.2J G-�sd3 i�pr:i fFc��zci � �Q.:�S!r--�-,.1 �R{ -_.� �_ ��._� '� BG � �t"?:� h'tane�3Y,r,�� ` ' �Ss.zn ��rr .-.� ��..�R � $w.'�S _ _ Cfiurc�� t-te38} - ,- __: � �3fi%..�,. ..._: ;� ��57 M�F,cdaE-s�- �v�. ` ," CFa�rc � 7� �EPetCY,.''S .r�. ' ( ��.f?0 1�Z5 � f.��3�°6ptt; I ROCXAWAY Y � 145 �paces sT 3� , 4 Etoc{:ati,��y St. S1.Cff3 �i.25 �Gam-ia,?r i;los�tl � AvaEon - irenc3af! j t�n , � i r1.4�0 $3.25 4 Fi�m-Y�Jpn�t �� 66sv�lc�n5t. ��--- ��I��rg� , ,,,,, . � H�ctt-6�,m F�mrt�� Aqu� tic Ce��ter an oxr � • t;t�i�n-S�t} i�tc� � ' 3£ ?x Pecrez,ti�n Csanfer 51.(iC� <;1.65 w w S1 E3�y Es�6�nacie 12•�A�:zt-��;re-� �ijaress` � F� _ _ � ,��.snl � �! � C a�i{�sy �6.'_izi P`SO � t35- Msanr < � '�� 6u5 Paan<+alaykve. �1.4�3 ' �3...5— IIa�rrlEiF�sn _Gi�ar e \� 9 'F G�t��°J3y _iapy_ �' 25 Spaces � �3 ;90J�. Ea>t Sh�re C}r. ��.�p $�.>5 i 8a�n-Gi:t� Charrse a � 6:3� _�aQQ E. SEtore C�r. $1.00 51.25 _ 8aott-bK.rt� Cha�rne Pta�Yr, sr On StreeY ParkEn t,� { �}-- � 5 �:i.OfS $1.25 ��ari��s 4'aries '�_1 ��1 t„� (234 s�accs} -- � 23 S�Saces � ' - � '- 33 Spaces � Dai[y r��ax eai'e - S�Q.40J�12.�0 C� � � ` � � R�cept - Yis�Jt�la>ter CardJAmeritan Ex{�ress � z '� * Seases�ai Rate - hiarcEi i:%aroc�c;h lz�;� et �ucryt3ay a �,� _--�`�� , , Per�:�it PaE�kiny C3nE�� +. '� 41 �paccs f�o�s: L�oes riQi ir3clude He«r�ts.a,> °'pacc:s P1r4�( �, ^� i�`3$e5 c4� b, t!i Sj?�,S;+±g �jttbjeCi i� (' te Siurr ' �_� O ' ' i.EGEND: { 3't O City Park (n 'f 3� �p�tc�s � Public Beach If \ City Parking Lof � MA�NA •� '!1 la , :� � 3 Private Parking Lot .�j � �9F.��fi.o� , Private Parking Garage � �? 30 sg"°< ° �-�^�� Qn Street Parkin9 ■� �- '�_� °'�� Oversize Vehicle Pkg. V o� �,,,.=-?�� 277t79"`• Spaces ��qy {23'-50' on1Y) 2�t �paces N4AC#INA AC7iVIT�ES � --i ' D �lVLY (s�m - s�rm} �€�I'�(�TE �1i��$`V� _._._� �� ° � � � �' o�� 3�� tb�ic � . �. '. �R �. . . (L30. �.00dtlGF1 R3LE �lii4Yt71c�YELDPi � � 5' st � A 3511 S. Guffvievr Bivti. 1Fa00) 33.t7 7Z75 I �•��r � - j � _ B j 1t3Q Car�nado br. {813) 7i�i ��ti1 1 i a , � � i� G�neral Parking Informat�on �, � �� (i�?) 5G2-47Q4 � �'� , °R� Parki�e� �ystem H�tiir�� V 5' �'� �.� � �, (7�7} 5�2-A�89� � .� z�� ..,,.. � :,:. v ��,��E �� . ��f�� l�i � Q� ��RBp�' t� \ � LL ' � o �� .�� p � � � '�A� - � .� . . _ �-. E � . � . ,,; � ., _e, , �_ • : � � � � � �. iSGTM14EE4iTi�� xJF�t"4 �`i�°a��;+ � . � � ,: � ,- �;. : � � , �. ` � ' - � �A�' l� � ��14 � � � �� -��,.��r�-��'P�=r��_,��,_ ; �;,��r , - -- - -- — _ _ __ __ __ _ --_ _ __ _ -- . _ --- ' ___ _ P+ ANNING 6 DEVELOPMENT DE:''t _ _ CITY QF C� EARWATER _._ R�C�ITECIS 119 EAST TALLULAH DRIVE GREENVILLE, SC 29605 864-270-2582 22 BAY ESPLANADE FLD2014 03006s 4/11/14 DRC Respo DQ Corner Stone qtlas #: 258A Zoning: Tourist City of Clearwater Planning and Development Department 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 CASE NO.: FLD2014-03006 DQ Cornerstone 22 Bay Esplanade Clearwater, FL A. En�ineerin� Review: Prior to issuance of Buildin� Permit Comment #1: As per the Community Development Code Section 3-19078, Sidewa/ks/Bicycle paths and City Construction Standards Index No. 109 for Sidewalks, Applicant shall bring all sub-standard sidewalks and sidewalk ramps adjacent to or a part of the project up to standard, including A.D.A. standards. Resaonse #1: We acknowledged this condition prior to Building Permit. Comment #2: If the proposed project necessitates infrastructure modifications to satisfy site- specific water capacity and pressure requirements and/or wastewater capacity requirements, the modifications shall be