The URL can be used to link to this page

FLD2014-04011COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Clearwater PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: June 17, 2014 AGENDA ITEM: EA. CASE: FLD2014 -04011 REQUEST: Flexible Development application to permit a restaurant in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 6,229 square feet, a lot width of 60 feet (along Gulfview Boulevard), a front (west) setback of zero feet (to sidewalk and second floor terrace) and 32 feet (to building), a side (north) setback of zero feet (to sidewalk), four feet (to building overhang) and six feet (to building), a side (south) setback of zero feet (to sidewalk) and zero feet (to building), a rear (east) setback of zero feet (to sidewalk) and ten feet (to building), a building height of 15 feet (to roof deck), 21.5 feet (to midpoint) and 32 feet (top of architectural pylon) with zero parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2- 803.L, with a two -year development order 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. GENERAL DATA: Agent ........................... Katie E. Cole, Esq. Applicant/ Owner ............. Joan Frangedis Living Trust Location ........................ Property Size .................. Future Land Use Plan..... Zoning ......................... Special Area Plan............ Adjacent Zoning.... North. South East: West: Existing Land Use........... Proposed Land Use....... 437 S Gulfview Boulevard; east side of street approximately 400 feet northwest of Hamden Drive 0.143 acres Resort Facilities High (RFH) Tourist (T) District Beach by Design; Clearwater Pass; Tourist (T) District Tourist (T) District Tourist (T) District Tourist (T) District Retail Sales /Services Restaurant � � 1�i1.t�1 1'1'tAlt�l Level II Flexible Development Application Review u. .. ..,� �..�"�'��'v'�'..r .. , . . ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 0.143 acre site is located on the eastern side of Gulfview Boulevard approximately 400 feet northwest of the intersection of Gulfview Boulevard with Hamden Drive and has 60 feet of frontage. The property is zoned Tourist (T) District and features a two-story retail use. The site is located within the special area redevelopment plan, Beach by Design, as part of the "South Beach / Clearwater Pass" District which is a distinctive area of mixed use with high rise condominiums, resort hotels, recreation, tourist, and neighborhood serving retail uses. The Clearwater Pass side of the area is relatively robust, though the availability of off- street parking is a limiting factor in the revitalization efforts. The Clearwater Bay side properties are more modest in size and economic assessment with smaller motel properties which are relatively successful. The balance of the District is made up of commercial and retail properties which provide neighborhood service uses, entertainment options and tourist shops to both residents and visitors alike. The immediate vicinity is composed of hotels, motels, residential condominium complexes, retail sales and services, restaurants, and beach access parking lots. Structures in the area vary in height between two and twelve stories, and generally represent architecture from a myriad of styles. Site History: The existing two-story structure was constructed in 1967 as a motel and was renovated in 1990 into a retail store which has featured a variety of retail establishments over the years. � + ti Q � t PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION G Q ._ � �G�WA7�RDtt' �H.�. - n ��-r;i sr � � � � � 73AYS�bE qQ �,--- PRO.tECT SfTE S� c'f� `°y, �^�o ��ei ��'�� t� �OY�q�,��o a"r�, LOCATION MAP L t37 �= ,�,� �� i , = r „� �� ,�� ,� 7' . — � 4� ' IkEdmnderooMOroctliM . � , 35 �� . .� ,,; �°� �,� � N.T.S ;; ZONING MAP 4 W � `�. s� �� ; ..� �� a�� .� -�. -- '" t28 q�0 Nl�fmt ,� � �r� H 0 e, E �7 e — i —I 68280 I �_ J aa N►tl�W�eca�loMatans � s ?i � .T. � . e+ "o_ i� � � � � .r '� � � � .t35 / 0 2 � ' IMo4e1 • � � Ab�% 87 / � . , � �� The parcel is located directly across the street � � z46 � ��° �A v from the former Adam s Mark hotel site which ppy��ppp�NDINGUSESMAP is currently vacant but has been approved for a Community Development Board, June 17, 2014 FLD2013-11041 — Page 1 O,p � � li�l.�� 1►�Ll.l Level II Fiexible Development Application Review u �...;^ ._. �%"`.�°."'�.R�".iR ;'�`�?'&�$<.s`.4�.,��„ � .. ...... . . ... ..... . ., _ _. , i "._i'`/ � . PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION 230-room hotel with 335 parking spaces. Directly to the north is the Post Corner pizza restaurant which serves as the dividing line between the "Beach Walk" and "South Beach/Clearwater Pass" character districts of Beach by Design. The remainder of the surrounding uses includes a variety of motel, hotel and condominium complexes. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no active Code Compliance cases for the subject property. Development Proposal: The proposed 4,227 square foot restaurant with outdoor seating area will accommodate 118 seats outside and 115 interior seats for a total of 233 seats. The main entrance to the restaurant will be accessed at grade from Gulfview Boulevard where the first floor will provide an open floor concept with outdoor patio seating leading into indoor seating with the bar serving as the divider between the two seating areas. The second floor will be accessed via the open staircase or the ADA accessible lift opening up into additional outdoor seating which leads into the indoor area including tables, booths, a secondary bar. A skylight in the roof will allow natural lighting into the second floor indoor seating area and an architectural opening in the second floor will allow the natural light to continue into the first floor seating area as well as providing views down into the first floor from the second floor. 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. ;. R_— WEST ELEVATION . ,'� ._`� ,�I `i/r;i�� j?_r�f TI�i� , � !�`ti � -i-- :� �; ��. � . � � L�. �.:_ , � Q o � n ..� -:. , . � . �, —F— _r .:a n nin� NORTH ELEVATION Proposed Salt�is Restaurant, Gulfview Boulevard fa�ade and north facing fa�ade. Special Area Plan: Beach bv Design: South Beach/Clearwater Pass 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 distinctive area of mixed use with high rise condominiums, resort hotels, recreation, tourist, and neighborhood serving retail uses. The Clearwater Pass side of the area is relatively robust, though the availability of off-street parking is a limiting factor in the revitalization efforts. The Clearwater Bay side properties are more modest in size and economic assessment with smaller motel properties which are relatively successful. The balance of the District is made up of commercial and retail properties which provide neighborhood service uses, Community Development Board, June 17, 2014 FLD2013-11041 — Page 2 � V�Ltil n'�141 Level II Flexible DevelopmentApplication Review � . . .. �$�+'�'`"�v� , . entertainment options and tourist shops to both residents and visitors alike. by Design, Design Guidelines are applicable to properties located withi Clearwater Pass" district and supersede the Community Development Code. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIP,W DIVISION The following Beach n the "South Beach / Beach bv Desi�n: 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 4,227 square feet of floor area within a two-story building. The maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.0 allows up to 6,229 square feet of floor area. The proposal is consistent with Beach by Design and the CDC with regaxd 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 21.5 feet in height with an architectural pylon element of 32 feet. 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. 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 m�imum building envelop allowance above 45 feet as described in Section C. 1.4 of the Design Guidelines. Community Development Board, June 17, 2014 FLD2013-11041 —Page 3 ' v��.c�i 17 (I�Lei Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLa,xx�NG & DEV�i"°PMENT P pp DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION 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 4,227 square feet and no plane of the building extends for more than 100 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 fa�ade continues for more than 100 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 north and west facades. The proposed building will feature an extensive open patio dining area on both the first and second floors which will extend along the street frontage and wrap around the structure along the northern facing fa�ade. An extensive use of windows, open patio areas 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 21.5 feet and 32 feet to the top of an architectural pylon therefore; this section is not applicable to the proposal. Section C. S 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 Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way is approximately 70 feet in width. The building will essentially be located 32 feet from the west property line with the outdoor patio area beginning approximately zero feet from the right-of-way which is consistent with other existing structures along Gulfview Boulevard. Given the height of the building there should be no negative effect on adjacent public spaces. Therefore, this provision is supported by the proposal. 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: Community Development Board, June 17, 2014 FLD2013-11041 —Page 4 r C1V(FA ��l�l Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT P PP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DMSION � �^:�.� ? �� .v.�,��,,. , . . 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 32 foot setback to the building along Gulfview Boulevard. 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 Gulfview Boulevard. The proposed outdoor patio area and landscaping planting beds will feature a zero 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 (north and south) setbacks of six feet and zero 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 or Hamden 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 feature a 32 foot setback along the Gulfview Boulevard frontage and the proposed outdoor patio area will feature an approximately zero foot setback. The perception will be that the building activity begins at the sidewalks edge with completely open expanses of customer seating area outdoors, the first floor bar will serve as the visual barrier to the indoor seating area of the restaurant. The concept of the building is to appear as a completely open air structure with seating and customer interaction areas located on both the first and second floors. No parking spaces are provided so the portions of this section Community Development Board, June 17, 2014 FLD2013-11041 — Page 5 � C1Lt11 1T[il��l Level II Flexible Develo mentA lication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT P PP DEVELOPMENTREVTEWDIVISION � ��a�,�. .� 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 a customer waiting area, restaurant seating area landscaping and a grand staircase and architectural element defining the main entrance. 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 proposed building will feature outdoor customer waiting areas and seating areas which will be covered by the roof overhang architectural details of the building along the first and second floors of the 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 Gulfview Boulevard 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 Gulfview Boulevard. Additional street lighting is not proposed with this development. Therefore, this section is not applicable to the proposal. Section K addresses issues related to fountains. A fountain is not proposed with this development. Therefore, this section is not applicable to the proposal. Community Development Board, June 17, 2014 FLD2013-11041 — Page 6 oCl�.(.Fl ��L41 Level II Flexible Develo ment A licatlon Review PLANMNG & DEVELOPMENT p pP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DMSION n. . f . �� 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 coastal designed architecture with outdoor dining and seating areas located within an open air pavilion style structure on the first and second floors. The exterior colors proposed include warm grays and buff tones with the metal standing seam red roof serving as a material and color accent. The proposed color scheme and material schedule meets the requirements of this section. Community Development Code ➢ Purpose, Intent and Basic PlanningObjectives 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 Gulfview Boulevard. The proposed restaurant is consistent with the character of the area along Gulfview Boulevard with regard to use and the proposal will result in a project consistent with elements of the Comprehensive Plan, as provided above. 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 tourism related uses consistent with the Tourist District and the redevelopment of the existing retail use into a viable restaurant use will enhance the immediate area. The surrounding land uses of hotels, retail, parking lot and beach areas will benefit from the addition of a full-service restaurant within walking distance. 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 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 an existing retail use into a full-service restaurant which will provide an architecturally attractive building which will support the intent of the 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. Community Development Board, June 17, 2014 FLD2013-11041 — Page 7 ' li�tit41 ►tt�Lt�i Level II Flexible Develo ment plication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT P AP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION � . .. ., . ,.., . ��""��.<, ., ... The proposal includes a new full-service restaurant with landscape planting areas and extensive outdoor customer area. 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. S. 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 full- service restaurant. The proposal will be consistent with regard to the desired form and function of the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design, therefore, the proposal supports this CDC Section. Section 2-801 Intent of the Tourist District and Resort Hi�h Facilities FLUP 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 m�imum FAR for properties with a Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) designation of Resort Facilities High (RFH) is 1.0. The proposed FAR is 0.68, which is consistent with the Countywide Plan Rules and the CDC. Impervious Surface Ratio (ISRL 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 0.93, 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 Community Development Board, June 17, 2014 FLD2013-11041 —Page 8 � Cl�.ctl ��Lel Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PL.4NNING& DEVELOPMENT - P PP DEVELOPMENTREVIEWDIVISION � � ..._ ��. ��.�;�rw.�... .._ a restaurant is between 5,000 and 10,000 square feet and 50 and100 feet, respectively. The lot area is 6,229 square feet and the lot width is 60 feet which is consistent with the requirements of the CDC. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, there are no minimum required setbacks for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. The proposed building front setback will be 32 feet, the side setbacks will be six feet (north) and zero feet (south) and the rear setback will be 10 feet which is consistent with the requirements of the CDC. 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 15 feet (to roof deck), 21.5 feet (to midpoint) and 32 feet (to top of architectural pylon) which is consistent with the requirements of the CDC. Minimum Off-Street Parking: 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 30 and 50 spaces. The proposal includes zero parking spaces. The applicant has submitted a Parking Demand Study which identifies 1,064 parking spaces available within the immediate area. The study further identifies that the subject property is in close proximity to municipal parking lots, nearby hotels/motels, residential condominiums all providing for a high probability of "walk-up" customers. Additionally, the Jolley Trolley route passes directly in front of the proposed restaurant and has a designated stop near the site and there are bicycle racks nearby. All of the noted factors in addition to the 1,064 spaces in the immediate vicinity of the proposed restaurant will not cause adverse impacts to the surrounding areas, which is consistent with the requirements of the CDC. Mechanical Eguipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-201.D.1, all outside mechanical equipment must be screened so as not to be visible from public streets andlor abutting properties. The proposed mechanical equipment will be located on the flat portion of the roof deck and will be screened behind the parapet portion of the sloped metal standing seam roofing 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. Si�ht Visibilitv Trian�les: 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, which is consistent with the requirements of the CDC. Community Development Board, June 17, 2014 FLD2013-11041 — Page 9 ' C��(il ►1�Lel Level II Flexible Develo ment lication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT p �p DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION U .... .,. ........� �, u�;_ . . . 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, which is consistent with the CDC. Landscapin� Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, 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 applicant has submitted a Comprehensive Landscaping Application consistent with CDC Section 3-1202.G. The proposed project includes a raised, 18 inch high bench planter opposite an 18 inch high bench lined with shrubs along the Gulfview Boulevard frontage extending from the sidewalk around to the southern facing fa�ade. Additionally, the project will include two street palms along the Gulfview Boulevard frontage which complies with the CDC. Solid Waste: The project includes a roll away dumpster to be positioned at the northeastern corner of the site at the rear of the restaurant. The location of the dumpster requires an enclosure to block it from view of surrounding properties and will require fire suppression if within 10 feet from the building. The applicant will provide a fence enclosure and will comply with all fire suppression requirements which is consistent with the CDC. Sign�e: 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 4,227 square foot, two-story full-service restaurant with outdoor seating. The subject property is located within the T District on Gulfview Boulevard, approximately 400 feet northwest of the intersection of Gulfview Boulevard with Hamden Drive. The area features a variety of retail sales, services, overnight accommodations, restaurants and residential condominium uses. The buildings in the immediate area range from two to four stories with area residential condominiums and beachfront hotels featuring multi- stories. The proposed two-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. Community Development Board, June 17, 2014 FLD2013-11041 —Page 10 ' vi��l ��L�� Level II Flexible Develo ment lication Review FLANNING & DEVELOPMENT p �p DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DMSION � . _ � ,�. . .�i S"�.�,.,,. . . . Most of the immediate area is built-out and the proposed restaurant development will provide a viable use 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 1,064 parking spaces within the immediate area. 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. S. 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, and restaurants. The modern architectural style of the building combined with the open air concept of the outdoor patio areas and proposed architectural detailing 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 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 andlor development standards set forth in this zoning district. Community Development Board, June 17, 2014 FLD2013-11041 — Page 11 '- C1�I.Rl f'��L41 Level II Flexible DevelopmentApp�ication Review PL`�nNG�DEV�,opI`'�NT � ,� .�„� ��t, ,� ._ .. . DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION The proposed restaurant improvements incorporate an existing structure and the location of the physical building maintains the existing setbacks with the addition of the entrance stairwell and ADA accessible lift. Due to the size of the site, the proposed project will include significant outdoor seating on the both the first and second floors. The open air concept restaurant will provide the terraced layout without requiring intrusion into the public right of way. The applicant has provided for a development proportionately-scaled to 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 Zand uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of six objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; The proposed restaurant use is 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. Community Development Board, June 17, 2014 FLD2013-11041 — Page 12 o Cl�.NJ. /7tiL�1 Level II Flexible Develo ment lication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT P APP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DMSION � ..., .. . ., t�`�°::.,;.. . . . 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 "South Beach/Clearwater Pass" 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. Within Beach by Design criteria, the proposed restaurant is being development within the "South Beach/Clearwater Pass" character district. The project will add vitality and promote context for the streetscape envisioned within the character district. The proposed architectural character incorporates elements anticipated within Beach by Design, and therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buf�ers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. The proposed buffers and setbacks provide appropriate buffering and distances between buildings, similar to adjacent and surrounding developments. The landscape design will present an inviting topical appearance and meets the intent of Beach by Design. Additionally, the applicant has submitted a Comprehensive Landscaping Application as part of the submittal; 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. Community Development Board, June 17, 2014 FLD2013-11041 — Page 13 � C��.R�aLei Level II Flexible Development Application Review FLANNING & DEVELOPMENT � . �.... e ...��wxA,.. . . .. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION 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 Objective 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 Obj ective. Objective A.3.2 — All development or redevelopment initiatives within the City of Clearwater shall meet the minimum landscaping / tree protection standards of the Community Development Code in order to promote the preservation of existing tree canopies, the expansion of that canopy, and the overall quality of development within the Ciry; and Polic�A. 3.2.1 - All new development or redevelopment of property within the Ciry of Cleanvater shall meet all landscape requirements of the Communiry Development Code. The proposed project will include landscaping sufficient through the Comprehensive Landscaping Program which is consistent with the CDC. Objective A.5.5 — Promote high quality design standards that support Clearwater's image and contribute to its identity. Policy 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 Gulfview Boulevard. 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 coxnmunity. The proposed project will provide upgrades to the existing 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 South Beach / Clearwater Pass character district is specifically targeted for strategic revitalization and renovation. The Community Development Board, June 17, 2014 FLD2013-11041 — Page 14 � C�bt�l 1'1i�Lel Level II Flexible Develo ment lication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT P MP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DMSION u.,� ..�. .. x �*:,u.,�.q s,� �. , : _ .. 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. Obiective 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) acreJ which are currently receiving an adequate level of service shall be specifically encouraged by administration of land development and concurrency management regulatory systems as a method of promoting urban infill. The subject property is a small parcel in comparison to the majority of surrounding parcels and as such provides for limited development and/or redevelopment options which would be consistent with the CDC. The proposed full-service restaurant will provide a commercial amenity to the existing neighborhood. Ob�ective A.6.6 - Tourism is a substantial element of the Ciry'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. Policy A.6.8.3 - Where appropriate, development shall provide a sense of pedestrian scale on streets through minimal front setbacks, similar building heights, street trees and proportionality of building heights to street widths. The proposal includes a renovated two-story building. As explored in detail previously in this document, the proposal is consistent with the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design including 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 er �liL i anies L-uu i. i ana L-uus : Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Floor Area Ratio 1.00 0.68 X Impervious Surface Ratio 0.95 0.93 X Minimum Lot Area N/A 6,229 square feet (0.143 acres) X Minimum Lot Width N/A 60 feet X Minimum Setbacks Front: West: N/A 32 feet to building X Zero feet to paving Rear: East N/A 10 feet to building X Zero feet to paving Side: North: N/A 6 feet to building X Zero feet to paving South: N/A Zero feet to building X Zero feet to paving Maximum Height N/A 32 feet X Minimum Determined by the community Zero spaces Xl Off-Street Parking development coordinator based on the specific use and/or ITE Manual standards See analysis in StaffReport Community Development Board, June 17, 2014 FLD2013-11041 —Page 15 ' vl�.ct��alel Level II Flexible Development Application Review . ... .. . . ��' . . .. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL APPLICABILITY STANDARDS The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A: l. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. 5. T'he proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. � See analysis in Staff Report Community Development Board, June 17, 2014 FLD2013-11041 — Page 16 Consistent I Inconsistent X' X� X' X1 X' X' ' L��.Nl 1'1'NLel Level II Flexible Development Application Review � . �v. ..- �. .. . PLANiQING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIE.W DMSION COMPLIANCE WITH FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-803.D. (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Proiect): 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development. 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking aze justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging chazacter of an area; d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive 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. � See analysis in Staff Report Community Development Board, June 17, 2014 FLD2013-11041 — Page 17 Consistent � Inconsistent X X' X' X� X� X� ' l��LUj ►7LtLel Level II Flexible Development Application Review U y �m°Y'js4P�#'^�°'�k' .�.ca`�"wr ... 1. Section A: Density. 2. Section B: Height. 3. Section C: Design, Scale and Mass of Buildings. 4. Section D: Setbacks. 5. Section: Street-Level Fa�ades. 6. Section F: Parking Areas. 7. Section G: Signage. 8. Section H: Sidewalks. 9. Section I: Street Furniture and Bicycle Racks. PLANNING 8c DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DMSION Consistent Inconsistent X' X' X' X' X' X' X1 X� N/A' 10. Section J: Street Lighting. N/A� 11. Section K: Fountains. N/A' 12. Section L: Materials and Colors. X� ' See analysis in Sta�'Report. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of May 1, 2014, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient, based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: Findin�s 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 0.143 acre site is located on the east side of Gulfview Boulevard, approximately 400 feet northwest of the intersection of Gulfview Boulevard with Hamden Drive; 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 "South Beach/Clearwater Pass" character district of Beach by Design; 4. That the proposal is to renovate the existing two-story structure into a full-service restaurant and is subject to the requisite development parameters per Article 2 Division 8 of the CDC; 5. That the site is currently developed with a two-story retail use; 6. The subject property is comprised of one parcel with approximately 60 feet of frontage along Gulfview Boulevard; 7. The proposal includes a front (west) setback of zero feet (to sidewalk) and 32 feet (to building), a side (north) setback of zero feet (to sidewalk), four feet (to building overhang) and six feet (to building), a side (south) setback of zero feet (to sidewalk) and zero feet (to building), a rear (east) setback of zero feet (to sidewalk) and ten feet (to building), a building height of 15 feet (to roof deck), 21.5 feet (to midpoint) and 32 feet (top of architectural pylon) and zero parking spaces; 8. A Comprehensive Landscaping Program application has been submitted and the project includes a landscaped planter bed along the front of the outdoor seating area as well as along approximately 80 feet of the southern property line. The landscaping plan also includes two Sabal palm trees within the streetscape area of the site; and, 9. There are no active Code Compliance cases for the subject property. Community Development Board, June 17, 2014 FLD2013-11041 —Page 18 ' C��.[i��l.el Level II Flexible Develo ment PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT p Application Review DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION � �•�� ., 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 South Beach / Clearwater Pass 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.D of the Community Development Code; 9. That the development proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Landscaping Program as per Section 3-1202.G of the Community Development Code; 10. 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, 11. 