The URL can be used to link to this page

FLD2014-06016„ �l�a��t�� _ _ }� V - - - -,- ,.. x : .. .._ .__.. -._ - _ � � . _ _. MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REI'ORT August 19, 2014 F.1. CASE: FLD2014-06016 REQUEST• Flexible Development application to convert 15.77 acres (686,941 square � feet) of existing office area of the Arbor Shoreline Office Park into 236 attached dwellings within the Office (0) District with a side (west) setbacks of zero feet (to pavement) and 50 feet (to building), side (south) setbacks of zero feet (to pavement) and 20 feet (to building), side (north) setbacks of 25 feet (to pavement) and 15 feet (to building), and a rear (east) setbacks of 118 feet (to pavement) and 125 feet (to building), a building height of 52 feet, and 694 off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project pursuant to Section 2-1004.A., Community Development Code (CDC), along with a reduction in the required foundation and buffer plantings as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program pursuant to Section 3-1202.G., CDC. GENERAL DATA: Agent ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Robert Pergolizzi Applicant/ Owner ... ... ... ..... Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. Location .......................... 19321 US Highway 19 N; east side of US Highway 19 N, approximately 200 feet north of Harn Boulevard Property Size ... ... ... ... ... .... 22.52 acres Future Land Use Plan... .... Residential/Office General (R/OG) Zoning ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .... Office (0) District Special Area Plan ... ... ... .... US 19 Corridor Redevelopment Plan Adjacent Zoning.... North: Mobile Home Park (MHP) District South: Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) District East.• Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) District West Existing Land Use... ... ... .. Proposed Land Use... ... ... Commercial (C) District Office Buildings Attached Dwellings ' vll.ud 1't �L1.•1 Level II Flexible Development Application Review ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 22.52 acre site is located along the east side of US Highway 19 N, approximately 200 feet north of Harn Boulevard. The site is accessed via an existing driveway into the subject property from the highway as well as an existing access easement which traverses 19387 US Highway 19 N and provides access from the highway into the subject property. The existing development consists of five office buildings with 218,332 square feet of office space, parking lots and landscaping. The area of the subject property targeted for the attached dwelling units is the portion of the property fronting along the Old Tampa Bay waterfront. The subject property is located within the Office (0) District where the intent and purpose of which is to provide the citizens of the City of Clearwater with convenient access to professional services and high quality jobs throughout the city without adversely impacting the integrity of residential neighborhoods, diminishing the scenic quality of the City of Clearwater or negatively impacting the safe and efficient movement of people and things within the City of Clearwater. The Future Land Use Plan use is Residential/Office General (R/OG) where the intent and purpose of which is to depict those areas of the county that are now developed, or appropriate to be developed, in an office and/or medium density residential use; and to recognize such areas as primarily well-suited for mixed-use of an office/residential character consistent with the surrounding uses, transportation facilities and natural resource characteristics of such areas. The immediate vicinity is characterized by a variety of non-residential and residential uses including multi- story office buildings and a variety of commercial uses along US Highway 19, attached dwelling units and mobile home units to the north and south and the Old Tampa Bay to the east. The neighborhood surrounding the subject property is zoned Mobile Home Park (MHP) to the north, Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) to the south, Commercial (C) to the west and Open Space/Recreation (OS/R) to the east. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DNISION a q wrAO aa oy; __....M.r� ' y o �'-n �..1� '� � PAGC Residential °s �N.T. �e y TEAXVJOd D DR � � �V v � � ��, � Uffiee � _ .., u _ �r '' _"_ �"� � a ,;._� � Residential EXISTING SURROUNDING USES MAP Community Development Board August 19, 2014 FLD2014-06016 — Page 1 Office (0) and � � C�� tt �L4� Level II Flexible Development Application Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION Development Proposal: The four existing multi-story office buildings located on the easiern portion of the subject property will be demolished and will be replaced with three, four-story apartment buildings containing a total of 246 units. The proposed improvements will also include a clubhouse, swimming pool, detached garage buildings, and extensive landscaping. ___ � �a.. ; , � . � � ��. Y� � �A.s.e^.-� .�� x°.�'�Fe'.ffi'•� °s��?�i'- .._.__-^l r . . . . � --.�.:. � . �� b !� ' I i ��1 . i. �, . �. i i G�-�1�� .,_i_I� ... ! � I � I II � , i I I - _ -g - I �._. - --- — � �� i .x � ��I L.:;J � � ,� �[� � i �v ' � I p �� s;-�� Q � �� i '� � � P. 5E1 ' d d� �. i 1 i� � i� � k El: �] it� � S 9! � i 1 iG ! '1� ��- r ro �i � � � ,� �� , r c� � ,� . � �� Architectura[ Elevations, proposed Residential Apartments �� .° ' �' �-� � �-T ---- - 6� , . -_._€� ` . : , __ _,i �,_ r— r— o� r� i� �� r� � ►=��- �- �R �� ,i r :_-� � a_ .� . � � �■ �� Qe �i i r� e� �� be �i i � r,�; � �. � � � I ' �� i i I � I � �� 0. '� Y R •: �, �' , K� , N� Ra i ii i�r� i� �� I , , ._ _ -- _ --- _--- I �'� '�� Y.. � _ 4J�! I�" � ""� � t �j Architectural Elevations, proposed Residential Apartments The proposed attached dwelling use is permitted in the underlying Future Land Use Designation of Residential/Office General (R/OG) with a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per acre. The US 19 Corridor Redevelopment Plan identifies that for-rent residential uses are currently deficient within this portion of the City and encourages the proposed type of redevelopment. The proposed project will comply with the maximum density permitted of 15 dwelling units per acre and will help to satisfy the current for-rent deficiency within the US 19 corridor. The proposed architectural character for the development is envisioned to reflect a contemporary nautical theme to foster a close connection with the setting along Old Tampa Bay. Most notable is the stepped arrangement of the units facing the water, providing movement and interest to the elevations while maximizing water views for the residents. In keeping with the nautical feel of the project, materials are proposed to consist of primarily stucco finishes in light/white tones paired with accents of deep wood-tone siding that will create contrast and texture. Community Development Board August 19, 2014 FLD2014-06016 – Page 2 t C�l.�l MY�LI.I Level II Flexible Develo mentA lication Review PL'ar�m�G&DEV�LOPMENT . ,.; .. p pP DEVELOPMENTREVIEWDIVISION -�- ..._. AYChitectuYal Elevations, pYOposed Clubhouse The complex will provide amenities including gated entrance, individual optional garages, car washing area, trash compactor structure, extensive walking pathways, and a Clubhouse with business facility and exercise room. Additionally, the site will feature enhanced landscaping which will exceed the CDC requirements and will incorporate existing mature trees which will be preserved through the construction phase. Special Area Plan: US 19 Corridor Redevelopment Plan: The US 19 Redevelopment Plan (US 19 Plan) was adopted in 2012 and offers guidance as the City of Clearwater works to improve conditions along the US 19 corridor. The plan contains strategies to leverage the corridor's unique location advantages, capitalize on market opportunities and maximize benefits of planned transit and transportation improvements. A market analysis was conducted to ascertain the quantitative and qualitative aspects of demand for current and future land uses that might be appropriate for future development. The market overview further evaluated and identified the US 19 corridor as being well-located relative to sources of demand and access to water and as an important north/south corridor. The short-term opportunity of for-rent residential was identified as strong, with low vacancy and limited new product. Table 8 within the Market Potential section identiiied the following strengths and challenges as relating to for-rent residential: US 19 CORRIDOR FOR-RENT RESIDENTIAL STRENGTHS & CHALLENGES Strength Challenge Great access to employments cores Most of study area is not achieving a high dollar/SF Well executed projects achieve a 30+ percent Finding a piece of land large enough to allow premium over the average in the area a developer to create a good size project (250+/-units) Despite some existing product vacancy, the corridor has a high number of renters due to its superior access and could capture turnover from inside the corridor and elsewhere in the MSA Draw from both workforce population and 55+ population depending on product type positioning. Community Development Board August 19, 2014 FLD2014-06016 — Page 3 ± C14[ii 1't �L41 Level II F�exible Develo ment A lication Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT p PP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION � ,wrurp., The strengths clearly outweigh the challenges with respect to for-rent residential within the corridor location. Additionally, the plan further identified market opportunities by land use with for-rent residential delineated as the following: US 19 CORRIDOR MARKFT OPPORTiTNITY $Y LAND USE Opportunity For-R,,.eqt Resi�iential Short-Term Opportunity Strong — vacancy low, limited new product Longer-Term Opportunity Strong — challenged by site availability Demand Potential to 2030 469 to 1,209 units Number of Projects 2 to 5 projects Key Tenants/Buyers Young professionals, students, empty nesters, retirees The proposed project is consistent with the identified market opportunity as a for-rent residential land use. The project will satisfy 236 units of the demand potential and will provide a new product with exceptional views of Old Tampa Bay within the corridor. Comprehensive Plan: The proposal is in support of the following Goals, Objectives and/or Policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan as follows: Future Land Use Plan Element: Policy A.2.2.2 - Residential land uses shall be sited on well-drained soils, in proximity to parks, schools, mass transit and other neighborhood-serving land uses. The proposed residential apartments are located on a site with sandy soils which drain well and as the subject property is located along US 19 which will provide the future residents with direct access to mass transit, commercial and retail amenities. 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 Policy A.3.2.1 All new development or redevelopment of property within the Ciry of Clearwater shall meet all landscape requirements of the Community Development Code. US 19 is designated as a Primary Scenic Corridor within Section 3-1203 of the CDC and within the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Primary scenic corridors are those roadways expected to have enhanced landscape standards applied to properties along them. Furthermore, US 19 is specifically listed as a"Corridor to Redevelop" within the Linkages section of the FLUE of the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has submitted a Comprehensive Landscaping application and while responses to the criteria were provided and the project will include enhanced landscaping which will meet and/or exceed the Community Development Board August 19, 2014 FLD2014-06016 — Page 4 � C�4(al ��Lt..l Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT p pp DEVELOPMN.N'f REVIEW DIVISION d .. , . . . . � 7ffiS��`aha' �4<". .,; �,n . . . . ' CDC requirements; the subject property targeted for the redevelopment is not located directly along the US 19 corridor and therefore, landscaping alterations to the existing conditions along the corridor are not included as part of the project. Objective A. S. S- 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 proposed residential apartment use is identified as a Primary Use in the Residential/Office General FLUP designation. The permitted density shall not exceed fifteen dwelling units per acre as per the FLUP and the project is consistent with the permitted density. Additionally, the US 19 Corridor plan identified that there is a need for additional for-rent residential units within the area. This, coupled with the fact that there are residential uses within close proximity of the subject property to both the north and south, and the proposed use is consistent with the existing as well as the envisioned character of the neighborhood. Goal A.6 - The City of Clearwater shall utilize innovative and flexible Planning and engineering practices, and urban design standards in Order to protect historic resources, ensure neighborhood Preservation, redevelop blighted areas, and encourage infill Development; and, Objective A. 6.1-The redevelopment of blighted, substandard, inefficient andlor 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; and, Policy-A.6.1.8-The City shall continue to support and implement approved community redevelopment area plans, such as the Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan adopted in 2004 and Beach by Design adopted in 2001. The US 19 Corridor Redevelopment Plan was completed after the Comprehensive Plan which is why it is not specifically listed within this policy section. The US 19 plan is consistent with the Goal, Objective and Policy as relating to redevelopment of the City within the corridor. The proposed project is consistent with the US 19 plan and is therefore also consistent with and supportive of the above. Community Development Code: The proposal supports the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of the CDC as follows: Section 1-103.B.1. Allowing property owners to enhance the value of their property th�ough innovative and creative redevelopment. The proposed apartment complex is consistent with the residential uses immediately surrounding the subject property to the north and south. Furthermore, the proposed use is supported by the US 19 Corridor Redevelopment Plan, the County Future Land Use Plan and the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development will take place on a previously developed site and the applicant is proposing to maintain the maximum amount of existing mature trees and landscaping. Additionally, the site will be further enhanced through supplemental landscaping throughout which will give the maximum property value when the complex is complete. The proposed Community Development Board August 19, 2014 FLD2014-06016 — Page 5 '_ li�Lttl �1N,14� Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLANNING& DEVELOPMENT P pP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION ° ....-�,.��.�. �� ,-s�, ,. � � � project layout will also maximize on views of the Old Tampa Bay waterfront and provide long- term protection of this valuable community asset. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. 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. Existing development in the area of the subject property includes a variety of residential, office and commercial uses consistent with each respective zoning district and the redevelopment of the subject property into residential apartments will complement the existing surrounding uses. The proposed apartment complex has been designed to maintain the ma�cimum number of existing trees and landscaping as well as maximize the views of Old Tampa Bay. Additionally, the new construction will include 236 l�ury apartments with a clubhouse, pool facility, walking pathways, and extensive landscaping. Access to the development will utilize the existing ingress/egress points along US 19 which will not further impact the traffic patterns of the highway. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. Section 1-103.B.3. Strengthening the city's economy and increasing its tax base as a whole. The proposal includes the redevelopment of an existing developed parcel from office buildings to residential apartments. The proposal will be consistent with the character of the area with regard to size, scope and scale as compared with other properties in the neighborhood. While the proposal is expected to have no net increase in the tax base as a whole, the overall result will be the redevelopment of a parcel through maintenance of maximum landscaping both existing and proposed as well as through construction of architecturally attractive buildings in combination with site improvements which will support the intent of the standards of the CDC. It is largely beyond dispute that the City of Clearwater is largely built-out where the primary option for improvement is the redevelopment and/or refurbishing of existing sites and buildings. Improving a property typically results in an increase in its value thereby positively contributing to the City's tax base and overall economy. The net result of the proposal will be another attractive redevelopment in the community which adds to the enhancement of surrounding properties. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. Section 1-103.D. It is the further purpose of this Development Code to make the beautification of the city a matter of the highest priority and to require that existing and future uses and structures in the city are attractive and well-maintained to the maximum extent permitted by law. The proposal includes a new multi-unit luxury apartment complex with landscape buffers that are consistent with or slightly modified from the otherwise minimum required width and configuration. The applicant is proposing to maintain the maximum amount of existing mature trees which is the reason that perhaps not all of the buffers will meet the exact code prescription. However, the resulting feel and look of the development will be greatly enhanced through the maintenance of the existing trees with supplemental plantings which will ultimately render the property as exceeding the exact number of required plantings. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed building and site plan are more attractive than what is currently on the site. The proposal with regard to site, landscape and building design is consistent with other beautification efforts undertaken, encouraged and installed by the City and private property owners in the City as a whole and is specifically targeted for the US 19 corridor as per the redevelopment plan. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. Community Development Board August 19, 2014 FLD2014-06016 — Page 6 ' Cil.Rl �Ltbl.� Level II Flexible Development Application Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT °•.� . .. .,... .... . ^�a,� ., . .. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DMSION Section 2-1001, Intent of the O District and R/OG FL UP classification. The CDC provides that it is the intent and purpose of the Office "O" District is to provide the citizens of the City of Clearwater with convenient access to professional services and high quality jobs throughout the city without adversely impacting the integrity of residential neighborhoods, diminishing the scenic quality of the City of Clearwater or negatively impacting the safe and efficient movement of people and things within the City of Clearwater. Furthermore, it is the intent of the O District that development be consistent with the Countywide Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) as required by state law. The uses and development potential of a parcel of land within the O 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 O 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 2.3.3.4.2 of the Countywide Land Use Rules provides that the purpose of the ResidentiaUOffice General (R/OG) FLUP classification is to depict those areas of the county that are now developed, or appropriate to be developed, in an office and/or medium density residential use; and to recognize such areas as primarily well-suited for mixed-use of an office/residential character consistent with the surrounding uses, transportation facilities and natural resource characteristics of such area. Permitted Primary Uses include residential and office. The proposed residential apartment use is consistent with the permitted primary uses of the R/OG FLUP. Development Parameters: Floor Area Ratio (FAR� Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-1001.1, the maximum FAR for properties with a FLUP designation of Residential/Office General (R/OG) is 0.50. The existing office building that will remain with this development is 81,353 square feet, which results in an FAR of 0.08. Therefore, the FAR is consistent with the CDC. Densitv: Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-1001.1, the maximum density for properties with a FLUP designation of Residential/Office General (R/OG) is 15 dwelling units per acre. After considering the existing office square footage that will remain as a part of this development proposal (81,353 at an FAR of 0.5), the remaining land area (18.787 acres) will generate an allowable density of 281 units. The development proposal will include only 236 dwellings units at a density of 12.56 units per acre, which is consistent with the CDC. Imnervious Surface Ratio (ISR� Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-1001.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.75. The existing ISR is 0.50 and the proposed project will reduce that to an ISR of 0.45, which is consistent with CDC provisions. Community Development Board August 19, 2014 FLD2014-06016 — Page 7 ' Cibul ►7 [iL�i Level II Flexible Development Application Review PL`�xr��rrG &°EV�LOpMErrr . . . . . ....,Rk}9h FayP s .,: e,. �. . . DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1004, there is no minimum required lot area or lot width for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. The existing property is 981,075 square feet and features a lot width of 420 feet which exceeds all of the similar requirements of CDC Table 2- 1002. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1004, there are no minimum required setbacks for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to CDC Table 2- 1002, the front, side and rear setbacks for ofiices are 25, 10 and 20 feet, respectively. The proposed attached dwellings will feature a front (west) setback of 50 feet to trash compactor, a side (north) setback of 15 feet to detached garages, a side (south) setback of 20 feet to building #1 of the attached dwellings, a rear (east) setback of 125 feet to pool; this portion of the property meets the CDC requirements. The remaining office building portion of the property features a front (west) setback of 170 feet to paving and building, a side (north) setback of nine feet to paving and 21 feet to building, a side (south) setback of eight feet to paving and 150 feet to building, a rear (east) setback of zero feet to paving and 227 feet to building; this portion of the property is not targeted for construction or changes and therefore meets the CDC requirements. Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1004, there is no maximum height for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to the aforementioned CDC Table 2-1003, the maximum allowable height for office uses is 50-100 feet. The proposed attached dwellings will be four stories and approximately 52 feet in height which is consistent with the existing adjacent office building heights and therefore meets the Code requirements. Minimum Off-Street Parkin�: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1004, there is no minimum off-street parking requirement for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. Typically, attached dwelling require a minimum of two off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit, and offices require three off-street parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. As such, the proposed 236 attached dwellings would require 472 off-street parking spaces, and remaining 81,353 square foot office building would require 244 off-street parking spaces. Pursuant to Section 3-1405, CDC, when any land, building or area is used for two or more uses that are listed in the shared parking table, the minimum number of required parking spaces shall be determined by multiplying the individual minimum parking requirements by the appropriate percentages listed in the table. The following table depicts the development proposals parking requirement as per the shared parking table: WEEKllAY WEE�END: - Use 12am-6am 9am-4pm 6pm-12pm 9am-4pm 6pm-12am Residential (472) 100% = 472 60% = 283.2 90% = 424.8 80% = 377.6 90% = 424.8 Office (244.059) 5% = 12.2 100% = 244 10% = 24.4 10% = 24.4 5% = 12.2 Total: 484.2 527.2 449.2 402 437 Community Development Board August 19, 2014 FLD2014-06016 — Page 8 ' vi4f�i �[I�L41 Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review FLANNING & DEVELOPMENT P PP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION � .. .. , .... , . r�"3^':�4:�.