completed by the applicant and at their expense. If underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, the installation shall be completed and in service prior to construciion in accordance with Fire Department requirements. Response #2: We acknowledged this condition prior to Building Permit. Co..mment #_3.: As per Clearwater Code of Ordinances, Article IX., Reclaimed Water System, Section 32.376, Use of potable water for irrigation is prohibited, no person shall use potable water for irrigation through a new or existing lawn meter on property where reclaimed water distribution facilities are available. If potable water is currently used for irrigation, then a connection to the reclaimed water line in Bay Esplanade shall be established. Response #3: As discussed with staff at the DRC meeting on April 3, 2014, the on-site utilities improvements (potable water, wastewater, fire lines, and irrigation systems) have been constructed by City crews and paid for by the developer. The construction was completed under the Da Scoop Building Permit # BCP2011-03212. The developer previously paid approximately $67,000 to the City for these site improvements. _Co_mment _�4 Response #4 Potable and fire lines shall be separate taps on the water mains The proposed potable and fire lines taps were separated and constructed per Da Scoop Building Permit # BCP2011-03212. ,' B. Environmental Review• Prior to issuance of Building Permit Comment #1 Response #1 Provide erosion control measures on the plans sheet and provide notes detailing erosion control methods. We acknowledged this comment and condition prior to Building Permit. Comment #2: The previous building permit complied with the sea turtle lighting rules; continue to comply. No light shall be visible or extend in areas identified as Sea Turtle Nesting Areas during the nesting season (May 1 to October 31). Those areas where security and public safety require lighting, alternative light management approaches shall be applied. Provide evidence of sea turtle-friendly lighting in accordance with City code and state laws. Response #2 C. Fire Review• We will continue the sea turtle lighting requirements from previous building permit and we have acknowledged this condition prior to Building Permit. Comment #1: All Dumpsters and any associated screening which consists of combustible fencing around the dumpster pad shall have a minimum separation from the nearest building or building overhang of ten feet (10) ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO CDB Response #1: The Site Plan has been revised with the dumpster location outside the building. The proposed dumpster pad and combustible fencing shall be a minimum 10 feet from the building structure. Please see revised civil site plans. D. Land Resource Review: Comment #1: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review, prior to issuance of a building permit any and all performance based on erosion and sedimentation control measures must be approved by Environmental and or Storm water Engineering, be installed properly, and inspected. Respanse #1: We acknowledged this comment and condition prior to Building Permit. E. Planning Review: General Site Plan and Application Comments Comment #1: Response #1: Please provide the estimated fotal value of the proposed project. Estimated total value of the proposed project is $300,000.00 Comment #2: The submitted Parking Demand Study was completed four years ago and information needs to be provided regarding the current