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 6,229 square feet, a lot width of 60 feet (along Gulfview Boulevard), a front (west) setback of zero feet (to sidewalk) and 32 feet (to building), a side (north) setback of zero feet (to sidewalk), four feet (to building overhang) and six feet (to building), a side (south) setback of zero feet (to sidewalk) and zero feet (to building), a rear (east) setback of zero feet (to sidewalk) and ten feet (to building), a building height of 15 feet (to roof deck), 21.5 feet (to midpoint) and 32 feet (top of architectural pylon) with zero parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-803.L, with a two- year development order 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 A� roval: General/Miscellaneous Conditions l. 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; Community Development Board, June 17, 2014 FLD2013-11041 — Page 19 ' C��.RI 1'Y �Lel Level II Fiexible Development Application Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ° . .. . .. .. ,"�'t�3rt�.5"an,�,n.-., ...... .. . . DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION 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. 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 andJor federal permits be obtained before commencement of the development; Timing Conditions 6. That application for a building permit be submitted no later than June 17, 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: �. ,�,�.— Melissa auck- Baker, AICP, Planner II ATTACHMENTS: Photographs/Staff Resume Community Development Board, June 17, 2014 FLD2013-11041 —Page20 Looking east t�om Gulfview Boulevard. Lookmg southeast from (iuliview Boulevard. 1, 1 �� fi ' �i P, A �_. ,,.�� , "�„�`:��! . �� -,,. �,,. , ,,�g, ��. - r � r , � �� k ., q-�. 1' 7a, ek wf� i i ��.w S'k Looking northeast from Gulfview (3oulevard. Luuking ��uth��c�i lrun� �cei ��i ,ub�cci �>rupcit� 437 South Gulfview FLD2014-04011 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 investigations, report preparation, meeting attendance and presentation of findings as relating to proposed development projects and required regulatory review procedures. • Professional Planner Consultant - March 2010 to June 2013 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 - April 2001 to January 2005 KEPG, LLC, Atlantic City, NJ Oversee consulting services provided to municipal clients in the area of zoning, planning, master planning and redevelopment planning. Review all proposed projects before any required municipal board, authority and commission as well as any additional jurisdictional requirement of other local, state and federal entities. Provide professional guidance regarding planning and zoning concepts, zoning ordinance development, urban design issues, master plans, and redevelopment plans as outlined within the New Jersey Municipal Land Use Law. Supervise the preparation of reports and plans, conduct site visits, attend and present findings 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 Certified Planners #023351 (2009 to Present) American Planning Association (2001 to Present) Florida Chapter (2013 to Present) New Jersey Chapter (2001 to 2012) Licensed New Jersey Professional Planner #33LI00609500 (2009 to Present) LL ° � earwater U Planning & Development Departmen# Flexible Development Application Attached Dwellings, Mixed-Uses or Non-Residential Uses IT IS tNCUMBENT UPON THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT COMPLETE AND CORRECT INFORMATION. ANY MISLEADING, DECEPTIVE, INCOMPLETE OR INCORRECT INFORMATION MAY INVALIDATE YOUR APPLICATION. ALL APPLICATIONS ARE TO BE FILLED OUT COMPLETELY AND CORRERLY, AND SUBMITTED IN PERSON (NO FAX OR DELIVERIES) TO THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY NOON ON THE SCHEDULED DEADUNE DATE. A TOTAL OF 11 COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS (1 ORIGINAL AND 10 COPIES) AS REQUIRED WITHIN ARE TO BE SUBMITTEO FOR REVIEW BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE. SUBSEQUENT SUBMITTAL FOR THE COMMUNIT1f DEVELOPMENT BOARD WILL REQUIRE 15 COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND I4PPLICATION MATERIALS (1 ORIGINAL AND 14 COPIES). PlANS AND APPUCATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COLLATED, STAPLED AND FOLDED INTO SETS. THE APPUCANT, BY FIUNG THIS APPLICATION, AGREES TO COMPLY WRH ALL APPUCABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODf. FIRE DEPT PRELIMARY SITE PLAN REVIEW FEE: $200 APPLICATION FEE: $1,205 PROPERTY OWNER (PER DEEO): �Oan Frar�gedis Living Trust, James Boutzoukas, Ermioni Boutzoukas, and Michael Frangedis MAILING ADDRESS: 1761 Royal Oak Place West, Dunedin, FL 34698 PHONE NUMBER: n/a EMAIL: �a AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE• �be E. Cole, Esq. & E.D. Armstrong IIUHii1 Ward Henderson MAILING ADDRESS: 311 Park Ptace, Suite 240, Clearwater, FL 33759 PHONE NUMBER: 727-724-3900 EMAIL• ��•�e�hwhlaw.com ADDRE55 OF SU6IECT PROPERTY: 437 S. Gulfview Blvd., Clearwater, FL 33767 PARCEL NUMBER(S): 07-29-15-52380-000-0810 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: � attached Exhibit "A" PROPOSED USE(S): Restauran# DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: See attached Exhibit "B". Specifically identify the request (inc{ude aH requested code jlexibifity,• e.g., reduction in required number of • parking spaces, height setbacks, lot , size, lot w/dth, specific use, etc.J: Planning 3 Development Departrnent, 100 S. Myrtie Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-b62-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 1 of 8 Revised 01H2 ° 1 rwtr �Cea ae U Planning & Development Department Flexible Development Application Data Sheet PLEASE ENSURE THAT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS FILLED OUT, IN IT'S ENTIRETY. FAILURE TO COMPLETE THIS FORM WILL RESULT IN YOUR APPLICATION BEfNG FOUND INCOMPLETE AND POSSIBLY DEFERRED UNTIL THE FOLLOWING APPLICATfON CYCLE. ZONIN6 DISTRICT: FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESI6NATION: Tourist District (T) Resort Facilities High (RFH) EXISTING USE (currently existing on site): Existing retaiUrestaurant with 11-25 seats PROPOSED USE (new use, if any; plus existing, ff to remain): Restaurant with outdoor seating SITE AREA: 6,229.08 sq. ft. •143 acres GROSS FLOOR AREA (total square footage of ail buildings): Existing: 4,315 sq. ft. Proposed: 4,227 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable: 6,229 sq. ft. GROSS FLOOR AREA (total square footage devoted to each use, if Chere wNl be multiple uses): First use: 4,227 sq. ft. Second use: n/a sq. ft. Third use: �/a sq. ft. FLOOR AREA RATIO (total square footage of all buildings divided by the total square footage of entire site): Existing: •69 Proposed: •s8 Maximum Allowable: 1.0 BUILDIN6 COVERAGE/FOOTPRINT (ln floor square footage of aN buildings): Existing: 2,482 sq. ft. ( �•82 % of site) Proposed: 2,194 sq. ft. ( 35.22 % of site) Maximum Permitted: sq. ft. ( % of site) GREEN SPACE WITHIN VEHICULAR USE AREA (green space within the parking lot and inte�ior of site; not perimeter buffer): Existing: � sq. ft. ( � % of site) Proposed: � sq. ft. ( � % of site) VEHICULAR USE AREA (parking spaces, drive aisles, loading area): Existing: �5 sq. ft. ( �s % of site) Proposed: p sq. ft. ( p % of site) Planning � Devebpment Department,100 S. Myrde Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-662�567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 2 of 8 Revised 01 H 2 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO (total square footage of impervious areas divided by the total square footage of entire site): Existing: 100% Proposed: 9396 Maximum Permitted: 95Yo DENSITY (units, rooms or beds per acre): Existing: Na Proposed: Maximum Permitted: OFF-STREET PARKING: Existing: Proposed: Minimum Required: 34 5 BUILDING HEIGHT: Existing: Proposed: Maximum Permitted: aaProx. 22' 27'8" 100 WHAT IS THE ESTIMATED TOTAL VALUE OF THE PROJECT UPON COMPLETION? $ 350,000 ZONING DISTRICTS FOR ALL ADIACENT PROPERTY: North: Tourist (T) South: T East: T West: T STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS �„f.�� I, the undersigned, acknowledge that alt Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of representations made in this application are true and ��,t �(`t . to me and/or by accurate to the best of my knowledge and authorize � City representatives to visit and photograph the �'�-�'L{� C,�� , who is personally known has property described in this application. prp�iuced _ as identification. � re of property owner � . `�� LU �� —_., Notary p lic, My commission expires: ,.A�;��,� EXPIRES: November 1 t, 2017 Bonddf Thru Nofary pudic UrMerwriters Planning 8 Developtnent Departrnent, 100 S. MyrNe Avenue, Clearvvater, FL 33756, Tei: 727�662�d567; Fax: 727-562�865 Page 3 of 8 Revised 01H2 o � � Planning & Development Department �� earwate Flexible Develo ment A lication P PP `' Site Plan Submittal Package Check list IN ADDITION TO THE COMPLETED FIEXIBIE DEVELOPMENT (FLD) APPLICATION, ALL R.D APPLICATIONS SHALL INCLUDE A SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL PACKA6E THAT INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING II�{FORMATION 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 subjed property is located. The attached Flexible Development Application Flexibility Criteria sheet shall be used to provide these responses. O Responses to the General Applicability criteria set forth in Sedion 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 cur�ent 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. ❑ ff this application is being submitted for the purpose of a boatlift, catwalk, davit, dack, marina, pier, seawaU or other si milar marine structure, then the applicatwn must provide detailed plans and spec�catians 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. O North arrow, scale, Iocation map and date prepared. ❑ Identification of the boundaries of phases, if development is proposed to be construded in phases. ❑ Location of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCLj, whether the property is (ocated 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 utiiity easeme�ts. ❑ Location of onsite and offsite stormwater management facilities as well as a narrative describing the proposed stormwater control plan inciuding caiculations. Additional data necessary to demonstrate compliance with the City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design C�iteria manual may be required at time of building construction permit. 0 Location of solid waste collection facilities, required screening and provisions for accessibility for collection. ❑ Location of off-street loading area, if required by Sedion 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 materiats. Planning 8 Development Department,100 S. MyrGe Avenue, Clearvvate►, FL 33756, Tel: 727-662-4567; Fax: 727-562�865 Page 4 of 8 Revised 01H2 O Typical floor plans, including floor plans for each floor of any parking garage. 0 Demolition plan. 0 Ident�cation and description of watercourses, wetlands, tree masses, specimen trees, and other environmentally sensitive areas. ❑ If a deviation from the parking standards is requested that is greater than 5096 (exciuding those sta�dards 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. P{ease see the adopted Parking Demand Study Guidetines for further information. 0 A tree survey showing the locaiion, D8H and species of ali existing trees with a DBH of four i�ches or more, and identifying those trees proposed to be removed, if any. ❑ A tree irnentory, 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. 0 A Traffic Impact Study shall be required for atl proposed developments if the total generated net new trips meet one or more of the foNowing conditions: ■ Proposal is expected to generate 100 or more new trips in any given hour (directionat trips, inbound or outbound on the abutting streets) andJor 1,000 or more new trips per day; or • Anticipated new trip generation degrades the level of service as adopted in the Ci#y'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 tMe segment and/or intersection exists on the Cit�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 develapments that are expected to negatively impact a constrained roadway or developments with unknown trip generation and/or other unknown factors. O A landscape plan shatl be provided for any project where there is a new use or a change of use; or an existing use is improved or remodeled in a value of 25% or more of the valuation of the principal stn�cture as reflected on the properly appraiser's current records, or if an amendmen# is required to an existing approved site plan; or a parki�g lot requires additional landscaping pursuant to the provisi+ons 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: O Location, size, descriptio�, specifications and quantities of all existing and proposed landxape materials, including botanical and common names. ❑ Existing trees on-site and immediately adjacent to the site, by species, size and location, including drip line. 0 Interior landscape areas hatched and/or shaded and labeled and interior landscape coverage, expressed both in square feet, exclusive of perimeter landscaped strips, and as a percentage of the paved area coverage of the parking lot and vehicular use areas. O Location of existi�g and proposed structures and improvements, including but no# 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, artd any other fea#ures 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. O Delineation and dimensions of all required perimeter landscaped buffers including sight triangles, if any. Pla�ning & Develo{xnent Departrnent,100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562�567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 5 of 8 Revised 01H2 ° 1 rwater �Cea Planning & Development Department Flexible Development Application � General Applicability Criteria PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO EACH OF THE SIX (6) GENERAL APPUCABILITY qtITERIA EXPLAINING HOW, IN DETAIL, THE CRITERION IS BEING COMPLIED WITH PER THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. See Exhibit "B" 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly irnpair the value thereof. See Exhibit "B" 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. See Exhibit "B" 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. See Exhibit "B" 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. See Exhibit «B" 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. See Exhibit "6" Planning � Development Deparhment,100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwaber, FL 33756, Tel: 727�62-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 6 of 8 Revised 01M2 ° 1 rwater �Cea Planning & Development Depardnent Flexible Development Application � Flexibility Criteria PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO THE APPUCABLE FLEXlBILfiY CRITERIA FOR THE SPECIFiC USE(S) BEING REQUESTED AS SET FORTH IN THE ZONING D15fRICT(5) IN WHlCH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED. EXPLAIN HOW, IN DETAII, EACH CRfTER10N IS BEING COMPUED WITH PER THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL (USE SEPARATE SHEETS AS NECESSARY). 1. Sri� GI��iJll pO� 2. See Exhibit "B„ See Exhibit "B" 3. See Exhibit "B" 4. 