�:.� . ._ . Based upon the above, the development proposal requires a minimum of 527 off-street parking spaces. As proposed, a total of 694 off-street parking spaces will be provided; thus the development proposal exceeds its parking requirement. Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-201.D.1, all outside mechanical equipment must be screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. This requirement was reviewed with the Applicant during the DRC meeting and the Applicant has responded that the project will comply. While the mechanical equipment is not depicted on the proposed plans, it is attached as a condition of approval that all proposed and existing mechanical equipment will be in compliance with the above provision prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the attached dwellings. Si�ht Visibility Trian� Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20- foot sight visibility triangles. This proposal has been reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineering Department and been found to be acceptable. Landscaping planted within the sight visibility triangles will need to be maintained to meet the Code requirements. This requirement was reviewed with the Applicant during the DRC meeting and the Applicant has responded that the project will comply. Utilities: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-912, for development that does not involve a subdivision, all utilities, including individual distribution lines, must be installed underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable. All utilities which serve the site are currently underground. Additionally, this requirement was reviewed with the Applicant during the DRC meeting and the Applicant has responded that the project will comply. Landscaping_ Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, required perimeter buffers are based on adjacent uses and/or street types. The required landscape buffers are ten feet (north, south and west — residential and non-residential). In addition, Section 3-1202.E., CDC, provides that interior landscaping must be provided which is equal to or greater than ten percent of the vehicular use area. The proposed vehicular use area is 180,911 square feet requiring 18,091 square feet of interior landscaped area. Section 3-1202.E., CDC, requires that all facades facing a street must include a foundation planting area of at least five feet of depth along the entire fa�ade excluding areas necessary for ingress/egress. The proposed project includes 28,111 square feet or 15.5 percent of landscaping which exceeds the minimum CDC requirement. The applicant is proposing to maintain 176 trees out of the existing 277 mature trees throughout the construction area of the project. The project will feature a ten-foot wide buffer along the northern, western and southern property lines. In areas where existing mature trees will be retained the applicant will add 100 percent of the required shrub mix. In areas where a buffer will be added, the required one tree per every 35 feet and 100 percent of shrubs will be incorporated. The resulting perimeter treatment will provide a conforming buffer albeit slightly varied at points along the property line. The portion of the Community Development Board August 19, 2014 FLD2014-06016 — Page 9 ��4f�1 C1'.�.14� Level II Flexible Development Application Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ° . . ,. � .. , . . �c�.c.� :� .. . . DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION property along the US 19 frontage will not be impacted during the construction phase and will therefore not require any landscaping modifications. Additionally, the project will also include interior landscaping consisting of existing mature trees, proposed plantings including code compliant parking lot islands, perimeter of parking areas and extensive landscaped walkway areas. The proposed perimeter buffers and landscaping areas will comply with the CDC requirements. Solid Waste: A trash compactor area is proposed at the southwestern portion of the site. The compactor area will be enclosed within a building which will match the overall architectural theme of the apartment buildings and clubhouse. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City's Solid Waste and Fire Departments. Signage: Signage is not being reviewed as part of the current submittal and will be handled under a future signage application. Compliance with General Applicability Standards: The proposal supports the General Applicability requirements of this Code as follows: Section 3-914.A.1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. The proposed attached dwellings are consistent with surrounding uses and properties. The four- story apartment buildings will blend into the adjacent five and six story office buildings and the surrounding residential uses to the north and the south. The subject property will provide a needed for-rent residential option within the US 19 corridor where employment, commercial and recreational uses are in close proximity. 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. The proposal will not impair the value of nor will it discourage the use of the adjacent, developed 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 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. The applicant submitted a traffic assessment which identified that the 236 attached dwellings will have a peak hour traffic reduction as opposed to the traffic which is generated by the existing office space targeted for removal. The development will utilize the existing access ingress/egress points which are currently established along US 19. 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. Community Development Board August 19, 2014 FLD2014-06016 — Page 10 ' V1�.N�1 !'K(�tl�J, Level II Flexible Develo mentA lication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT P PP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION � .�c��,, As previously discussed, the community character consists primarily of a variety of residential, commercial and vehicular oriented uses including retail sales and service, offices, and restaurants. The modern architectural style of the building combined with lush landscaping will complement and enhance the adjacent office complex and residential properties. The proposed for-rent residential use is identified as needed within this area in the US 19 Corridor Redevelopment Plan. 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 apartment buildings will be located within areas of existing mature trees which will be preserved through tlie construction phase in addition to extensive proposed plantings which will be incorporated as part of the project. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. Compliance with Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment: The proposal supports the specific Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria pursuant to CDC Section 2-1004.A.1-6 as follows: 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. The proposed attached dwelling use is not specifically listed within the Office (0) District which has necessitated the submitted of this Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project application. The US 19 Corridor Redevelopment Plan specifically identifies that for-rent residential uses are currently deficient within this area of the City the plan further encourages and targets this type of use for the corridor. Additionally, the maximum development potential of the Countywide Future Land Use Designation for this parcel provides for Residential/Office General (R/OG) which a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per acre of which the proposed project complies. 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 redevelopment 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 and the US 19 Corridor Redevelopment Plan 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 residential and office uses and 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. Community Development Board August 19, 2014 FLD2014-06016 — Page 11 '. v�\.(�1 ►t�ll.l Level II Flexible Develo ment lication Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT P MP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION �� .. . ....,..e ,�... s�°'" .. .... . . 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 orientation, parking areas and site layout will be similar to adjacent properties. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of six objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; The proposed attached dwellings use is permitted in the underlying Future Land Use Designation of ResidentiaUOffice General (R/OG) with a maximum density of 15 dwelling units per acre. The US 19 Corridor Redevelopment Plan identifies that for-rent residential uses are currently deficient within this portion of the City and encourage the proposed project redevelopment. The proposed project will comply with the maximum density permitted of 15 dwelling units per acre and will help to satisfy the current for-rent deficiency within the US 19 corridor. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the Ciry's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; The proposed project will contribute to the local economy initially through construction jobs, increased property valuations and ultimately through contributing to the City's tax base. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; Not applicable. d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; Not applicable as the proposed use does not include 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; The existing development within the area is characterized by predominantly residential and office uses. The proposed attached dwellings are consistent with the underlying Future Land Use designation of ResidentiaUOffice General (R/OG) as well as the m�imum permitted density of 15 dwelling units per acre. Additionally, the proposed use is identified as a needed amenity within the US 19 Corridor Redevelopment Plan. The consistency of the proposed use with the FLUP negates the need for a land use plan amendment and therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new, andlor preservation of a working waterfront use. Not applicable as the project does not involve working waterfront uses. Community Development Board August 19, 2014 FLD2014-06016 — Page 12 ' L�4t�,1 ►ittLel Level II Flexible Development Application Review iRy�t�ro.x ,r.�.,*,�?�xa,�-:.,.. . PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION 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. The redevelopment of the subject property from offices to attached dwellings will not impede the development of the surrounding properties. All of the surrounding properties are currently developed with the majority being of a residential use and the remainder being of an office use. The proposal will have no effect on the ability of surrounding properties to be redeveloped or otherwise improved. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the city. The subject property is located within the US 19 corridor and is subject to the US 19 Corridor Redevelopment Plan. The US 19 does not provide design guidelines and therefore this section is not applicable to the project. 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 the US 19 corridor. The proposed building height is 52 feet and the density of 236 units is consistent with the underlying Residential/Office General (R/OG) future land use plan category at 15 dwelling units per acre. The orientation of the complex will take advantage of the water views of the Old Tampa Bay which is consistent with other residential complexes within the immediate area. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: ■ Changes in horizontal building planes; ■ Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; ■ Variety in materials, colors and textures; ■ Distinctive fenestration patterns; ■ Building step backs; and ■ Distinctive roofs forms. The proposed architectural character for the development is envisioned to reflect a contemporary nautical theme to foster a close connection with the setting along Old Tampa Bay. Most notable is the stepped arrangement of the units facing the water, providing movement and interest to the elevations while maYimizing water views for the residents. In keeping with the nautical feel of the project, materials are proposed to consist of primarily stucco finishes in light/white tones paired with accents of deep wood- tone siding that will create contrast and texture. Openness and connection with the water are the most prominent themes. Beyond the light tones of the main building, mass, strong emphasis on glazing, as well as aluminum and glass rails, this will serve as the link between the building interior and the site/waterfront setting. Balconies are an important element of all of the unit types, lending to interesting shadow lines and movement of the Community Development Board August 19, 2014 FLD2014-06016 — Page 13 '�4N,1,��1.4�Level II Flexible Develo mentA lication Review PLnx��rrG&DEV�LOPMENT P PP DEVELOPMENTREVIEWDIVISION o �s�n€�.r =s�,,,..,� elevations and expanding the living space for residents. Flat roof lines are envisioned to conceal the HVAC and other building functional elements and to increase open space for landscaping and vegetation around the building bases and throughout the site. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. The site will be upgraded with significant proposed landscaping as well as existing mature trees which will be preserved through the construction phase. The overall impervious surface coverage is also being reduced which will increase the green space. Although, the applicant has submitted a Comprehensive Landscaping Program application, the project will more than comply with the total amount of required landscaping. The CDC requires a 10 foot buffer with one tree every 35 feet and 100 percent shrubs along the northern, western and southern property lines. The proposed project will provide for the minimum distance of 10 feet for the buffers and is proposing 100 percent of shrubs. The preservation of the existing mature trees however, will result in a slightly different pattern and spacing of the CDC required tree spacing of 35 feet but will include the required number of plant materials. This is acceptable as first and foremost the landscaping will exceed the amount required and will in fact provide for a more established feel and look with the preserved mature trees. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. Section 4-206.D.4: Burden of proof. The burden of proof is upon the applicant to show by substantial competent evidence that he is entitled to the approval requested. The applicant has adequately demonstrated through the submittal of substantial competent evidence that the request is entitled to the approval requested as required by CDC Section 4- 206.D.4. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no active Code Compliance cases for the subject property. Community Development Board August 19, 2014 FLD2014-06016 — Page 14 '�� e'[t�L41 Level II Flexible Development Application Review d . . . _ , .s& a ��s c .. . PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION Compliance with Standards and Criteria: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards for Offices as per CDC Tables 2-1002 and 2-1003: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Maximum Density 15 units/acre 12.56 units/acre X (281 dwelling units) (236 dwellings units) Floor Area Ratio 0.50 0.08 X Impervious Surface Ratio 0.75 0.48 X Minimum Lot Area 10,000 square feet 981,075 square feet X Minimum Lot Width 100 feet 420 feet X Minimum SetbacksZ Front: West: 25 feet 50 feet to building X� Zero feet to paving Rear: East 20 feet 125 feet to building X 118 feet to paving Side: North: 10 feet 15 feet to building X 25 feet to pavi�g South: 10 feet 20 feet to building X' Zero feet to paving Maximum Height 50-100 feet 52 feet X Minimum Determined by the 527 off-street parking spaces Xl Off-Street Parking community development coordinator based on the specific use and/or ITE Manual standards. See analysis in Sta, ff Report Note: The existing o�ce building and its surrounding off-street parking is not berng modif:ed with this proposa[ and the setbacks to these improvements are not included in this Table. Compliance with General Applicability Standards: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A: 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adiacent nronerties. See analysis in Sta,�'Report Community Development Board August 19, 2014 FLD2014-06016 — Page 15 Consistent Inconsistent X X X X X X ' 1�#�4 ►'1'�L�.l Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT p pp DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION � ,�_�,-.�� . Compliance with Flexibility Criteria: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-1004.A.1-6. (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project): Consistent I Inconsistent 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use andlor development standards set forth in this zoning district. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of X� the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly Xl development and improvement of sunounding properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed X� development. 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use X' category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an azea that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street X� parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: ❑ Changes in horizontal building planes; ❑ Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; ❑ Variety in materials, colors and textures; ❑ Distinctive fenestration patterns; ❑ Building step backs; and ❑ Distinctive roofs forms. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. 1 See analysis in Staff Report Community Development Board August 19, 2014 FLD2014-06016 — Page 16 � li��L�41 Level II Fiexible Develo ment A lication Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT P PP DEVELOPMENTREVIEWDIVISION ,.�> . �+��r� �,. s . _ Compliance with Comprehensive Landscape Program Standards: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Comprehensive Landscape Program as per CDC Section 3-1202.G: Consistent I Inconsistent 1. Architectural theme. a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall be designed as a part of the architectural theme of the principal buildings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for development; or b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment X proposed in the comprehensive landscape program shall be demonstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for development under the minimum landscape standards 2. Lighting. Any lighting proposed as a part of a comprehensive landscape program is X automatically controlled so that the lighting is tumed off when the business is closed. 3. Community character. The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive X landscape program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater. 4. Property values. The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape X program will have a beneficial impact on the value of property in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. 5. Special area or scenic corridor plan. The landscape treatment proposed in the NA NA comprehensive landscape program is consistent with any special area or scenic corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in which the parcel proposed for development is located. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of July 3, 2014, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient, based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: Findings of Fact: The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact: 1. That the 22.52 acre (981,075 square feet) site is located along the east side of US Highway 19 N, approximately 200 feet north of Harn Boulevard; 2. That the subject property is located within the Offce (0) District and the Residential/Office General (R/OG) Future Land Use Plan category; 3. That the subject property is located within the US 19 Corridor Redevelopment Plan area; 4. That the proposal is to construct 236 units of residential apartments and maintain 81,353 square feet of office space subject to the requisite development parameters per Article 2 Division 10 of the CDC; 5. That the site is currently developed with 136,979 square feet of office space comprising of four individual buildings with parking areas, walkways and extensive landscaping.; 6. The subject property is comprised of three parcels with approximately 420 feet of frontage along US Highway 19 N; 7. The subject property features 22.52 acres (981,075 square feet), with a lot width of 420 feet along US 19, a proposed building height of 52 feet, an existing building height of 75 feet, a Community Development Board August 19, 2014 FLD2014-06016 — Page 17 '. L14�F1 ��1�4� Level II Flexible Development Application Review PLnrrrr�rG � nEV�LOrMEx�r _ .. .. ., .... ... ��c� . - ... .. . DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION density of 12.56 units per acre, a FAR of 0.08, an ISR of 0.48 and a total of 694 parking spaces; 8. The proposal includes a front (west) setback of 50 feet (to building) and zero feet (to paving), a rear (east) setback of 125 feet (to building) and 118 feet (to paving), a side (north) setback of 15 feet (to building) and 25 feet (to paving), a side (south) setback of 20 feet (to building) and zero feet (to paving); 9. The development will provide amenities including a gated entrance, individual optional garages, car washing area, trash compactor structure, extensive walking pathways, and a Clubhouse with business facility and exercise room; and, 10. There are no active Code Compliance cases for the subject property. Conclusions of Law: The Planning and Development Department, having made the above findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law: 1. That the development proposal is consistent with the pattern of development of the surrounding neighborhood; 2. That the development proposal is consistent with applicable portions of the Comprehensive Plan including Future Land Use Plan Element Goal A.6, Objectives A.3.2, A.5.5 and A.6.1 and Policies A.2.2.2, A.3.2.1, A.5.5.1 and A.6.1.8; 3. That the development proposal is consistent with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of the Community Development Code Sections 1-103.B.1 — 3; 4. That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Table 2-1004 of the Community Development Code with regard to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project; 5. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2- 1004.A of the Community Development Code; 6. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-914.A of the Community Development Code; and, 7. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria for a Comprehensive Landscape Program CDC Section 3-1202.G. Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends APPROVAL of the Flexible Development application to convert 15.77 acres (686,941 square feet) of existing office area of the Arbor Shoreline Office Park into 236 attached dwellings within the Office (0) District with a side (west) setbacks of zero feet (to pavement) and 50 feet (to building), side (south) setbacks of zero feet (to pavement) and 20 feet (to building), side (north) setbacks of 25 feet (to pavement) and 15 feet (to building), and a rear (east) setbacks of 118 feet (to pavement) and 125 feet (to building), a building height of 52 feet, and 694 off-street parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project pursuant to Section 2-1004.A., Community Development Code (CDC), along with a reduction in the required foundation and buffer plantings as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program pursuant to Section 3-1202.G., CDC, subject to the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: GeneraUMiscellaneous Conditions: 1. That the final design and color of the building be generally consistent with the elevations approved by the CDB; Community Development Board August 19, 2014 FLD2014-06016 — Page 18 � CiL(�L ►'l4L�W. Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT P PP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION V. . .,.. ... , « e. . . .A . • . . . 2. That a shared parking agreement between the office parking area and the proposed residential parking area be submitted; 3. 