status of available parking spaces within the adjacent areas. The study identified that within the project primary impact area delineated with a 1,000 foot radius of the subject property that 388 spaces were available through public parking spaces. Respanse #2: p�ease find the attached letter requested by Mr. Bennett Elbo Traffic Engineer of City of Clearwater regarding the revised Parking Demand Study Comment #3: Response #3: Comment #4 Response #4: Please provide the proposed materials and color scheme for the exterior of the building. Please find attached the Color Exterior elevations and exterior finish schedule for your review. Please describe how the dumpster enclosure will be consistent with the proposed building The exterior finish of the dumpster enclosure will be stucco of texture and color to match the main restaurant building. Comment #5 Please provide information regarding access of the site in accordance with the requirements of Americans with Disabilities Act and clarify if an elevator is included as part of the project Resqonse #5 Comment #6: Response #6: An Accessible Lift is provided for Disabled Patrons per section 410 of the American with Disabilities Act 2010 Edition. See revised site plan sheet 3 of 12 for location. Sheet 3 of the plan set provides conflicting information regarding the proposed raised building being built on concrete and/or wood timber piling; please clarify the proposed construction method. Sheet 3 of 12 has been revised to reflect only Timber piling Comment #7: Criterion Four. Please provide specific information regarding the applicability of the previously submitted Parking Demand Study as it relates to accommodating and/or reducing the potential traffic congestion associated with the use. Response #7: The unique location of the DQ Cornerstone Ice cream restaurant to the beach will be more of a destination for people at the beach and those tourists and residents within walking distance rather than a destination by vehicular access Comment #8_ Criterion Five: Please describe how the proposed design of the use is consistent with the community character Respanse #8: The proposed development and design of the use as a small 1205sf ice cream restaurant is consistent with keeping the "Old Florida District" as a transitional district by being part of the limited restaurant I retail link between the low intensity residential neighborhood to the north and the Destination Resort, Marina and Retail / Restaurant Districts to the south. Though the DQ Cornerstone will be one of the first the structures required to be raised on pilings in the District, the Prominent Stucco Veneered Front elevation with its flat roof, colorful awnings and horizontal banding will soften the transition from the neighboring 3 story motel to the west and the one story linear fuel canopy of the Gas station to the east. Comment #9: Criterion Six: Describe the unique design of the site, specific hours ot operation and how the new landscaping will minimize adverse effects of the proposed development. F. Flexible criteria Comment #10 Response #10 Comment #11: Response #11: Comment #12: Criterion One: The application provides that the development is impractical without deviations from the parameters set forth in the zoning district The subject site is less than the minimum 5,OOOsf required (4,350sf) therefore deviations are needed for a viable development solution Criterion Five: Please provide specifics regarding the anticipated number of jobs created by proposed developmeni