5. See Exhibit "B" See Exhibit "B" 6. 7. See Exhibit "B" s. See Exhibit "B" Pl�ning & Development Deparbnent,100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33T56, Tel: 727562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 7 of 8 Revised 01H2 �learwater �. Planning & Deveiopment Departmec�t Fiexible Develvpment Application ��----��''��=�- �`�°�A==� Affidavit to Authorize A�ent/Representative i. Provide names of al! property pwners on deed - PR4N r full names: Joan Frangedis Living Trust Ermioni 8outzoukas Michael Frangedis 2. ihat (a am/we are) the owner(s} and record titie hoider(s} of the foilowing described praperty� See attached Exhibit "A" 3. That this property constitutes the property for which a ret�uest far (describe request): Flexibie Oeve�opment Application d. That tl�e undersigned �has/haveJ appointed and (doesjdai ap�atint. Katie E. Cole. Esq. & E.D. Armstrong IIItHiil Ward Henderson �s (his/theirj agent(s) to execute any petitians or other documents necessary to aff�ct sucr petrtion; S. 5hat thi5 affidavrt has been executed to induce the City of G1e,arwater, Florida ta consider and act on the above descr�bed �ro4�ertY: G. That site visits to the prop�rCy are n�cessary by C�ty representatives in urder to process [his appiication and the owner authortzes City representatives to visit anci photograph the property described in this application; � 7. Thai (i/wei, Cfi n rsigned authnrity, hereby certify thai the fore ng is Property Oaaner � PrOperty Owner STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS Owner SEFORE ME THE UNDERSIGMED. AN OFFICER DULY COMdvSiS51t)NEO BY THF LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLQRInA ON ii�IS . �� DAY OF � �} � ( � � � _� .._...__.. _. �C� I ��, PERSONALLY APPEARED ' � �_.._... • . �._�_ � �a n � . �_ �a n��a w � 4 WHO HAVINC gEEN FiRST dULY SWGRN �EPOSED AND SAYS TNAT HEISHE fUll.Y UNDERST V#T THAT HE/SHE SIGNED .�.e��,� ; '' JtH.iE J. TEA1 � � r w`� Noliry PuNic, S'te� oi Fbnda _ ' � C�orwtEE 183794 ary Pubiic S+gnature A d!Y comm. axpiree AAer. 27, 2018 \\ ;� ►vota" h�yCorr�m�ssianEx�afres_ �3 � �2-��.0� („� � Planning 8 Davolo�ment Department. 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Ciearwacer, fL 33756, Tei: 727•562-4567; Fax: 727-56Z-4865 Page 8 of 8 Reviscd 01/12 Ptanning & Devetapment Departme►�t � ear�ate� Flexible DevelopmentApptication �`"�'�,�"�*.."�--°� r�...f'" ��-�'�' ��-f-�-�- ��--�--�-�-� Affidavit to Authorize Agent/Representative �. Provide names of aii property owne=s on deed -�'R�NT fusi narnes: Jaan Frangedis Living Trust Errninn+ Bqutzoukas Michaei Frangedis d. That (! am/we arej the awner(s} and record title h�ider(s} of the following described property� See attached Exhibit "A" 3. That this property constitutes Che property for evh;ch a request for (describe request�� Fiexible Deveiopment Appiication ». That the und�rsigned (has/have) aPPo+ntec! and �does`dc�► appoint: Kaiie E. Cvle, Esy. c� E.D. Armstrong I{I1Hiil Ward He�derson as (his,ltheirj agent(s) to execute any pekiFipns or �ther d�tuments nece5sary to aftett si�ch pet�Cion; S. �hat th�s aff;davit has been executed to induce the City of Ctearwater, Fforicla to cansider and act or� the above descri�ci R�ORp�tY; G. 7h�t site visits tr� th� property arr. nccessary bY ��ty representatives �n order to pr�cess tt�is apylicatic�r~ anc9 tt7e v�vncr auEharia�s City representatives ta visit and photo�raph the prop�Ry described in this appiication; 7. ihat (I/wet, the untiersigned authoNty, hereby certi#y that the foregoing is true anci correct. -- -. _ -- � -;�._..._ ,.-fl+'�.� �,.. - ._. ?roperty Owne� Property C7wner Property Owner STATE OF FLOR4DA, COUNTY OF PINELLRS Property O�tvner BEFORE ME THE UNC}ERStGtJEtJ AN OFFICFR [�UIY �pMMISSIOtJED BY THE LAWS OF THE STATF OF FIORti�A. C!N TH{S D_� � DAY liF G�' G� � I Y , PERSOIdALLY APPEAREL� % ,- _L__. ______..___--- -. �_._.__�. -----A_ __.._._._._ �_. _�.�_. .� �tI ��2 f___._.rl `��i�-{�O�r�� _2_______. _ .__ .._.�_ ___._ __ _.___._ Vb'Hi7 HAVlNG �EEhi F1F�ST DULY SWOR�� ' DEPQSED ANQ SAYS iHAT HErSNE FULIY UNDERSTANpS THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVlT THAT HE'SH� SIGNED � �!�, ANtiUEi' Al�id g� JR. c� � �S �a�ry �ubirc, Saaie oi Flo� �d��_c= '� c' �Ior�fFFgg7t2 __� " h�4tary Pubiic 5ignature �Y cumm. s�s Ckt. 28� 2017 � ° % _... ! Not�ry Seai�Stamp h9y Corein�dssia� Exp�res. �� . � �1 � � Alannirtg iL DevelopmeM Llepartme�t, /00 S. Myrtle Avanuc. Clearwater, fl 3375fi, Tel: 727•5S2-d567; Fax: 727-562-48fi5 Page 8 0/8 Revised 01f12 Plannic2g & Deveiop�nent Department � ear�vater Flexibte Develo ment A lication P PP ��-=` �`-="�-�'�� = Affidavit to Authorize Agent/Representative .t. Provide names of ali property owners on decd – PRINT fuil r,ames� Joan Frangedis Living Trust E�mioni Boutzoukas Michael Frangedis 2. That (I amJwe are} the owner{s} and record utie ho(der(sj oi the following described property: See attached Exn+bit "A" 3. That thi5 p�operty constitutes the prooerty for which a request for {describe requesf)� FlexibFe Devetoprttent Application G. That the undersigned thas/have) appo�nted and {does/do) appoint: Katie E. Co�e, Esq. & E.D. Armsttong 1tI1Hi11 Ward Henderson as (his/iheir) agent(s) td execute any petitions or other docurnent� necessary to af#ect such petrtion; 5. That this affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act on the above descfibed propeny; &. That s+te visits Ca the prop�rty are nece5sary by City representatives �n order ko �srocess this application and the owner autharizes City representatives to visit and photograph Che property described in this application; '. 7hat (!/we e undersigned authority, hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correcti. property pwner � Prt�perty Owner Prqp@rty Owner STATE UF FLORfDA, COUNTY OF PINELGA5 Property Owner � BEFORE ME THE UNDERSIGPlED, AN 17F�'iCER QULY COMMISSIONED BY THE LAWS [)F THF STATE C3F FLpRl�A, O!U I THiS ._.. __.�I �°*__.__ DAY OF � yi' 'x^! ic.�'�__._. �-- _�.� �� y �_.. PERSOI�AIi�V APPEARED _..__....._�� _I�.S��__.��.�.�1�__,__. _.__ ____�...----- � WNQ i1VG BEEN FtRST DULY SWtiF2N I D _ YS THAT HEtSHE FULI�' �JNDERSTANDS THE CflNTEN F AFFIDAVIT THAT HEISHE SlGNED. � � "�a ra Af�1Y L,IqS �� S No�mpublic �u �� Florida My co�fi�ssi°�rEE8i356 `—� pires Ap� 5�� Notary Put�l�c S+gnature tvotary Seai.+Star?�p 147r �a rssion E�rres: � r'�'__�I rj � Pianning 8 DeveFopmertt Oepartment, 1D4 S. Myrtte Avenua, Cleanxat�r, Fl 33756, Tei; 727-S6Z-45b7; Fax: 72i-562-4865 Page 8 af 8 Revised 01ii� Exhibit "A" Lot 81 of the Lloyd-White-Skinner Subdivision, according to the map or plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 13, Pages 12 and 13, of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. 5325856v1 City of Clearwater Comprehensive Tnfill Redevelopment Application 437 S. GULFVIEW BOULEVARD, CLEARWATER BEACH EXHIBIT "B" Description of Request The property was operated previously in the names of Flippers, Celebrity of Clearwater, and Krazy Market under temporary use approvals for restaurant/snack bar/outdoor cafe including alcoholic beverages and 11-25 seats (BTR0027402), as well as tourist and neighborhood serving retail sales (BTR9014071). The Applicant operates two successful Crabby Bill's on Clearwater Beach, and is opening a third restaurant ("Sa1ty's"). The Applicant requests Flexible Development (FLD) Site Plan Approval to convert the existing building to a restaurant with an outdoor seating area in the Tourist (T) District to accommodate 115 seats inside and 118 seats outside. The subject property is +/-.143 acres (6,229.08 square feet) and is bounded by parking for a neighboring hotel to the east, Gulfview Boulevard to the west, the Post Corner Pizza and Resta.urant and Magnuson Hotel to the north, and Pelican Pointe Resort condos to the south. The site is located within an area designated by Beach by Design as "South Beach/Clearwater Pass". Beach by Design identifies this as a distinctive area of mixed use with condos, hotels, tourist and neighborhood retail serving uses, such as the proposed restaurant. Demolition of the existing outdated structure and construction of the new Sa1ty's will make a significant contribution toward revitalization and renovation as contemplated in the Clearwater Pass district. Specifically, the Applicant requests FLD Site Plan Approval in the T District to permit conversion of an existing two story building into a restaurant with outdoor seating, specifically: a. Lot Area of .143 (MOL) acres (6,229.08 square feet); b. Lot Width of 60 feet on Gulfview Boulevard; c. Maximum Building Height (above BFE) 15'-0" to roof deck, 21'-6" to midpoint, and 32'-0" to top of architectural pylon d. Front (West) Setback along Gulfview Boulevard: 0'to pavement and structural components of second floor cantilevered terrace, 32'-0" to the building; e. Side (North) Interior Setback: 0' to pavement, 4' to the building overhang; 6.3' to building; f. Side (South) Interior Setback: 0' to pavement, 0' to the building; g. Rear (East) Setback: 0' to pavement, 10.3' to the building; h. Flexibility to the minimum standards for Parking, providing 0 Parking Spaces (0 spaces/4,227SF), where 7 spaces/1,000 SF or 29 is required); and as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Section 2-803.L of the Development Code with a two-year developnnent order. General Applicabilitv Criteria l. 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 specific request is in harmony with the approved scale, bulk, coverage, density or character of the adjacent development. This request is to redevelop an existing, vacant building that previously was used as a small cafe and retail shop into a viable resta.urant with outdoor seating. The restaurant will draw patrons from and better serve the demand of surrounding hotel/resort guests and residents. The existing structure has been in existence for over 30 years, and the improvements will both modernize and remain consistent with the character of the adjacent properties. The prior uses of the building included restaurant/snack bar with outdoor cafe and retail. The adj acent properties are of varying scale, bulk, coverage and density with characteristics common to 1970 design, development and construction. The property north of the site is a restaurant with outdoor cafe containing 13,141 GFA built in 1979. Further to the north is the 46,240 GFA Magnuson Hotel with 73 rooms built in 1968. The property to the south of the site consists of a former three (3) story hotel built in 1973 and converted into condo buildings three (3) stories in height. The proposed re-development plan is within the allowable limits of the flexible standards of the Development Code for comprehensive infill development projects and Beach by Design. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. This proposed restaurant will not discourage appropriate development and use of the adjacent land and buildings, because the area is already densely developed and the value of adjacent and surrounding properties will not be compromised. Rather, it fulfills the long range plan for this area of the Beach to improve and redevelop existing sites. Also, due to its proximity to the Beach Walk District, Salty's will likely serve as a"beachfront" draw with retail and resort uses on the 2 east side of Gulfview as stated in the Beach Wa1k overlay section of Beach by Design. The proposed restaurant further enhances this area of the Beach in a number of ways, including: 1. The updated and expanded resta.urant will more adequa.tely meet the needs of residents and tourists in surrounding hotels. 2. The property value will significantly increase from a vacant building in a state of disrepair to a viable, operational restaurant. 3. The proposed architecture of the new restaurant will significantly enhance the area and promote the safety of pedestrians and restaurant patrons. 4. Providing adequate walk up restaurant accommodations on Clearwater Beach meets a current need in an area concentrated with pedestrians. 5. The new restaurant will contribute to the City's economic base, and create new employment opportunities while under construction and permanently once opened. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. The existing structure does not impact health and safety of persons nearby and the redevelopment of the site will comply, as required, with all applicable codes including the Florida Building Code, the Life Safety Code and the Florida Fire Prevention Code. To meet FEMA requirements and Florida Building Code requirements, the Applicant will flood proof the first floor. While the plan removes existing parking, it eliminates the conflict of direct access to parking spots from Gulfview Blvd (which is now prohibited by Code) and improves safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. Further, the proposed plan improves the safety of restaurant patrons in the outdoor seating area that will no longer be adjacent to cars/parking and separated from traffic by the sidewalk and architectural details on the site. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. Expanding the restaurant space in the existing structure does not negatively impact trafiic, as the patrons are predominantly pedestrians and come from surrounding hotels or axe already visiting the beach and therefore parked in an existing, public space. The Applicant has agreed to the methodology for a parking study with City Staff and has provided a parking study with this submittal. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The proposed restaurant is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity comprised of hotels, restaurants, and reta.il uses. The east side of Gulfview Boulevard historically and currently is of varying character, heights and uses. The design of the proposed resta.urant is consistent with the surrounding and nearby uses and the character of the community, providing an appropriately scaled development for the Clearwater Pass District of Clearwater Beach. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. The architectural floor plan is designed to place dining areas oriented to the north and west corner of the subject site adjacent to the public right of way and facing the Beach. Dining functions, therefore will share a common boundazy with Post Corner Pizza as a similar use. More passive functions of the restaurant are placed to the southwest corner, including open stairway and lift. These functions at the south and west corner tend to buffer the dining space from neighboring resort condominium to the south. The proposed trash collection area is screened and at the rear of the site so it will not negatively impact the passerby whether on a visual or olfactory basis. Adequate parking nearby minimizes congestion. The proposed hours of operation will be similar to the surrounding restaurant and hospitality properties. Noise associated with specific hours of operation for these areas will be established in the development agreement. Crabby Bill's is a locally managed and operated organization that prides itself on service and comfort of guests, which will translate into being an excellent neighbor. COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT - PROJECT CRITERIA While this request does not include changes to the approved site plan, responses to specific design criteria are included below. 