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; 4. That issuance of a development permit by the City of Clearwater does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the City for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law; 5. That all other applicable local, state and/or federal permits be obtained before commencement of the development; Timing Conditions: 6. That application for a building permit be submitted no later than August 19, 2015, unless time extensions are granted pursuant to CDC Section 4-407; 7. 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; 8. That prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy that all required Transportation Impact Fees be paid; 9. 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; 10. 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; 11. That all proposed and existing mechanical equipment will be in compliance with Section 3- 201.D.1 prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the attached dwellings; 12. That prior to Certificate of Occupancy the project will comply with Section 3-912, all utilities, including individual distribution lines, must be installed underground unless such undergrounding is not practicable; 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-standaxd 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: ��'��t �w l�-�,�� Melissa Hauck- Baker, AICP, Planner II Community Development Board August 19, 2014 FLD2014-06016 — Page 19 - ` "... .. �. f , �. � • � .. . �`�� . , r 'M1 � � J x a';/., . � r,� �l � � �� . � ,�j,. ,' %�. � �t �;` .'• •!C :p�� 5 .,�.� ..�1. t �i.. � .�a,. . bl 1 � b' � �Y ,•� � ';�;�. '��'f� F� � ~iY�R, � � �""' t.. ... . ._... L��okina north fr�m US 19 entrance. ; �ti : ;�, .� ' �_ '��oking west from property to US 19 entrance. , �' � � ;`'7, y �. • ` � �� ' �. .,, �;,��, f . � Y, y .�.A��N r i �iT . Y�� .. � � � �� ' � � � �� } ��,. *' . �� w�� / ; �`�"� �,,. i. ,. �r, ' ' iJ� ''4�.` " `! � � a' 1 .eL ,' �' ' •`;1 ..wt-.,�.. .lY.� i :A.: Looking east from existing parking lot. �t 8 LOOhi� Looking east ti-om entrance drivc iu e.�isting c�Ctice bw��iu7��., �,. ' �� , f �{ t1 �.§8�' �.. '�V�� . ^\'��..�� 5 � � � vc` Looking east ti-c�m ��istin� pari.u�g I�n. sW �':`;d !'�' �� - � Looking southwest within the parking lot. 19321 US Highway 19 North FLD2014-06016 Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. Land Development Consulting Engineering . Planning . Tra.nsportarion . Permitting ICOT Center 13825 ICOT Boulevard, Suite 605 Clearwater, FL 33760 Phone: (727) 524-1818 Fax: (727) 524-6090 July 11, 2014 Melissa Hauck-Baker, AICP, PP Planner II Planning & Development Department City of Clearwater 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, 2nd Floor Clearwater, FL 33756 Re: Response to Comments — Arbor Shoreline Apartments Project Name: 19321 US Highway 19 N FLD # 2014-06016 Dear Melissa: Pursuant to the initial review comments letter dated June 27, 2014, and the discussions held at the July 3, 2014 DRC meeting, below are the responses to each of the review comments: Enqineerinq Comment: Please provide assurance that the dry retention area provides treatment for 0.5-inches of treatment for the post-developed impervious area. ** SEE PAGE 31 ON DOCUMENT. Response: See attached SWFWMD documentation which includes record drawings, drainage report, approved E.R.P. & Transfer to Operation Phase Approval for Arbor Shoreline Permit No. 44020143.001. Note that the stormwater improvements were constructed but the proposed additional office building and parking garage were not. Additionally, this proposed apartment complex will reduce the total impervious area; therefore it can be deduced that the existing dry pond and underdrain filters, which were sized for the existing office new office building & parking garage, are adequately sized for the proposed project. Fire July 11, 2014 Page 2 of 21 Comment: 2. Fire Review longer than 150 ft as required by FFPC NFPA 1 chapter 18. Provide revised plan PRIOR TO CDB. **SEE PAGE 31 ON DOCUMENT. Response: 2. Per telephone conversation with Ed Schultz on 07/03/14, the proposed 20' wide 50' long tee turnaround is acceptable. Comment: Redesign fire water supply system on page C-4 to include: 1) Proper spacing of 300 feet between hydrants. 2) Additional hydrant for Clubhouse located on same side of street as well as FDC on the same side of the street due to limited access created by security fencing and gates. 3) Additional hydrants dedicated for supplying each building FDC 4) Additional hydrant in parking area north of bldg #2. Please provide revised plans PRIOR TO CDB **SEE PAGE 31 ON DOCUMENT. Response: As discussed with Ed Schultz at the ORC meeting on 07/03/14, the revised plans include 1) Additional fire hydrants with maximum spacing of 300 feet, 2) An additional fire hydrant on the same side of the street as the FDC serving the clubhouse, 3) A dedicated FDC with hydrant for each building, 4) An additional hydrant north of Building #2. Comment: 750 GPM fire pump and standpipe system required for each building per FFPC. Acknowledge intent PRIOR TO CDB **SEE PAGE 31 ON DOCUMENT. Response: Acknowledged. Comment: Provide Knox Key switch with battery backup at all gates. Acknowledge July 11, 2014 Page 3 of 21 intent PRIOR TO CDB **SEE PAGE 31 ON DOCUMENT. Response: Acknowledged. Land Resource Review Comment: Prior to building permit, provide a Tree Preservation Plan prepared by a certified arborist. This plan must show how the proposed building, parking, Stormwater, irrigation and utilities impact the critical root zones (drip lines) of trees to be preserved and how you propose to address these impacts i.e.; crown elevating, tree barricades, root pruning and/or root aeration systems. Other data required on this plan must show the trees canopy line, actual tree barricade limits (2/3 of the drip line and/or in the root prune lines if required), and the tree barricade detail. And any other pertinent information relating to tree preservation. Please be aware the TPP may change the number of trees to be removed (as there may be additional impacts to the trees with regarding, utilities, etc., which may require them to be removed) and may change the deficit of inches. This plan may be submitted prior to CDB. See areas of concern on the plans with the green circles. **SEE PAGE 31 ON DOCUMENT. Response: Revises Landscape Plan L2.00 shows a typical tree barricade detail which will apply to all trees to be preserved. Comment: Land Resource Review Prior to CDB, as per CDC Section 3-1202.B. landscape islands with shade trees must be a minimum of 10 feet wide to allow for a minimum of five feet away from any impervious surface. Revise the islands which appear to be eight feet wide (from back of curb to back of curb) to 10 feet or revise to an accent tree. Through the Comp. Landscape program you can request up to fifteen parking spaces in a row before an island is required. With that you may be able to double up some islands to allow for shade tree. You can request fewer islands that will be larger and more parking spaces in a row. Please see the measurement and the circles on the plans for the islands which appear to be too small for a shade tree. **SEE PAGE 35 ON DOCUMENT. July 11, 2014 Page 4 of 21 Response: As shown to City Staff at DRC on 07/03/14, the plans have been revised to show all landscape islands to be planted with shade trees with a minimum inside width of 10 feet. Planninq Review Comment: 1. Criterion One: The existing Office (0) zoning does not provide for attached dwellings as a principal permitted use, however, the Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) designation is Residential/Office General (R/OG) which does provide for attached dwelling units as well as the US 19 Corridor Redevelopment Plan targets the corridor for additional rental housing. The FLUP of R/OG lists residential at a density of 15 dwelling units per acre as a primary permitted use. The project maintains consistency with the established density. Response: 1. Acknowledged. Comment: 2. Criterion Two: The proposed project is consistent with the FLUP designation and purpose of the Residential/Office General (R/OG) zoning district which is the purpose of this category is to depict those areas of the county that are now developed, or appropriate to be developed, in an office and/or medium density residential use; and to recognize such areas as primarily well-suited for mixed- use of an office/residential character consistent with the surrounding uses, transportation facilities and natural resource characteristics of such areas. Response: 2. Acknowledged. Comment: 3. Criterion Three: The proposed redevelopment of the existing site will not impede the surrounding properties as all of them are currently developed with either residential and office uses. Response: July 11, 2014 Page 5 of 21 3. Acknowledged. Comment: 4. Criterion Four: The proposed redevelopment of an existing office area into residential is consistent with the existing surrounding residential uses, provides for an appropriate use along Old Tampa Bay, provides for a transition between the office and commercial areas located along the US 19 Corridor and is consistent with both the FLUP designation of R/OG and the US 19 Corridor Redevelopment Plan. Response: 4. Acknowledged. Comment: 5. Criterion Five: The proposed residential development is a primary permitted use within the FLUP of R/OG with a maximum permitted density of 15 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project site is 15.77 acres which provides for a maximum of 236 dwelling units and is consistent with the FLUP. The proposed development will contribute to the local economy through both temporary and permanent jobs. The apartments will be market rate and do not include an affordable housing component. The proposed apartments will be directly adjacent to the Japanese Gardens mobile home park to the north and the Bay Cove apartments to the south. The project will provide protection of the Old Tampa Bay waterfront area as no working waterfront uses are proposed. Response: 5. Acknowledged. Comment: 6. Criterion Six: The proposed residential development will not impede the development of existing surrounding properties, the proposed building height of four stories is in keeping with the existing height of surrounding office buildings which extend upward of six stories and the proposed building design includes stepped arrangement of the apartment units to maximize on waterfront views and provide movement and interest to the facades. **SEE PAGE 8 ON DOCUMENT. Response: 6. Acknowledged. July 11, 2014 Page 6 of 21 Comment: 1. The applicant has submitted a Comprehensive Landscaping application in order to accommodate the request of the adjacent property owner of 19387 US Highway 19, in order to maintain as many of the existing mature trees along the shared property line between the two parcels. The shared area extends for 203 linear feet and removal of the existing mature trees would negatively impact both properties. The applicant has therefore proposed to maintain the existing trees and provide for additional landscaping throughout the remainder of the property proposed for development. Response: 1. Acknowledged. Comment: 2. The project also includes an overall reduction in the amount of impervious surface coverage through the removal of the existing office buildings with the conversion of a majority of the former building area to proposed landscaped areas of the apartment development. Response: 2. Acknowledged. Comment: 3. The issue of undersized parking lot islands for shade trees needs to be addressed as the modification will potentially change the parking lot layout, number of spaces and number of required inches of trees to replace those that are being removed. **SEE PAGE 20 ON DOCUMENT. Response: 3. As shown to City Staff at DRC on 07/03/14, the plans have been revised to show all landscape islands to be planted with shade trees with a minimum inside width of 10 feet. General Site Plan and Application Comments Comment: July 11, 2014 Page 7 of 21 1. Prior to CDB, Applicant must submit architectural elevations of the proposed garage structures, car wash facility, trash compactor structure and the clubhouse. Response: 1. See attached. Comment: 2. The parking lot planting islands are not consistent with the required size for proposed shade tree installation. The applicant shall modify the plans prior to CDB to show that the islands will meet the required minimum size or that the spacing between islands will be increased to 15 spaces, thereby increasing the size of the planting area but reducing the number of islands. Overall, any adjustment to the planting islands will potentially impact the layout and number of spaces. This issue needs to be resolved prior to the project moving forward. Response: 2. As shown to City Staff at DRC on 07/03/14, the plans have been revised to show all landscape islands to be planted with shade trees with a minimum inside width of 10 feet. General Applicabilitv Criteria Comment: 3. Criterion One: The Applicant has provided commentary that the proposed project is consistent with the existing surrounding development pattern. Response: 3. Acknowledged. Comment: 4. Criterion Two: The proposed use of residential apartments is consistent with the US 19 Corridor Redevelopment Plan which specifically identifies that there is a need for rental housing within this area. July 11, 2014 Page 8 of 21 Response: 4. Acknowledged Comment: 5. Criterion Three: The Applicant has provided commentary that the proposed residential use will not adversely affect the existing adjacent residential and office uses. Response: 5. Acknowledged Comment: 6. Criterion Four: The proposed 236 apartment units will replace the existing office buildings which feature 139,000 square feet of office space. The trip generation of the proposed apartments will be lower than the existing office development during peak hours and therefore a detailed traffic analysis is not necessary. Additionally, the site currently provides for 835 parking spaces where the proposed apartments and remaining office space will only require a total of 716 spaces. The parking assessment identifies that there are 255 spaces existing on Lot 1 and that the 81,353 square feet of office space will require 244 spaces. The proposed development on Lot 2 will require 472 spaces and will provide 416 spaces and 24 garage spaces for a total of 440 spaces which are 32 spaces under the required amount. If the 10 spaces on Lot are designated through a shared parking agreement, then Lot 2 would be deficient 22 spaces. The issue of the parking spaces needs to be addressed. Response: 6. As discussed at the 7/3/14 DRC meeting, the issue is addressed by the parking assessment. The 439 parking spaces on the apartment/property represents 93% of the code required 472 spaces and adequately handles parking. Comment: 7. Criterion Five: The proposed project will provide rental apartments at a density which is encouraged by the US 19 Corridor Redevelopment Plan and is consistent with the surrounding character which includes a mix of both residential and office uses. Response: July 11, 2014 Page 9 of 21 7. Acknowledged. Comment: 8. Criterion Six: The proposed development will feature landscape buffers and maintain existing mature trees as well as removing the existing commercial use from a portion of the site and converting it over to residential. The benefit to the existing residential areas as well as the future residents of the complex is that the property is setback off of US 19 and will take advantage of the views into Old Tampa Bay. Response: 8. Acknowledged. Flexibility Criteria: Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Comment: 9. Criterion One: The existing Office (0) zoning does not provide for attached dwellings as a principal permitted use, however, the Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) designation is Residential/Office General (R/OG) which does provide for attached dwelling units as well as the US 19 Corridor Redevelopment Plan targets the corridor for additional rental housing. The FLUP of R/OG lists residential at a density of 15 dwelling units per acre as a primary permitted use. The project maintains consistency with the established density. Response: 9. Acknowledged. Comment: 10. Criterion Two: The proposed project is consistent with the FLUP designation and purpose of the Residential/Office General (R/OG) zoning district which is the purpose of this category is to depict those areas of the county that are now developed, or appropriate to be developed, in an office and/or medium density residential use; and to recognize such areas as primarily well-suited for mixed-use of an office/residential character consistent with the surrounding uses, transportation facilities and natural resource characteristics of such areas. July 11, 2014 Page 10 of 21 Response: 10. Acknowledged. Comment: 11. Criterion Three: The proposed redevelopment of the existing site will not impede the surrounding properties as all of them are currently developed with either residential and office uses. Response: 11. Acknowledged. Substantial buffers are provided. Comment: 12. Criterion Four: The proposed redevelopment of an existing office area into residential is consistent with the existing surrounding residential uses, provides for an appropriate use along Old Tampa Bay, provides for a transition befinreen the office and commercial areas located along the US 19 Corridor and is consistent with both the FLUP designation of R/OG and the US 19 Corridor Redevelopment Plan. Response: 12. Acknowledged. Comment: 13. Criterion Five: The proposed residential development is a primary permitted use within the FLUP of R/OG with a maximum permitted density of 15 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project site is 15.77 acres which provides for a maximum of 236 dwelling units and is consistent with the FLUP. The proposed development will contribute to the local economy through both temporary and permanent jobs. The apartments will be market rate and do not include an affordable housing component. The proposed apartments will be directly adjacent to the Japanese Gardens mobile home park to the north and the Bay Cove apartments to the south. The project will provide protection of the Old Tampa Bay waterfront area as no working waterfront uses are proposed. Response: 13. Acknowledged. Comment: July 11, 2014 Page 11 of 21 14. Criterion Six: The proposed residential development will not impede the development of existing surrounding properties, the proposed building height of four stories is in keeping with the existing height of surrounding office buildings which extend upward of six stories and the proposed building design includes stepped arrangement of the apartment units to maximize on waterfront views and provide movement and interest to the facades. Response: 14. Acknowledged. Flexibility Criteria: Comprehensive Landscaping Application. Comment: 15. The applicant has submitted a Comprehensive Landscaping application in order to accommodate the request of the adjacent property owner of 19387 US Highway 19, in order to maintain as many of the existing mature trees along the shared property line between the two parcels. The shared area extends for 203 linear feet and removal of the existing mature trees would negatively impact both properties. The applicant has therefore proposed to maintain the existing trees and provide for additional landscaping throughout the remainder of the property proposed for development. Response: 15. Acknowledged. Comment: 16. The project also includes an overall reduction in the amount of impervious surface coverage through the removal of the existing office buildings with the conversion of a majority of the former building area to proposed landscaped areas of the apartment development. Response: 16. The impervious surFace is being substantially reduced and more green/open space will be added. Comment: 17. The issue of undersized parking lot islands for shade trees needs to July 1 l, 2014 Page 12 of 21 be addressed as the modification will potentially change the parking lot layout, number of spaces and number of required inches of trees to replace those that are being removed. Response: 17. As shown to City Staff at DRC on 07/03/14, the plans have been revised to show all landscape islands to be planted with shade trees with a minimum inside width of 10 feet. Comment: 18. Criterion One: The initial plan submittal represents a compliant design which will be enhanced to exceed the amount of landscaping required under the minimum CDC standards. The project will include trees and vertical plant materials to accent the architecture, with additional shrubs and groundcover along with proposed installation of upsized trees to create an upgraded and enhanced landscaping plan. Response: 18. Acknowledged. Comment: 19. Criterion Two: Accent lighting will be included and will be timer controlled. Response: 19. Acknowledged. Comment: 20. Criterion Three: All proposed plant materials will be consistent with the climate conditions of the City of Clearwater and the site, and will complement the existing vegetation. Response: 20. Acknowledged. Comment: 21. Criterion Four: The perimeter landscape treatments and the entranceway enhancements will frame views of the parcel, enhance July 1 l, 2014 Page 13 of 21 the architectural elements and define views into and around the property as the proposed landscaping will exceed the minimum CDC standards. Response: 21. Acknowledged. The landscape plan will enhance the area. Comment: 22. Criterion Five: The project is located within the US 19 Highway Corridor Redevelopment Plan and will comply with the recommendations of the plan. Response: 22. Acknowledged. Comment: 1. Criterion One: The initial plan submittal represents a compliant design which will be enhanced to exceed the amount of landscaping required under the minimum CDC standards. The project will include trees and vertical plant materials to accent the architecture, with additional shrubs and groundcover along with proposed installation of upsized trees to create an upgraded and enhanced landscaping plan. Response: Acknowledged. Comment: 2. Criterion Two: Accent lighting will be included and will be timer controlled. Response: 2. Acknowledged. Comment: 3. Criterion Three: All proposed plant materials will be consistent with the climate conditions of the City of Clearwater and the site, and will complement the existing vegetation. Response: July 11, 2014 Page 14 of 21 3. Acknowledged. Comment: 4. Criterion Four: The perimeter landscape treatments and the entranceway enhancements will frame views of the parcel, enhance the architectural elements and define views into and around the property as the proposed landscaping will exceed the minimum CDC standards. Response: 4. Acknowledged. Comment: 5. Criterion Five: The project is located within the US 19 Highway Corridor Redevelopment Plan and will comply with the recommendations of the plan. **SEE PAGE 21 ON DOCUMENT. Response: 5. Acknowledged. Comment: Existing parking spaces on Lot 1 is identified as 255 spaces, the required amount will be 244 spaces. Applicant needs to explain what happens to the 10 extra spaces. **SEE PAGE 28 ON DOCUMENT. Response: These eleven (11) extra spaces will remain of the office parcel. It is unlikely those will be used by apartment residents. Comment: The parking lot planting islands are not consistent with the required size for proposed shade tree installation. The applicant shall modify the plans prior to CDB to show that the islands will meet the required minimum size or that the spacing between islands will be increased to 15 spaces, thereby increasing the size of the planting area but reducing the number of islands. Overall, any adjustment to the planting islands will potentially impact the layout and number of spaces. This issue needs to be resolved prior to the project moving forward. **SEE PAGE 31 ON DOCUMENT. Response: July 11, 2014 Page 15 of 21 As shown to City Staff at DRC on 07/03/14, the plans have been revised to show all landscape islands to be planted with shade trees with a minimum inside width of 10 feet. Comment: 1. Criterion One: The Applicant has provided commentary that the proposed project is consistent with the existing surrounding development pattern. Response: Acknowledged. Comment: 2. Criterion Two: The consistent with the specifically identifies this area. Response: 2. Acknowledged. Comment: proposed use of residential apartments is US 19 Corridor Redevelopment Plan which that there is a need for rental housing within 3. Criterion Three: The Applicant has provided commentary that the proposed residential use will not adversely affect the existing adjacent residential and office uses. Response: 3. Acknowledged. Comment: 4. Criterion Four: The proposed 236 apartment units will replace the existing office buildings which feature 139,000 square feet of office space. The trip generation of the proposed apartments will be lower than the existing office development during peak hours and therefore a detailed traffic analysis is not necessary. Additionally, the site currently provides for 835 parking spaces where the proposed apartments and remaining office space will only require a total of 716 July 11, 2014 Page 16 of 21 spaces. The parking assessment identifies that there are 255 spaces existing on Lot 1 and that the 81,353 square feet of ofFice space will require 244 spaces. The proposed development on Lot 2 will require 472 spaces and will provide 416 spaces and 24 garage spaces for a total of 440 spaces which are 32 spaces under the required amount. If the 10 spaces on Lot are designated through a shared parking agreement, then Lot 2 would be deficient 22 spaces. The issue of the parking spaces needs to be addressed. Response: 4. As discussed at the 7/3/14 DRC meeting, the issue is addressed by the parking assessment. The 439 parking spaces on the apartment/property represents 93% of the code required 472 spaces and adequately handles parking. Comment: 5. Criterion Five: The proposed project will provide rental apartments at a density which is encouraged by the US 19 Corridor Redevelopment Plan and is consistent with the surrounding character which includes a mix of both residential and office uses. Response: 5. Acknowledged. Comment: 6. Criterion Six: The proposed development will feature landscape buffers and maintain existing mature trees as well as removing the existing commercial use from a portion of the site and converting it over to residential. The benefit to the existing residential areas as well as the future residents of the complex is that the property is setback off of US 19 and will take advantage of the views into Old Tampa Bay. **SEE PAGE 6 ON DOCUMENT. Response: 6. Acknowledged. Stormwater Review General Comment Comment: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional July 11, 2014 Page 17 of 21 comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. **SEE PAGE 51 ON DOCUMENT. Response: 7. Acknowledged. Traffic Review Comment: Prior to CDB: 5. Provide an accessible route from club house to an adjacent accessible building. **SEE PAGE 31 ON DOCUMENT. Response: 5. As shown to City Staff at DRC on 07/03/14, the plans have been revised to include an accessible route between the clubhouse and all accessible buildings. Comment: Prior to building permit: 4. Install keep right symbol(s) (R4-7) at the nose(s) of the median per current MUTCD standards. **SEE PAGE 31 ON DOCUMENT. Response: 4. Acknowledged. Comment: Prior to building permit: 3. Provide convex mirror(s) to aid parked motorist's backing out because of the parking garage(s) obstructing visibility. **SEE PAGE 31 ON DOCUMENT. Response: 3. Acknowledged. July 11, 2014 Page 18 of 21 Comment: Prior to building permit: 2. Provide accessible parking stall and accessible sign details compliant with City standards. The details can be accessed through the City's web address below, please use Index No. 118 & 119. http://www.myclearwater.com/gov/depts/pwa/eng in/publications/stddet/i ndex.a sp. **SEE PAGE 31 ON DOCUMENT. Response: 2. Acknowledged. Comment: Prior to building permit: 1. Provide wheel stops at parking stalls abutting sidewalk to prevent vehicle overhanging onto 5' wide sidewalk. **SEE PAGE 31 ON DOCUMENT. Response: 1. Acknowledged. Wheel stops will be installed on spaces directly abutting sidewalk. The plans were revised, see Sheet C-4. Traffic Review General Note(s) Comment: 1. The proposed project will not incur any Transportation Impact Fee at this time the credits from existing use exceeded the TIF from new use. Response: 1. Acknowledged. The redevelopment will generate less traffic then the existing office during peak hours. Comment: 2. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. **SEE PAGE 31 ON DOCUMENT. July 1 l, 2014 Page 19 of 21 Response: 2. Acknowledged. Unknown Review Comment: Open space/recreation impact fees are due prior to issuance of building permits or final plat (if applicable) whichever occurs first. These fees could be substantial and it is recommended that you contact Debbie Reid at 727-562- 4818 to calculate the assessment. *�SEE PAGE 28 ON DOCUMENT. Response: Acknowledged. ENV — SJ Comment: 1. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Response: Acknowledged. Comment: 2. Offsite discharge of produced groundwater from dewatering shall comply with dewatering guidelines from Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), F.A.C. 62-621(2). Response: 2. Acknowledged Comment: 3. Additional permits from State agencies, such as the Southwest Florida Water Management District or Florida Department of Environmental Protection, may be required. Approval does not relieve the applicant from the requirements to obtain all other required permits and authorizations. *�SEE PAGE 28 ON DOCUMENT. July 11, 2014 Page 20 of 21 Response: 3. Acknowledged. ENV - SJ Prior to issuance of Building Permit: Comment: An Asbestos Survey is usually required prior to conducting any demolition or renovations. Contact Pinellas County Air Quality (727/464-4422) for more information. Response: 1. Acknowledged. Comment: 2. Provide erosion control measures on plan sheet and provide notes detailing erosion control methods. **SEE PAGE 28 ON DOCUMENT. Response: 2. Acknowledged. Enclosed for your review are the fifteen copies of following items necessary for CDB review: 1. Flexible Development Application 2. Affidavit to Authorize Agent 3. Legal Description 4. Copy of Warranty Deed 5. Comprehensive Infill Criteria Responses 6. Narrative Summary 7. Comprehensive Landscape Program Application 8. Boundary Survey 9. Preliminary Site Plan 10. Landscape Plan 11. Building Elevations and Photos 12. Parking Assessment 13. Traffic Assessment 14. Stormwater Narrative 15. Arborist Tree Inventory Report dated April 19, 2014 July 11, 2014 Page 21 of 21 Please call if you have any questions or require any additional information to facilitate your review and approval of this revised application. We look forward to the August 19, 2014 CDB hearing. Sincerely, Robert Pergolizzi, AICP, PTP Principal cc: Todd Fabbri, The Richman Group of Florida, Inc. File 14-010 ° �learwater U Planning & Development Department Flexible Development Application Attached Dwellings, Mixed-Uses or Non-Residential Uses IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT COMPLETE AND CORRECT INFORMATION. ANY MISLEADING, DECEPTIVE, INCOMPLETE OR INCORRECT INFORMATION MAY INVALIDATE YOUR APPLICATION. ALL APPLICATIONS ARE TO BE FILLED OUT COMPLETELY AND CORRECTLY, AND SUBMITTED IN PERSON (NO FAX OR DELIVERIES) TO THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY NOON ON THE SCHEDULED DEADLINE DATE. A TOTAL OF 11 COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS (1 ORIGINAL AND 10 COPIES) AS REQUIRED WITHIN ARE TO BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE. SUBSEQUENT SUBMITTAL FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD WILL REQUIRE 15 COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS (1 ORIGINAL AND 14 COPIES). PLANS AND APPLICATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COLLATED, STAPLED AND FOLDED INTO SETS. THE APPLICANT, BY FILING THIS APPLICATION, AGREES TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. FIRE DEPT PRELIMARY SITE PLAN REVIEW FEE: $200 APPLICATION FEE: $1,205 PROPERTY OWNER (PER DEED): Golden Shoreline Ltd. , Partnership MAILING ADDRESS: 45 North 4th Street, Suite 200, Columbus, OH 43215 PHONE NUMBER: EMAIL: AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE: Mr. Todd Fabbri - The Richman Group of Florida MAILING ADDRESS: 477 S. Rosemary Avenue, Suite 301, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 PHONE NUMBER: 561-832-1114 EMAIL: Fabbrit@richmancapital.com ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 19321 US 19 N PARCEL NUMBER(S): 20/29/16/01325/000/0010, 20/29116/01325/000/0020, 20/29/16/01325/000/0001 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Attached Legal Description PROPOSED USE(S): Apartments (236 units), and existing office to remain DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Flexible development for redevelopment of 139,979 SF of office to 236 apartments, with 81,353 Specifcally identi}y the request SF of office to remain. Flexibility to parking, height and setbacks in a Comprehensive Infill (include all requested code flexibility,� Redevelopment application e.g., reduction in required number of parking spaces, height setbacks, lot size, lot width, specific use, etc.J: Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 1 of 8 Revised 01/12 ° �learwater � U Planning & Development Department Flexible Development Application Data Sheet PLEASE ENSURE THAT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS FILLED OUT, IN ITS ENTIRETY. FAILURE TO COMPLETE THIS FORM WILL RESULT IN YOUR APPLICATION BEING FOUND INCOMPLETE AND POSSIBLY DEFERRED UNTIL THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION CYCLE. ZONING DISTRICT: FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING USE (currently existing on site): Office (0) Residential / Office General (R/OG) Multiple office Buildings (218,332 SF) PROPOSED USE (new use, if any; plus existing, if to remain�: Attached Dwellings (236 units) proposed, 81,353 SF office to remain SITE AREA: 98� ,�75 SF sq. ft. 22•52 GROSS FLOOR AREA (total square footage of all buildings): Existing: 218,332 sf sq. ft. Proposed: 407,598 sf sq. ft. Maximum Allowable: 490,537 sq. ft. acres GROSS FLOOR AREA (total square footage devoted to each use, if there will be multiple uses): FIfSt U52: 81,353 SF office to stay sq. ft. Second use: 326,245 sf, 236 apts. sq. ft. Third use: sq. ft. FLOOR AREA RATIO (total square footage of all buildings divided by the total square footage of entire site): Existing: 218,332 SF (.22 FAR) Proposed: 407,598 (.42 FAR) Maximum Allowable: aso,537 SF (.50 FAR) BUILDING COVERAGE/FOOTPRINT (lst floor square footage of all buildings): Existing: 70,913 sq. ft. ( 7•23 % of site) Proposed: 120,092 sq. ft. ( �2•24 % of site) Maximum Permitted: sq. ft. ( % of site) GREEN SPACE WITHIN VEHICULAR USE AREA (green space within the parking lot and interior of site; not perimeter buffer): Existing: 70,055 sq. ft. ( 20.07 % of site) Proposed: 50,415 sq. ft. (�$•�6 % of site) VEHICULAR USE AREA (parking spaces, drive aisles, loading area): Existing: 349,070 sq, ft. ( 35.5 Proposed: 279,050 sq.ft. ( 28•4 % of site) % of site) Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 2 of 8 Revised 01/12 IMPERVIOUS SU RFAC� RATIO (total square footage of impeCVlous areas divided by tltie totai square fooiage of entire site): Existing: 0.51 Proposed; 0.48 Maximum Permitted: �•7� U�NSITY (uniis, rooms or heds per acre}: Existing: NA Pi'O�OSCd: 23G du 15_77 aa (15/ac) Maximum Permitted: 15 du/ac OF�-STREET PARi(ING: Existing; 835 spaces Proposed: 694 spaces Mlnime�m Required: 776 spaces BUfLDfNG HEIGHT: Existing: 1-f story offices Proposed: h-story aparfinents Maximum Hermitted 30-feet (office zone� WHAT IS THE ESi!(VIATED TOTAL VALUE OF THE PROJECi UPON COMPLETION? S3�•g M IIIIOII ZQNfNG D1STR(CiS FOR ALL ADJAC�NT PROPERTY: North: MHP - Japanese Gardens MNP Southt MHDR - Bay Gove � ' Ap8 YtI11211t5 4 East: Old Tampa Bay West: Office (0)- Ltncare and Commercial (CG) aoCOSS US79 STATE OE FLURInA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS -�(� i, the undersigned, acknowledgc that all Sworn to and subscribed before me this �_ day of representaHons made fn ihis application are true and ' l 'Lo� �' , to me and/or by accurate to the be fj.�ny knowledge and authorize City representa `v s o�v it and photograph the �� t��b1Y1 �oad A��o f+ , who is personally known has property describe� i� h s�,�p��t�on. produced as idenNfication, Signature of proparty owncr�or representative t�Eary public, Myr.ommissionexpires: '�1 31 I'�,�.� �.�,Y ►b,� Notary Public State of Fioride Jesse Woeppel � � My Commission FF 0414A0 ��",p¢� Explre� 0�I3112017 U Plaaning & devetopment DeparLment,100 9. Myrtle Avanue, Clearwater, FL 33766, 7e1: 727-662�4567; Fax: 727-562-4885 Page 3 of 8 Revi"sctd 01t92 o Planning & Development Department �� earwater Flexible Develo ment A lication p pp � Site Plan Submittal Package Check list IN ADDITION TO THE COMPLETED FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT (FLD) APPLICATION, ALL FLD APPLICATIONS SHALL INCLUDE A SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL PACKAGE THAT INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION AND/OR PLANS: �( Responses to the flexibility criteria for the specific use(s) being requested as set forth in the Zoning District(s) in which the subject property is located. The attached Flexible Development Application Flexibility Criteria sheet shall be used to provide these responses. � Responses to the General Applicability criteria set forth in Section 3-914.A. The attached Flexible Development Application General Applicability Criteria sheet shall be used to provide these responses. ,� A signed and sealed survey of the property prepared by a registered land surveyor including the location of the property, dimensions, acreage, location of all current structures/improvements, location of ail 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. NA ❑ If this application is being submitted for the purpose of a boatlift, catwalk, davit, dock, marina, pier, seawall or other similar marine structure, then the application must provide detailed plans and specifications prepared by a Florida professional engineer, bearing the seal and signature of the engineer, except signed and sealed pians 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. �l A site plan prepared by a professional architect, engineer or landscape architect drawn to a minimum scale of one inch equals 50 feet on a sheet size not to exceed 24 inches by 36 inches that includes the following information: � Index sheet of the same size shall be included with individual sheet numbers referenced thereon. �$. North arrow, scale, location map and date prepared. iJA ❑ identification of the boundaries of phases, if development is proposed to be constructed in phases. � Location of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL), whether the property is located within a Special Flood Hazard Area, and the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) of the property, as applicable. 1� 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. �Q Location of all existing and proposed sidewalks, curbs, water lines, sanitary sewer lines, storm drains, fire hydrants and seawalls and any proposed utility easements. �, Location of onsite and offsite stormwater management facilities as well as a narrative describing the proposed stormwater control plan including calculations. Additional data necessary to demonstrate compliance with the City of Ciearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria manual may be required at time of building construction permit. S� � � Location of solid waste collection facilities, required screening and provisions for accessibility for collection. SZvR��-�� NA ❑ Location of off-street loading area, if required by Section 3-1406. NAR�A7iv� � All adjacent right(s)-of-way, with indication of centerline and width, paved width, existing median cuts and intersections and bus shelters. � Dimensions of existing and proposed lot lines, streets, drives, building lines, setbacks, structural overhangs and building separations. � Building or structure elevation drawings that depict the proposed building height and building materials. Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 4 of 8 Revised 01/12 ❑ Typical floor plans, including floor plans for each floor of any parking garage. ❑ Demolition plan. � Identificafion and description of watercourses, wetlands, tree masses, specimen trees, and other environmentally sensitive areas. �ii If a deviation from the parking standards is requested that is greater than 50% (excluding those standards where the difference between the top and bottom of the range is one parking space), then a parking demand study will need to be provided. The findings of the study will be used in determining whether or not deviations to the parking standards are approved. Please see the adopted Parking Demand Study Guidelines for further information. S�� Q�1R�C+� N!A /1SS �SSM�N7 � A tree survey showing the location, DBH and species of ali existing trees with a DBH of four inches or more, and identifying those trees proposed to be removed, if any. � A tree inventory, prepared by a certified arborist, of all trees four inches DBH or more that reflects the size, canopy, and condition of such trees may be required if deemed applicable by staff. Check with staff. � A Traffic Impact Study shall be required for all proposed developments if the total generated net new trips meet one or more of the following conditions: �j�� l� fkc. �lsS�SS M�d�/7 � ■ Proposal is expected to generate 100 or more new trips in any given hour (directional trips, inbound or outbound on the abutting streets) and/or 1,000 or more new trips per day; or ■ Anticipated new trip generation degrades the level of service as adopted in the City's Comprehensive Plan to unacceptable leveis; or ■ The study area contains a segment of roadway and/or intersection with five reportable accidents within a prior twelve month period, or the segment and/or intersection exists on the City's annual list of most hazardous locations, provided by the City of Clearwater Police Department; or ■ The Traffic Operations Manager or their designee deems it necessary to require such assessment in the plan review process. Examples include developments that are expected to negatively impact a constrained roadway or developments with unknown trip generation and/or other unknown factors. � A landscape plan shall be provided for any project where there is a new use or a change of use; or an existing use is improved or remodeled in a value of 25% or more of the valuation of the principal structure as reflected on the property appraiser's current records, or if an amendment is required to an existing approved site plan; or a parking lot requires additional landscaping pursuant to the provisions of Article 3, Division 14. The landscape plan shall inciude the following information, if not otherwise required in conjunction with the application for development approval: j� Location, size, description, specifications and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, including botanical and common names. � Existing trees on-site and immediately adjacent to the site, by species, size and location, including drip line. �{ 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. �'j Location of existing and proposed structures and improvements, including but not limited to sidewalks, walls, fences, pools, patios, dumpster pads, pad mounted transformers, fire hydrants, overhead obstructions, curbs, water lines, sanitary sewer lines, storm drains, seawalls, utility easements, treatment of all ground surfaces, and any other features that may influence the proposed landscape. ___�—Loca#aan-o�parking areas_and other vehicular use areas, including parking spaces, circulation aisles, interior landscape islands and curbing. �I Drainage and retention areas, including swales, side slopes and bottom elevations. �( Delineation and dimensions of all required perimeter landscaped buffers including sight triangles, if any. Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 5 of 8 Revised 01/12 ° �learwater Planning & Development Department Flexible Development Application � General Applicability Criteria PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO EACH OF THE SIX (6) GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA 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. The proposed development is consistent with surrounding development. The maximum height of 4 stories is similar to the ,5 and 6 story offices buildings in Arbor Shoreline and surrounding condos. It provides for residential use in close proximity to employment and provides significant open space in the site. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. The redevelopment area comprises a 15.77 acre portion of a larger property that has offices. This will not impair their use. Adjacent uses are not significantly impacted. The apartments are a quieter use that is compatible with the offices and surrounding condos and MHP. Multi family uses are a"targeted" use in this area. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. The redevelopment of this property as an apartment complex will not impact the surrounding properties which are residential and offices buffered by existing landscaping and tree canopies. All surrounding property is currently residential, or offices that are partially vacant. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. The 236 apartments will replace 136,979 SF of existing office space. Peak hour traffic will be substantially reduced by this redevelopment. See attached Traffic Assessment. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The apartment complex provides a new type of housing style which is encouraged in the US 19 Corridor Redevelopment Plan that encourages a variety of uses and higher densities. The community character is mixed-use. This residential development is in close proximity to offices and local businesses. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. The apartments are a quiet use and are buffered from adjoining uses by landscape buffers and tree canopies. The placement of the trash compactor screens it from the general public driving on US 19 and adjoining residential uses. Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 6 of 8 Revised 01/12 ° Clearwater � Planning & Development Department Flexible Development Application Flexibility Criteria PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO THE APPLICABLE FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR THE SPECIFIC USE(5) BEING REQUESTED AS SET FORTH IN THE ZONING DISTRICT(S) IN WHICH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED. EXPLAIN HOW, IN DETAIL, EACH CRITERION IS BEING COMPLIED WITH PER THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL (USE SEPARATE SHEETS AS NECESSARY). �. �� 4. � 6. � See Attached Narrative See Attached Narrative See Attached Narrative See Attached Narrative See Attached Narrative See Attached Narrative See Attached Narrative 8. See Attached Narrative Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 7 of 8 Revised 01/12 K = ��-.i. ;`•S:a. o;��!� :f: FlanY�fng & DeveEopmenc DeparCrne2it }:>:1;:;��Yarwat�r Flexible Develo ment A l�cation ..-.z....;..�. P �P � 1lffidavit to Authorize Agent/Repre�en�ta�itve 1. Provide names o# all property owners on deed — PRINT fu(I names: Goiden Si�oreline Lfd. Parinership 2. 7hat (! am/we are) the owner(sj and record tit[e holder(s) oP the following described property: 99329 ilS 19 N, Ciearwater, FL 3. That this pmperty cansBtutes the property for which a request for jdescflbe request�; Flexible Development Applicafion io redevelop a portion �f 22.52 acres with 236 apartments 4. That the undersigned (has/have) appoictted and {does/doj appoint: Todd Fabbri - The Richman Group of Florida, lnc. as {his/theirj agent(s) to execute any petitions orotherdocuments necessary to affect such petition; S. ThaY thls affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, PlorSda to constder and act on the above described property; 6. That site visits to the properry are necessary by City representatives in order to process this application and the owner authorizes City representaHves to visit and photograph the property descrlbed In this application; 7. That (I/we), the undersfgned authority, hereby cerHfy t{�t the foregofng is true and correct. (x-0C.�i suba�t,ta G Lt�cttv p,e�n��(, P �� s �pV��►eDy�'�j, (n/C� 6Y3 (�1t11J� '�1Y.�. PropertyOwner �� ` �v,� Pro erty Owne� �, )�� R��' Property Owner �o �� P STATL OT' 1+�9iFfHfl' COUNTY Or PI#EI��S 01�6'�p YfLptNK�t�P� oH�o 8EFORE ME TNE UNDE#tSIGNED, AM11 OFFICER DUI.Y COMMISSIONED BY THE CAWS OF THE STATE OF F�t4BA, ON ThIIS �g� bAY OF � a� �� . PERSONALLYAPPEARED �E � f� M- 5�� ^ WFtO HA1l1NG BEEN �IRST DULY SWORN SAYS 'I'NAT HElSHE FULLY UNDERS7ANDS 711E CQNTENTS OF TN[ A�PIDAVIT THAT HEISNE SIGNED. Barbara A. Schofietd hbtary Pubtic, State of Ohio Notary P 11c Signat� My Conxnission Expir�es 10-01-16 My Cammission �xpi�es: ��' � —�� Planning & Devclopment oepaKment, 9Q0 S. Myrfle Avem�e, Cleacwater, FL 33766, Tel: 727-562•A667; Fax: 727-b62-4865 Page 6 of B Revfsed C1NZ Description: (Per Title Commitment Customer Reference Number 25557-0384 and First American �ast File Number 2037-3115020 issued by �irst American Title Insurance Company bearing an effective date of January 30, 2014 at 8:00 A.M.) Lot 1 , Lot subdivision, Map Book of Pinellas 2 and Tract A, of the ARBOR SHORE�INE according to the plat thereof as recorded in 1 37, Page(s) 41 —44, of the Public Records County, Florida. 