DQ Cornerstone intends to employ 10-12 employees. Two (2) full time managers and the remaining 8-10 employees to be part-time. Typical shift to be 2-3 employees. Criterion Six: While commentary regarding the proposed design of the building has been provided, specifics regarding the architectural elements being incorporated has not been addressed Response #12: DQ Cornerstone ensures a pleasing architecture by incorporating a raised building floor height that allows for the cool breeze to pass not only over and around but under the structure Building materials such as stucco and glass are used today as in the past as durable finishes with prefinished or weather resistant metals replacing painted wood or steel framed windows. Our flat roof shape is a common roof shape that reflects multi-family residences as in our neighbor to the west as well as non-residential occupancies as evidenced throughout the business lined streets. Varying roof heights have been added to offer interest and break up the mass. Walls of predominately traditional 3 coat stucco with horizontal recesses accompanied with a change of material in the recess help to accentuate the linear nature of an otherwise vertical building. Window shading on all windows, openings and seating by means of Comment #13: awnings are indicative of beach life and offer a reprieve from the sun while enjoying a cool treat. Pedestrians are greeted with double the required landscape leading to a wood framed stair way ascending to an elevated public deck offering vistas of the beach and surrounding landscape. Stainless steel cabling and connectors are nautical in nature encompassing the elevated deck and stair ways. Due to the nature of our elevated building our entire first floor / grade level is completely transparent allowing breezes to circulate freely across the property Criterion One: Proposed landscaping theme to be demonstrably more attractive than basic landscaping required, please elaborate on this issue. Response #13: The proposed site will have doubled the required landscaping and trees planting on-site. We are proposing to plant ten (10) canopy trees and nine (9) sabal palms. This is above the standard City landscape code requirements and will make the site look more attractive. Comment #14: Response #14: Comment #15 Response #15 Comment #16: Response #16 Comment #17: Respanse #17: Criterion Two: Lighting. The proposed lighting will be approved turtle friendly and will automatically controlled to ensure that lighting is off when the business is closed. Provisions have been made to comply with Turtle Friendly Regulations which include controlling all interior and exterior lighting automatically. Criterion Three, Community Character, Please provide specifics regarding how the proposed landscaping will enhance the community character. We are doubling the required landscaping on-site. This will enhance the surrounding community characteristics. Criterion Four, Property Values, Please provide specifics regarding the way in which the proposed landscaping will increase the property values. The developer is willing to incur extra expenses by providing more landscaping beyond the City requirements. This will help increase the property values of the surrounding area. Criterion Five, Beach by Design for the Old Florida District requires a ten (10) foot landscape buffer be required along the street frontage and the property complies with this requirement We acknowledge this comment and condition. � � G. Solid Waste Review