1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from the intensity and development standards. Certain deviations from Code are required to accomplish the design criteria and standards associated with Beach by Design and to maximize the use of the existing building. Setbacks Side/Rear — Beach by Design encourages no rear or side setbacks. Since proposed restaurant improvements incorporate an existing structure, the location � of the physical building maintains existing setbacks with the addition of a stairwell and lift at 0' to property line on the South. The entire site, however, is paved and utilized, with zero setback to pavement. Due to the size of the site, the Applicant is providing significant outdoor seating at the restaurant without requiring intrusion to the public right of way otherwise permitted by the Code. The Applicant therefore proposes a zero front setback to structural components of the second floor cantilevered terrace to accommodate outdoor seating. Parkin� — The Applicant requests a reduction of the required parking to no parking spaces provided on site. The Applicant is an experienced restaurant operator and currently operates two of its Crabby Bill's restaurants on Clearwater Beach. Based on the experience of the Applicant, the location of the restaurant, and the operation, it is reasonable to not have parking on site. Like at the other South Beach location, employees arrive to work on bike, moped, carpool, or ride the Trolley from downtown Clearwater. There are approximately 2S employees at its peak on this site, similar to the Crabby Bill's located at 333 S. Gulfview Blvd. where there is no parking provided. The location of the proposed resta.urant is across from a new, 208 room hotel as well as other redeveloped hotels on south Clearwater Beach. The enclosed parking study also shows that even on the busiest weekend of the year, there was one hour that the South Beach public parking garages were full. With the opening of the new hotels in this corridor, construction of additional parking on North Beach, and the traditional patrons who walk to the restaurant, no parking is justified. Additionally, the site's current parking does not comply with Code as it allows for cars to reverse into traffic on S. Gulfview. The conversion of this area of the site to outdoor seating better meets the goals of Beach by Design. 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 proposed redevelopment will provide a highly desired use which contributes to the city's economy; restaurant uses are allowed in the "Resort Facilities High" land use category and are consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and Beach by Design. Applicable Comprehensive Plan Goals/P'olicies/Objectives include but are not limited to: 5 A.6.6 Objective - 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. Beach by Design Clearwater Pass District emphasizes revitalization and renovation in this area of the Beach. The new restaurant will modernize the existing structure and support the increased tourists and residents, as well as enhance the view along the nearby promenade. Also, it furthers the goal of Beach by Design to provide more viable restaurants than currently exist. Having adequate restaurant space to accommodate tourists is integral to the success of tourism, both locally to Clearwater Beach and the Community as a whole. The proposed restaurant promotes tourism activities, enjoyment of our natural resources, and increases activity along the nearby promenade. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. The proposed re-development is compatible with the neighborhood, as is more particularly discussed in General Applicability Criteria 1 and 2 together with Comprehensive Infill Criteria 4 below, and will not impede other development. The proposed redevelopment project will benefit the community as a whole and this district. The proposed restaurant may encourage additional investment and improvement to the surrounding properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of this proposal. The proposed restaurant use is an allowable use within the District and is well established within the neighborhood; the neighboring property to the north is also a restaurant. The proposal provides a beautiful new updated structure which meets current building codes, FEMA regulations, Fire and ADA requirements. The parking nearby accommodates the minimal parking needs of restaurant patrons and employees in a tourist area. The azchitectural components of the building and outdoor seating area provide desired buffering and minimize all activities associated with the restaurant at street level. Responsible site drainage, appropriate setbacks for the beach community and tropical landscaping will provide further benefits to the neighborhood and community. The proposed trash collection area is screened toward the rear of the property and will not negatively impact the passerby whether on a visual or olfactory basis. � Through the proposed improvements, together with the new restaurant it is anticipated the proposed re-development will have a positive effect on the surrounding land values, t� base and tourism. 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in 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. The "Resort Facility High" land use category and the "Tourist" zoning district both permit restaurant use; the district allows restaurant uses as a minimum standard and flexible standard use. Due to the request for reduction of parking, the Applicant is applying for comprehensive infill redevelopment when this site would otherwise be processed as a restaurant use. The new proposed expanded restaurant will be a significant economic contributor to the City, promoting tourism and will generate approximately 60 new full-time and 40 new part-time employment opportunities for the community. 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; Restaurant uses are permitted in the Tourist (T) zoning district without special approval. Since surrounding properties include restaurants, high rise condominiums and hotels, the proposed restaurant will not forestall 7 normal and orderly development or improvements to surrounding properties as previously described within General Applicability Criteria 2. b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; Through appropriate site and architectural design the proposed re- development complies with the design guidelines contained within Beach by Design as described below. c. The design, scale, and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; Character of the area reflects codes and architectural style of the 1960's and 1970's. Proposed restaurant development complements and supports the character of the area, while providing a development in support of current codes, design guidelines, scale, and intensity. Nearby restaurants are designed as tropical in nature with metal roofs, tropical colors, and eclectic decor. This re-development is designed to complement the older established character, while supporting the emerging character of the Clearwater Beach; offering an appealing design which facilita.tes development in context with adjacent properties. Please see additional discussion under General Applicability Criteria 1. 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 of materials and colors • Distinctive fenestration patterns • Building stepbacks; and • Distinctive roof forms Within Beach by Design criteria, the proposed restaurant is being developed within the "Clearwater Pass" sub-District. The Applicant considers this project as an opportunity to add vitality and promote context for streetscape envisioned within this sub-District. Proposed architecture for this project incorporates elements anticipated within the Beach by Design as follows: : i. Chan�es in horizontal buildin�planes: as indicated on attached elevatians, there is significant contrast between horizontal balcony and fascia lines alternating with vertical columns and a vertical pylon on Gulfview. ii. Use of architectural deta.ils: included among design features are expressive dormers on the roof, open stairwells between first and second dining levels, interesting balcony offsets at the second floor, and streetscape amenities such as a shade trellis located at the northwest corner of the site. iii. Varietv of materials and colors: selection of colors is intended to convey a festive beach atmosphere associated with a resort community. While background colors will follow Beach by Design, the applicant proposes an accent color for the roof. This combination provides variety intended within the beach context. iv. Distinctive fenestration patterns: since most of the exterior streetscape will incorporate outdoor dining terraces, building fenestration is provided in the form of flat open arches, to be secured by rolling doors with glazed panels within. Rolling doors (with glazing) shall be used during inclement weather. v. Building setbacks and distinctive roof forms: from an elevation view, the building incorporates interesting stepbacks of entries, stairwells, and balcony rails found on the second floor. A dramatic cantilevered deck will provide a visual focal point over the resta.urant's main entrance. While balconies and trellis features provide interesting stepbacks, the building is unified by a continuous roof covering both interior and exterior space. It is this combination of interesting stepbacks composed under a dramatic roof that bring scale of the project in conformance with surrounding context. The above elements are incorporated into the architectural design of the resta.urant as shown on attached building elevations. In addition, proposed landscape improvements will also help to unite the site as a whole at the pedestrian level. The new outdoor cafe surrounded by brick pavers will enhance the view from the street. E e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhances landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. The proposed buffers and setbacks provide appropriate buffering and distances between buildings, similar to adjacent and surrounding developments. The landscape design will present an inviting tropical appearance and meets the intent of Beach by Design. While minimal foundation landscaping is provided along the front, south area, the Applicant has included a Comprehensive Landscape Application to articulate the proposed landscape. Beach by Design The design is respectful of the architectural vocabulary within Beach by Design and the community character; the building is in scale to its height and length and offers the desired elements of step-backs, balconies, changes in plane, massing and floor plates. Please see Architectural Plans for additional illustrative evidence of compliance with the Design Guidelines contained within Beach by Design. A. Density — this is a commercial property and therefore density is not a criterion for consideration. B. Height — the proposed height of the renovated building is 32 ft. to the top of pylon from BFE. The building is enhanced by the architectural pylon (block, stucco, siding) that allows a"flag" section visible above the roof area with the restaurant's signature logo. Restaurants are permitted to be up to 100 ft. in this area of the Beach. C. Design Scale & Mass — Building design is consistent with the eclectic character of the beach and the locally -�wned restaurants. D. Setbacks and Stepbacks — the building is not higher than 45 ft. and therefore, no stepbacks axe required. Understanding the City's general intent within Beach by Design, the applicant has provided a building with deck space and outdoor seating that creates an interesting and visually attractive streetscape environment. The enclosed building is setback from the right of way 32 ft. However the outdoor seating areas are shown with a zero setback. Beach by Design allows arcades and architectural details to intrude on the right of way in this District, however the Applicant but has limited these uses to within the property lines. E. Street Level Facades — the proposed design is pedestrian friendly with landscaping and seating adjacent to the wide sidewalk at the front of the entrance. A hostess stand located adjacent to the sidewalk creates an interaction between the private and public spaces. 10 saosaoa�i F. Parking Areas — the proposed design does not include parking, consistent with several other restaurants located on S. Gulfview Blvd. This includes Frenchy's South Beach and Crabby Bill's South Beach, both located along nearby Beach Walk, the southerly boundary of which is along the neighboring property just to the north of Salty's. G. Signage — the Applicant will submit a Comprehensive Sign Program application after approval of the proposed redevelopment plan. H. Sidewalks — the City has already installed a new, 10-ft sidewalk adjacent to the Property. The proposed design does not impact this sidewalk. I. Street Furniture — no street furnishings are proposed on this site. Even though an outdoor cafe is permitted, the Applicant has located outdoor seating on its property rather than within the right of way. J. Street Lighting — no additional street lighting is proposed. K. Fountains — no fountain is proposed. L. While observing color guidelines established for Beach by Design, the Applicant will provide a red metal standing seam roof. Proposed roof design is a primary accent feature of the development. While lower elements of the restaurant will incorporate warm grays and buff tones, the roof considered as trim, will aitract attention and blend seamlessly with the surrounding area. 11 I#: 2006272645 BK: 15258 PG: 983, 07/21/2006 at 05:10 PM, RECORDING 3 PAGES $27.00 D DOC STAMP COLLECTION $0.70 KEN BURKE, CLERK OF COURT PINELLAS COUNTY, FL BY DEPUTY CLERK: CLKDUI5 � , ,` . , �� .-___ , � - '. - '`. . ,' . . , �.,� � . , . , � ., ,� . ; � � �� , � . � , � WARRANTY nF,�:D " � , � . � .� �' -- ', . � � ,' ', . , . THIS WARR.ANTY DEED, effective as of the 4�' day of May, 20�5, by Jb;AN FRA�GEDIS, as Trustee of the Joan Frangedis Living Trust Agreement, dated July 15, 1996„�avit�;fu�`power,�rid authority to protect, conserve, to sell, to Iease, or to encumber ar to otberwise r�iafiage anc�'c�is�se of the real properiy, whose post office address is 1230 Palm Blvd., Dunedin, FL 346'��, as to her 95.09% ownership interest in the property and MICHAEL FRANGEDIS, a single person, w�kds� ad,c3i�ss is 5509 Leewazd Lane, New Port Richey Florida 34652, as to his 2.455% ownership interest in ttre�sroperty, and ERMIONi BOUTZOUKAS, 1761, Royal Oak Place, Dunedin, FL 34698;;a� to her 2.455% ownerslup interest in the property, (hereinafter called "Grantors"), to JOAN FRANGEDIS; a� TrusYe� of the Joan Frangedis Living Trust Agreement, dated July .15, 1996, MICHAEL FRAI�'fi'rEDIS, a;s9ng�e' person whose address is 5509 Leeward Lane, New Port Richey Florida 34652, and ERI�4�0� �Oi.