8925#144 KAAl.:i.x F. UE BL �K" �� I,f.4ti UF C4�+CUI � LDU:+: �ihCltl+S ::+'•�N1'd.: «. 5PECIAL WI�,�t�A[+Yi�Y DE�D �� QR7l07P�Qbl3' E9 �C� ! I P�i �' �►1 THTS SPECII►L WARRhNTY D�ED, made thl,e lf.�� day of Oc�ober, 1389, between [�INZNVEST tl.S. IIJCORPDRATE6, 9 F16ESd$ co,rparation, �rantar� and GOI,DEN SHORELINE LFMITED PhFtmN$R3ttx.P, an Ohio limi-ted gartner�hip, Gzsntea, s�t�ose ttddx�ss is: 1225 Dubltn Rnad, Calumhus, Ohfa 432I5, Attns Mr. H. 8urkley Showe. WITNES3ETH� mhnt Graa�pxt for and !n consideration �i' the sum of TEN ANa NO/3.00 bQLLAFiS (�7.0.9D) nnd other gaod and valuable a�neideratfon ta GrantoX ,fn hand paid by �rantee, the receipt and euift�tency of nixi�crn.�j�a which aze hezeby acknowledqed� has granted, bargeined and sold to itr:r_ �Xantee, Qad Grantee's aucceasorg and asetgne foreve�, the ��s 3��0 ol�owinq daecribed percels n£ zeal pz�pPrty (tha "Land"j situnta, �`�. lytng and baing tn Ptnellas Cannty, �'lnrida, ta-wi.ts j'i:l'k _ artu -•—�-- HEAL PROFERTY USSCAIBfip IN &Xiii�i� �'�. ��'� -�' ATTACHED HERETQ FsND HADE A PRRT HEiiEOF x�V 7'U�r��aa�`�� TOG�THER WITH aiI the terxsmante, hered.ftamenes and agpurtenancea, with every p�Civllege, right, titZe� iutexeat and e�t�te�, revereion, remalnder and easement tlzereto belonging or tn anyw�.ae mppertain,ing. Gcantor here6y ca�enante with Grantee that, aubject to und except Eor ad valosem taxee and assesamenta for the yeer 1989 and all subsequent ysazs, zoninq ordfnances and land uae �egalations 3.mpoeed by qovernmenta,� au�hoxiey, and thoee certain mattera dascribed on Exhibi� °H" attached hetato and raede a part hereof (the "BelctAiCted Exc�ptiong"}, aL the tine oi the delfvery ai thi� Specie2 Wsrranty Daed, Che Land wae free from all encumbrancee mada by Grantar, and that. aubject to and except £o� the Permitted Exceptiona, 6ranEar wili wartant and dafend the T,and againat the lawful clsime and demands of all Qersons whamsoaver ,Eawfully aJ.al.ming by, thraugh or under Eha Grantor herein, but agdineC norl� oGher. IN WITN�SS WHSREOF, Grantor has hereunta se� GFantox's hand �nd seal t11R d3y dnd year Eirst above wrt.tten. Sig�ed sealed and el v i.n the rea nc a: L.l�iltSL�ltk � . �Si., 1�a to Grantor � p n� Ooa�rtnnfa�y Tes Pd. E.�D-l�Jl�? QLL...^— - '-' r-"^'�•t•� Tan Pd. Kadacr. i` . . ^v C"•,IY gy _ _...__ Utputp Qaik Y ��ru�N ro: THIS 1115TRUHEH� #AEPARED BY: ied R. Yamarga, Esquire Treoem, Siemons, Kemker, Scharf. Barkie, Frye E 0'lielli, P.p. P. D. 8oa IIOZ Fompo, Plorida 3J601 FININV�ST U.S. INCORFOFiJi�EQ, a Clorida corQorativn BY: l'��..�� Trita E. Scharer►hezg Presidetlt ^.r.�'::t�- � � - _�� _�-t.-= ._ _ ,�,�,n.,,; . r - :. . ��i=4�,.0 .,. _. -::J}��::� , -'=-• .. =',.^t,�f. -..�: dtJ� iiQ ;i I?ascsigtion: PiAel3as,PE. Dpcutaertt - SooAr.Page 7507.413 Page: S o£ S.. Order: rb 4iemmentr � ' • .. . . 1 . ' y' • _ � � � �� o�� E o��caa � � . S'tATB OF �QCYl.� • • coua�rx oF �The fareyoing inatxument wes ecknawledged be#are me thie �� . day aE O�tober, 1989, by Fritz �. Scharenbsrg, as Preaident vt FINIHYEST U.S� INCQRPORATEDI a Flor�cla corporatlon, on behalE of said aoxparation. . � . L-�1 �1 � �C�Drti�+-�- Natazp Publfc (NOfiAitIAL�"5EAi�) rty commiseion expirea: ' .. •. i' , • $�aEary PuDite: s+.ea oi nor�a. � �o�s• . . ' � , , �"'•' Spodsd tAN ABsaS'a�NotuY 8 oktr`EQ � • '..� .� �� . .• ; r ' Ttxe'��Eol�arriog informat�ott �i� �FO4fdatZ F)til61186t t0 F1ortQe 6�aCute SectiQa 689�02(2)t P=ogarty Rppraiser's purcel IDi: social seaurit�r numt�er o� Grantee named in deede - 2 - 7}esc,c,ipt�vn: Piael2a�,FL Doaua[ebt -�aok.Fage 7107,419 Fage: 2 of 6 - . . ... .. .. ... ._ .. .. Order: rb Cammer�t: � � sxxzsim °n- LSGAL QESCl�IPT�ON I'NASE_i - �RBOH QFFIC�,,_;ENTER 0�7 i o��ca� � � Tha Ea8tez2�r 700.D0 fe�t of tha I4eaterly 800.00 faet of the 9outherly 42fl.00 feet o� the Northerly fl25.00 ieet of oovarnment Lot 2, in 89Ct�RA 20, 4bwnship 29 SouCh, Iiange i6 East, Plne3,xae County, F'laxidti, baing rnore pnrticnlarly deacribed ua follawes Fram tha Heat 1I9 Corner of suid Section 20� xun Souti► 83°29•i3' 8ast alvng Che South boundary of enid Gaverarnent Lar � in Spction 20 a d�fatenae aE 10U.00 feat to a point an tha Eseterly riqht-o�-wa� litts af U.S. Nighway Route N�. �g �5tate Aat+d No. 55}; xun thence Noxth DO°S2'x5" �Aat alo�tg eaid eaate�:lp r3,qht-o£-wnp lLne, parailel ta and 100.Od feet �asrer�y o£ the Weat ba��dary �t g�1d Government Lat �, e dietnnce of. 5Z5 feek� moxs or lesa, to a pa3nt which 18 8�5.00 feet SouClierly oE �he N�rGl� bounBary of satd Government Lot 2, ior a point� of-beqfnniog: Fsom aaid point-of-hagf.nning, contirme Nortf� 00°52'25" �bet alang Aald �astetly righC-vf-way iine of U. S. Highway Route Ro. 13 n Bl.etan�e af 420 feet xo a point whSch is 405�04 feet Sonthefi�y af,enid Harth boondary af G�vernt�ant Lot 2, zun thenae S. 09°13�12° �ast peralled to attd db5.00 iest Sauthecly of eaid North ba+tnriary of C,�vernment i,ot 2, ts di.etanca of 704.00 f8etj rnn tUenoe 5outh p0°SZ'z5" West a dleY.ance of A2U.D0 feet; run thel�ae North 83°13'12^ west, pnrQllel ro a�a 825.00 feeC Southerly oE eaid North boundarp fli Gove�nrnent Lot 2, a d�,atance of TOO.Qp �eat ta the paine-of-beginninq. LECtAG bBSCRIPTION pl[R5L� II - ARBQR OFFICB CrEN'�'�$ �ARCE�,._ ND. _ 7 Bagi�:nir�g on Lite bay at the Northeast carner of Lot 2 and running 5�est on the Ur�ited States Subdivision 3.lne to the aectlon iine; thence snu�h down the sectinn Iine Y35.00 ydxdet thence �ast parallel to tha United StateR Subdivisfan ii.ne to Che dld Tampa gayf thencs atong xhe bay at the liigh wrstec merk to Flace of 6eglnnl.ng, be#.ng iri Lot 2, 5ectlnn 20, Townflhip 29 Southr Ranga lfi Eaet, cottteining 15 acres a�nre or le�e; lese the ti,iest lOfl.00 feat therea£ for rigf�t-of-way for tifghway U.S. i9. AR R�BG N0. B Heginning �t the Northweet cornez o£ covernment Lot 2�,n Sectiun 20, Rbwnahip 28 Sflnth, Range 16 EasL•; running thBrtCA South 405.QQ festf thence PaAt parallel with Che North line of eaid Lot 2, 805.OQ ieet ta a Poi.nt nf 8eginniregi thence runnfng South A2Q.Op featJ thence East parpilel wlth the North line 40(}.DO ieetj thence N. 22° W.r 453.00 feeL; thenca Wea� 231.Q4 �eet to a Po1nt o� Bsginn�rtg. PABCEi, NQ. 10 All .tand, attlmteryed iand and riparlan rlghts fozyaesly lneludeci in piat oE �aylos and Slsnton's 5ubdiviaion, reaarded in 81at sook one {1), Paga slxteen (16} of Che Pubiic ReCo�da of Hilleborough Caurtty, Florida, o£ wh3ch Plnel.las County wae formerly a part, which lies South ot' t1�e middxe line o£ "De Sato Avenue^ as ehown on eaid pla�, flnd ita Ee�terly exteri�3ivri to navlgable wakex in Tempa Say; 1�8s part af the iareqoiang dag�rl�ed as� Beginning r�t the Northwast Cozner of Gover.iunenL Lot 2, in 5ectian 20, 2ownshig 23 South, Range 16 Baat; �unnfssg thence Snuth 905.Oa feet; thance Eaet, para7.le�1 wixh the Horth f,lne of eaid Lot 2, �Q5.00 iest to a Palnt o£ Beginui.ngF thence runni.ng 9Q�th 420.00 Eeet; thanae Sast par911ei with the Kvrth Ilne ❑eacription: PineSIas,FL Docwr�ent - Book.Psge 7107.%13 Page: 3 af 6 Orde:: rb Comment: � OR7 4 OiPG04 I G • 40D.00 feat; tbence N. 2Z° 4I.� 453.OU feeY; thenre west 231.QU feet � to a Pai.ttt oE asginning. LE35 AHp liXC1�P4' x}1E FQLLOFIING DL5CRIB8U PR6MT5ES � �ram the Hoxthweat co�nex of Gavernment i.ot 2, the ��sme be�.ng the Northwaet corasz o£ ehe Sauthwa8t 1J4 pf tha lVorthwaeC i/4 0� Sactian • 20, Townahtp 29 South, Range 1$ Bast, pin�tlae Couttty, Flnxidn as a Polnt o£ Aef.erencei khence S. Bf°13'22" P.., elortg the Narkh litte of aaid Lot, 1U0.0U feeL to ea intezsactlan with the Easter].y xight-of- way lf.pe of U. S. Highway 19 (Staee Raad �55, a?OO,OD foct rfght- of-way} tv tl�e Point�at Seglnningj thenae aont.lnus 5. BQ°�.3'12" £,� elang artld line 83U�6p feetj thence leaving esld Ilne S. 00°52'?5" W., 825.Q0 fe�t to tha 8aut11 l�na of 7'eylor 8pd Blanton�e Subdivlei,on sa xecorded in F1.ak eook 1. Page 16� Public RacaXde of USLlaharough County, Florlda of wh�ah pinellae CONAC� WA6 faxmerly s psrtl thence aloug the baundary of eeid pint hy khe Eollowing three (3) couresa� 1. H. B9°I3'13° Ft., 130.54 feet; 2. N. DO°52'25" E.a A20�Q0 feetj 3. N. 69'13'�2" f�.. 700.00 £eetj to art interseCt}.cn wl.th Che afaramenCiotted zlght-of-way line of U.S. - fi3ghway 14; thence N. 00°52�2y° S., plong eafd lina 4b5.40 feet to ths ebove�mentivned Point o� Beglnning. TogsGhAr wJl.h a certrain Htisement for egreea according tD fRatreunent by nnd between John lInncoak Hutual i�f�e Insurance ComNony and Firti�t►Veet }lmerlca Coz'po�aCion reoordec! April 25� 1985 lil OffiCi�l RaCOrd� Book 5978, Pege 1750, Publia ReCOrds of �ineil�s County, Florlda, Ae amended by Add�ndam to �asement recorded 3une lfl, 1985 tn Qfiiclal Record Book GVD9, Page 1Q4], tn sa�d recerds. .. 2 _ Description: P.inellas,FL Dpcumeut -�ook.�age 7I07.4I3 Page: 4 of 6 � Order: rb Camment: � . ., EXHIB;�' `H° �ERMFiTED �ITL2 EXCEPTIO?IS rr�ns�s z �Mn xr OR7{07PG��17 �, Aay enaroachrRent�, aaeements or oCber matters dep�eted on thet a�rvey pxapnred by Gearge P. Young, Inc,, datqd 5ep�amber 2�, 19@9, Pro�ect No. B9-S3-0661�00, �Cevlaed octpber 9, �984• 2. WAter main essement recazded in Ueed Book 1965, pege �B4, gr8nted tn Pinellas Water Co., a Fior.�da ¢Otj�orqtilOtir by Aatfe Ktlgo�e, recordad on Febru�xy 3, 1954, befnq a gerpetual ssas�ent 5U feet wide to conatructt operate and maintafn waCer mal,ns Ear distrdbutivn oE woter ��zasignma��L to Ci�y of St. Petereh��rgr by Aeslgnmant recorded on Februexy 3, 1954, in Peed Book 146g, pa4e 1t3Bj p�cb2ic Racorda a� Pinelles County� F'lorida. 3. Eap2mer►t recorcied in paed Roak I46S, page 159, qranted to Pinsllae hTnter Co. f a Florida cnrporation, py Tiary F.. Ktlgore� �rnest Rl.lgore, Claize Kflgore, �Ftnnie Hilgore, and H. R. NiJ.qore� recarded on Februaxy 3, 1954, bein4 a perpetqal ea�emena 50 �eet wide to construct, apernte end matrttnin water matns fer distribution aC v��ter (aeeignment ta Ci.ty oi St, Beteraburg, by Aeaignment reaarded on Februazy 3� 1959� in Daed Sook 5465� paga Z03--204) Public Reaards o£ einel�ae County, Florida. A. 5sni tary sewRr easemen{: �.n favar of the Cl ty oE CJ earwa!_ex, zeGq�rded in i?eed ESaak Ii7S, pAgs 292, and reCOiclad May 9. 1963, Public Recocds oE Ptn�Zlae County, Florida, $, ptility and drainage easement in favor of The City o� C1Parwater, ae recorded on November 22: 1971, in OfEiaial Records Book 3667, Qage 988, Public Reco=de o£ Pinel3.as Coanty, FJ.orida. 6. Rccesa Road Easemant itt favor of The City of Cleazwatar� as recorded on N�vember 22, 297i, in Offiaial A�tcor.de Qook 3fi67, page 989. Public Aecarda of Pinellae Cou�lty, �J.orida. 7. �eaemert in fsvo�r uf Flqrida povsex C�rporatiar► ae xacordad on February 5, 1974, tn Ei.[f.icial ReCnxds Bqak 41�2, gage 17U4, Publ.ie Recorde QE PJ.nal�Iae County, �'loxida� B. Eaeemen� in favor aE Florida Powgr Corparation as recn�ded on Jaly 8, 197-0� in OfEicial Reaozdts Sooic 4192, page 1211, Pnblic Records of Pinellas County, Florfda. 4. Dl,stcibutian 1:egemeRt in favor af F]orida Yower Corgareti.an, n$ zec�rded on Deaember 23, i98D, in Officfsi Recorde sook 57.26, page 27p, Foblic Heaorda a� 8iriei.las County, Flarida. xA. Grant of RsBemant by and between T�T.R.C. Pto�ertiec�, Inc., a Uela+aare corporatinn, end'.Che Clty o£ Ciett7�wat�r� �o� thc� pvrepee oE fngrese asid egreae as Xecorded on January 2f, i961, �.n pfficial Aecuzde Bnok 5138, page 482, Publ.iC Records c�f Yinellas Cou�ity, E'lorida. il. Gzane o£ Basement by and botw�en W.R.C. Pr�perties, Ino., �a t}e�.a�rare corporatiozi, and Tbe CiCy oE ClearHaterr fQr the purpose o,� wal:erlis�es ttrtd rel�ted faa.i],i.ties ae recorcled on January 21� ig81, in OPiic:J.al Recorda Bovk S1JA, pege 404, PubLic Recorcta of Pinel2as Couuty, �io�ida. �.2. Grant o£ Eaaement by and bekween W.1R.C. Prvpext,is�sr Znc., a Delaware carpasa�fv��, and The Cfty o£ Clear�aaear, fox tlze giixgoqa o£ water, sewer, drainage and utilit.iea ae recvrded on January yi, 1gpf, in OfficiaL Recaxds 800k 5138, paga 993, Puhi.Ca Aeauzds of F'i.ne2laa County, Florid� , Deacrigtian: P3neI.Ias,FL nocvmeuC - Book.Page 7i07.413 Fage: 5 of 6 Ordes: rb CommerFt: � f � - - . .. Y � � .' E1R7107P6�4 � 8 .� f3. Grant o� easemant hy end batwnen Fininveet U.S, xnco�parated and John itancack Mutttsl LiEe InsuzanCe Campany reaorded in q��ic�al Reco,rda 600k 5978, P$gs 175U, n� a�ended in Q;Efi,£aial Recorde Boak 6Q�9r Page 1D41� Public Reco�a of Pinellas County, Fl.orids. �$C�B i Qf � c ,� � i � Deacription: PineIlas,FL,Document - Book,Page 7107.413 Psge: 6 0� 6, .. .. Orderr rh Comment: � COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT Project Criteria 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. The Offce (0) zoning district does not list attached dwellings as a permitted use except as a Comprehensive Infill redevelopment project. In keeping with the goals of the US 19 Corridor Redevelopment Plan, attached dwellings are a preferred use in this area. 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 redevelopment from office to attached dwellings is consistent with the US 19 Corridor Redevelopment Plan which seeks to encourage higher density residential development. The residential apartments will be in close proximity to employment opportunities and retail centers. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. The re-use of this site will not impede development or redevelopment of surrounding property. All surrounding property is currently developed with residential or office uses. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development. The re-use of this property as an apartment complex is compatible with adjacent land uses. All surrounding property is currently developed with residential or office uses. In addition, the apartment use is appropriate on the waterfront of Old Tampa Bay provides a transition between the more intense offices directly abutting US 19 and bay to the east. 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 Page 1 of 3 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; f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new andlor preservation of a working waterfront use a. The proposed re-use as an apartment complex is a permitted use in the underlying R/OG land use category. The R/OG category allows a maximum density of 15 units/acre. The redevelopment will generally follow the bulk regulations for the MDR zoning district. b. The proposed apartment complex use would contribute to the local economy by providing temporary construction jobs and a few permanent jobs once completed. c. NA d. The reuse does not involve affordable housing. e. The area is characterized by predominantly residential and office uses. The re-use as an apartment complex is consistent with the underlying R/OG land use and a land use plan amendment is not needed. The re-use as an apartment complex is compatible with the Bay Cove apartments to the south and mobile home park to the north and would provide a transition between the office uses on US 19 and the bay to the east. f. The project does not involve working waterfront uses. 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; b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the c. � City; The design, scale, and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; 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 Page 2 of 3 e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhances landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. a. The reuse of this building as an apartment complex will not impede the development of surrounding properties since they are mostly already developed with residential or office uses in the "O" zoning district or MHDR or MHP zoning district. b. NA c. The height of the buildings is limited to 4-stories and is similar to the heights of the adjacent offce buildings and apartments to the south. The buildings are larger than many apartment buildings and are arranged to take advantage of open water views of Old Tampa Bay. This arrangement supports a density of 15 units/acre which is the maximum currently permitted in the R/OG land use category. d. The proposed architectural character for the development is envisioned to reflect a contemporary nautical theme to foster a close connection with the setting along Old Tampa Bay. Most notable is the stepped arrangement of the units facing the water, providing movement and interest to the elevations while maximizing water views for the residents. In keeping with a nautical feel of the project, materials are proposed to consist of primarily stucco finishes in light/white tones paired with accents of deep wood-tone siding that create contrast and texture. Openness and connection with the water are the most prominent themes. Beyond the light tones of the main building mass, heavy emphasis on glazing, as well as aluminum and glass rails, help to provide an open connection between the building interior and site/waterfront setting. Balconies are an important element of all of the unit types, lending to interesting shadow lines and movement of the elevations and expanding indoor/outdoor living opportunities for residents. Flat roofs are envisioned to conceal HVAC and other building functional elements, and to increase open space for landscape and vegetation around the building base and throughout the site. e. The site will be upgraded with signi�cant landscape features, reduced impervious surface, greater green space, and the project includes preservation of many existing trees. Page 3 of 3 THE "BRIDGE" AT ARBOR SHORELINE APARTMENTS NARRATIVE OWNERS: GOLDEN SHORELINE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 45 North 4t" Street, Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43215 APPLICANT/AGENT: RICHMAN GROUP OF FLORIDA 477 S. Rosemary Avenue, Suite 301 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 PLANNING/ENGINEERING CONSULTANT GULF COAST CONSULTING, INC. 13825 ICOT Blvd., Suite 605 Clearwater, FL 33760 The applicant is proposing to partially redevelop the Arbor Shoreline Office Park, by redeveloping the easternmost 15.77 acres with a 236 unit apartment complex on property within the Residential/Office General (R/OG) Land Use Category in the Office (0) zoning District in Clearwater. The site is also located in the area covered by the US 19 Corridor Redevelopment Plan. The subject properties comprise 22.52 acres under common ownership. They are currently developed with 218,332 square feet of office space in multiple buildings within Arbor Shoreline. The R/OG category permits a density of 15 units/acre, therefore, the eastern 15.77 acres can be developed with 236 apartments, and the western 6.75 acres that is currently developed with 81,353 square feet of office space can remain as is, and it is still below the allowable floor-area-ratio of 0.50. Therefore, the total project would consist of 236 apartments and 81,353 square feet of existing office space to remain. This will form a mixed-use development that is encouraged in the US 19 Corridor Redevelopment Plan. The apartments will complement the existing offices and residential uses in the area and are in close proximity to employment opportunities and local retail businesses. The removal of 136,979 square feet of office space to accommodate the apartments will also reduce peak hour traffic generation. The redevelopment of the eastern portion of the site will result in a reduction of impervious surface and an increase in green space. Different housing styles and densities are encouraged, and this project will provide a new type of housing style (4-story rental apartments) and at a higher density than many surrounding residential uses. ° C earwater 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 INVALIDATE YOUR APPLICATION. ALL APPLICATIONS ARE TO BE FILLED OUT COMPLETELY AND CORRECTLY, AND SUBMITTED IN PERSON (NO FAX OR DELIVERIES) TO THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY NOON ON THE SCHEDULED DEADLINE DATE. A TOTAL OF 11 COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS (1 ORIGINAL AND 10 COPIES) AS REQUIRED WITHIN ARE TO BE SUBMITfED FOR REVIEW BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE. SUBSEQUENT SUBMITTAL FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, IF NECESSARY, WILL REQUIRE 15 COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS (1 ORIGINAL AND 14 COPIES). PLANS AND APPLICATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COLLATED, STAPLED AND FOLDED INTO SETS. THE APPLICANT, BY FILING THIS APPLICATION, AGREES TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. PROPERTY OWNER (PER DEED): Golden Shoreline Ltd., Partnership MAILING ADDRESS: 45 North 4th Street, Suite 200, Columbus, OH 43215 PHONE NUMBER: EMAIL: AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE: Mr. Todd Fabbri - The Richman Group of Florida MAILING ADDRESS: 477 S. Rosemary Avenue, Suite 301, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 PHONE NUMBER: 561-832-1114 EMAIL: Fabbrit@richmancapital.com ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPER7Y: 19321 US 19 N DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Per the adjacent property owner's request, we ask for a variance to the City buffer requirements Specifcally identify the request along the 203' length of property boundary on the east side of the site to eliminate the 1 tree (inciude all requested code }lexibility; per 35' and shrub buffer requirement. Large existing trees provide canopy coverage and separa- e.q., reduction in required number of tion between the two parcels. parking spaces, height, setbacks, lot size, fot width, specific use, etc.J: I, the undersigned, representations ma ' t accurate to the b t o City represent ti t property describ� i, i a Signature of STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS � acknowledge that all Sworn to and subscribed before me this �� day of is application are true and �')') �� 20/ �. to me and/or by is�owl�dge and authorize I-' ,/� �nd photograph the W� ��iam T�d(J� Tu�b�` , who is personally known has n. or representative ary pubuc, � commission expires: �-7 31 2� � as identification. V� w Notary Public State of Florida I$��&�i�lp�y�Pepartment, 0 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 �'� �f �u1y Commission FF 041440 Revised 01/12 a Fd� Expire5 07l3112017 ° Clearwater � U Planning & Development Department Comprehensive Landscaping Application Flexibilitv Criteria PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO EACH OF THE FIVE (5) FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA EXPLAINING HOW, IN DETAIL, THE CRITERION IS BEING COMPLIED WITH PER THIS COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPING PROPOSAL. 1. Architectural Theme: a. The landscaping in a Comprehensive Landscaping program shall be designed as a part of the architectural theme of the principal buildings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for the development. OR b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscaping program shall be demonstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for development under the minimum landscape standards. While the initial plans show a code level design, it is the intent to provide enhanced landscape plans which exceed the amount required by the City code minimum standards. Trees and vertical plant material will accent the architecture, with additional shrubs and groundcover and upsized tree sizes to create an overall lush and welcoming experience. 2. Lighting. Any lighting proposed as a part of a Comprehensive Landscaping program is automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is closed. Accent lighting will be tied to a timer to control the length of time the lights are illuminated. 3. Community Character. The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater. All plant material will be appropriate to the climate conditions of Clearwater and the site, and will complement the existing trees/vegetation on the property. 4. Property Values. The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscaping program will have a beneficial impact on the value of the property in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. Perimeter landscape treatments and entry corridor landscape will frame views of the parcel, enhancing the architectural elements and directing views into and around the property. Plant material shown in the future enhanced landscape plans will exceed the code requirements of the City. 5. Special Area or Scenic Corridor Plan. The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program is consistent with any special area or scenic corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in which the parcel proposed for development is located. All plant material shall meet the code requirements for the City of Clearwater. Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 2 of 2 Revised 01/12 NOiES flECPRDING SCXEDULE Bi1 E%CEPilONS (Per itle Commitmanl Cuatomer RelercMa Nu 2555]-OJBS anE Finl Nne on Foat Flle Number 30J)-JI)5030 iaaue0 by iirsl IuneRCUn itle Wwanw Compony Ge eileclive tlote ol Jonuory J0, 2014 a! 8:00 AMJ p. Eaae�4 n` lor Wobumoln In r ol Pinella% Wahr Co'pSnY rororEaE In DeeJ Ba � a g enl In lawr a I�e y L Pelen g, Fleritla ie aFOm on iFe au�vey. W m�tot�t)� �BgEace uenl loi xabr m n lavar ol P^mllas`yWa`es Copmpary recorEOeE�onfBeok 1465, P ; logv ml m ava� of e 1. e g, a e�oxn on t�e a rveY. �N lo lnt 1J � 11. Eaaemml for aanilary tt in /war o� Na QFj ef �rater, Fl rCeJ May 9, 1963 in Boak Ifi>5. Poge 29] n alwvn on [M1e ¢u Y. U+ leCLet 2 oM Tmcl A)co I2. Eosement Iw rwmge a vor of IM Gly oi Clwrvokr. Flwka re aA NovemEer 32. 1911 in Baak 368J.�1,Paqe 9BB b sM1O�n on Ua eurvq. (N to �at 1J 13. Easement tor ac sa N(avw ol iM1e Gly IN ClwrvaW, FloriCa ncwda0 Norembar 23, t9)1 in BooN 366), Po9a �BB9 ia Marn a.� I�e aurrey. (N lo Lol I) k. EaaemeM M faver ol ilenUa Pewer Corporation n oMeJ Fabrvary 5, 19)] in Book 4�J3, Poye 1)�4 n aM1Own on t�e au Y� �N lo Wt 1) � 5. Eammenl in ol i1wNa Poeer Corpwolion recorJeE July 8, 19J{ in Book <I91, Paqe 1311 la donMet ina orWre. (b b Lot 1) 16. Eaeement in Iwor ai Floritla Pover Grporatlon �ec eE OecemEer 13, 1980 in 9ook 5126, Page 3)0 ia Elankat in noWra. (Re b Lol 2 aM Trocl N 1]. Gant ol Eaesmenl in ia l IM Cily o( Gearroler re nuory 21, 1901 in Book 51]0, Page 092 le eM1exn on t�e eurwy. (N b Lol 1 anE iract��) 1B. Eosement in ol tl�e qly o� Cleurwater recoMeE January 31. 19BI in Book 51]9, Poqe tB9. (�e b lot 3) r 19. W r, Sewer, �rainage aM Utilily Eaxment in lovor ol Ue Cily of Ckonater2 Fl rEaJ Jonuary 31. 1981 �n Boot 51]9. 9� �a anoxn on tne e y. (M lo Late anE 3)r� 20. In Egreas orW q fo emanl Rgrwmant Cy a 0 Oelwevn Fl � qnu, V1111 . nw.OeE Octobe� I1� 1989 in Boak J10]uPVge� 19ria,ez�ovn onthe eurveYnU+� �la I�oM 1) ]t. Dacpmtlon M P�rtXCllona nnE Grant ol Eoaemde,nta rzcoNed SeOV�aru 3. 1999 in Baok i 0688� aga �2515, u` Eele�i�g o con 4en rcf�N�'cl n�g' a P a �n 4iciwna nolate 43 USC�l60a(c)�a e e�ovn an9lhe aurvryay!(N lo�LOla�l antl 2�an0 Trocl A) 3. PesMCliana, E rvaliona, e menla anE otM� ma iM1a pbl oi ARBOR SHOFflJNE,�a ecoNed n Pla[ Book 1J)� Page(a) �1-N. but tl e4"ngVa cabr,w � MMkarPcll(amitial elalue iwtiowl w n�lo� alen�uehmc onle� e• canEitbnf9o�flnctiana ridate 43 UR 3fi01(c). NI cmWitana a eealwwn.`(b lo NI Po� ela)� 23. peclomlian of Eaummt (PaMing/LOMUaDe) ereculeU Dy CalUan SM1orelim Lim�le0 Portnenhip rmorJetl Feb 1, 2000 in 9aaM IOBIO, Paqr 1698 u aMvn on Il�a s rvry. (AS lo bt I) ]4. SuEject �oo11M1a� unrecerEed kose doteJ Seplember f0, IB9fi Cy anE Celwean Cddan SMrelina '' E ParinersMp�Leaaw) aM Stale ol forlJo, 0 of Revenw Qeeaee) a ' tMt SuboNino4m E Nan-OiaWrLOMe Agrleemant r�ec�o�EeE�Saplembw I]. 1999 M�BOOk�10669bY Page 3696. Not survey m�o4E oM contoina na w pbUobk Eato. I5. Eoeemenl in faror af FlanEa Goe Tmnemieaion Company. LLC aa sM (atM1 aM deacrievd in �el Slipulela0 OrEer o( Tnkinq aM Vlml JuagmeM remrEetl Nry ), 3U10 in Boek 16909, Poga 152) ia Mown on t�e aweY. (�+ b Lol 1) f2.2011PnBOroli�l)}51�Po9e11951Npuf�tleklin9CO cand4ona�resMiciwnPndialing Wn EaeeE o rUlgbn, ae �an0leap. lam evtenl auc� covena , con014ana or realrktwne viok�e 13 115L 3604(c).r (/u lo NI Parcels) � Legend: c� .��4 o"`�r n+n � u � �p� x � m .. �"�o.:.�ia oP ��..ren �rw r� ar��o ., o. ��ro.wz w.r ¢ .utw%r. ..__. tt) mn VICININ MAP NOT TO SCALE Desc[ip�ion: (Per Titl�e� mil �en` CuM c�e^ `NarFlMe Nu �ber 203]-}f150TD� aauetl by�iirt Nn n�an�iUe Nwmnce CampaM bearinq on eflecUve tlale of Januory J0, 2(114 nt B:W n.uJ Int ] pTUr�act A ol Iln` � BpF SHOREIINE M p�'Baak 13)roPo9e(e) 41�N�of Ne PuElkrPecwtl��n oi Pine�oe Ceunly, iloriEU. LOT AREAS: LOT 1 LOMNNS e.15 ACPES MORE OR 1E55 �m x conwus is.�a ncxrs uaxc oa icss iR4Ct 'N' COMNNS 1,Bfi3 SWME FEET NORE UR 1E55 Surveyor's Nolu: t.�s �rvuvaq EAIERGENCTT�I4Nl�GUENENi /�GEO�INSTHE PCROPERiY SHOWe� MPTH�SE fEDEIIE W�M�N ZONES '%' UNSIV�EO, 'X' SH40ED, 'AE' (EL B NAVp) PND Y£' (FL 9 N4V0j PRNR N0: 12fO3C0140C DNRU SEPiEMBEIt ]. 200]. tNf MPROI�MiIE fL000 ZONE 11WISRION, 6 MPl1GBlE, F415 BFEN O9�NNm Nl� PLORm FltOY VAGE Ncn� wws u�o �s oEncrm ws nccuan.nv ws rosseic. TMis sum�cr ar xo EWS flEPRE5ENi5 A �EiERW114ibN 011 WHEfMER PNOiENT1E5 WILL Ofl WILL NOT FLOOD. UND MMIN iHE BOUN0.iHIE5 OF T115 SUINEY WY OR MAY NOT BE ECT TO FLOOOINC; iHE BUILpNG �EPMIMENf OR OiHER qSiUMLL AGENLY GOR FLOOD DEIEAA111W1bN WIfHW THIS MUNICIVILrv INT HiVE I➢OIt10lNL INFORMATON REG4iDING FLOOMNC M10 RE51RIGi10N5 ON DChLOPA1EM. 1� BEWINCS SHOWH NEREON ME BASm ON iHE NOHM BOUNMT' OF �OT 3 A BGWNG OG 5 0YI4'OS' E 2�ElfVAipNS SHOWN HEHEON NQ 9RSED ON PINELLlS COUNII' BfllCHNARK PUS G' H4NNC N PUBLLSNED fl£VNpN OF e..lU IUW90. pRp EM� TMY BE AOqiKKlN. EASENENfS N10/IXt RESIRICTIONS ARECtING TMS o c �r wv xor ec rour+o w�xc cueuc accowos ov *ws courrcr. INFORWTON ON ADJILENf PROPEFIY O'MNEItS OP IAIdNMIG PROPEFII' PECOPOING MFIXiMRTON WAS PRPADFD TO TILS SURVEYOR. unpE HO INVESTGiION ON INGEPENOfl�f SFMCH FOF EASEMENIS OG RENRD, EHCUMBRWCES, RESiflILiIVE COVEWMS. OWNERSHIP TIRE ENCE�OR PNY ORIEP FACLS. 6) 1H FV LORNERS /»D IINES OEPICiED BY IWS SURJEY WERE ESiPBLISHED�PER INFORNAiWN AS NPNISHED. J�TMUNLE55 O�FRMSE SXOVM XEPEIXl, NO JURRDICT oWLL WEfW10 NiGS OR GFMMC fFAlURES IM4E blEN L GiFD. B) UNDERCROUND ENLRMCHMENfS, SUCH tS UIRIIIES, SfH11Cl11PE5, INSTALLATONS, PROVEMP.YfS MID GOUNMipNS TXNT 1NY EXISi, NAVE NOT BEEN FlELD laCAiEU E%CEPT /5 SXOWx. BWN1DMr XES NFECIF➢ 4Y�I�AVIENSE�USE 11NE5 OF�CONN �INCPOEF➢5, OR OTHER lINES TH1T NAT OIf2NWI5E BE OEIERWN(D BY A COUfit OF tAW. 10�J �NOEPGRJUN� UIRfiY lllC IIONS NM IIOEEN(IFlCAlI0N5 SNOWN HEAEON ME N9�E 1BOVE GFOUN� MNIiTENMlCES IND OO�i NEGESYAILY SHOw /AL lllllltt IOGlIGYS. NO SUBIlRMUFIN ENGVATON BEQ! AuOE TO �EfENMWE UNDERCROIIND Vi1LI1T IOLAIqNS E MFl5UPE0 MATHEIMIIGLL CWSURE Of 1HE SUTiYED BOUxDMY IXLEE05 µE�KCUMCY ST/JIDMOS iDR pN UNBIN CVSS SURr£Y AS DFSINEO BY THE GN CONGRRS OH SUR�£1tNC /J1D MAPPWC NIO ME ANFRIGW LW� IIRf .�SSOCNTON. NOTn� ��M BUILDWG CqVNERS, fENCE COPNEPS, SHED COPNERS, EfC.. ME TO BE USED i0 REES�/9u5H PftOPFRIY BOUHMRIQ iJ) AWrtIIXiS OR MLETd15 TO SUIivE MMS OIV FEPoPiS MADE BY OTIEA 1WN SGNNGNpN�PMtt Oq PMiIES 6 PROHIBffED WfIXOUf WRIREN CONSENT OF 1HE OR PaRTiEi i1) T115 SURVEY WS BE£ll PPEPMm IXPR65LY FOR THE NNdED ENIIIIES AND 5 NOT TRNiSFSWBIE. Ip OTHER PEIi50N OP ENIfIY 5 ENRREO N PELT UPoN MA/OR PEUSE 1N15 SURVEY iOR .WY OIHER PUPP0.5E W1NTSOEVER W1�HOUf 1HE IXPR65 WRrtIEN CONSEM Oi 1N41lTfIN ENGiNEfltiNG k SURYEYINC MIO iHE CERTIYING PROfE55101UL SUPVEYqt INO WPPER. �NOININC HfAFJN SHLLL BE CONSiIiUED TO CNE uA' PICIf15 OP BENEf115 TO NE UiHFIt iWW 1NOSE CEft11FlE0 TO ON TUS SURVEY. )8) FFNCE OWNERSHIP NOT DflERMINE�. t]� PRINiED OINENSIONS SNOWN O iHE wN OF SUFVEV sVaERSEDE SGLED �t ENSqNS. iHERE MAY BE IiEMS DR/�WN OU! OF SCNE TO CRMHICLLLY SNOW iMEIR LOGTION. t9) qEPROWCI�ON OF TNIS SURVEY i5 E%aRE55LY FOR&D�Q1 WIMOUf T�E Wd11FN PERNISSION �tON TIE SICNMG SURVfl'OR. 19) iNE WOP� 'CEHIIiIEA' 6 IN:DER5�000 TO BE PN IXPIiE5510N OF TME P^ROfF55�01UL SUfNEYdi'S OPINpN 815ED ON H6 BE51 NNOWLE�GE. INFOR1MiWN D BEIIEf. INO iHAt It TNS CONSTIIflES NERHEft A GUPRNfIEE NOR A FNItt, EIiHER IXPRESSE� OR INPLIm. f0) iH15 SUPVEY IS A REPRESEMAIpN OF E%ISTNG i1ELD CONqIqNS AT THE 11ME Of TIE i1F10 SUKJEY MTE NIO IS BlSEO ON i'WND IXISPNG MONUNFMRTON M 31�iHE iRfES SHOWN HEPFAN WQiE LOCAR9 UtRIZINC MElHODS MEpMTE FOR PCCIIMTE LOLPTQV MiD IOEMIf1CAilON. HbMMR, Ti5 COMPANY RNO ME SICMNC SIIFJClOR RESEKVES 1HE flIGM i0 VERIfY TIE LOGITION OF I.LL 1REE5 CRRICAI TO ME D6�CN OG BUILOpJCS, PARI(INC M10 OiNEit PEPYANENi FGNFES. 1VIf PESPONSiB��tt OF THE �ESICN VPWESSIOWL TO INiOPM 1NI5 COYPAVY AND/OR SIGNINC SURJETOP OF Nir TqEES CFf11GLL TO iHflR DE N 50 Tui THOSE iREES GW BE YEPffIEO PFIOR TO 1ME COMPLflpN Of IHE`OESIGN. t3) KL CqOUND EtEVAipNS NtE TO BE WIEPPREIF➢ TO TXE NVA6f ONE iEHM OF A FOOi. 1l) 1NE DAIE OF SIGH4NRE OOES NOT IIPR4TE OR SUPERSE�E TIE WIE Of SURVE . COPYIiIGNT 3014 - WJAIITON ENGINFFHUK k SUfiRYMlC, INC. REVISED TO CORRECT OFFICIFL RECORDS BOOK NUMBER RPRIL 29, 2014 REVISED TO PDD UNDERGROUND UTIL1iiE5 PPRIL 23. 2014 REVISED TO ADD ACREAGE MARCH 27, 2014 z O L � �� 1.� � � � } Q Z � � �l. � Q � x _ �� - :5 �z P � Y: ,y if i � � 9 - j �i �i lIi � oa � � W�O ? � � L W K H � �� _�� N � � � � �.% � N.. 4 � W.' =a � � �Q y ��°. -- �WEST �UNDPRY OF SEC1qN YO-19-18 — — l U.S. HIGHYVAY 19 (STATE ROAD 55) 200' RIGHT OF WAY P � 4 I . i<�..wc is ar.o � �� z,°is,:,o�oR�,u� i—.-..:.:.�,. _�_--��....,. . �c. � .o � i , i. owo, a� ,ss,-o.'E 9�.— `�� — I � - -�--—-—`—------�---- ——� r_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i i � i i i �� i i i � i i -r—--—— —�_ i .I _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ �w F ei.,in"�e�c`saa. °r`.e,—: °on�-i;s'._ _ _ ' _ _ _ _ — i \ — ez � � / '_"____' I I_ _ _ — _ _ _ — � / —1 � I__i_____ _ _ _ _ _ _ � . / .____ _ ___I. 1 4a. � I / / 1 � l I I �� /,\� / � 1 �� , y � � // \ I �{ � � I � I I �� ➢� I i ��/ $� I / S.NI '�� i b Ba�/ /// �� O � �' i / �G �� I �Y I � 5 ' 1. r I I �'� r. . . . . ..� � s � � u� � � � E � � 8� � i � ` �� i I � � 5 I I 1 � C � _� I � � f — — _ � I 1 � � � � � — — � I I ' II I � � �I I I� � a I cx* ,n orr�cui I III � � � os eW+�iiiz_uE� .—.—.—. J � I I I L __1—�__�cm_____.' J� I -=r-�=------__�_-__-= J i � � T- ----------- � ' � � � , � ' � l ' � / / ' � ' � , � � � ' � ' � :EF � � � a i � � : aook ,�.,o. PuE �6:. .J_!��___._ ocl9.____ �..\ _ _ __—_" _—___ _ __'_____—____ � I .\J "- �: � �� cx omcu, nao«es eaw e�a. +�e .s� � NOT INCLUDED L________ ,/__J Bi ------'---------i 'u i Ji' _______- ___ �___-__._--,.� ___1..�y SEE SHEET 3 ��1 �� s � MAP OF BOUNDARY SURVEY ARBOR SHORELINE U.S. HIGHWAY 19 (STATE ROAD 55) PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA 8➢ dg� R� vi �R i�� _________ i _— i i i --------t---+ i i ii i ii i ii i �' �"` i ii�� ii�� qa� � I I �u� I ��'"�° I ��e� I ��€ � Il.i I� �� II �£b$�7�� II $k � Ii ��n�� II ¢$ � � II y�s^o'�„ � II k$¢ �� I II ^Km� I II �$f^�$ � II y`�.n II �'� I� i ii , �� II j II � II � II � II � II I � � II II � II i ii � , �� g , � � � , �� , �� , �� , �� I II � ' N � II � II i �� II � ii � ii � !I � II i ii � n i i�� Ilaw --��1�: � �AMILTOl�I ENGINEEFIN6 S SUPVEYING,INL. �� ,•,: SEE SHEEf 2 `�V ! i Ilrj�.�l ______'____".' _______"___'I�',�\l �� II � II.I� j ,�� i � � �iiS �: \I ��„�"a��,.. �mvos ew. s e owc .9e - - b'"\y �" � � � � �iYi� n'� -� i. !�I c� � i i Ii^,m �_ l�': \� . i � I_, ��, ti a��. 4� o�: �o. ��:� d�`��'S.��,'. NOT INCLUDED �� : \ `y i i i I�i#i� �r� . . . i��; \� �a i ii � ff �,, ,�.�, i i Ili9N ^;; �Y'�Y � � i n�z �� .�, w•rFns.�ro� � �� i�9J i9 II�'=� L '_ _____'_________ f�'_� �� i4�' � �� ,N� --- -- -------��- -�-g� ' ' ' � .� , � � � ��, � T' � — — — —'—� '—'—�—�— �EroWE�az'"si a c s :"i�„�o .°f�`.i ' i i i � \.., o. �, k s � i i �I I aE«nxew.:ue.>��ei' ''__�__ , � � i � i �� —�� i ; � 1; I ��eM , �� i � � i i i� r i B'� ; , � I i /� '' / ; i , i &� I i �� ' / ' �� i � �§ iI , � ' i� , � '�' i � a� � �c[R2a 1 i I / I i � . I V' �� i ( � (' mEF^R I � �_ �A.�s �� i i �e II g: I ' /// �'I B:� ,—� °� g � , / � "'�9" � � I i i � s�- i I�I 'i� I p� �/ �� i =�� i i IIII &`� I �� i� �� i `eg�a � i R � . � i '� �s� ,� i �I �i I � s 1I I � �li�� .��,� �� iA��' yo� /'% �� ° °''°c� " �� Igu°u'w°°a+ �t' S N' ��. i•, �, z � �; p , �Im` �� i -�3: a�t .. '�; a� p�' 9� —._ _ _.` _ _ ` y � �ffi e� a'�,� E a� 6 -. _ _ �, " � / / � �'si—.i � � i i i i a6 j ; , ��a i � �;�: � � � ; o i � 'i � N � I `��4 r � ' ��% � �� ; � � � � r � a � � � , i �� I '. � , � � � j � � ' a ' � ;l � \ , � �� >a � ' — — � , ., � , �� , �. , � _.�., � � � � ; , , , � � - � i' � ' � �, � w ` . ' ; �, �, � �� ' '� ��"7i -. i �N � i � N'�� ` I ^:'��:' '� �� / � —' �� i�' �;�— � , - - _., \ ', � � /�� ' I --- ii `�-- % i �N --_ � ._,__�' i,la� � e� --_ �� x _,_ , � � a� �'-- --- '_� s . . 3nll 553Nll1M I —.—.— _._.— —'_ _ _._ —.—.— ��—�--� . J GGI \ _ _ _._ _._ _ _Ui.oeszd 3 iw,ns.ia s -• 'p.,` c ��.\ \ <a).svuv .. s.�o a essNCaass r�. m orrrw n cowos � 3 � 62 G m ai ,r � / s°e.rwc,ax ' � �� c, m«� / � : � �� . � � a,. OLD TAMPA BAY ' �� . '��_. . �N x� ��; �� a . �_� �� k ; �pk e.t __A . MAP OF BOUNDARY SURVEY ARBOR SHORELINE U.S. HIGHWAY 19 (STATE ROAD 55) PINELIAS COUNN, FLORIDA p ��AMILTOI� ENGINEEPING N SUPVEYING,INC. . . . . _. �6::;0:_.. . .__ .. . m r m < D -i O Z � � 2 O � Z S fTl Z7 f�l O Z D �1 m z D < � � W � z � A O yOm N A mZ mD UI Z 20 m �N n �, z n < SEE SHEET 2 OLD TAMPA BAY MAP OF BOUNDARY SURVEY ARBOR SHORELINE U.S. HIGHWAY 19 (STATE ROAD 55) PWELLAS COUNN, FLORIDA � i 'i I � � II � II � �i II � I�I � itl I �� AMILT0I�I ENGINEEqING b SUHVEYINC,INC. _ ��:.,.: ., __ _.... /"'ESf 90UNDNiY OF SECiION 20-29-IB U.S. HIGH{4AY 19 (STATE ROA➢ 55) T 200' RIGHT OF WAY S SEE SHEET 3 MAP OF BOUNDARY SURVEY ARBOR SHORELINE U.S. HIGHWAI' 19 (STATE ROAD 55) PINELLAS COUNIY, FLORIDA '___'—' i __ i i '—'___� i �i i � i ii � ii � ii � ii � il � I � II � II I �� II I � � II � II � II � 11 I �' I � II � II � II � II � II II � II � II � II I � � II I � I j II � II � 11 � II � II I �A,\ I �' \ � �� } � I I A II 3 � I I g I �� II I �� c ; I I � II I �� i � II � 11 � , �� s , �� » , �� ,n , n i ii i ii __' � i i �� `i� A M I LT O l�t ENGINEEflING 6 SURVEYING.INC. _ aa�...,,;_..:. .._ . _ _ � � m < D � 0 z � � Z O � Z z m � m O z D � m z D < � � � � SEE SHEET 2 OLD TAMPA BAY MAP OF BOUNDARY SURVEY ARBOR SHORELINE U.S. HIGHWAY 19 (STATE ROAD 55) PINELLAS COUNfY; FLORIDA .� � II i I' � II I �� II � II I �� I �=Lt i C ° Ce� C� � .�� C� C °• � C� � �. �° �� - c e � i� A M I L'T O l�I ENGINEEHING h SUFVEYI�NG,INC. �, m:;, ;: . THE BRIDGE @ ARBOR SHORELINE APARTMENTS DRAWING INDEX SHEET TITLE C1 COVER SHEET C2 EXISTING CONDTIONS/DEMOLITION PLAN C3 OvERALL SITE PLAN C4 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN LEGAL DESCRIPTION Description: (Per TiHe Commiiment Customer Reference Number 25557-0384 and Flrst American Fast Fila Number 2037-3115020 issued by First Amarican Tille Insuronce Compony bearing an eFFective dale of Jonuary 3�, 2074 ot 6:00 A.MJ Lot 1, Lot 2 antl Tracl A, of the ARBOR SHORELINE subdivision, accortling to lhe plot thereof as ecorded in Map Book 137, Page(s) 41-44, of lhe PublicrRecords ot Pinellos County. Florida. PROJECi DIRELTdtT 04YNER: GOL�EN SHDRELINE L1D PARTNERSHIP OS N 4TH STREET. SUITE R00 COLUNBUS, OH 43215 DEVELOPER: RICHMAN GRWO OF FLORIOh,INC 4]J SWiH ROSEM4RY AVENUE. SUIIE 3D1 WEST PALM BE4CM, FL 3340� CINI ENGNEER: GULF COAST CONiULTNG,iNC 1,SB25 ILOT 80ULEVARD SUITE, 605 CLEARWATER, FL 33]60 PRELIMINARY SITE PLANS SECTION 32 TOWNSHIP 28 S, RANGE 16 E PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA LOCATION MAP � f r `_—�- . � �. f° , EI� . . � i �; . } s �.. . r�s e V :�� ` . _...i� u~ .` � �� - i j{.^ L.; LL j_.. . v. .. �,. � + ,F PROJECT i{ i I� � p� s'� IACATION � � = I.� 3 I 1�_� w. f�__ �i . .......,.. r . '" ...� �,._.. �... � u _ _ �N _ � r3 � �'—^ .. __._....__.....� �l�L�r�A� i �# PREPARED FOR: RICHMAN GROUP OF FLORIDA, INC. 477 South Rosemary Ave, Suite 301 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (561) 832-1114 p Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. �0�1� �,', Land Development Consulting �/ FNGINHERI�G TRANSPORTATIO� PL4NNI�G P8R111TIlNC 13825ICOT BLVD., SIRTE 605 Cleolwnler, Plorido 33760 Plwre: (717)524-18I6 Fax: (727)524b090 www. gulfcoastconsultinginc. com SITE DATA TABLE ea wouu ivm �s x�n io x. urnvw�rtv. rt anw M OD �PBON &IDIIBlE M/JfRBlIB i�,nu�o�. I 1£V^11qI4ANEM5EDONFlNEWSCWNtteENCNWPA'GIPYSC'N.INNOI.WBIISNEO 1101! Oi 0.]ONO0.MMIEpKAV VERiIGI WNN 19BE IM�w �4 CONVEa5pNi01U1qNFL0E00E11CVfq11CAL0.1NM I qOlDl91�Ad5. SU9hCT %tOPENtt FPPFARS TO BE IN F W OO IIM! ES' X• IINSHdDEO.'M' SM�DEO ANO',IE' �EL 9 avoi �xo ve iei s xnvo, awaxow c ro �xe vme I iL00YMSUMNCFxniE vAV,CONW Mtt PAVELNUNeFA R WLOtieG, EFFECINE LL11E�� SEPtEM9EP],501. � `_�---------�--- �="=�°'=�,°=°=w-=== � ---- .�. I �----------r----- -----_� -- ----------------- I I it - i � i iuor ivaweo I = Ik /�''��i�iii/�i _=3L1L_'= � . %%,��, se� "�i;;,,;; : I° �° i iiiiii�.li.^ � u u � �� i� i = � �� - .� u ,�' � ,1 �� , ��, „ � ' ��' �,/%�i� g -_ �� iiiijiiiii /i=� rri r��i�� rr��r��i��irii��i/�i//ji�� il -�i `J � t '�/J�\_/(� ,f I I � .. L- �-��'_ M __- ��'tL -_ __ _ f //�_ _ _ � �__ � I rl- 9 I iI i -� .��•. Y� e � �'' ; �I' {� ,�.�. . .�4�_ 6 _ ;:; �. ' � t I � 1 F I I /I � • • � �_ ' � I II � :� e>a \�~ , f � ,�� NI� �� ❑ I- - - -�- �. H i U �:I ' s , � t .�..�.� I�Y p� �� i i�i i; � . '�s _ _ _ � i i � � x� ,'i P` • C\ �} � �i I � i� �e� I � .. � a s' _� � � � '.I �e..= _ Q �mh � � m>� i�i i e <` i�— _ �. _a d 'i - _.°a •� `` ."' \ I i i;i i �o , �,. il � >• i � � i i ni i ' �,: •`� / � _ —� _ =;i1 i.: i v°• p "��\ ' . O i Ik� °L. Jf �� . !'{�� I —_ __ �! I � 1� .� I e' a.e e.C. ` LOT 3 Y '� n ��v_•_—= I • �.r_ � ' '- �'''�_dl �� i �ti i k TM�,wao�sM' i..� � �..mtoee„`��,., � � �� s = �II- _ d'u= � : � Ai - � :�I � \\\` a �. '`\` o �� -.., . =L7.�. - � � I �; • . ;I �� i i /� i i i_ �'�` � TI i�%!% �'%�' �� '��.� o� �g - I_ _ ___ _ _ _ _�' _- - �'�J � �..- m -.�.-m_..a :�r�n -� � __ �_�". ��°•�� --ti�� ---- II(1R�i GFS 01£X TE GIYS��CCF➢i�BLE YFRTGL o I HEFnI CR�IEAA �i 1 tE4EL BEMFFH JD MCxES I.BDK CF�OE �NG OCHT iFEt I.W�f UAOF. i I � . _ _ `MM�� . � InQf�TO'�ONTRACfOn��s�ea ♦MRaHW.tE.W011.1VExpTBE[9 E i V�n'BEfOPEBE4NNNGNEt1DpX. n1E �CRSMEQ`IX^mmeiJn ELEV�ipXOFN1UFAGWMT i i�x¢aio�carve:� wxeur ,1XPOAqSCPlT.1XClE5� „� GulfCoastConsulting,lnc. aenasoroa F�l„� wWW� L��c�sVL�"N�c A RICHMAN GROUP OF FLORIDA, INC. �� ' m naen we..�r �.a em. am WM PYn MW1 Ft 3M01 ��nm�oe `� (aeva�ama THE BRIDGE @ ARBOR SHORELINE APARTMENTS OVERALL SITE PLAN � � C a � E A 0 I �' t ,-, C3 nu � u � �.�u�� ;.�w;w,.�w��..�......o , , I I conb's•eoai�ii.r.a�a: � mu m. �caos.oans's'"c,°�"+inri&' � N ----- I I i) _ iwo w� orn, ti��q[�a{os eopiusu4?�ci !os i o� � I [ um[ �` wx I 1 LJ u �—J U — 5 8 6b5' E 14.61' p RE��FARW� I I I I I Tree Legend — — _ — �J �J LJ " — — — — 3 — �v�..� — - " d' 28 E 18}.]a' F Yw rJ— nx K3=14P� — — — — — _ �_ _ �c % _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ o- �� — � — — — — — — — — — — — _ _ _ =-' � � SYMDOI NAME SYMBOL NAkE — — � — —� LS � � � � � � � � � � � � � � _ — _ — _ ��— _ _ � � — i�� N ,�1 � OPK O PINE ��((( d �: 0 9' �/„ � ��1 � O PRLN OIHER ° � • MN! �� , � O \ 7p ,.� e �,F ) �„ ,� ' w , q , a � N � . DEPO • CRMP . Cr1MPMOR II —9 � • � �ti Q�O � � — � --- I � �R ,m� `wnC� q b s � � NOIE: 1REE SIZES IN INCHES [ __— _____ — ' 0 (p € � I _--_ _ _ __— __ — — I o\ � vmle � / iLMIpiE � IIIP ' •�M'NR IIIOItlmWqO1WM �0 I � R^�• / \ `o o / F1EV�ilOX5MEB0.5m � I 1 -1 `Q � ON%t�¢usCOUNtteExcxdnxltr.xwsGluwqeaALS�m y�A �� y: � flEVAlI0NOF6.]ONORIHOHENX'aNKR11GLMTMI9lII�'AUI. € .I �l6NIQ �I \� \ � v % LOMIEP ONFibNOLGEWEIICYEFM'K6�TM S �/ .I � \ r � � Ixwopl�.o.m. 0 J O S O I O D ��f• ':I NT1N°�"0� , �"�� M�q �O� ° � SIIBJELTRIOPERttMPEMSTOBEINR000iONE5'X�N9YU�.'%'SIND�MD'IP�9.B � I �exn � I wnui raw�um��¢sww.MCOAwxatotxermEnnedmcow wwaeewricewY. x 2a• rvCUC \ sp�,oiw�w� I mlEUeEn;faoxMiEYRP.W1WUwttPU,6xu�lt2lo%o19G6fE1rvEwlE NOTETOCONTRACTORS: C ___ ____ __ _ __ _ _ ` 1 � I �PROMW �urtbvnCe ; `� wiMU� � -o/ • ��TM� �K � ..�o - ,,�,� _ � �l� �, � b � �.P{, � �� , � -7 ------- � � , ; ��q � E%ISPNG WfRAND exax¢a rinrxwwu ax ,,, � �� n nd [t. `, ,��• E � � ye � • • • � EXISTING BWNDARY ec�r�xc : ° � �. ��r __.......u.."" 'o �mairva I � .!?l,�O; � I �: � � � � � ` 1 � � �J —�v �u 1-v. �u— E%ISTING WATER NAIN ��T � 6 �m°"� �f � � / � / � E%ISTNG GRTE VALVE � \ I .��; ` � ` �� p 7 � E%ISTING FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBIY /�� . �w1�11� x� �� / d•m — _ _ ( � � � / � � � � E%ISTING SRNITAFY PIPE N1f61YYfi �, e �' � � � W�. 6�� qNN , ,e� � , Q$ EXISTING SANiTAqY MANHOLE %%�i%��%��%% /�� o i.i I� .^.�/ `p� E%ISTINC STORM HRNHOLE � ! �1��/�/,�/ 1 � —� Ilp_ � � / ~ \• � � � �'O � �� E%ISTING STORM PIPE ' � ielae. — — — MMaN I _ / — � I rR `\ .�� ;'' \ `�, \ b C � — � � �/ J / � EXISnNG STORM CRATE I � I � � p~ — � � n � % .�-` E%ISTING YARD �RAIN / I ' I � • I � �'I y" '� \`y \ ` ^� �yT��ar�� l� {! E%�STUG PEDESTR�M� LICHT I � U � i: � { ��.. \ \� e ^, �y �`_ V'9y �oram uunn � f(j EXISPNGUTIUttPOLE I �.�I�1 P 1 u \ � � �V �`` � ��n00� j � �( E%ISTINCUGHTPoLE I � I ' . ; II v 11. \ �� ``�'� �—��, + � � �� I ; � px. E%ISTING TREE � I Z ; i 1 �� R�.� ` O �� PROPpSED HCV STORN PiGE 1 •, � � I � i� o �= e�+ \ V ��p 'L(3, yMµy � � I / � PROPDSEO STORN MANHOLE �.} ,�,� � I � I � 1b Y. � / u PROPOSED iURED END SECTION � �I I 'd^' � , � \ � � ` \� , � ^�(' ,�� Q PROPOSED NITERED END SECTION I^ I �. � `I \ ^ ' �p. rwLLrfBriellRwm w�r�c�enoMNM I � � � — I- I � o PROPOSED fUOT ttPE C GRATE INLET I I yf -^— � . { � � °" �'^� � � � '°, � � 4 � 1 '� ; PROPOSED FDOT TYFE 4 CURB INLET � / — I � I � � rpp�� / `\\ ��.J >, Q• \` I / f PROPOSED HIGH POINT ( � (z =) "I �I �J\1 q�,epy� • \X � � f J d� e� o ^� o� � �, � $HEET LLOW OIRECTION '— I .+ ��. �I i �` �/+�'� o � � \ \�� / �\ I ~ SWALE DIREClION . `� �N� Y� L /`b HpRD SURiAtE iLOW DIRECTION — I _ I I \ \ �1p�a if •...\ ° Y \� \ \\\i ;.0 1 I�IAl00IN�,IMQ�iJ L ♦ VAVEMENT MANKING ARROW w r. _ I .' .:,:I � ^��,, \ \ - r' �R',e y� � Yey \' aun�o � \ � �I �� PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT ASSENBLY -- I. ' J I '""` � w+ �pq o �' � K '�'mc PROPOSED fIRE UEPARTMENT CONNECTION �, el .'.' i � � I IT a i R�, o I PROPOSED WATER 4AIN I • .•� I .... 3 i ��„pnoa�, J \ ' xm�mv"ruu o� 4t __—� n I\� o. � r� PROPOSED GnTE VALVE ......`. ��7�/� //. J�. ..I � \\ w� .a �� • I� [ �'W � � � 0 PROPOSE� SANITARY NRNHOLE .....'. � � ��L�✓/L��c.L//� � �IwwMGe o "\_ . ..._ ., i \ �� 4 � / n .-..�� L �� J J �_'_`___y ...._ ._. .Jy F e,� W CHECI(SVRLVE AS EMBLYDETECTOR r ' •+ • n / p o I g PROPOSED WRTER METER k �' J L----=� `"°'� ^ � � " °°^°�"� t�• � a a • : er�rs.' c iw.w• �•) �. �' — —�— #._,� -�e?' — s eri.•zr—^ _ — — — — —�— — — — — — = d o / nw'(n-n .�� _ _ — °'3ap.�' �� 5 B 1056 E i)0.5] (�r �' tB'4s; E/ t3a,S�5'(Pj � POTABLE SERViCE — � � ��' ••n• — — --� — � 433 RESIDENT PARKING SPACES � �_�___�__�_—n�-----� _� SFF9e.duix�4FUqUMittUAUEU� . PROPOSEDSANITRRYSERNCE �� rc� �� : � 51� �'� •�� % 6 CLUBHOUSE PARKING N1TH CLEANWT ' 439 TOTAL PARKING (11 HC SPACES) __ V fiy�� °�..�� P E.�AE�w0. ac�u►N c�ouP oF �ot�n, Nc. E��THE BRIDGE @ ARBOR SHORELINE APARTMENTS �� W.. m."K _. __ -- ,� �;�as C4 .� w"' P"" e"°^ F` 3"°' PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN � mm�b� � �� .,�+�oo.. �.__..r.___. _ .. ,"\ �� I � NOT INCLUDED � � /'' 4q's r` -" ��. � e 's ■ �:. � � � �•1 �I� '�1 � IB;:I�I ��Jl �� t�� `p�{;��t�, \'� �� .. � �° ' � :iri, :��Q � % � � � � !/; _>;:, !�� ._�'+� ti��_ �.- ::._ � ,,,` � U o s , �J�, i� i� �\�� u,�' '--- : .�� ' - '�`� - c �", i I I 'a�a�0 B' \ ~ eae��\ R . _�. �... �S ) ! ! y i Y��€� � �' �`�� a,/ P:R ' ��.� -t ^� .. � s$� i � i ' � . ..._.��..._ A 6� � . O � �►'. � /,/ 4 _ t+s �.. \i gg�� : � ;P _ �. � ; � `I r, �4 � 1 i �ZV . �.. � ; _ ,; ^ � J PP R� 1 �- ' < s � I � } . i � ' ._ �y ✓ � —^_ 1 ,.�� 6 `,Jf � �?1 .� Y�+ i �� ^PPP \ / \ ��`J� J 6 � ./=Y ,.s.-� 6 _ � , �. ,' � � , . '� l�- � � � � / a�� : � � �p`�y �` �.5 (C / / d � � � Il 1 `', � � � � :,� � �` ��i% � ' ' � \V��l .: J~ PP� % ; �� J �( - \ f`ti9 d' / WW\�'�� : I / !44 .. � � �"`\� < /- � q� :aa y+�� i � � �'��•. lr .PP4 4 `Q �`�� I`; � _ ' _.� ,-_ ` t. ..� �` , . �.. J ° � � � � � __��. ��ELi ,`.� " ` i +a� e � .r„! � r:!�; � � C ` �� " � i'? . � ,-� : .. Q �•, .�.. ...� ... -��'" � �/ ` v, � � � Be '` Q�'°ss°s �ae� _ 4 --_- .:.-.p�, P € � ' 99i t99 p�y� / 44 444 444 ��p= �\ V, { � 44 �i _ �, q 4 L' muwrr �B'�.-.�..._ � ^ � � � € �I��g��"� - _ .. _ � � � � � � � �� € � � � � � �� s � . �� i�l '��i' .. _ �I i �I tr_i� � ss ✓ � ° ��: �.. I '. _ �' �' "� - -.� , .` ;`� - ��:� : �,, I� � � s �� !�' � ��A$ �� e� p g� ° � s �� ;�� m �� €�� :�� m� �� o � . ,� s $ � . ��=�� . ;; � � �o � �: �� 0 r '-+ O O CODE L.ANDSCAPE PLANS �� THE BRIDGES AT ARBOR SHORELINE AP:iRTMENTS ?. � 1� � � °s L t r - CIeaN�ater, FL DIX.HITE - - „ o � o IObff li "Y'r'0 wFd �o.5I0f »n�s •a�ua�y.trtwxm! V"'K i!b •�ul 'c�iao� jo dnoip uemq��g ayl SiN3W1.2Ndtl 3NI19�IOHS NOflNV 1V S3J4121fl 3H sa3Nixva• 91IH'XI4: � __ 1 ' �� — _.. } �:,.,. — »e9� ie.�ou�ay Nuc a.�es aaiy SNt�"Id �dd�SQNt�I 3Q0� 6 a aE��EE��E$$�EEE$$��g�EEE��E��eEE��€€€�EE��€�EE��g$$��E��F�€��E��€�d�EEE�€�€� .szaasaxaa::=ssxx:a¢a:azzt:s.a:axa:..e�s=asasaxa:.=.xaaxa:a.asszs:=s.:=axaax:.x:.a¢x.s:aa.xaas..ss=a a..<..........e.....mm��.�m..,.m�_.mm�mmmmmm�,..,�,_mmm,.�..�m�mmm..,.mr_..m.,,..,m..��,.,.mmm,.m_.�m..,mm.,.,m....m....,.,�... =°oSa�'�e.a:a9q�asas„�.a�sa�aasmaa9a�9aa.°.aJABRRa.�SSR9��7=y��ss:s.°:9Sa..��.....aAa"��^.RZ��:tlaRm.°.��SA��maaS... EE �E EEE '"E€�� - ye`��a9��$ c°e `°� es ""oo 00 ;o:S FF? �oo; ••� -= -`�� : _ „ o�� ==��s:o=- g ` o o �3-ooa�o 0 o=yoao na�e _oo ,a ..o. °eo ��•: o = s=" ` S 6_66 �-='s'as'as�� =`a°s - aasa ° =_�o-'ao = as`a'a"a° - �`a�� J� aasa ss��sssaa$��€:ss�'=:5s: :35a,i� ��b4;;�=r�e.rr ;�; ;5� ��,"=6, ' 'e'; ;�Y��3�;;x:°=;; - -- 9��9�]�.�' S>>9 .� �3� i� 3 5999 :'� �2�-�A2�--��gS3� c-�i� p_- ___E- -__ E E�--__E a %a% aasaEa`a`s&s= ea s �xa. --=-o�'=eaaaz;��,., __ "se� ,PSapga�xxa---'as� .a�z ��- eeooeos�p ''a� o __ ,¢en=z-_ __'__q �s___ " `iaa `___'.,.