Comment #1 Response #1: We need to look at the possibility of increasing the storage area to accommodate at least a two-yard Dumpster. A larger Dumpster enclosure has been designed to accommodate a two- yard Dumpster. H. Stormwater Review: Prior to Building Permit Comment #1: As per Section 3 of the City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria, reinforced concrete pipe shall be used in all easements and right of ways. The minimum allowable size is 15-inch diameter. Response #1: We acknowledged the above criteria. As discussed at DRC meeting, we will revisit the feasibility of the 15" RCP within the right of ways after CDB approval and during building permit review process. Comment #2 Response #2 Comment #3 Response #3: Please resubmit revised drainage calculations. Updated drainage calculations will be submitted after CDB approval and during building permit review. Please inspect the storm structure on Bay Esplanade to ensure that proposed storm pipe fits into existing structure. We acknowledged this comment and condition. � > �� _ �� . a ��.. , :_ .. � ,. . ,. v k � . .,.. � �.. l �(� l S, .��lrn �'c�� '��-�� q ��iit:� � £} 1 1C��e�w, �`lc��i�� 3�i� � �1cle��l�cs��c: ��i?7;) }�1-�5�§' ' I:;-rrrta�l. .v�` � �, ��: ,�. ��1�rch �7, Zt31 � Mr. L�ensic:� ilbc�, 1*raffic Et��ine�rin� Cii�� f�C��:x°��ai�.r Ivtur�icipa�l �ere��ices I3�rs'ldin� 1 {}Q Sc�L�t�i Mvrti� A��n�� ..Ic,at��zt�r, F�. 3375�-�?�� (��7j 5C2�i75 Phc�ne (727) 562-�75� Fax �e�t�c{� �ik;��rx��cf�� v1��r.�.�r�-a �SUI�JI�C�`'i : i� C'arner��o�e �'le�ible �icvelc��naent Appiic��on 22 �3�y Esplar►ade, Cl�;�rv��ter, i+'3L �3767 Tax I'arcei I� (}5-�9-15-1.63b2T00�-Oi2� I��.ar I��r. �;I�c�: `I'hc prc7��c��ed 1,2(l� `�F I��iry �ue�� e�tauraxlt is ��pected tc� ne� r�-�a�in��m ��•i�rk ��ift. "I`%ez�� is a�ec��ate �;xzstizl� ��ttblic pa�-kin�, #' tE�.c etn�I�y��:s p�rkin�, T�is �rt�j�ct ��<ilI ��i�t br:irc�ira th�, e:�is�in� � �'��•�1�e�-rnc�t��, �z I'��kir�� I�er€z�nc� �t:��cl�,' ��t�s �c�n�pl.�t�d 1�� IZe�,,�ian; 'I`h� �arl�in�� st�c�� 4� �rew�ic��s�y ��1�n�itl�d �3z�c� re��iec�r�i� �Sv I�� C"c��nrs�aur�it�T I:��velt��nei�i ]��rd ��'I?�.�). ci t�are� {3j e:��pic�yee:s cizi�� ,�1iti�s i�eK�a�byr tca g�r�c��%i�� c�z- ::;it��• �arkic�� f�cil�.�i��. �� 'c�n�i�lt�r��; F�;��i��€;�;t°s, I.,T�� . C' �t��f`f` <��d a��t•��%��i ai i1a� �� c�u I�� uustic��, ��1�4��€; c��ll an�: ��r �-r��t�i� �c� ��v c��t�t�c.t ahc��. Tt��r�k �•'��c� ��r° y-(��ir- tiz��e c�� il�is t:��tt�r. �inc+:r�;I�-, �� °�� ?`Ir ��'�,,�_ �. �l � . . � g�.;y� � � � .-;h., ,.�. �' _ �:)��ran ��l:�i�z��3°��, '�'�a�°ii��i�� i��.rv7hs��• '��IE��I��r�. �'rf�t�ert��; ;t�, �_�1.,('. copyrfght (c�2014 �XT�i�IOfi� �L��TION K�YNOT�S: (GORN�R5T01��) sTUCCO: A.I �„��: STO GORPORATION SYSTHVt: P�DN6ZWALL GOLOR: NA09-0037 lMATGI�S BBdJAMIN MOORE STRAW �2154-50) FINISH: 30b STO h�IUM SAND YENDOR: STO C.ORPORATION NOTE: l/8', 3�OAT W/ SYNTFETIG FINISFt O�OPIN6. EY�ROW. EY�ROW FLASFfIN6. GANOPY. GANOPY FLASFIIN6. E BREAKt�TAL B�L0�.�2E: MF6R: IAJA�LAD MATL: A40 ALUMINJhI GOLOR: GLEAR SATIN ANODIZED ALUMINIM YEI�R: Ml LOOK EXTERIORS STi1GG0: E.I ��: STO GORPORATION SYSTB�1: PONERWALL FINISH: SMOOTH GOLOR: DQ BLUE NOTE: hUST USE 6ALYANIZID STiK.C.O SGREED POR SGORE LI1�5 �ST11GG0 BUILDIN6: MF6R: STO C.ORPORATION SYSTB�t: POY�ERWALL GOLOR: NAIO-0023 (MATGF�S BEN.lAMIN MOORE pLp 6pl.p #Ibl) FINI5H: 306 5T0 N�IUM SAND VENDOR: STO CARPORATION NOTE: U8', 3�.OAT W/ SYNTHETIG FINISH FL GERTIFICAT� No. Cs08999110989 OSTORE�NT FRAt�: IMPAGT RESISTANT h�6R: YKK AP ANEWGA ING. MODFL: YHS 50 F5 STYL.E: 2'x5' FINISH: GLEAR SATIN ANODI� ALUMIWM 6LAZIN6: GLEAR, 9/Ib' IMPAGT RE515TANT �RA�K.