��OUKAS, 1761 RoyalOak Place, Du�nedin, FL 34698 {hereinafter called "Grantees"). '.; •, `, �,' V . . ,. .. ,, (Wherever used herein the terms "Gran.Yqrs"and "Cr'�ai�#,ee�s" shall include singular and plural, heirs, legal representatives, and a�signs of��dividuals, and the successors and assigns of corporations.) ', `. `, �, : % ,° , . . __ , , ,' �, �, _ _ WITNESSETH, That the,rai�citor�„fo� �aiid in considera.tion of mutual love and affection, and other valuable consideration, receip#, v�hr�o��is here'by acknowledged, do hereby bargain, sell, alien, remise, release, convey and confirnrinito the��tees, all of their right, title and interest in and to the properiy such that JO.AN FRANGEDI�,��as t�tf,s�ee ofi �he Joan Frangedis Living Trust Agreement, dated July 15, 1996, shall have a one-thir�i_o.wn�rsl�p interest in the properly, MICHAEL FRANGEDIS shall ha.ve a one-third interest in the pro��ity, anc�ERdv�ONI BOUTZOUKAS shall have a one-third interest in the property all of which sha11 be in and to all i��t c�itain land situated in Pinellas County, Florida, ,., , . � , . , � �, ,� � '� '• '`�''- �T�,ot 81, Lloyd-White Skinner Subdivision, , , __ '-__��_ .� according. to the map or plat.thereof, as ��., '�; .; '`--.' recorded in Plat Book 13, pages 12 and 13 ,� '� '• of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. ,� /w` ��`\ `\yI �� , �� Parcel ID# 07-29-15-52380-000-0810 . , , - -, Prepared By and Return to: Michael E. Boutzoukas, Esq. BAKKAI,APULO & BOUTZOUKAS, P.A. 111 N. Belcher Road, Suite 201 Clearwatex, FL 33765 PINELLAS COUNTY FL OFF. REC. BK 15258 PG 984 � `` • ' . , .� . , • ,� �� Subject to covenants, restrictions, reservations, conditions, limitations, assessments and easei�►en�s b$ record and taxes for the current and subsequent years. -;'� �' �'� , , ., , ,, . , ., ,-, ; , The above-described property is not the homestead property of the Grantors, wlie,le,�i$c at the addresses set forth in the first paragraph of this Deed. ---�'�� , , . � , ,� �, . . , „ . , . . TOGETf�R with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances t��reto belb�}ging or in anywise appertain�ing. _ . • ', _ _ ,� ' . � ,, . , , ,, ,,� - , ,, __ � _ TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the same in fee simple forever. ', `, �� ,, ,� , . �,� AND the G�rantor hereby covenants with said Grantee that the .Grantor is'lawfully seized of said land in fee simple, that the Grantor has good right and lawfiil aut�o�ity to sell and convey said land; that the Grantor hereby fully wamants the title to said land and will defend,�t�e same�against the lawfut claims of all persons whomsoever; and that said land is free of all en�cpinb�ances; �exsept taxes accnung subsequent to December 31, 2004, are not yet due and payable. �� '; , �� ,-� �� , , �; .., .. „ IN WITNESS VVFiEREOF, the said Cma�Eor;has,�ignec��and sealed these presents the day and year first above written. � , . � , � �, , �� . � ' �'� " , � �� Signed, sealed and delivered '. `. `; `, % % . .. ,. , . �. �. , --.�� ( /� � , .. `v' � �� I :,•I�'' _ � "'�"1tit971a.. ERMIONT FRANGEDIS ` � PINELLAS COUNTY FL OFF. REC. BK 15258 PG 985 m ,'.. .� �� ,� � �� ,-___;� __ � _ . - . . ,' '� . . , � . , , � � � .• . � , � : � STATE OF FLORIDA � � " � . �, ,,� ., COUNTY OF PINELLAS ' � � ' � � .. ,�,-- �, . � „ . ., , '�. �� ., ., The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ��day of ;� 2005, by MICHA.EL FRANGEDIS, who is personally lrnown to me or who has produ�e�;�',�. �7rtJe,;s /.�tyr. as identification and who did not take an oath. ;;� -' ^ � ;", ,�' ',t� Georgia M. Czepiel ` ` _ -',' ; � Commission # OD351S20 , Expires Qctober 5, 2008 NO'fAR.Y BLIC � ,�� ww.aT,q,F,;,.,�,..ro..�.,ao��mo Nazne: Geo y��q; y�'% Cz.c,�..a � My Commission Expii e�: , � ; ,, . , , , . ,,, � �_ . , STATE OF FLORIDA � � � � � , ,' � ., �,,.'�.`% COUNTY OF PINELLAS ,� •• ,, ",, ` `. �, , � �i , ., ,� The foregoing instnunent was ackno�.ec3ged befd�� this � da} JOAN FRANGEDIS, who is personally krnobvn to m� pr who has produced identification and who did not take an o�ii�. `� .' % . . _ . � .'> . . .. . � . . . . , . W � ��""' "+� CATHY A IPR�tAN ' ,' ,' MYWMMISSIONI�DD315�,t6,�' � .,�,� NO°fAR P IC �� EXPIFlES: Augtret 4 2gfiB • • � e«aae,m�x�va�t��. ` ' Name: .� ,, ,, , � '�;; My Cornmission Expires: , „ .� , STATE OF FLOK3�A� �; �, ��,;�, INE S � ' ., of 2005, by L.. t' � G'L�'T ciS COUNTY OF P LLA � „ �� ,.� , . , , , . � , � The fo�i.ng.�sh�uf�ent was acknowledged before me this day of � 2005, by ERMI�3Iti� �1�AN(SEDIS, who is personally l:nown to me — as��rnr atid �vho did not take an oath. . , , , L2is�- . . � � � � ' . • , ., � , , � ,� �- /�\ ` \ �' '�;,,..•, ",�` ` Georgia M. Czepiel NOTARY UBLIC ' .��1� Commission # DD351820 Name: '�'�.d�� Expiros October' S� 2006 My Commission Expires: �P�'ia �ar.aTrorFM+•Yw.uno�,�ne.eoo-�Ib7D/Y I#: 2006272644 BK: 15258 PG: 981, 07/21/2006 at 05:10 PM, RECORDING 2 PAGES $18.50 D DOC STAMP COLLECTION $0.70 KEN BURKE, CLERK OF COURT PINELLAS COUNTY, FL BY DEPUTY CLERK: CLKDUI5 , . ' ,� �� ,� ,-___` � � _ , -. . ,' '� . . . �.�,- �� .v, ,- , , � � � , �. . � ,� . ., _ . .� .'. - '. . � . , '. . � `. � . � � � �, � � � � ,� `� �ARRANTY DF,F.D � ` ' ' , , �, , � .' ;; . , ,�.-. --�, THIS WA,RRANTY DEED, effective as of the 4th da.y of May, 2005„by JAME��B�UTZOUKAS, a married person,�whose post office address is 1761 Roya1 Oak Place, Di�i�din, F� ��4698, (hereinafter called Grantor ), to ERNIIO1vI BOUTZOUKAS, a marri�ed person, whose�atl�ss'�is 1761 Royal Oak Place, Dunedin, EL 34698 (hereinafter called "Grantee"). - r used herein the terms "Grantor" and °Grantee', shal�;includ�'singulaz and (Whereve plural, heirs, legal representa.tives, and assigns of inc��{i��luals; arid �e successors , , ,�,-,; , and assigns of corporations.) �; �, � �� - ,• . �'.'� �� WITNESSETH, That the Grantor, for ,a.iu� in'con`s�dara.'�ibn of mutual love and affection, and other valuable consideration, receipt whereof is; hereby aFknov�ledged, does hereby convey to ERMIONI BOUTZOUKAS, 2.455% interest to thatceztaiq: land szivated in Pinellas County, Florida, . , . _.. , .'> . . � , �t gl,�byd �wr�,s%� su�a��s�o�, accc�rdi�g tdtke ma�3 �o'r plat thereof, as n�rded�i�'�'lat Book 13, pages 12 and 13 -'of the,�blicRecords of Pinellas County, Florida. , , , ,, ��, �, , �'. - - : 'gaz�cel,ID# 07-29-15-52380-004-0810 „ .. , � � � �,; � � �, � Subject�o oov,enants„tastrictions, reservations, conditions, limitations, assessmenis and easements of record and tax�s`foi�t�te Etu�nt and subsequent years. , , - �,, ��e�;�bbaeiie�ribed property is not the homestead property of the Grantors, who reside ax the addres�s s8i �orth in the first paragraph of this Deed. ,� .�� '.'• TO.�'i$THER with all the tenements, hereditamerrts and appurtenances thereto belonging or in ,. „ ari�appertaining. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the same in fee simple forever. Prepazed By and Return to: Michael E. Boutzoukas, Esq. B,�,KKALAPULO & BOUTZOUKAS, P.A. 111 North Belcher Road, Suite 201 Clearwater, FL 33765 PINELLAS COUNTY FL OFF. REC. BK 15258 PG 982 � . ; , . �, � ,� �� .-___ , � __ � AND the Grantor hereby covenants with said Grantee tha.t the Grantor is lawfully seizec� ��id land�; �, in fee simple, that the Grantoz has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey sa,id,Yand;,�tblat the " Grautor hereby fully wan�ants the title to said Iand and will defend the same against the law%{t�c�ai�is of all persons whomsoever; and that said land is free of ail encumbrances, except taxes �.e�nrir�g,su�sequent to December 31, 2004, are not yet due and payable. %�� ` �� , ., �� • �� , �._`� .`� ,�, IN WTTNESS WHEREOF, the said Grantor has signed and sealed,'t�iese pre,sents ttfe day and yeaz first above written. ', `, � � ,, �� . . ,;,, Signed, sealed and delivered � in the presence cf: Printed ame: ' . Cze�r� i � ^ Name: t+. � ti ,-- ,; �. �, �, , , ,-- . . �, , , �, �, , , � ,� „ �� STATE OF FLORIDA � � ' ' ,•, . , , . , ,. . . •' --� , CO[JNTY OF PINELL,A.S ,.;.' `.� ., ' - - „ .. , , ,-, . . The foregoing u�f �JaS ��cknowle�ged before me this � day of JAMES BOiJTZOUKASe�yoho is onall known to me/who produced _ identification and who did�i�ot,t� an o�h. ,,, _ , . .� ,' - � . � _ � � � ��►"'� MELAN[E �iI,�R1E DER1iI�S�U � �' NOTARY PUBLIC MYC�OMM ONNDU48$1K8� �„ae� '�w��.�.zoos,' �' Name:/�/j.Pi1�Lf?ii�I��ev�'i �aD �+o�,�.o,s� �a.�s:�.q,,,; My Commission Expires: /!•709 __ �� - � � ,, �,__ ____ . . , _ , <'� � � '--- . � � � � 1 � \ \ � � � \ � � � � \ �y/ w\ ` ` '` \ � � \ \ \ \ f � � / / ` r � �,�'/ zoot� �/�Yi� ' �9@s' by as . . .. . • �� 99-420427 OEC-30-1899 4 30Pn PINELLFIS CD BK f077! PG 104C I II I�I II� Ilti (q II 8ul ll� inll IlIN Ilk II II �fT�,�.i,: • 4, �J'.�` �,i_�i)/,! .I.. �^' JrGSi' I'kl Y,_�•h 1Y �f'I'F�1ltihit� 1' Li:('tI. 111FN111_l/;.1'fi( ��y NUhl,j/fl�; O:P11 ii:iWM%%YW IU .. .. . .. . .... . .. �� .,�. , �� . . ...� , , �� . ,_, ``` L ; , . —�—___ , . . :..' ,�". l . . . .� � � � � , �• �� 1 v I� / / ! ♦ �� i �� ♦ � i � ♦ i _� ♦ i � � i� �_ ♦ � i i� `�� ri��s r� R r�• � '` � / `��r '�' n � � ' `', ' '.; . 1 .9 R•fl1 DEE!), made the i dat� of--�:-�----• - -._., .�....r... ._. _... > � Uan � � T�ranp,�ulis as Truslee of thc Joan Fr�ngr.c9is 1.i��in� Trusi rlprMmenl Datecl)ulr 15, 1�9�G, �; �cith the fidl power 1nd authority to protect, consen�e, to sell, to Icase, or Eo erycKi�itre�, oM�t�.� �,',� othenvisc manage and disFwse of the real property described herein, ti��hose post qffice addr��ss iQ ,:^ ' 1230 Palm $lvd., Duneciin, Tiorida 39695, hereinafter cailed the �r'�ntor, to Jartles Boutzoukas, a married }�crson an undivided 2.455 o itztcrc�st in thc suhjeat'propart}� a�c� as trnants in common, �vhose post offire address is 1767 Royai Oak Pl.y�>> Dim�ci�, ' Clorida 34698, herein tfler calleci tlie granlcrc+: _� (L1'6r�revfu�.•Jhrrrinlhrlrmh'lg.mtor'an4'f;rnal�n mqudralith�.��rtiti �tthi+in•Inim�ml.mdUu•h�•irv. Iry,nlrr�.n-«mtativ��mi.lawigmnlindn•�du.d...md�h.-�mr�.w,nan.la.ri�;n.h`r�kt*�ntlk+n.y „ � � i i WlTNF..4.S6'TH: '1'hat thc� grantor, for and in r�5�s�dar�tiori o(�NZrs�rn of $]OAO and other valuable consicierations including tovo and .�,(frcTio9, rcrg`�+.�,�vit2Teof is liereby acknowledged, herr.hy grants, bargains, sgl�� .ilicnk,��xremis'e's; teleases, conveys, and confirms unla tlx� �rantrr all that certain land6�t�l��e irt I��fieUas Counh�, State of rlorida, viz: - `. �. �� ' ;; . . , � rF+;d;ES J \ ii �'' .` .` `i "��+ Lot 81, Lloyd-1YhiteSkinncriS{ibdivisioni ", �..' c�x a+ar cr,AA�r ' accordinp !o th� map or plat��tNFreeof as re��u�-ded in ,�C� Plat Book 13, pige 12 asac�.(3,}�uY�lir records of q�y ^ l U ^— � _ .. � ��oh:��.�"r0= PinellasCounh', FJojida�� __ ' ikr ----- ' ' �` . . . �eES --� • . �. . rarF --_..._ �� ` ,' ,' . v, P'`� Subjeri torb,veA�n`tg; cestricNons, reservations, conditions, iimitations, assessments ��v •��t�- . r�rai ��?` xncl easemc�nss�of �ecard�and tases for the current and subsequent years. . . � �� '� � �� . �,�' `�. T-heaho�� c4rscribeci pmperty is not the homestead �+ro�ertt� of the Grantor(s), a�ho resjH��s a�T330j'aiAi #il��d., nunedin, Florida, �169�i. � � . � . . � � ` � ` . �'� TUGI3T�IFR, witti aU the teoements, hereditaments, and appurtcnanis thereto : `,hc�nn�ing or�hen}��rise appertaining. �. `, �� --' . , � _ ^�-- `� TO HAi'l:'.4N7) TO /f()I./), thc samc in fce simpfe forever. .` "____ ., . � `, �^�� ` �� i1ND the grantor hereby covenanls H�ith s�id grantee that the grantor is lativfullt� `��`, `�. �$eized of s�id I�nd in fee simple; that lhe graniar has goo�i righl and lawful autliority to �� `� �. ��scll and convey said land, and Grantor hereby fully warranls the litle to said land and wil! `� `, �; defend ttie same against the lawful claims of aU persons ti��homsc+ever; and thak said land �. �� _,',' is free of all encumbranres, esrept ta�es �crruing subsequcnt to llc+cember 3l, 1997. JN {f'1TNE.S.S K77F.RBOF, the said grantor has siKnecl and sealyd thesc pmsents the day and year first ai�ove wriiten. Si�;ncci, valc�d nnJ dolivrmJ in thc• proK�m �� aL• ��1�� /�� W'tqvssSi�;nutum � ,/ �/rii %�! 1�.__ /� l �!!![ i� Prinfod Witnrss N�mi• �:: %. � , .' ' , ' �'l �� LL GRA 'fUR'S IGNATURF. � �Jc n,Fr�n�;c�cli.v;_ac Tnutiya�, thn, Jik�n Fy�n}md,i4 � f;it•i��Trust A�;r��lnrnl Dalrcl�uly 1 i 1�� t�riNixn nin�ir� e.....�.�.�. J . : •'l.`:.. •"!1 :.... .. . �'�1 PINELLRS COUNTY FLR. yj , OFF,REC.3K 10771 PG 1041 � �. !1 � �[ �'��'�� ? 1r • . r �Vitnrss pmdurv /�� ` �� F�f� '� �� 1 71 // =� f 23(1 Yalm Blvd.. Dunvd�n FlnriJ,� :4�369A '� �� Prinl��.l IVitnc�tis Nam�� I'OSTOFFICE AUDRFSS �� -.. _� � _,_ � STA1'E OF FLORIDA ` � � `` . . .', �, � . > COUNIY OF PINELLAS �� ' ' ' � v .�`�` '�. � SINORN TO AIVD SCT85CRTBLD before me this ��% day of �� L. _, __�``.�' �' _f %'1�_.., by Joan Frangeciis as Trastce of the Joan Prangedis Living Trust A�recn�eRr' �� `� 1?ated Ju!}� 15, 7996, H�ho is personalfy known to me or produCed �`� �� `�: as identificaHan. � � ' � ..._ � � , , �. � �� ' � �� /1 l t x ��Q��r � �` - - � , Notary ub�ic ' ^ i I E/%�r.��.�'1�� /t/,�•'�L�i z_lii�, +�� r^ Printed or Stamped Name of Ndt�� ,' ; My commission oapitrs: _' � Aa: ;� y ELEFiERUT AW1RAnIS �. � � � e t ►1Y WMMlSSIDH I OC Itl3i0 •• ONIRES: WY 19� 199:1 ♦ • � ♦ �'�Y,�7,��+"� OaiNO tRv Wmy RAS� lfdwnlnn � � � � � � � i � i � ` ♦ ♦ i i C� ♦ i \ � ♦ V i � � � � v .' C:\myJ�x'z�CilDp�(IICS��WRf;i�dis\jamrswarr.di•cd ."� � � � �l -� \ v I ♦ ♦ � i ♦ ♦ � \ ♦ ♦ ` - ♦ ♦ \ i � `� ♦ ♦ � \ / ��' ♦ ♦ �/ � � ♦ ! I ' � ^� `v' � � 1 \ � /�♦ \ \ / I ♦ ♦ ♦ / / ♦ ♦ � � � � I /�) ♦ � �♦ ��. /'/� ♦ ♦ / ♦ / / �^� `♦ ♦ I ♦ �� `N� /�� / / / / / / �� \ / / � � � w ` ' �`♦ '�` �`' �� ♦ � '/ � \ / \ � �� \ / /� `\ � � / / `� � � ` / 1 1 � 1 � 1 \ � I \ � � / ♦ �� ♦ ♦ ` .. _ / ♦ � ♦ � ' � ♦ � . � � � � ♦ i` `^_ ��_� ` � ♦ � � ! �.� ♦ � � i ♦`� `� � ♦ � � � ♦ ♦ �� ♦ � ♦ ♦ /�\ �`\` y! \ � ` \ � \ ` / / � `� / / \ � ♦ �� ....��•/:• i .:�Y�3� . i � i � � _"�,�� ° 1 rwater ��ea U Planning & Development Department Comprehensive Landscaping Application IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT COMPLETE AND CORRECT INFORMATION. ANY MISLEADING, DECEPTIVE, INCOMPLETE OR INCORRECT INFORMATION MAY iNVAUDATE 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 DEADUNE DATE. A TOTAL OF 11 COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPLICATIOIH MATERIALS (1 ORIGINAL AND 10 COPIES) AS REQUIRED WtTHIN ARE TO BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE. SUBSEQUENT SUBMITTAL FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, IF NECESSARY, WN.L REQUIRE 15 COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPLICATION MATERtAlS (1 ORIGINAL AND 14 COPIES). PLANS AND APPLICATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COLLATED, STAPLfD ANO FOLDED INTO SETS. THE APPLICANT, BY FILING THIS APPLICATION, AGREES TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMUNIT1f DEVELOPMENT CODE. PROPERTY OWNER (PER DEED): Joan Frangedis Living Trust, James Boutzoukas, Ermioni Boutzoukas, and Michael Frangedis MAILING ADDRE55: 1761 Royal Oak Place West, Duned'm, FL 34698 PHONE NUMBER: �a EMAIL: n/a AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE: Katie E. Cole, Esq. & E.D. Armstrong III/HiN Ward Henderson MAILING ADDRESS: 311 Park Piace, Suite 240, Clearwater, FL 33759 PHONE NUMBER: 727-7243900 EMAIL: katie.coie�hwhlaw.com ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 437 S. Guiiview Blvd., Clea�vrater, FL 33767 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: See Exhibit "A" Specifically identify the request (include all requested code flexfbility; e.g., reduction in required number of po�king spates, height setbocks, lot size, fot width, specifrc use, etc.): STATE OF FLORiDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS �� I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all Sworn to and subscribed before me this L- day of representations made in this application are true and � r � Y accurate to the best of my knowledge and authorize �� ' � . to me and or b t, ' , City representatives to visit and photograph the `� ��- '��. � l.' �. who is personally known�has property described in this application. prosi,uced as identification. o�.