___�___ s�z_ _ " ��@e�� - -"_,��@�€eS�. a5£&&, -ziiE�e¢"- ---'#�-;"a�ze e�s?:2'r=`z; __ �ee_ §is?er=ee ;��`_zeeszz --- $eeee��2�;pzeee::" �3e: -- oa; Y9� L53 z 3a�3; , `g ,ee ��,>>.sseSiB a� i°zaa3 ��R<;:�3��§��¥�5$�$a�53€��SQO��`aaa��3aa�aa�aaaa�ae�aaa��a��a�.��aaa��ea�saaoa��a�aaa� « eaaa � a �Y..°,zs:,.,..r<...,...Y,z�:��..:s��>.,...Ys3s:.,......,.,...�5:,...,....,.Ys:>.:a°..°5�s"se...�°s�5:.,.,.. a�m,.m.,......mm.,.�..,.�mmmmm.,..�r,.mmr�mm...�m�m�,m�m......�mm.,.,�m.......��,,.,.�.,..mm.,mmm.._�,mmm„mmm�m_..m a"�ms�......39sP.�°.7tJ$97a'�°p..o.e�pq.y-9:°-aR�9p��_.�.��p�e....°.Rr_99p�p:..RR.....,.«�mmmr�.��nn3p°�Stl�oo�ti9 �saa a's; :0000�aa aoo'so:o a ` ; :e3e;= :000` =goo aaaa� o- o= - -=�=�"s_; oao o-�a-- 'a-aa;°° ^"so _ ^a'a° ^a^� --- --"sa'� ea aaa"aa•a• �:-:r��°:-! ;°s>;�C `` s�s°C� ;;° r;Cx; aa>;; ` E;;;!;;� °��°>;>>;- >;>>;od�; $a�3�� 33�5�'>>- 3�'99.�'��-�9�5 J� :�9 5 » » �'.�° » 9'a'��5 -�]�33999� � »'�'33' s3� � _ a�s_ ----�23�"s;---_-'�agiS.'-- __-_-_" - _.S.-��i66SS:_?=-_' '_fi:Sfi6SSfia��£SS_ _F ?e _ 'm�: e2mec___-e�;E�je;§ee2`=i;fi�`i:"2= _ __ z�ii'eee�i�ie��`3:;.z= ___B=a2ec ��e?Peeggj�e S�?�3��?��dP�a��a��?�?a��F��$:5�?��PPaaa��P�P��55@��iizSi��z�55PaP��z3�,°.,a� baeoo��a�a�a��a"aaa�aooQa"aaa��a��a��aao��aa�aaaaeooaa�aaaoaoaaaa"a�aaeaaea��o��o�oaaaeaa � ��a��8oa��8888bb8da88�ba�oA�8o8a88�A�8oa8b88��o8o8888bbo8o8888�az�aaAb38bbobbbbooabbb��8eao .,...Y.k,...k.........xe�x:':=�s,�x:�'....:ss`:dY��z.x:,:°,...........u.<x,.�zd..:s'�:s:,.,.,.x. m�.mmm...n.m�mm�,r�mm ..............................,.,,mm��,T.m�,.mmmm.,.,..Tm�..,��mmm�mmm.�. ommm......m.��ae.....e�,.rmm....00.... 9 ��::A.°..m�a:mmm.......N�M��93%9tl�........�5�.....�......m..,...,...39.°..�r.'9I i��3�^ 3 „m n EEEq c�?�EE�E E EEEE n * � E � yl ��-�:-�?�m:^3a�a:3^"a<<<as.<<d ��<< ; a�°�:��:<< ;s��aaa= a��'aaoa�aa='s"s's��'s�aaa"aa=', adse:aesa°s�ae��a"��a�e�aa°aa"3:3�a.�aa"a��a�aaaa�aa��o��>>�>>33-��°�a>>�s��3��c» ��;3�=�I "s;i�i3"s"s�= �� : _i€s��3::&�"s eo �� g`� � o "s, ?z_saze%%a's= 3�ee°e`a= si"s='e'e_'ssg a`s=°�"s�iz=",zi;: z,;:: osi�zz�0�=---:�;:�� :��b��4�S��gT=��te`��_�`��€=o��ee��€��3��r��aees�e��E�sfiS€�g�e-E€ss°�s"s��i�! e eeeee e�,e ee e= y = > � ga3�qmaE' '�^ �� "'�c�o��z§h�as�-zz@"��a��s ZP@@@��`¢.@$@@@?:; ��aaSaaapaz�, FF'� =C�� et NKm �p� a�- a° gxrx5. � oo $ e�o� o`o �o o'd ��9�� d.o�z:83esod x"s'x�&,z��s3is"�a��d��xm&z�z's 3 e�� a�s`�a`a�a��a ,, e� �o ��e dd B .,.,��,,,,,,vdassSBaabo„sM�M�..�is$s�„Mb>.��xxN��S4'ab88b88000�or8bb$�e�8aoe�aabbbobbb88 � �p ¢ NOT INCLUDED � �q�� e��€ � �� g a a�a 4 � aA# I � R33 I � . 1 t ~I . 1 �I �. • i � � � � -, �: �✓ _ ... , 1. i: ;: ._ iC -�_ .G. ;_.� , f, ... �� . w . .;_. . , .: .i . . � i I � li EI }' � • � ` , � l --.. i� r, , � � _.... .� Q � Q � "`l\' ` , j ' . . . , , . . � �--� __. , . . ,. . �. , , , • �,< J . . . - • L - '" - , e ; _..... I .... � `J � .�� I � ' 'a ° I �` '�..... � •�� Q.-- °� � - I � i � �� (� �` �� L�_� �;°�', ,� � �,� � . _. �' � �' r �., � _ �� , . /\�/j��Co � � � ,, � �� z � � .� �� qg � ��- ��- � {') (..J} � . & V �,t, "C/ � V ��,�Y�y, � � � � � �_�'-�� 4 �pPl - ' 1� `J %/ � � ' /\ � �`i �'— �i �ll [ I �� I� � 4'�% �'�� I . . • ' � \ i/�/ � �� t ' � �' ,:.,. , i ��. , 5 i � a,�, � i � — � � � � ° � � � � � � ��_� r� I_ �� ° �`�j ,� �� - , - , t, ' �o � � � � - � �� I � �� , , - ,, -� I� . , � z.� i6�� - �i � � �t, I � , ;, < . �) ' p�.�: j. QI:C;� _,; Q';� /'�.,� ;, - � � 1 - � - o� � �� ,�� ' �� _ � � i1 _t� ._.. �' _ ' � -•� .� \; �1 � i - • „ , ., � ' � 1 � : ��i t� � , � ,,, j ; �_: _ / �i ,� " ; A __ °� �� = j -- �� e O . , . � ;; :.. R �� ._ ��8 � �� o I _.. �' y.; 3 C_I I 1� I i I� _ ' � ._ � . . , � Q • ` ��__ - -_ I • . ' : � � �' ° m ` -- - ' � ; �� '0+, . � �K ; : � ; �' - , � � .� � � - � . g . � � ,,t � , _ , i �� ( � C .�. �� \ 9 9 . I 1 I�, �a�i� � � �33 r �� , M I I� I . . - �d��'.� � ,�r( l ,�� O 0 f�� i , u -- � �j $ 7 .. , � / �+l��a��3 * `� �-`� `� .�� - — , � � � � r �•.r i �� I i`, � ' .C,�e...Ji �� 1 �..� . z� i � y \ ., J : � � �� % 9 � �re�. �` �' �• � � 1 - � ti � �' � i 3 � �� .: � ,_.� �� , , , .._��.., o �� \ �t i � m� �''� ' ��` ��r ` � � i��,� � ,� � , � ` � B \.`- ti I ��t (� 8 � � �i� o p�� '��'f �.�� °.., �' � � ' � �' �-� J �� ' -� ` � i � �'l� � �� °';� � _ �. �, 1 � '�7�' `I! 6 � , � � � �' � � ,5: . ,. , . ., . � �� _ . . � . _____- o � � -- c�� . . �� - -: �� . � • m�..�,.�, __.... a -- � �1 j ��a �1 � $�a �1 �6 $�a _. ❑ o � o�o o �: � � �� :� � �� :� � �� :�� '0g��i��s��=� __. � � � � �� .� .� � e� �� 8 4�;� � � � � i � i � � �' � � �� ' I I � � � �� a�� '�� 44 �� '�� t � �� a �Y � !n a 7 g 7 n � �� i� � �� A m � � � � ° �, � � � � mo �� 4 0 � CODE IANDSCAPE PIANS I�'_ � THE BRIDGES AT ARBOR SHORELINE APARTMENTS �� P: r r �.— Clearw�ater, FL �"'' 3 DIX.HITfi N � \ o � 3 . O� • PA R T N E AS The Ridiman Group of Florida, Inc. e^ LandscapeCodePlan ,o„�„ooa�.o.�o. a�tso��a�.m�n�a.<�,��,s�aa,ota+.,�eilms..�t.Ft.s3wt ' TIPICAL TREE PL4MING CR093 9ECTION- N.T.S. 0 w�xrwvrrorxcw c.. � �,,,y wcxura lOPlOLMQPYL �00111011V1PW1Wl�M1 Iu �wp e�RlU — �' � GMO! � c, � � s •0011101NLrOFTOP90LL 14 .� C AILRAtlIItiUl�B .I ZYy ... � f W,pACI�&ROWiOE T'PICAL SHRUB PL4NTING CR09S SELTION- N.T.S. T'PICAL PALM PLAMING CROS65ECTION-N.T.S. , A B l�u1E A BfYiUBBANDOPOl11000VER8/IUA�EBIfTO8IRM0iR �IIil2 &41LL BElRMN0NM.8PACm W HOWB rNUUaronmemuo�rteoce B ewi{J�MOOawtnCOV619AO.ura+rroqlRVEn �ow auu ee vuNreo w nww ruwia ro� cu�ma� eunv�momroeevemernovrxa�on TYPICAL SHRUB LAYOUT .Theerla esWaarorPlentust � l/1ND5CAPENOTES �uro ° � axmicianor�w�mrocwaanu��owartesaerrommxnoewma�.wexo�woN nffiumacrseerasrwnaa nerxuaeamcn.resanmrvn�ax�w . cr¢oem , �un.wrwamw.awuoenam�nw �x,w�a�miomMCUmmrtxum�r � iauoea�xoarumrnoa .. uw�.w�+ en.vb� a.u�oex� a uinaxremewuua¢onmmwm�rura�vw�.�uan��nwuwu�vteaoleeeoux a�R�. <a.�roeH� wnm4 i ., we.Mm ..e .� n.s a< . ' � coxm�eiaaexw.wanuaomwo�mn�rwenrowaruumx 0. NLPIAp189WL1�EEf8QE44RM8(I1N0lPIC�lORCPIUl10110./�tlYW166�LIlOf MvY��M++Me �8 �5 � aa SV 5�6�Ip,nelh SabalP4m � 21Y. AW� mbaxrp .na wrt�nu � . u�q.m.a�wro.c..�e.�u�n. ' ea FIt Trwa�unllakxx FMtluk��Oro� �a is Fe(uauriN�m MnnpMCLm a H9 we Itis[ � .... . e.... B Hw/abtl ... Dxa1 uibextly .... . . . . . . . ... �N � � �Nuev e� untbme n e� m�mroero� • m z.�..w�. c�ix . s� uW�, wxon.e,nwew�• >�aou L W� IJr.��%CI� a� G�' ti. " � . 1 4 � E w.� �ti� TREE BARRICAOE DETAIL PIAN - N.T.S. menaloerv�1••uo�cwn umM�.mn.n.w+Qan�...,u<a3a�ni�e.,i �mbN 41y. �ncn�� 4.Mi� w `G'�w��"i'�yi,� �• �r.� • A WNINiG10RB1W1BBKdPOWBLFlD�C9VETElIIDYJP6MGflECI'BNPIIOV/16NLPUN�� uramuomminrwiawmanrowsrwumra nwwrwieauw varwmrwoxrowmar �a�rmoox.aoxmw oRris�xauain.�ro �mai'wmomewieau�rnewm�.weiaa�cc�s �rumnecaxrnwione wrt�E@FWE ). NLBIFIWOBWIlfiRAM�I.t/lMIDT�ibYl�0WE0M0E WNIPILIORlINLLBH �saa� sm mavm wwr �tm w vtxrs eax a oONmAClp1&wLPaiO1WDOLRaIMOPlawllomlBlmFlpx9loGlTBIIRBMmRE1rtBf�lVeNm rHOSea.wnyroonesvaMao�ionua xnmmnr-�rwaotiiumn�wmoneaacwm ONMRJLI.RQl1El41a lFEllEI/JIDlI'/iRMCqFlGl10�D WRtlORPYWNlION� a. mHmrmaaawuee�mrvee�eronweaa�oraavanoew�u�emicrrone IIPPNUJN. W i![L1l�GPl�IIfIYIFI:I. f0. I�i�IOlPE�iGl101D fOR110OIIIO�UL P�.Ol16 11. WNIPNC1011lMYLdRYRIINfPPI�fORNLlYII!!6 12 8qL&WLKFPE!'RONL�lImf9fMIDW�8IMICIIONDBNA ,a. � �°wwr�i�wv�i'��ma,mrw,w.awnma tA WNIIVF1ON11WLN1Pl�ANl1�MA�11Vli1RMmPl1MPON11qliORRSYlAR CRIIP�LICII BII�L. R/il@ �II.IRFEB F I�EGlY 116 AIOBOwTIXL 1R PIUOIllO� QIflY111fi8..TlElll�l0l1¢l11�l11/lLIY1VLPR01611V211�!! B�PNLILL 10. WlOY'MECONIW110Rb14Lrt�POMSY19RTm1OW11TNR0ASNOY1MNIrtW. THEpMNill�plTERNRIH!l9hEdLYYA0U0E1011@01MStNOU lf� NEIlIOBlW NA wACxaHxmc�acrmcx�wmw�maxawie��nroeo aWwm�. n. w�a.emaiuwiinocw�uw�hnwsrm�iar,�canwterbenwart.w�xwwuu � eE�nounmorasa�corrtaxcor+rwcrmrsrwunaxm�uar�oortioxumwm4�uww�s � wuancauoo-amacriuwmwunrc. mm�w�onnw��m�xoewnw.wr,vmv+u.naonro y, o¢rvar. m�n m wnea w�maa an xu�r vurta � oa�mw�ana�wi.m�axwcronwwmwmw�autHwn�xnxowwreaaxs.nnw � � o�+4mxmNC�onpxvueuw�roumam.curEr.wwu�maxamiu¢rraoarow�aaaeons. rt a�wn ee eaauoxrro��rm+mx wammuµoeurc�rrsr�aa �iuricriora 10. WIIIPACIORlIWL�MIIm�RIIBlMfITRfHlIAOIRIDMNAAPEA!@IE11WLLlC4O4NIGI�MID FMMl10MB�B 811016DlTClID/JIDGPPWmIOTIlTMlYIWNOW.IVKl11YMNlORIIRIN wmwimxr�oie��wuwno�noxerenv ruxroaEmovmmwmieaw�uwoecAVaw,wa TREE PRESERVATiON NOTE3: � mme�rv�awnamw�wrucmw�a�auu�mmsmamwon�uumxan � aae�emuenoxicnvrtm�om�mworon¢wuonwa: t.t. �ronm�,mrn�x�wuwv�srear�usrwmavxvaawm�xorw�wua�m� tz �rw� nw�nrewuoawaav�uPnm�mw�mewmmmwao�ncauetma �s �raaa�miTMxsaas�wuaunarear�uanm�rw�ezimac co i,si �roar� xx�xMnumwav�ammw��m�arum. x �ww�ne�ioaemramM:r�uewwiwsnrxiwo«cxuneaawewrwns. UPPpMPOSIBN1El0lEATlFIMf fpMfEE! W IBIOIM WIIMA W/IIN W QEi00fANGIOR� NONWlID wa�reasrsr�eo�:anoum. urwoNrras�ewurornw��r�n�wramuasvowarsr MMR. 1101@WlM144DM610lCONM�CI�11lIl01lDIHlTIW OIENOIlYFOUIliQILUQIIMD E!¢qM6YATTMJ�101141UY�11E11Y1U011lMO8�. MWMWIYOEY9ORB?MFCIpI YUBlAPPR02AM'VMM1pN fAONTE�lWCRVlIpf]�IIL > WIIFNEVQ1�N10164TVFWC�11lRNA�.RPNLLIONNNVLlUlILNLW111WICIIWIICIMIYI� TFIWIMl91. ll@AIW 11RIW MYIO�IIMflIWLRBNNIlplIN�lYMIY�CIIVIIYGMW Wl1RIMIGIIOtL t4�lIVPOR01R1000I61111AlIOBIt10PYVNClINIOXlJ�1�101YIIIWl1lMIWOIBBIIIIl PBNM1MOYm10Uf WMIIUICIICIL FIIOIICPIAM�lFis WYtHPbW�PRTMNO WRTHI WME�■ OCfM�RtOMM WIKIXRYCEIlIORIBIf WOpOPLVpt PUIN! V�ilIm10Y�V1111111R WMBR W T6EOOROPMIqI W1YlI�Wmp6Y8YYVAML VDOMN{eqlMlOi0012p1lY0116IMTpI� .anboe. � 4 Mp1110Tl9RIIWCPIiMPLWP�N101[L'l1VlMMm1.NLNwNE/M90NW18WLTMeNa1 oaws ax�u eE nanvm rnau nE ua� ro aE e�anem n nE sua�a uo as� e�iw as n� � uw�xowkxraeu�awr�m«u�ces.nio,oun,pwmm��mccm��w.w mm�enr. ciaw�i+e. eo� mevie. an cnrwmwnox wmw.a exu� ee w� wmw aa ' PMIECIMMIU�% e ua�ua�sox�otw.o�+ra�.x�newmma�twioxumma�wcnax�cmm�vn�xor . OCam.OlWlrtnElb�W MMAWBrcYInLMOfVBnVIQe1NLLMO�1�19iEPRO1ECINFfl1MB1lAs OI1�YI9EPEWIED6(lPLIIONb1mM�lIpNPIG M1pINLMlNLLlEC9ldAlmATTEPoNI01� . MFI6NCG4lNG�NOVBlPAlIUCImO�d1011PJ11M18M1WMFlqVm9YTiCOM1WT'OE�80PIBR f.001MN100. MPRO'Im�M1BLLV88WILRATTA41�101NOlCl1lY1WOINtl1UMIXN1lPOSIR WNOXI ' P0918AWLlBWOEOPWOODqlO11QM!/J18W161YL/i1411W�9Y11EC0U,�MY06V0AP1BlI WOImM�N0.l�TIFMIOIRMLIROMIWIfNOIOMY/�C�MOqA6TMNlOfHfMML NOIOA ' OPI�GpAlIMLL!/� IfA@OlDIl1YPMO1BLl�lI1GlICCpWMYOlV60PI�R4R�YMIPITWL , WI�l1EfYL�L0E16WYYq10NMNlf�IDC�11�11611EPPOfECENHB�W�1. � a xowxe.uanworw.o�s.womaaon��n�a�mnswumionwwua�n�a�ro�wr . mmec�mmesanr raurwwnom�mn�meer�nxexuem.xowe�.rmwixe vno�oemara ' r. �riumo-a.owcuedwueer�wrornortarmanrxrommraarmffemmr:m�siwe , eamaaumxmrem�raio��rneruu�rrowcx�. 1 I I � � � � G � j �- 5 ti �% 1 G E � � i � w O � ) ' �'�" y D � � � V u ) a F +`' � U F � � U . Y • %� � ' F3 � � ] � �� X N y a �'_' III n�� z .-! P-i W a � Q � W Q � U .=1 G G F Q L2.00 MELLMI.WFlI-0EVEtCPmRCOi9Y5ip15AUD&V1LBEfNFEOfMeE+SE.WOiWECr Edis,EdOSOEx c4WEx1 �� °�;"E°.��oa ��'�sro �. sM4� mv.xv.Ga¢oox� 1 IIEmIi9IBILmio x. IttIIXEUxNFA911Y .. oesixeo�r En� o soomieumx vwo �o._�:�uixiwM or eox e. wmwn ov rraneus v.u. ru� �+u�iwesno" , ..Ma.�, �w�o `�M�s�;,'��'�«" «"�� e.turi�6¢ivnuo.w'�n uu�xa�viwiK�eeler &uuru�wimMiMen��ln�. noqmxucamm ixeorvxut Fwq ax�o[ u� uxpxwe urewa a;EmNGOFMxm. xutETlEVUUI9NLLRE9�iox�vREVMEOXOLEBO�u9uCxM4iilEROOnKE m � z � � � �� ¢ _t W i rX z o -� j � u a w �" p ao Z o � N � V � a � � � � U � � ¢ u E �. Y ¢ � £ w �"' � Q p W x Q-� �y -" `Il� I = � _ ,�,J''x a, I Q - � � � U Q � �l O U O a � WEST ELfIATION �, _ k��a' A . • i --- , ; _ --- I... �� P� �—�� ', i .I� " — ' - � i� — r au ■� u r� m �'� "� -. a� ao �-� r , � �I A �.,� ��o �� n �e�_i �tt e9 � �, . " �ri e I�u` � r,E,, ,� Ir al ,, �_° �nsTE��vanon SOUfH ELEVATION __ BUILDING 1- ELEVATIONS NYOR�F1fVATION SCALE:1116" =1'-0" (24 x 36 SHEEI� � i i� ' J -`z;�Ff�- .1J IJI i8 �I _. 9� J '_ �w'�.. I L m. THE BRIDGE RESIDENCES ��"°""°M"""�S�p"`"`"5""`"'��,,`P THE RICHMAN GROUP OF FLORIDA HunnPHe�rs & PARTNERS ARCHITECTS L.P. TAOartangemanlsEepiGedherem ANii�ctwalmn[eptualsluµa�areMrkaz�biiAypuryose � eretl�es�epropeMolHumphreys orM.RensqnsmaY��duelohrMerinveslgaUmfmn � � � � BPaMersArthdects,LPanamay reyulalwyauNan�esanJbuiNmgccUeanalysn.0ime�rsions � . s��n.er�Reaesi ��o!as.rxl5��?72�7oI�967G19n17a�-9675 notberepiadu�edinam�lam shuvmareofas6alegicinlenlonlY.FleferlosurveysandtirB 05130/2014 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA � - � HPA#2014087 . "' ' `. ".'mrt'`.'. �'°m°''re".�" .wilMMutpsvmllenpeimtamn drrxngslor�niwlinlqmatrona�dmea5uremenB. . . . . �ALLt�St�E';��00.iBEACH�1_V70RLERt,509L41GOSAtlP.101 t0TT50ALE5EAiiLEtXENNA1011BAIlA0N1E1ME0 EASiELEVAiION_ __ NORiH ELEVAiION . _ . . . � .�, ,_ _..... _ .. . . . ... . . . . .. . . .. . . .... . . . .....----,_�._.. . . . . _ .. . _..... .. . ._. BUILDING 3- ELEVATIONS W��AT�� 5� EQEVA770N SCALE:1116" =1'•0" (24 x 36 SHEET) � THE BRIDGE RESIDENCES .,r �� : . �"JIdLyHUMPNREYSlBARiNERS�RCNttECTS,W THE°�RICHMAN GROUP OF FLORIDA. � � HuMPHR�rs&PARTNERSARCHITECTSL.P. Theartannemen,sdepicle9here�n A¢AI�UO�Imnce�IwlsAepla�sarelerlemhluypumo;e aieRea�Irprqk�lyolNumfhrevs oilyRevswnsmayoxNtl�em�uM1no�ime�lgalnnlmm _-ynq,niRO�,iJ 1�lPf/�"as,t%�5;.1iv/1j70L96i6�912�70I�9c9Y � SPaMCrsWChilttisLPanJmay mgulaaryao'�nn;:esai�dUwqngaACerdlysis. Um:nscrs � � � � " � � �.� � � �� - nmberepmCUcedinanplurm s�vmmeclaslralegci�le�lorty. RefnlosuneysaNrnil 0711012014 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA ��- HPA#?014087 `� �° °,�'."rt"�`"a� �r�RC�itlswn^enpern�syon d�awinqslorle Anicil rinrcr�.al.r.nanCmeasummcnls �5LLH5 I�_Y�PORI BEA_h ncw )�+ Eat:S OaL41 UJ SsI; W+t 0 J SCO1t50hLE SEFTiLE CNENNFI OUBA� IAONiEVI�EO THE BRIDGE RESIDENCES 8iC1<hpNUMPHBfYSlBGRTNERSRRCHRECTS,�P . THE RICHMAN:�ROUP�OF FLORIDA �- �- � HuMPHR�rs&PaRrNEesARCHITECTSL.P. TlreananpemenlsdepiMeiherem AchdecW�lwnce�l�alslepin�sarelcrlea,Clyp�r��,e . . . arelhesoleP�7e�YOIHom�l�re�s aiy ReerswnsmayaxmNem[cn�nrroeslpalonhom . .�.�yuf�R�,ms ��0o�^a:.�,5&7'n7i�oter,7nl`x,�lrol-�6?0 BPaMCisnrchiNcls,LPanJmay rt�ulaUryanhon4esaWbuil9�ngttOCanalys�s.Dimcnsans � � � � - ,�� i y�_�nimi ��n;.h�i��,u�n notbere0�uadinanylarn sAOxnaieclasualegKimznlon'y.AeleiWSUnepsan0[rvil 07110I2014 -� CLEARWATER;Fl�ORIDA�� HPA#2014087� . �ti��,5��:,�,��x�sEa�.��ES��N��_ER�.SOP�F�,o�.�,�:��,o� �or�5��,�E:EFn�E�MF�,�:��o�B��it�,�oE� x+NamilswnCenpem�svan dravnn9slorlechnic�lnlomaucnmdmeasummcnls. . � � . . � � -. � � F � � �': ��"� M� � � �y . v `� : . . �'�.'�'� . :. .5+1. � :��. w� ��z 4 �. � f: � �*�±r 9 n�' . -;a,� � f�.�,�� r 'a`;, , � ,� �"«��i � . � � r �� w� yp " �� .,�'. . �- �{ � � �: - aa h��i� � � � ,4`� §k j � �° � ' ,�,A�a7 � :� � -c'' � � �� 1 IF� � ; . �� a A #' �i- �� ... ��.}' -� � , fi�Ri1�?�`. . C" � _ ,�',�,� ,;�, �� ' ��'f �� • � j�� . . .�Fa.9d�6 ., ;# , "0+� � ¢ , � � �,�� .. �;. ; � . � , �� z� � � �� . �, p � � � �S � ?�' �t�' r , x.s �' �g�`� �� :. �' C� .'"��, ,:�'� � ,�, a ,. � ..�i r . . � . s...,. � � w� � .a x 6 ri � �. ,.... ,. • "� .�,� � .�� +N � f{...,., . _. ..... � g.S ,� � � ,` ��°�°~ !� �.".`C°'� i m +`�:��` .. ! i t �� . Y � � t.�Y� �y,�.� �� 3 �� THE "BRIDGE" AT ARBOR SHORELINE APARTMENTS PARKING ASSESSMENT According to the City of Clearwater Community Development Code attached dwellings (apartments) are required to have parking at a ratio of 2 spaces per dwelling unit. As such, this 236 unit apartment complex would require 472 parking spaces to meet code. The existing office buildings located on the 6.75 acre western Parcel require 3 parking spaces/ 1000 square feet. As such, the required parking for the 81,353 square feet of office is 244 spaces required by code. Total code required parking is 716 spaces (244 for existing remaining office + 472 for the apartments). The site currently contains 835 parking spaces many of which are unused. Redevelopment of the property would reduce the impervious surface by removing many of the existing parking spaces and constructing parking that is actually necessary. The western 6.75 acres contains 255 parking spaces thereby meeting code requirements for the 81,353 square feet of office to remain. The eastern 15.77 acres, will include 439 parking spaces for the 236 units which is a ratio of 1.83 spaces/unit. Total parking provided is 694 spaces (97% of the code requirement). Richman Group has found that the apartment complexes do not typically generate the need for 2 spaces/unit. The number of bedrooms is an accurate predictor of necessary parking spaces. This ratio usually falls in the 1-1.05 spaces per bedroom range. In this case the Arbor Shoreline Apartments will be developed as follows: 78 (1BR units) = 78 bedrooms 139 (2BR units) = 278 bedrooms 19 (3BR units) = 57 bedrooms 236 total units = 413 total bedrooms The provided 439 apartment parking spaces is a ratio of 1.06 spaces per bedroom. By comparison the Amalfi apartment complex on Hampton Road in Clearwater contains 108 units, 214 bedrooms and provides 216 total spaces, a ratio of 1.01 spaces per bedroom. Richman Group has also used this calculation method for the Gateway Apartments in Pinellas Park, where a parking variance was granted based on 1.06 spaces/bedroom for a 432 unit apartment complex containing 728 bedrooms and 770 spaces. (770 spaces / 728 bedrooms = 1.06) The on-site parking spaces are adequate to satisfy the calculated demand and justifies the flexibility to standard code requirements for attached dwellings. THE "BRIDGE" AT ARBOR SHORELINE APARTMENTS TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT Redevelopment of this property would provide for a 236 unit apartment complex. The project will be developed with apartments and will also include a clubhouse for use by the residents. The apartments will replace 136,979 square feet of office space that currently exists on the 15.77 acres near Old Tampa Bay. Using average weekday trip generation rates from Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Tr�i Generation. 9th Edition would be appropriate. Attached are excerpts from ITE Trip Generation, gtn Edition, Land Use Code 220 (Apartments) and Land Sue Code 710 (General Office) and the average trip generation rates are as follows: Apartments = 6.65 daily trips/unit, 0.51 AM peak hour trips/unit, 0.62 PM peak hour trips/unit Office = 11.02/1,000 SF 1.56 AM peak hour trip/1,000 SF, 1.49 PM peak hour trips/1,000 SF The proposed apartment complex would generate 1,569 daily trips, of which 120 would occur during the AM peak hour and 146 would occur during the PM peak hour. By contrast the 136,979 SF of office space being removed would generate 1,510 daily trips of which 214 would occur during the AM peak hour and 204 would occur during the PM peak hour. The trip generation of the proposed redevelopment as apartments would be lower than the existing development during the peak hours therefore a detailed traffic analysis is not necessary. The redevelopment would reduce traffic generation from the site on a peak hour basis. Ij ,V Apartment (220) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units � On a: Weekday � -� Number of Studies: 88 Avg. Nu`Pnber of Dwelling Units: 210 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates 6.65 1.27 - 12.50 Data Plot and Equation �,000 6��0� 5,000 N � ' C W Q ~ 4,000 a� v t � N � 3,000 > Q 11 H 2,000 1,000 0 0 Standard Deviation 3.07 "'"' ._""""' """'" """._ ..."".'"""". """"'" ""'". "'""iY�'"' . , , , X , � . , , , ' , , X X:' , , , , . , , , X. , X , , � ------ =------ ------- I-X-X-�i(/ X -X-------i -------; ------; ------; ----- X ; ; X � X , ; . , , ----- -- ----- --X-- ------ ---- --- ---- ----- ----- ; -X--r - - i -, . - . -.- -_ � � , . . X, , , X . , . . , , X , , , , , , , . ; X X , . , , . : , ;X �X : , , : , . , ----�'- XX; ------ ,------- ,--------- ------ - ------ - ------- ----- , ----- X' �X � ; ; ; : ; ' ; ; X X; ; ; ; ; ; : ; , X , , , . , , . , X X, X , , , , , , . , 100 200 300 400 500 600 X= Number of Dwelling Units %< Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: T= 6.06(X) + 123.56 700 800 900 1000 ------ Average Rate R2 = 0.87 Trip Generation, 9th Edition • Institute of Transportation Engineers 333 Apartment � (220) � Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Number of Studies: 78 Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 235 Directional Distribution: 20% entering,,.80% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation �� . . ' 0.51 0.10 - 1.02 0.73 Data Plot and Equation y � C w a H N U L N i � � � > Q 11 H �oo 600 500 400 300 200 100 ; : : : ; ; : ; , X . . . , X , � . . , , ---- � -----� ----- -x-----�------ � --- -------�------ � ----- �------ �----- : : ; ; : ; X : ; : : : ; : X : : ; : : ; ---- � ---•- � X----� - � '�---- Xr ---- � ----- - ----- - ----- � ----- , ---- , . x x , � . . , , , . � >kX x x � X ; ; ; : ; ; ; ---- � -x-X --x--�----- � -?�X-- � ---- � ----- � ----- � --�-- � ----- � ---- X , : ; ; : : : . , X: X . . , . . , , , X XX . , , . . . , . , X � , . , . , , � �' , , 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 X= Number of Dwelling Units X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve • � Fitted Curve Equation: T- 0.49(X) + 3.73 334 Trip Generation, 9th Edition • Institute of Transportation Engineers .+ 700 800 900 1000 1100 ------ Average Rate R2 = 0.83 � '� Apartment (220) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units '� On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, � One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. .� °r` Number of Studies: 90 Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 233 Directional Distribution: 65% entering, 35% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates 0.62 0.10 - 1.64 Data Plot and Equation � 'a c W a F- � U :� N � N � � N Q n � �oo soo 500 400 300 zoo 100 Standard Deviation ; : : ; ; ; ; ; : ;� ---- - ----- - ----- - ----- - ----- - -----, ----- . -----;ir��- --, ----- , ---- ; ; ; ; X : : ; : : ; ; X � : X � ��, , : ; , � -' ' - - • -' - - - - � - - - - - • - - -' - �- - - - - - - - - - � - X- - - - • -' - - - � - - - - - • -' -' - • - - - - : : . x X � ; : ; : ; : : : ;X � , X : ; , ; : ----- , -----,---X-- - 'X-X .-----� ---- . -----,------ ------- - ----- - '--- ; X � ,X , X X, . , . , , � X�X � � . . , , , , , , ' X � , X . , , , , . ----�-Y,K- '�X'-X-- r ----- - - ----------- - ----- - ----- - ---'-- , ------,------ .. ,�X; X : ; : ; ; ; ; : �.�X; X : X X; XX ; 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 X= Number of Dwelling Units X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: T= 0.55(X) + 17.65 700 800 900 1000 1100 ------ Average Rate R2 = 0.77 Trip Generation, 9th Edition • Institute of Transportation Engineers 335 t, General Office Building (710) Average Vehicie Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area � . On a: Weekday � �;` Number of Studies: 79 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 197 Directional Dis�ribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate Range of Rates 11.03 3.58 - 28.80 Data Plot and Equation y � c W a F- m U L N � � rn c� N > Q II H 15,000 14,000 13,000 12,000 11,000 10,000 9,000 $,�0� 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 0 Standard Deviation 6.15 100 200 3D0 400 500 600 700 800 X= 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.76 Ln(X) + 3.68 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 ------ Average Rate R2 - 0.81 Trip Generation, 9th Edition � Institute of Transportation Engineers 1259 General Office Building (710) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: On a: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Weekday, A.M. Peak Hour Number of Studies: 218 Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 222 ,Directional Distribution: 88% entering, 12% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Average Rate . Range of Rates 1.56 0.60 - 5.98 Data Plot and Equation a,000 3,000 � � c W a F- a� U L j 2�� N > Q II H 1,000 Standard Deviation 1.40 , . ,, : ; .' ; ; ,, . , ,, , , ,. , , , : ' �' ----------------------------------------- ----- -�'-------------------------- , . , ; ,�� : X . ; , ,� . ; �� ; i """""""""""' _' ; "" 'r _ ""_' _ • """ ; """" X """" _ _ _' �X . i�. . i� � � X X , ,�SC , --------- x --- �/ ---� ----- --------------- �-------•---------------- X X'�� - X- - , X..�.' ' �� %�� . c..:: �� , �,; �: s� : %' '`'�%. ` �� i 0 X Actual Data Paints 1000 , X= 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.80 Ln(X) + 1.57 Fitted Curve ' �, 1260 Trip Generation, 9th Edition • Institute of Transportation Engineers . ,+ ; y, 2000 3000 -----� Average Rate R2 - 0.83 Generai Office Buiiding (710} Average Vehicle Tr.