� : IN�'AGT RESISTANT H.I MF6R: YKK AP Ah�RIGA ING. NIODEL: YKK AP PROTHC 35Ff STYLE: 35" h�DIUM STILE FINISH: GLEAR SATIN ANODIZID A1�M11M1M J 6LAZIN6: GL.EAR 9/16' IMPAGT RE515TANT O WINDOW SILL FLASNIN6: MF6R: YKK AP Ah�RIGA II�. FINISH: ANODIZ� GLEAR SATIN 51ZE: 2' AS REQb BY LOGATION OFABRIG AWdIN6: h1F6R: GOOL PLAI�T A��IINC� MATB2IAL: 1^�LON GOASTLINE PLUS GOLOR: b' IVORY GOPST GP2i3q WITH 5lAr5ET ORANGE GP2713 STRIPE FRAN�: I"xl" ALUMINJM (1^�LD ALL JOINTS, 6RIND SMOOTN) FINISH: ANODIZ� GLEAR SAT1N VENDOR: GOOL PLAI�T AI^rIINE� OR HJG OSGUPPERS E DO�K'.�POUTS: MF6R: IRrAA-GLAD MATL: 24 6A. ST�i GOLOR: SILV� I�TALLIG FINISH: KYNAR 500 OPREFINISHED METAL SGR�N MF6R: UNA�LAD MATL: 24 6A. ST�L GOLOR: TO BE DETERMIN� FINISFf: KYNftR 500 '��'?��:'��?�i ��p��:: �, �r�_a�` 119 Eest tallulah Drlve, Greenvtlle, SG 29605 7e1: 864 3i0 2582 Fax: 86� 240 53�5 V'� P�- � TRU55 BEARIN6 �2f'-� T.O. FINSH FLOOR IOT-0'rA�� 12.0 NAVD - 65' FFE = SS' T.O. FEMA FLOOD PLRI /` FINISH 6RADE �O'-0 A F.� _,`�� , N��,�' �� `�``�� ' Dai�r y �Quee i � 7 � � �fi`O1�T �L��TI O�l (Sf�OR� fi��i�fi��l�� I GUL�fi�) 3. SGALE: I/4" = I'-O" NOTF: ALL 6LAZIN6 TFNS H.EVATION SFIN.L HAYE TIN1ID FILM APP!_I� WITH A VISIBIIF LI6HT TRAI�LSMITfANGE YALUE OF FORTYfIVE (45) P9�GBdT OR LEY FRONt ELE1/,4TION FINISN LEC�END ��11``,� i .: ,�F-••�F"'F�•p�1�1 �'`P 'S �`" � W � �'� 4 + 7 �: � �� , , F�J;•.��'�� /Yl,��;--�� V��I�- �AR0015603 .�� i � •'• 04/09/14 ' �� 1 �isT�RE ....AR�� ,.. D � � 1��`� pQ CORNERST 22 BAY ESPLANADE CLEARIUAtER B�ACN, FL DATE: 04/09/14 '�',�' fG - � JOB No: 20131� n c copyright (c�2014 �T.O. FINI � �00 �� 12A NAVD - 6S' FFE = SS' � T.O. FEMA FLOOD PLAIN 1� FINI �6RAD �� NTi��IG� �L��T) O�l (L��II�I�I�RD Oi�l �NT�TI O�l) SGftLE: I/4° _ ��-O° FL GERTIFICAtE No. C:08999110989 i�'��`�c�� 'c��.i ��:, ��...:� 119 East Tallulah Drive, Greenv►Ile, SG 29605 tel: 864 3i0 2582 Fax: 864 240 53"15 RfCxNT SIDE ELEV�4Tf ON �, �6�_ �2■ � ��- � �� ,`��\ -► OF F� o�i� � . �• �: �W��,� . �o, �'_�� •� , �'�J,'•.� *�f��' �✓ �=`� AR0015603 �� ' ��'•., 04/09/14t,.� ��V� +�11 FRED ��AR��\�� ~ DG2 CORN�RSTON; 22 BAY ESPLQJ�IAD� CLEARIUAtER BEAGN, �L DAtE: 04/09/1-0� S�G - 2 JOB No: 20131i copyright 2014 FL GERTIFICAtE No. Gs08999110989 �t ° o , -� � ` ' `��"`_�t,.�i I� �`� xa�.m �� '�:.� � , �._ �_ 119 Easi tallulah Drive, Csreenvtlle, SG 29605 Tel: 86� 3i0 2582 Fax: 864 2�0 53i5 T PARAPET -0 � T.O. PARAPET -��• T.O. GOPIN6 TA. FINSH FLOOR IOr-0"�..�.� 12A NAVD - 65' FFE _ T.O. F�T1A F�OOD f �. � fi`��fi` �L��,�TI O�l (Sf�Ofi�� i=�i�i��l�D I GUL�i�) 3. SGALE: I/4" = 1'-0" REAR ELEVATION 1~�"`\� .r i r P�� oFw �C'��i�� ; : �,`� F� o � -� � �� .r�.,��.��, :� ��. AR0015603 ; v � + • , 04/D 9/14; � �� t�li FRED � PR��... � ��~ DQ COi�N�RSTON o,at�: m��ii� 22 BAY ESPLANAD� �'K - 3 GLEARWATER BEACN, FL JOB No: 20131i copyr(ght 2014 T.O. PARAPET -O .O. �INISF!_ F�� 12A NAW - 6S' FFE = 5 T.O. FEMA FLOOD PL ��-_ FINI o6RADE � � L��T SID� �L��T10�1 (S��I�J�i�D OR1�1�T�T10�1) A3.1 SGALE: I/4" = I'-0" FL G�RtI�IGAtE No. Gz08999110989 t • ` '`, ' � ��'�`�� k�. � a'� �� I�1 ��`�x � :�� 119 East tallulah Drive, Cireenville, SG 29605 Tel: 864 310 2582 �ax: 864 240 53i5 LEFT SIDE ELEV,4TfON --,��'�� „'� oF F� 011 � � �,�...•�: "i�►;� • .'�i � ��:`�c.�' � F'A�O ��:��.� �/�� AR0015603 .�� '� ��• 04/09/Z�f,\,`�V� !li FRED ..ARC�y� � 1�� DQ CORN�RST 2z eaY �sP�aNa�� GLEARWATER BEACH, FL DAtE: m4/09/14 s�-� JOB No: 20131i