�..u.v�t� � �- `� �, . `� j 6�� Signature of property owner representative Notary lic, �, .;''t �,; ;,; MY COMMISSION 11 FF 069717 My commission expires: ,�� EXPIRES: November 11, �17 �� „,, t�9'i�uWie-61ad�a�rk�p Planning � Deveiopment Depar6nent,100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clea►water, FL 33756, Tel: 727�62-4567; Fax: 727�62-4865 Page 1 of 2 Revised 01/12 o � � Planning & Development Department � C earwate Com rehensive Landsca in A lication P P g PP � Flexibility Criteria PROVIDE COMPLEfE RESPONSES TO EACH OF THE FIVE (5) FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA EXPLAINING HOW, IN DETAIL, THE CRITERION IS BEING COMPLIED WITH PER THIS COMPREtiEN51VE LANDSCAPING PROPOSAL. 1. Architectural Theme: a. The landscaping in a Comprehensive Landscaping program shal) be designed as a part of the architectural theme of the principal buildings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for the development. OR b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatrnent proposed in the Comprehensive Landscaping pragram shall be demonstrably mare attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for development under the minimum landscape standards. See Exhibit "A" 2. Lighting. Any (ighting proposed as a part of a Comprehensive Landscaping program is automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is closed. See Exhibit "A" 3. Community Choracter. The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program wil( enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater. See Exhibit "A" 4. Property Values. The tandscape treatment praposed in the Comprehensive Landscaping program will have a beneficial impact on the value of the property in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. See Exhibit "A" 5. Special Area or Scenic Corridor Plon. The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Pragram is consistent with any speciat area or scenic corridor plan which the City of Clearvvater has prepared and adopted for the area in which the parcel proposed for development is located. See Exhibit "A" Planning 8� Devebpment Depar�nent,100 S. Myrtte Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727�562-/567; Fa�c 727-6G1-4865 Page 2 of 2 Revised 01M2 � Exhibit "A" to Comprehensive Landscaping Application for Flexible Development Application #FLD2014-04011 Salty's Restaurant at 437 S. Gulfview Blvd., Clearwater, FL 33767 1. The landscaping is designed as part of the architectural theme as it is reflective of an urban, beachfront restaurant. The large planters which separate the outdoor dining area from the public sidewalk and right of way, the ground cover around the stairwell and lift area, and the design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscaping Program ("CLP"). While the foundation plantings exist around the lift and stairwell generally reflect the only fa�ade available for plantings, the Applicant requests the approval of the Comprehensive Landscape Program in an effort to show that the entirety of the landscape plan. The west elevation facing Gulfview Boulevard features a raised 18" high bench planter opposite an 18" high bench lined with shrubs extending from the sidewalk around to the south elevation of the structure almost to the rear/east elevation. Further, two street palm trees along Gulfview are proposed within the 10 foot existing sidewalk that is being expanded into an 11.6 foot sidewalk with trees, subject to a City right of way permit. 2. The proposed landscape lighting will be on an automatic timer that turns off when the restaurant is closed. It will also comply with any requirements of turtle-safe lighting. 3. The landscape treatment proposed in the CLP will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater, and additionally meet the intent of Beach by Design by providing human scale pedestrian friendly street-level facades with a widened sidewalk, green space and unique landscape elements. The landscaped benches create an appealing streetscape environment and serve as a buffer between the dining space and the sidewalk. Also, the expanded sidewalk lined with palms will enhance pedestrian safety and un-obstructed movement along the sidewalk. The proposed redevelopment moves activity closer to the right of way to create an interactive and interesting area that is sufficiently buffered with landscaping components. 4. The landscape treatment proposed in the CLP together with the new resta.urant will have a beneficial impact on the value of the property in the immediate vicinity. The property to the northwest of the subject property has only foundation landscaping and similarly utilizes planters to add a landscaping component. 5. The proposed development is located within Clearwater Pass/South Beach District of Beach by Design, but is not within any Scenic Corridor Plan area. The landscape treatment proposed in the CLP is consistent with the general intent and design objectives of Beach by Design as explained above. 5414833v1 �n i nv i �r iv�vu METAL ROOf ROOF PLAN �� C 4' 8' 16' SCALE: I/8" = I'-0" J I'i=: �� w I�� I� I I- I'.�� II��■1 � �-�■1 1��■1 ��1�� 1!JJ�1 �■^r.n■� Il I■., I■u■1 l:1:1■1 1�1■1 ��i�1� � V � ��^� � � �� ':� • �// �� BAR �I _ � � OPEN TO BELOW � � � l.J�I.J DINING � � � � � ��■�WW��■�� ' 1111111 I �1�1�1�1��,��,�� ■�� !c� �i��i C= ��■n��■��■. 7i �-- ' '' I . - --��. a�� I �i■■. �■i. : � : , � I■■• ]�! ' i ', i 'I��;1 � ��I��`��, ,� � . .., � �� • � � � �� 2 SECOND FLOOR PLAN V g C L� 8' Ib' SCALE: I/8" = I'-0" 10 RHIJCV 10 f1 DCIVl,f1 10 f1 DCIVI,fI � PLANTER 3 � - _ 2 FIRST FLOOR PLAN V `i 0 L' B Ifi' SCALE: I/8" = I'-0" ARCHITECTURE PIANNING IMERIOR DESIGN l48 BROADWAV. SUITE 20? DUNEDIN. FLORIDA 1469tl PHONE:'?:-1854aa1 FL CORP_ AAfpO?58? W W W.AUDESMITH.COM Robert J. Aude, AIA PRINT PATE: 4.01.14 ISS[JEDF()R_ DATI�;: M U � F- Q 0 ��o J � m J w � ��Q W �--� W � � m U � cJ') 2 � � � � � � � Q� �.�..� (J� dM- V SCALF: ASNOTI?D DRAWNBY: M.7'.L. CIiECKEDBY: R.A. PROJI-CTNl1MdER_ 1Y-IIR COCOpyright A�ule Srttii1� Nchileclwe, lnc. AIA AIIRi@lils Reserved 1 OF 2 .ifT�R WEST ELEVATION 0 L' 8' 16 SCALE: I/8" = I'-0" EAST ELEVATION 0 L' C' 16' SCALE I/8" = I'-0" NORTH ELEVATION 0 L' Q' 16 �� SCALE: I/8" = I'-0" � �� SOUTH ELEVATION 0 4' 8' 16 SCALE: I/6" = I'-0" T 0. PYLON _ MIDPOWT CF R�OF EAV= H�IGHT BASE FLOOC ELEV. 12'-0' vAVD ARCHITECTURE PLINNING IMERIOR DESIGN ?48 BROADWAY. SUITE?0_' DUNEDIN, FLORIDA 34698 PHONE:�?:-]85-4441 FL CORP. AAWO?58' NNJN'.AUDESMITH.COM Robert J. Aude, AIA '� PAINT UATE 4 �> >a � ISSIIEU FOR U.A'fE � U � �- Q Z o0 ��o � � m J L.L � F- > U � � � w �� m V � � _ � � � a � O � Q r� W Cn � V SCALE: ASN07GU DRAWNBY�.... �_ ... M.T.L. CHECKEUBY RA. PRO.IF:CT NUIV�3ER�. 14I78 �C Copyright Aude Smith Architec�urc. Inc. ,4I.4 All RiphU ReserveJ 2 OF 2 �ITE I,:�'I'.�: PNRCELI.D NO 0�-291552380A00-081G TOTALSITEAREA 6229.085F.(0.193ACftE5) EXISTING BUILDING AREA�. 15TFLOOR(GROSSFLOORAREA) 2.4825.F.�O.OS�ACRESi-3985ti4 2ND FLOOR (GRO55 FLOOR AREA). 1 B33 5 F. TOTAL GRO55 FLOOR AREN� 4 315 S.F. EXISTINGCONC!ASPHA�TAREA 3�4�SF.(0,086ACRE5)-60.t5% TOTALEXISTINGISR� 62�95.F.�0143ACRE5)-100.00% PROPOSEO BUILDING AREA� 15TFLOOR�GROSSFLOORAREAI�� 2.1B45.F.IO.OSOAGRES)-3522% 2N� FLOOR (GRO55 FLOOR AREA) 2033 S.F. ?OTAL GRO55 FLOOR AREA 4.22� S.F. FROPOSEpCONC.!ASPHA�TAREA 36205.F.(0.083ACRESi-58.12% FROPOSEDGREENSPACE 4155.F.(0.010ACRE5)-6.67% MAXIMt1M ALLOWED ISR 5,918 S.F. (0.1%ACRE3) � 95.00% TOTAI PROPOSED ISR. 5,814 S.F. (0.133 ACRES) - 93 33% EXISTINGZONING. T(TOURISM) PROPOSEDZONING T(TOURISM) FIITURE LAND USE tifH (RESORT FACILITIES HIGHj PROPOSEOUSE� RESTAURANTIMTHOUTpOORGAFE MAXIMUMALLOWEDFAft� 100 aaoaosEOFnR o.sa EXISTING PARKING SPACES 5(1 ADP ACCESSIBLE) PROPOSEOPARKINGSPFCES 0 EXISTING VEHICULAR IISE AREA 9'!S S.F. PROPOSE� VEHIGI/lAR U5E AREA O S F. SI�'E NOTE�: f ALL �IMENSIONS SHONM ARE SHOWN AT FACE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERW75E NOTED. BIC INDICATES DIMENSION IS TO BACK OF CURB. 2. ALL PAVEMENT MARKINGS NND SIGNAGE SHALL BE IN ACCOR�ANCE WITH THE "MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIG CONTROL DEVICES FOR STREETS AND HIGHWAVS,' iATEST EDITION. AND CITY OF CLEARWATER LAN� DEVELOPMENT COOE. 3. THE PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON APPEARS TO LIE IN FLOOD ZONE "AE (EL 12)" f+CCORDING TO THE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP. COMMUNITV NUMBER 12509fi.. PANEL NUMBER 0102. SUFfIX G, EFfECTIVE SEPTEMBER 3. Zf10J. FOR CITV OF CLEARWATER.FLORIOA. a. THE COASTAL CONSTRIICTION CONTROL LINE jCCCL115 LOGATED NORTHVJEST OF THE PROPOSED SITE AND DOES NOT AFFECT DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTV EXISTWG SANITARY LINE- � PROPOSED BALCONY OVERHANG PROPOSED GREASE TRAP — (REFER TO ARCH. PL4NS FOR � INVERTS AND CONNECTIVITY) � 3 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLANTER—. �� 75 SQFT) � s�� \ � / w �p�� i /' V / � ` PROPOSED 3 LF CURB TRANSITION �NP) AI�:� AC�ESSIBII�ITY :\'O'I'ES: 1. AN PCCESSIBLE ROUTE FROM THE PU84C STREET OR SIDEWALKTO THE BUILDING PROPOSED SABAL PALM TREE ENTRANCE MUST BE PROVIOED. THIS ACCESSIBLE ROUTE SHALL BE A MINIMUM Of fi0"WIDE.TMERUNNINGSLOPEOFANACCES516LEROUTESHALLNOTEXCEEDS% (STREETSCAPE) AN� THE CROSS SLOPE SMALL NOT E%CEEO 2%. 3. SLOPES EXCEE�ING 5% BUT LE55 TMAN B% `MLL REpU1RE A RAMP AN� MUST CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR RAMP DESIGN (HANDRAlLS CUR85. LANDING51. NO RAMP SHAIL EXCEEO AN e% RUNNING SLOPE OR 2% CRO55 SLOPE. 3. IN THE CASE THAT A NEW SIpEWALK VNLL BE CONSTRIICTED IN THE PW OF A SITE THE RUNNING SLOPE OF THE SIDEWALK SHALL NOT EXCEE� 5:6 AND THE CRO55 � SLOPE SHALL NOT EXCEED 2%. THIS STANDARD APPLIES TO CROSS WFLKS IN THE PROPOSED 45 LF DRNEWAYASVVELLANONA�LREOUIRESPECIALATTENTIONDURINGSTAKINGTO �PE��F�CURB MAKE SURE THE 2%CROSS SLOPE IS MET IN THE CROSS WNIK. 9. R W1LL BE THE RESPONSIBILITV OF THE GENEftAL CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE THqT THE HANpICAP PARKING SPACES. ACCESSIBLE ROUTES. ANO SIDEWALKS/CROSSWALKS ARE CONSTRUCTED TO MEET A�P REp1/1REMENTS. _. ANY REpU1REMENTS LISTED PBOVE THAT CAN NOT BE MET SHAII BE BROUGHT TO THE ENGINEER'S ATTENTION IMMEDIATELV. ANYTNING NOT BtIILT TO THE ABOVE STANDAROS WILL REGUIRE REMOVAL AND REPLAGEMENT OF THE NON COMP4ANT AREHS AT THE GENERAL CONTRACTORS COST. FIRE :�TO'TE. t. A FIRE HYDRANT SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE EAST SIDE OF GULFVIEW WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE BUILDING. PROPOSED SABAL PALM TREE (STREETSCAPE) � �'� �� \� � � > /�� < _ p � � , . s �� —PROPOSED � g��\Nc � y OUTDOOR S��R �s� �� p �a SEATIN6AREA �� ,\\ � , � � �� , � 1p� \��/�\`O �`-. , ,. � � _ _ ` - � PROPOSED a a� �� 8�� 11i" � / � � � a \ \ F\ �` ` 1 �� , � \1\ c EXISTING 6" WATER MAIN— — WATER LINE CONNECTION (SEE ARCH PLANS. FOR DETAILS) � � ��".:. � w� � a �.:. `�a �.- �V �—PROPOSED ADA LIFT ��' � � � � �� (SEE ARCH. PLANS) �J !� � �38 LF 1-1/2" PVC WATER LINE � � (BFP TO BLDG) y PROPOSED STAIRS \ ` PROPOSED 1" BFP EXISTING RECLAIMED WATER \ METER TO SERVE IRRIGATION FOR PROPOSED LANDSCAPING �PROPOSED 1" WATER METER �-CONNECT TO EXISTING 6" WATER MAIN ; PROPOSED ROLL AWAY DUMPSTERLOCATION / � J � r w y \ C 1 �" \ STAIRS c ; \ p �0? J \ � cES� a eei,- ._.__ sEev_FORUUO.n_ _ __ --- -----___ ._____ _ .. I' PGG ONGRETE (SEE NOl£ 1 h 37 V-- � 13'STABILJZEDSUBGRRDE � (SEE NOIE t) _.J NOTES. t. SIDEWFLK SHNLL BE 9" TMLK EXCfPT IN �RNEWNVS NMEHE THE THICKNE55 SHALL BE 6". 2. SUBGRRDEBELOWSI�EWALNSHFLLBECpAPhGTEDT098°i:OFMR%. DENSITV PEF AA.S.H T.O. T-t90. J. CONCRETESTRENGTHSHALLBEMIN.JOOOP51@38DAV5. . SI�EWRLKREMOVALBREGLAGEMENTSTOCONSISTOFFULLFIAGS. 5. OVI�E E%PANSION JqNT (ttPE'A') NT CONNECTIONS BEMEEN NEW RND EXISTNG SI�E WAIN. 6. PROVIDEFIBEROUSJqNT520'Ot. CONCRETE SIDEWALK DETAIL . — — _...uo:rosuir_.. _ __ :I'_ 1y . • � I� LEGE'�TI): �� k�PE —_ s .�s� � u , .,E�,,ti� aa„FU,.FL 5N�GIN�_ ------- aaorosEOdn�cmr —µ W— oqOFOSEOWFiEF�Ii�� Q PHpPOSEC:,4_a>�'in. wE'A .P�. � ..r. � �F� — i � PRC� f . A. . '. �-... .- �I�� PFOPOSEDI�PEC ,.+_ '< PPOPOSmPqLU��FE� �� FqOVOSELM&Si:�'; OPROGOS�SLVE BU�i9�.nc'1�F { . } PROP SEDSE . �✓ � . OPJSEDB ..-... `� ,i ..o, ,,,... PLANT SCHEDULE A88REVIATION ' �iY COMMO�vtkME—� BC.NICF IJAME - 4cl ' SP 2 CabGage Falm � Sab I. ai ik--r 2 � CES 3oal SilrerButlaiweedHnh�e � P �� PLU I 3 gal &ue PWnibago PW bagc A kg V •; NIB �.� g I� b H�b wse F 'v a . - — ---- , iF , s i s �� de cz i p �. z_ '. cuae ano �srAau�o sueeanoE 1en wi � Svn4 P ' p � EF,O� L SJ. �4 .v.,0+.., �nsrwa:nccoucaErES�w�nc� & - � gs �� II � 1 1 �1 ��g�i I FDOT TYPE'F' CURB No-roscn�,c IPE4 F➢C! M�E'F s300. �+II Mv. � k,v014� N HAPJ BLLOU� , \I\\'.\1SC�LLR11 � • BEPORE YOU DIG � U,� : �� u osnm .� PERMIT SET PROJECTIJU. Fi Od0 oHnwriev rec ECNE� Bv JGL oAr�e. w�c.�zo,a E AS NOTED CFD I D FTtd00I6L J L S,4L7'1" S RESTACRAtiT Gl'LF�'IEW BOPLE�"ARD FOR � 43� 5. GU�FVIEW BLVC CLEARWATER BEACH.FLORI�A PINELLAS COUNTV N� .� � �� `�`; %,, �950 W. NENNEDV BLV�, SUITE 600 TAMPA, FLOWUA 1J609 PM1ane� �819)3>9J100 ca, ieis a�s-aoao www. rnom�.e�w��ec.o�r. oom ; ,Q�N Gceus��'�r� ; w aaz„ - "# * *- � �_ AO� .. sinh oc 24i�; ' ��(ORIO� � U,\ � S',S,�ONAI F.� �•�• lt)I7N (� 1.A7'ttlN"fl'_ P I�: FIORIOA L CENSE� Na. 60311 SNEETTTLE. SITE LAYOtiT PLAN SHEET NIIMBER C-3 oF 3 REVISION i � a � i . � � ,�� 1. 7HIS SURVEY MAP THE SIGNATURE AND THE OfiIGINAI. RAISED SEAL Of A f'LORIDA LICENSEO SURVEYOR AND MAPPER. ADOITIONS OR DELEiIONS TO SURYEY ►AAPS OR REPORTS BY OTHER 1HAN THE SIGNING PARTY OR PARTIES ARE PROH181TED KITHOUT M+RITTEN CONSENT OF TME SIGNING PARTY OR PARTIES. 2. THIS OFFICE HAS NOT ABSTRACTED THIS fOR ANY RECOROEO CLAIMS OF TITLE EASEMENTS OR RESTRICilONS. THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH ClA1MS IS NOT CERTIFlED HEREON. 3. NO UNDERGROUND IMPROVEMENTS OR UilUT1ES WERE LOCATED EXCEPT THOSE SHONM HEREON. 4. UN�ESS NOTED O7NERINSE, NO UNDERGROUND FOUNDATIONS I.00ATEO. 5. THE PROPERTY SHOVM HEREON APPEARS TO UE IN FLOOD ZONE 'AE" ACCOROING TO THE FL000 INSURANCE RATE MAP, COMMUNITY NUMBER 125096, PANEL NUMBER 0102, SUFflX G, EFFECTiVE SEPTEMBER 3, 2003, FOR THE qTY OF CLEARWATER, F�ORIDA. MAP OF SURVEY MAP OF SURVEY LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 81, THE L�OYD—WFiITE—SKINNER SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING T� THE PIAT THEREQF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 13, PAGES 12 ANO 13, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PlNELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA. CERTIFIED T0: CALUSA ASSET PARTNERS .'` I.�� !'Ol.��"t'/; O V� CI_t:', tt{13�,17TR �I:,�1 CH, .1 CO.�'!)O.t/1.1'!( ".11 C.P./3. 13�, PC1GES !-!3 ,2� LE SITE PHOTOGRAPH LECEND AC NR CONOff10NER � uc�rT � � {C) CALCUTAiID NEASUREMENT LS UCENSED SURVEYOR CONC CONCREfE IAETAL fENCE — x — x — CSW CONCRETE SIDEWAU( OHW OVERHEAD WIRE EM�EI.EC�fPoC IAETER �P� PU�T A�IEASU E�M - C�LI. (F) FlEID NEJSURpIENT PP PQNER Paf FCM FOUND CONCRETE MONUAIENT PRM PERAIM7ENT REfERENCE M�IUAIENI FlP FOUND IRON PIPE PSA1 PROFESSIONN. SURYEYOR AND A44PPER fCiR FOUND CAPPED IRON ROD P4C fENCE FlR FOUND IRON RQO R/W RIGHT-OF-WAY FND FOUND NAII $ DISN SCIR SEf GPPED IRON ROD fPP FWND PINCHm FMPE SND SEf NAA� dc INStC ID IDENTIFlCAiION IYA1 WATER AIEfER LB LICENSED BUSINESS NUAIBER WOOD FENCE o a Q / I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY WAS MADE UNDER MY DIRECTION AND MEETS THE MINIMUM TECNNICAL STANDARD REQUiREMENTS OF CHAPTER 5J-17 OF THE FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIV� CODE. ' DATE S/GNED NUMBER: LS-6201 4 � � ocQ � .� � � m ap J a"' L � `�' D F� � u� rMi °v E � �° � � � � � o � o ` � LL ' '1 (n �p O = tn n � � � � � � � Q � o � Y m � c r r � a. � 0 � Q W W �, J Q � � (f� m r �j � �� o� W � � � Q�� o J �� = o� O � � m cr� � � � REVISIQNS: APPD. DATE OF SURYEY: 3/20/2014 DRAIPN: DLS CHECKED: JLK REVISION: FILE: CA038DX.dwg SCALE: 1 ��= 2�� PROJECT NUMBER: CAPA�03 SHEET N0. 1 � PARKING ANALYSIS FOR 437 S. GULFVIEW BOULEVARD CLEARWA'TER BEACH, FLQRIDA PREPA.RED FOR: CALUSA PARTNER.S PREPARED BY: GULF COAST CONSULTING, IlVC. MAI2CH 2O14 PROJECT #14-012 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .. . \!!_rl_lS�i��C1��I�i/ TII. EXiSTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS IV. FUTURE CONDIT[ONS WITH REDEVI:LOPMENT V. CONCLUSION Robert C. Pergol' i, P/PTP AICP # 9023 / PTP #1 3 I. iNTRODUCTION The project site is located at 437 S. Gulfview Boulevard and is occupied by a retail T-shirt shop. The applicant is making rnodifications to the property to redevelop it as a 4,000 SF restaurant in a two-story building, with no on-site parking spaces. The site is lacated on the east side of S. Gulfview Bou�evard south of 5`� Street on Clearwater Beach (See Figure l). The site is loca.ted in the Tourist ('I') zoning district, and per Section 2-802 of the Community Development Code has a minimum parking requiremeni of 7-12 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of restaurant space. According to sfr�ict interpretation of the code, the proposed restaurant development would require between 28 - 48 parking spaces. The proposed site plan shows zero (0) spaces being pravided on-site. The code provides for reducing the required number of parking spaces to recognize the special situations that exist on Clearwater Beach Section 2-802 of the Cammunity Development Code allows a reduction in parking if the property will require £ewer parking spaces per floor area than otherwise required or adequate parking is available through existing ox• planned and committed parking facitities near the propeity. City of Clea��vvater staff has recognized the retail and restaurant establishments located on Clearwater Beach, in close proximity to municipal parking lots, on- street parking spaces, neazby hotels/motels and residential condominiums within walking distance, have a great potential for "walk-up" custonners The Jolly Trolley also stops near the site and there are bicycle racks near the site. Staff also recognizes the available public parking in nearby garages serve two functions, one to serve beachgoers, and two to provide parking for beach related businesses. This parking analysis was prepared to determine the availabiiity of parking spaces. II. METHODOLOGY Prior to conducting this analysis a methodology was established witb the City of Clearwater staff in March 2014. It was agreed GCC would obtain hours of operation and employee shift data fmm each establishment. Employee parking demand was based on 80% of employees requiring a parking space and 20% arriving by ather modes of transportation as has been customary for previous pazking studies on Clearwater Beach. The parking space requirement for custamers was evalua.ted using a 50% factor based on customer surveys conducted at Surf StyleBritts for a previous parking study. The previous study confirmed 50% of the customers parking in local hotels and condominium lots, and SO% parked in public beach lots or used on-site parking spaces. This was applied to the code required lower end of the range ('1 spacesl1000 SF) since customers are counteti separately from employees. These factors are shown in Table 1. These factors were used in preparing a"time-of-day" matrix which is shown in Table 2. � � x � �� ' ' � ��y�` w�� ,a.. a � ,� �� ' � ��' �G��D � t• � � , --+�.� r j fi�' ar � `� � y�; . ►� tl `� -.+` j . i I�'^ 8� r �T?�' � � '�, , ` _ ,s�,_��.�: ,�;�' � � � ; � _ ,� � 1�,:..�: �. `.:� •�� r* ,.� r . � . . � � �. �. �. y ' # �, j . '� .. i` • . ` Y , s� � , +.� ,,,, �.. � y �'� ; � � _ � � jF � Y i � „ r� r � �,^ 1 . � �,. `. � . � �� t� � +� � � �` � � �, � �, R �' �` r � y ' ,�7 . ty ,w,�� ,9! .f� J... * � 7 � r .� �� ' � �� f. ��.,.�.. �'�, � �:1 �.� �� fr � � • ��+� y, y +�y� . r ''��v ist ''��'. '� �� `3 4 !i . � � � �../' � ��' � e.� . .. � � ,�, 7 •, �. 4 " . )� i _ a �1 ��.. �. � - .� a ��` � � �� I �� ' �� _ � � � �� ; . . � , ,�, a ,.. �. e�,,: _ ,. , , _ , �� .r , � . . . . .� ..,�� .. ; o- ;,' '��'�l �' �� t •, �, 1�.�.�,� , aw.�t �,.,.,•` ��w�.-*i J ` � � �� .� ��° � , ��. i r� �'�� e r � t �� "�.w:'�. �� }�� +�. .� . �• � `4 ? �. ,w ,� . � �.. ,� t� , � #�'t:: � '�; ' � '� �" " _ �� • - , � ' , ' • , � � u ' . I �''� r , � � � � �� 1 ,.� � � � � �' ` � :` � ; �" ~ .. f .�,:� !�'�:� , � , i'� �� s� ~�3 �, � ��' , � .}.' � 4 �� ,� 4 I `. F1 � ,,, , � � , Y 4.; ...�� . V 4 F �'» � �r ,'tl�, '�' � , ,'�:��`. ` � + � � 1 `�- � � i � �'' � • i ` �' \ r� "��; � ,� � �' � :�� "� �: � ,. �"�� ` +�� , � w^. �,� , "� � s y„r� - . �'..: ¢' y ti"^ ��„ . i" h r 2�` •''�' ♦ ��,av��. �.�� `� �/y. a'� ` �� , �' �� ` `��{.qY�'P t' , ��''�S + , • � .1 , � '�� . � � '- ir;s�,+n� ,r.,�' �� .. � . �1�,A . �. � i �>��M ��. ��7 ��' � ��1 , � �°1' ky � + l ;, .z� � �h `�� ldi.„�� ar �{ v�"'� ��,'�`� �� M$.,�. ��p �^ � �'� � b �� t '�' q � "� �� e�+E �` v�:a �.N, ':?, z . . �. � � `� .{ 'y' •'��fi� ��'; t t� .� � . . a . �� ° � ��#' y�. �: �"�' , a ,� ,k�,��.� 'M.' '� r[�'k, '�,, r� . �` ,�° � ,,,��' �� , r � "aa �� ` Y�`�� "� �a� � ""^��„ ;�?� ,r�� r' � � � , �'( i � � ,p�`� ' ,.: � �;'m �'�', n F ` .. r?'� � �� y �_ . . �7 . . +t s.,,,q> E' .,'..�� . �f�Y.t '.,! a PROJECC NO: PROJECT LOCATION -#43 t S GULFVIEW BLVD 14-012 Gulf Coast Consulting, Ti1C. �� r•icvRr:: �� Land Development Consulting 3/ 2 01 4 �� DRAWN SY: MKC TABLE 1- 437 S. GULFVIEIN BLVD. CLEARWATER BEACii - PARKENG DEMAND P/iRAMETER3 SPACES REtlU1RED ASSUMPTIONS: EMPLOYEE PARKING IS LIMI7ED TO 80% OF EMPLOYEES USING A CAR BASED ON CLEf1RWATER EXPECTATIONS RES7AUkANT CUSTOMERS PARKING BA3ED ON CODE REQUIREMENT OF 7 SPACES/10a6 SF FOR RESTAURAN7 TO ACCOUNT FOR CUSTOMERS SEPARATEIY FROM EMPLOYEES TABLE 2- TIME OF DAY PARK(NO D6MANC RE37AURANT RES7AURANT RETAURANT TaTaL It was agreed GCC would conduct a parking accumulation study on a Friday between 11AM az�d Z PM (lunch) and 6 PM to 9PM, and Saturday between 10 AM and 4 PM and 6 PM — 9PM. The study area included The Hyatt Aqualea. parking garage, and the Surf Style which contain public parking. These areas include a total of 1,064 parldng spaces. The Hyatt Hotel conta,ins a total of 7b4 spaces of which up to 4Q0 may be used by the general public. The Surf Siyle gaiage contains 344 spaces, of which 44 are in a secured area accessible by employees only, and the 300 are accessible by the general pubLic. III. EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS Existing conditions were established by conducting parking garage counts betweeu the how.s of 11 AM — 2 PM and 6:00 PM and 9:OQ PM on Friday March X�4, 2014, and Saturday March 15, 2014 between lO:OQ AM and 4:00 PM and 6:OU PM and 9:00 PM. This is peak seaso�t as Spring Break was in fuil swing and it i�cpresents atypical "worst case scenario" conditions. Weather conditions were typical for mid-March with a high temperature of 78 degrees and lows of 65 degrees. No rain was encountered at any time during the study. The aforementioned parking garages were checked on the hour for the number of spaces that were occupied. The number of occupied spaces was noted and an hourly accunlulated total was obtained for each specific parking garage and the whole study area. Frida�r March 14, 2014 On Friday garking demand varied significantly throughout the study period with a low of 197 occupied spaces (19%) at i 1:00 AM to a peak demand of 54b occupied spaces (51 %) at 2:00 PM. As such, there were a rninimum of S 18 unused spaces in the study area throughou% the sfudy period. Closer analysis shows. The Surf Style garage was underutilized throughout the inid-day and evening study hours. Table 3 provides an hourly tabulation and Figure 2 provides a graph of hourly parking space occupancy. Saturday March 15. 2014 On Saturday parking demand varied significantly throughout the day from a low of 198 occupie�l spaces (20%} at 10:00 AM to 836 spaces (79%j at 2PM, full occupancy at 3PM, and 830 spaees (78%} at 4PM. There are minimum of 228 unused spaces throu�hout the day with the exception of the 3PM observation. Again a closer analysis shows the Surf Siyle garage underutilized most of the study peiiod , but at full occupancy at 3PM & 4PM.The Hyatt garage was underutilized throughout the mid-day and evening study houis but fully occUpied TABI.E 3 fR1DAY MAKCH U, 201< Ll � . . < �'��i�13?�LT�-r_ �.T�� :S��it•-i7_?�� "��[3 J�.�r,'7 iF��E %�i'?.��TF��IE� �- �'.��:�iR ��i'_��::I�I�IiG:�it`l.'� G'� - iiF��='r��iZ�_'��iF��k:��:"� ' �C��:?��::�ii''.�E':��:��.'E� - �>>�.::��?:�ii?��ff�iL:'_��:�.� - t��.��FI�O�IF��L''�� ' �'�� :��-.-S�O�ii�O�'.�"� �5� �',� �L: � 0 �%;� �'.� iiE� 1000 900 800 -- 700 v� . v 600 - a a � � 5d0 __ _ __. 'a � � t� 400 ' _ O 300 i _ --_ _. . _ __ __ _..__. i 200 � __.. __ ____. � 100 j _ _ � ___. I 0 �a-_,_ _. _ i. FIGURE 2 - FRIDAY MARCH 14, 2014 19:OOAM 12:p0 PM 1:40 PM 2:OQ PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM TlME OF DAY � ■ Seriesl only at 3PM. Table 4 provides an hourly tabula#ion and Figure 3 provides a graph of hourly parking space occupancy. Given the fact this was the "peak week" of fihe year {see attached FDOT seasonal adjushnent factors} a 90% factor (10% discount) could be applied. If applied, a minimum of 106 spaces would be available at all times. IV. FUTURE COND�TIONS WITH REDE'�EI.OPMENT The proposed redevelopment as a restaurant would result in no on-site parking spaces and must obviously rely on available public parking spaces in the area. The redevelopment would require betweeil 28 and 48 parking spaces acco�ding to strict interpretation of the code. The restaurant will be open for lunch and dinner and evenin� night activities, with some employees arriving by 9AM and other closing between midnight and IAM. A detailed hourly ana�ysis was comple#ed based on ihe expected operafing characteristics of the restaurant. As shown in Table 2, employee plus customer parking, including shift averlaps, would result in a peak parking space demand af 40 spac�s between 3 and 5 PM. Parking demand would vary throughout the day/night, being at or above 30 spaces for tt�e period of 12 noon — 9 PM. In reviewing the available spaces from Table 3 and Table 4, and assuming the typical case, a minimum of 228 parking spaces are available to satisfy any demand therefore there is adequate parking available to support the proposed redevelopnnent, other than at 3PM on Saturday. V. CONCLUSTUN This analysis was conducted in accordance with a specific methodology established with City of Cleaiwater staff. This analysis demonstrates of the 1,064 total parking spaces included in the study area, suff'icient spaces are available at nnost times, other than at 3PM on Saturday. A detailed analysis of time of day variations demonstrate the restaurants parking demand would vary from 0 spaces to 40 spaces. As such, given typical seasonal conditions adequate parking is available within reasonable walking distance of the project to support the lack of an-site parking spaces. Spring Breait crowds may yield different conditions for a limited time period. TIM! 10:00 17:00 12:00 t:00 Z0� 3:OD 4:00 G:00 r.00 a:oo aoo TA�LE4 SATURDAY MARCH 16. 201< 9PM �l KyRll p�npt. RN p�rap� W t full, lntry dMkC 3PM d �PM at 8uri SryN p�wpe. th� pxap� xat Pon FIGURE 3 SATURDAY MARCH 15, 2014 1000 _ __ _ - _.._____ _ _ _ m _,_ --__ _____ _-----__�______ 90Q. _ _._ . ___.__ _ � __ _ _._.__.�_____ .w__ . _._ _ _ . _ 800 - . __ _ . ,. .. ___ ----__ _ _ ___ ___�.._.___ _. _ __._______... 700 _ . _ .__�_.___._.�_ .___._ _._.,________w.��_�._�._..�..__. ' � v 600 ___ _ _ _.._ ___ _. _ . _._ �.�__ ___. _.._ _. a � � � 500 _. _ _._ ___________. _ _ _ _ ! �_�_ _�_._._ ___�_ �._�_ .__� •Series1 a v400 __ _ _ _ _ _.______ _.�_._ _._____ _______ _ _._�_ _.__.. _____ -- __ _.. __. __--- ' O 300 - _-_ . �_____ _____ .__ ,_�« �_-- _.., ; 200 __ ___ __.._ _ ____ __ ' 100 _ _ _ __ _ .__ _ �� _ __ - ; _, ; p_, _ _ .r_�. ,_ ..__ _ ._ . . ; 10:00 AM '11:00 AM 12:Od PM `I:00 PM 2:OQ PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PP� , 8:00 PM � 9:0� PM TIME QF DAY � � � � H , , , e � � � 2012 Peak Season Factor Category Report - Report Type: ALL Category: 1500 PINELLA5 COUNTYWLDE MOCP: 0.93 Week Dates SF PSCF +sss=asxsasss�=amvssaaae�oaoa-easo�:a:s::nsssaa�aaa:mzas:ai�nmzaoa=v==evvs=axvo=e i oi/oi/aoia - oi/o�/zoia i.o� i.is z oi/os/2oi2 - oi/i4/zoia i.os i.ia s oi/is/aoia - oi/ai/aoi2 i.o3 i.io a oi/zz/zoia - os/aa/zoia z.oi i.os s oi/a9/zoiz - oa/oa/aoi2 0.99 i.oe * 6 oz/os/zoiz - os/ii/aoiz o.s� i.o4 * � oa/ia/zoiz - oa/ie/aoia a.9s � i.oa * s 02/19/2012 - 02/25/2012 0.94 i.oi * 9 •02/26/2012 - 03/03/2012 0.93 1.00 *io oa/oa/aoia - oa/io/aoia o.9� *11 03/il/2012 - 03/17/2012 �:90 0.96 (,� �r �,� y"f �� *I2 03/18/2012 - 03/24/2012 0.97 *13 03/25/2012 - 03/31/2012 0.92 0.99 Q{�ta�'V�'A�s *14 04/O1/2012 - 04/07/2012 0.83 1.00 t *15 04/OS/2012 - 04/14/2012 0.93 1.00 �t�� w`�� af •F�a �tit� *i6 oa/is/aoiz - oe/zi/aoia ,0.9� i.oi �i� o4/as/soiz - oa/as%zoia =o.9s i.oa *is 04/29/2012 - 05/05/2012 0.96 1.D3 ��„�� , i S Q,g O i9 os/oe/zoi2 - os/ia/soia o.9s i.as 20 OS/13/2012 - OS/19/2012 0.99 1.06 p Q vf0 21 OS/ZO/a012 - OS/26/2012 0.99 1.06 � 22 05/27/2012 - 06/02/2012 0.�99 Z.06 23 06/03/2012 - 06/09/2012 0.99 1.06 za o6/io/aoia - os/ie/ZOia i.00 i.o� ss 06/17/2012 - 06/23/2012 i.oa i.o� 26 06/24/2012 - 06/30/2012 1.00 1.07 27 07/01/2012 - 07/07/2012 0.99 1.06 �a o�/oa/zoia - a�/a.4/aoxz 0.99 i.a6 29 07/15/2012'- 07/21/2012 0.99 1.Q6 ao o�/ZZ/soiz - o�/za/zoia i.oi i.os 31 07/29/2012 - 08/04/2012 1.02 1.09 32 •oa/os/zoia - oe/ii/2oia i.o4 i.ii • 33 08/12/2012 - 08/18/2012 1.05 1.12 34 08/19/2012 - 08/25/2012 1.05 1.12 35 08/26/�012 - 09/01/2012 1.05 � 1.12 36 09/02/2012 - 09/08/2012 1.06 1.14 37 09/09/2012 - 09/15/2012 1.06 1.14 38 09/16/2012 - 09/22/2012 1.05 � 1.12 39 09/23/2012 - 09/29/2012 1.05 1.12 40 09/30/2012 - 10/06/2012 1.04 1.11 4i io/o�/aoia - io/i3/ioia i.o4 i.ii 4z io/i4/zoia - io/ao/aoiz i.oa z.io • 4a io/2i/zoiz - io/a�/2oia i.o3 i.io '• 44 10/28/2012 - 11/03/2012 z.o4 i.ii as ii/oa/2oa.z - ii/ia/aoia i.oa i.li �s ii/ii/aoiz - ii/i�/aoia i.os s.iz " 4� ii/is/aosz - i1/z4/zoia i.os i.i2 �a ii/ss/soiz - ia/os/aoi2 i.o6 i.ig a9 is/os/aoi2 - s.2/os/sois i.o6 i.i4 so is/o9/2oia - iz/is/aoi2 i.o� i.is si iz/is/zois - i�/sz/aoiz i.os i.sz s2 12/23/2012 - 12/29/2012 i.o4 i.ii 53 12/30/2012 - 12/31/2012 i.o3 i.io * Peak 9eason Page 10 of 11