�p Ends vs: On a: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Weekday, P.M. Peak Hour "� Number of Studies: 236 � Average 1000 Sq. Feet GFA: 215 Directional Distribution: 17% entering, 83% exiting Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Floor Area Averaae Rate Range of Rates 1.49 0.49 - 6.39 Standard Deviation 1.37 Trip Generation, 9th Edition • Institute of Transportation Engineers 1261 STORMWATER NARRATIVE For THE BRIDGE AT ARBOR SHORELINE APARTMENTS The proposed project consists of redeveloping the easternmost 15.77 acres of the Arbor Office Center, located in Pinellas County in the City of Clearwater, with a 236-unit apartment complex. This portion of the Arbor Office Center is currently developed with 4 office buildings, associated parking, walkways, utilities and stormwater management system. The Center was originally constructed before SWFWMD regulation implementation but has since been modified and permitted through SWFWMD under ERP #20143. Note that in August of 2005 ERP modification 20143.001 was approved which was to consist of the construction of additional office buildings, a parking garage and upgrades to the existing stormwater management system. The additional buildings and parking garage were never constructed but the stormwater improvements were completed and transferred to operation on October 24, 2012 (see attached). Additionally, in September of 2012 ERP #20143.002 was approved for the construction of an additional 103 parking spaces on the west portion of the center to serve the existing Lincare office buildings. Currently stormwater runoff from the entire site is collected and eventually routed to a dry pond located along the eastern boundary of the site adjacent to Old Tampa Bay. There is a filter drain system installed within the berm of this pond which provides water quality for the entire project. Re-grading of this pond and berm, installation of the filter drain and construction of a concrete overflow weir were completed in 2012 as part of the SWFWMD ERP modification #20143.001 which was previously mentioned in this narrative. Stormwater runoff from this site discharges into Old Tampa Bay or WBID #1625 which has been designated by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) as impaired with dissolved oxygen and nutrients. Per FS 373.414(1)(b)(3) and BOR 3.3.1.4, projects that discharge to impaired receiving waters must demonstrate that post- development pollutant loading is equal to or less than pre-development. This will be accomplished on this project as a result of removing paved driving surfaces and reducing the total impervious surface area on the site. As shown on the proposed site plans, this project will reduce the total impervious surface area by 0.71 acres which will not only reduce pollutant loading but will also reduce the peak runoff rate from the site. Therefore, no additional stormwater attenuation or treatment will be required as part of this project. ��ST F J� �'r G �� o�� m LL � r��'1cEME�a� An Equal Opportunity Employer Southwest Florida 2379 Broad Street, Brooksville, Florida 346046899 I�ater Management District �352) 796-7211 or 1-800-423-1476 (FL only) „�.� ,. TDD only: 1-800-231-6103 (FL only) �_.��,. �. �� , ,�„�s_�,�.�'�-� On the Internet at WaterMatters.org Bartow Service Office Sarasota Service Office Tampa Service Offlce 170 Century Boulevard 6750 Fruitville Road 7601 Highway 301 North Bartow, Florida 33830-7700 Sarasota, Florida 34240-9711 Tampa, Florida 33637�759 (863) 534-1448 or (941) 377-3722 or (813) 985-7481 or 1-800-492-7862 (FL only) 1-8043243503 (FL only) 1-80a836-0797 (FL only) October 24, 2012 Kevin M. Showe Golden Shoreline Limited Partnership 19321-C U.S. Highway 19 North Clearwater, FL 33764 Subject: Transfer to Operation Phase Project Name: Arbor Shoreline Permit No.: 44020143.001 Compliance No.: 360685 County: Pinellas Dear Mr. Showe: The request to transfer the subject permit to the operation phase has been approved. District staff have reviewed the as-built drawings, inspected the project and determined that the surface water management system was in compliance at the time of our inspection. The District reserves the right to inspect the project in the future to ensure continued compliance with state law and District rules. The subject permit contains conditions requiring periodic inspection and maintenance. The inspections are required every 18 months. The inspection results must be reported to the District on the enclosed form entitled "Statement of Inspection for Proper Operation and Maintenance." Please refer to the enclosed permit to determine the inspection schedule and when this form should be filed. As outlined in Subsection 40D-4.351(1)(a), "A Permittee shall notify the District within 30 days of any sale, conveyance or any other transfer for a permitted surface water management system or the real property at which the system is located. " For your convenience, we have enclosed a"Notification and Request for Transfer of Environmental Resource Permit" form to submit for transferring the permit. If you have questions, please contact Samir O. Chehab, P.E. at the Tampa Service Office. Sincerely, Michelle K. Hopkins, P.E. Bureau Chief Environmental Resource Permit Bureau Regulation Division SOC:kIs Enclosures: Executed Statement of Completion form, As-built Drawings, Copy of Permit, Notification and Request for Transfer of Environmental Resource Permit form cc: File of Record Edward Mazur, Jr., P.E., Florida Design Consultants, Inc. ,.� ,,��:� ROBERSON RESOURCE GR4UP, LL� ' Landscape Architectural Design & Consulting Memorandum To: Robert Pergolizzi, AICP, PTP From: Patrick Roberson, RLA, ISA Date: 04/19/14 Re: Arbor Shoreline — Existing Tree Inventory 04/14 A site visit was conducted on April 16, 2014 to review the highly visible, general conditions of the existing trees at the Arbor Shoreline site, in Clearwater, Florida. The existing trees were reviewed and rated utilizing the required criteria of the City of Clearwater's rating system. This system rates the trees on a scale from 1 to 6, with 1 being dead or in decline and 6 being a specimen tree in excellent condition. This review was conducted by Patrick Roberson of Roberson Resource Group, LLC who is an ISA Certified Arborist (# FL-1O51A) and Florida Registered Landscape Architect (# LA0001461). In general, there were 305 trees on site in mostly good to fair condition (Average rating of 3). Most of the trees were Live Oak (Quercus virginiana) with some Laurel Oak (Quercus laurifolia), Red Bay (Persea borbonia), Pignut Hickory (Carya glabra), Camphor Tree (Cinnamomum camphora), Queen Palm (Syagrus romanzoffiana), Washingtonia Palm (Washingtonia robusta), a few Sabal Palm (Sabal Palmetto), a few Southern Magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), a few Red Maple (Acer rubrum), a few Water Oak (Quercus nigra) and a Canary Island Date Palm (Phoenix canariensis). The Live Oak tended to be in fair condition (rating 3) with minor issues of canopy die back, root system impacts generally due to the site parking areas and some minor structural issues with branching or trunk structures. Any Live Oaks classified as poor (rating 2) tended to have cracks or large splits in the trunk/larger branches, area of rot from broken branches in the canopy that had not healed properly or mistletoe present in the canopy. The Laurel Oak, Camphor and Pignut Hickory tended to be split between good (rating 3) and those classified as poor (rating 2). The poor rated trees tended to have more issues with areas of rot in the trunk and branches, presence of fungi and dead wood in the canopy. The poor rated Live Oak and Laurel Oak were generally the larger and older trees. The Red Maples tended to be in poor condition (rating 2) due to overall poor structure and rot. The palms (Sabal, Queen, Washingtonia and Date Palm) tended to be in good condition, mainly due to being installed within the last year. Attached is the summary of the existing tree ratings and a full size (22"x34") plan of the Existing Tree Inventory (Sheets ET1 & ET2) with that contains the information within the summary in plan form with the corresponding tree numbers. Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information. 3152 Little Rd., #125, Trinity, Florida 34655 Phone:727-255-4258 Email:Info@R}tGonline.net Fforida License No. - LC26000267 Arbor Shoreline Existing Tree Inventory 04/14 Data Summary Tree Diameter at General Condition Number Tree Type Genus / Species Breast Height Rating 1 Pignut Hickory Carya glabra 8 3 2 Pignut Hickory Carya glabra 11 2 3 Pignut Hickory Carya glabra 9 3 4 Pignut Hickory Carya glabra 8 3 5 Pignut Hickory Carya glabra 12 3 6 Pignut Hickory Carya glabra 10 3 7 Pignut Hickory Carya glabra 11 3 8 Camphor Cinnamomum camphora 9, 7 2 9 Pignut Hickory Carya glabra 12 3 10 Pignut Hickory Carya glabra 16 2 11 Pignut Hickory Carya glabra 14 3 12 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 30 2 13 Red Bay Persea borbonia 7 2 14 Red Bay Persea borbonia 7 2 15 Red Bay Persea borbonia 9 2 16 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 18 3 17 Red Bay Persea borbonia 9 2 18 Red Bay Persea borbonia 10 3 19 Red Bay Persea borbonia 9 3 20 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 15 3 21 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 18 3 22 Red Bay Persea borbonia 6 2 23 Red Bay Persea borbonia 7 2 24 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 22 3 25 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 27 3 26 Queen Palm Syagrus romanzoffiana 8 4 27 Queen Palm Syagrus romanzoffiana 8 4 28 Queen Palm Syagrus romanzoffiana 10 4 29 Queen Palm Syagrus romanzoffiana 10 4 30 Queen Palm Syagrus romanzoffiana 8 4 31 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 26 2 32 Queen Palm Syagrus romanzoffiana 9 4 33 Queen Palm Syagrus romanzoffiana 11 4 34 Queen Palm Syagrus romanzoffiana 11 4 35 Queen Palm Syagrus romanzoffiana 11 4 36 Washingtonia Palm Washingtonia robusta 14 4 37 Washingtonia Palm Washingtonia robusta 14 4 38 Washingtonia Palm Washingtonia robusta 14 4 39 Queen Palm Syagrus romanzoffiana 10 4 40 Queen Palm Syagrus romanzoffiana 12 4 41 Sabal Palm Sabal palmetto 11 4 42 Queen Palm Syagrus romanzoffiana 11 4 43 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 24 3 Page 1 of 7 Arbor Shoreline Existing Tree Inventory 04/14 Data Summarv Tree Diameter at General Condition Number Tree Type Genus / Species Breast Height Rating 44 Date Palm Phoenix canariensis 14 4 45 Queen Palm Syagrus romanzoffiana 11 4 46 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 22 3 47 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 24 3 48 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 18 3 49 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 23 2 50 Queen Palm Syagrus romanzoffiana 8 4 51 Queen Palm Syagrus romanzoffiana 11 4 52 Queen Palm Syagrus romanzoffiana 11 4 53 Queen Palm Syagrus romanzoffiana 11 4 54 Queen Palm Syagrus romanzoffiana 8 4 55 Queen Palm Syagrus romanzoffiana 8 4 56 Queen Palm Syagrus romanzoffiana 10 4 57 Queen Palm Syagrus romanzoffiana 11 4 58 Queen Palm Syagrus romanzoffiana 12 4 59 Queen Palm Syagrus romanzoffiana 10 4 60 Queen Palm Syagrus romanzoffiana 9 4 61 Red Maple Acer rubrum 15 2 62 Washingtonia Palm Washingtonia robusta 16 4 63 Washingtonia Palm Washingtonia robusta 13 4 64 Washingtonia Palm Washingtonia robusta 16 4 65 Washingtonia Palm Washingtonia robusta 15 4 66 Washingtonia Palm Washingtonia robusta 15 4 67 Washingtonia Palm Washingtonia robusta 18 4 68 Queen Palm Syagrus romanzoffiana 10 4 69 Queen Palm Syagrus romanzoffiana 12 4 70 Queen Palm Syagrus romanzoffiana 9 4 71 Queen Palm Syagrus romanzoffiana 10 4 72 Queen Palm Syagrus romanzoffiana 10 4 73 Queen Palm Syagrus romanzoffiana 14 4 74 Queen Palm Syagrus romanzoffiana 10 4 75 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 22, 17 3 76 Magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 5 4 77 Magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 5 4 78 Magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 5 4 79 Magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 4 4 80 Camphor Cinnamomum camphora 18, 11, 11 3 81 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 37 3 82 Camphor Cinnamomum camphora 9 2 83 Pignut Hickory Carya glabra 15 3 84 Pignut Hickory Carya glabra 10 2 85 Pignut Hickory Carya glabra 17 2 86 Pignut Hickory Carya glabra 15 3 87 Pignut Hickory Carya glabra 9 2 Page 2 of 7 Arbor Shoreline Existing Tree Inventory 04/14 Data Summary Tree Diameter at General Condition Number Tree Type Genus / Species Breast Height Rating 88 Pignut Hickory Carya glabra 17, 9, 8 3 89 Pignut Hickory Carya glabra 14 2 90 Pignut Hickory Carya glabra 8, 8 2 91 Pignut Hickory Carya glabra 11 3 92 Camphor Cinnamomum camphora 14,12 2 93 Pignut Hickory Carya glabra 18 3 94 Pignut Hickory Carya glabra 9 3 95 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 36 3 96 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 18 3 97 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 19 3 98 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 18 3 99 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 19 2 100 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 14 2 101 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 34 3 102 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 14 3 103 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 15 3 104 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 12 3 105 Pignut Hickory Carya glabra 17 2 106 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 12 3 107 Pignut Hickory Carya glabra 14 3 108 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 18 3 109 Sabal Palm Sabal palmetto 10 3 110 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 16 3 111 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 18 3 112 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 18 2 113 Water Oak Quercus nigra 10 3 114 Water Oak Quercus nigra 15 3 115 Pignut Hickory Carya glabra 15 2 116 Camphor Cinnamomum camphora 13 3 117 Camphor Cinnamomum camphora 11, 10 3 118 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 12 2 119 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 12 3 120 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 14 3 121 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 18 2 122 Camphor Cinnamomum camphora 8, 8 2 123 Camphor Cinnamomum camphora 13 3 124 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 24 3 125 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 14 2 126 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 11 3 127 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 22 2 128 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 24 3 129 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 14 3 130 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 18 3 131 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 14 4 Page 3 of 7 Arbor Shoreline Existing Tree Inventory 04/14 Data Summarv Tree Diameter at General Condition Number Tree Type Genus / Species Breast Height Rating 132 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 22 3 133 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 24 4 134 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 15 3 135 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 16 3 136 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 18 3 137 Pignut Hickory Carya glabra 13, 13 2 138 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 18 3 139 Camphor Cinnamomum camphora 14 3 140 Camphor Cinnamomum camphora 12 3 141 Camphor Cinnamomum camphora 15 3 142 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 35 3 143 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 48 3 144 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 24 2 145 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 30 2 146 Camphor Cinnamomum camphora 12 3 147 Pignut Hickory Carya glabra 8 3 148 Pignut Hickory Carya glabra 15 3 149 Pignut Hickory Carya glabra 15, 10 3 150 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 40 3 151 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 8 3 152 Water Oak Quercus nigra 14 2 153 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 15 3 154 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 11, 16 3 155 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 11 3 156 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 14 3 157 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 18 2 158 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 20 3 159 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 19 2 160 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 15 2 161 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 28 2 162 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 15 3 163 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 11 3 164 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 18, 12 2 165 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 16 3 166 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 18 3 167 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 18 3 168 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 14 2 169 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 14 2 170 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 27 3 171 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 30 3 172 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 14 2 173 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 19 3 174 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 19 2 175 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 24 2 Page 4 of 7 Arbor Shoreline Existing Tree Inventory 04/14 Data Summarv Tree Diameter at General Condition Number Tree Type Genus / Species Breast Height Rating 176 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 11 3 177 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 11 3 178 Chinaberry Exotic 13, 12 2 179 Laurel Oak 4uercus laurifolia 15 3 180 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 10 3 181 Chinaberry Exotic 11 2 182 Chinaberry Exotic 15 2 183 Pignut Hickory Carya glabra 8 3 184 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 23 3 185 Water Oak Quercus nigra 14 2 186 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 14 2 187 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 18 3 188 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 14 3 189 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 22 2 190 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 23 3 191 Live Oak 4uercus virginiana 25 3 192 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 23 3 193 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 24 3 194 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 15 2 195 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 22 2 196 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 26 2 197 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 30 3 198 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 19 2 199 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 42 3 200 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 11 3 201 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 26 3 202 Pignut Hickory Carya glabra 19 3 203 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 22 3 204 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 18 3 205 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 9 3 206 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 6 2 207 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 17 2 208 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 27 3 209 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 18 3 210 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 22 2 211 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 31 3 212 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 22 2 213 Laurel Oak Quercus (aurifolia 25 2 214 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 25 3 215 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 27 3 216 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 22 3 217 Live Oak 4uercus virginiana 23 3 218 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 15 3 219 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 14 2 Page 5 of 7 Arbor Shoreline Existing Tree Inventory 04/14 Data Summary Tree Diameter at General Condition Number Tree Type Genus / Species Breast Height Rating 220 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 18, 15 3 221 Live Oak 4uercus virginiana 16 3 222 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 13 3 223 Pignut Hickory Carya glabra 30 2 224 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 11 2 225 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 15 2 226 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 15, 12, 10 3 227 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 20 3 228 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 12 2 229 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 14 3 230 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 12 3 231 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 11 3 232 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 13 2 233 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 12 3 234 Sabal Palm Sabal palmetto 12 4 235 Sabal Palm Sabal palmetto 14 4 236 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 4 4 237 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 4 4 238 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 4 4 239 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 4 4 240 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 19 3 241 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 24 2 242 Pignut Hickory Carya glabra 24 3 243 Pignut Hickory Carya glabra 18 3 244 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 20 3 245 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 25 3 246 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 12 2 247 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 19 3 248 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 15 2 249 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 20 2 250 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 24 3 251 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 24 3 252 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 15 3 253 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 16 3 254 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 12 3 255 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 22 3 256 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 12 3 257 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 30 3 258 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 33 3 259 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 25 2 260 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 25 3 261 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 19 2 262 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 4 4 263 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 18, 8 3 Page 6 of 7 Arbor Shoreline Existing Tree Inventory 04/14 Data Summary Tree Diameter at General Condition Number Tree Type Genus / Species Breast Height Rating 264 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 28 2 265 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 4 4 266 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 30 2 267 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 24 36 268 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 11, 5 3 269 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 19, 13 2 270 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 17 2 271 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 18 2 272 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 17 3 273 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 26 2 274 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 10 2 275 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 12 3 276 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 24, 24, 22 2 277 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 24 3 278 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 8 3 279 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 5, 11, 11 3 280 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 8 3 281 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 8 3 282 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 27 3 283 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 24 2 284 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 12 3 285 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 13 3 286 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 7 2 287 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 18 4 288 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 10 3 289 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 8 3 290 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 7 3 291 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 12 3 292 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 10 3 293 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 15 3 294 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 14 3 295 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 12 3 296 Pignut Hickory Carya glabra 15, 13, 12 3 297 Pignut Hickory Carya glabra 8 3 298 Pignut Hickory Carya glabra 8 3 299 Pignut Hickory Carya glabra 11 3 300 Red Maple Acer rubrum 12 2 301 Red Maple Acer rubrum 12 2 302 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 14 3 303 Laurel Oak Quercus laurifolia 20 3 304 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 19 3 305 Live Oak Quercus virginiana 19 2 Page 7 of 7 � � � MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET ET2 �,,,a . �-^r.mmw r,.. s oeN ok s�rva ya8�rn. cw�aman rseuna n.. bw 26� o� �_1�. w1mn. � b„��u fvulirp Caroq '�Tnss sFO�n N �p , nal �Iwwn on s ry CC Coryo 9�� - Hicxwy PB Perxo EerEerva - Retl Bay a ow2.. w.ri�mo - �i m. w owR�...v��o�o -i:w ow ON Ou�rcu wqrv - Wol�� Ook SP SaE�ol WNUt�o �� Sa� 1� Oa4nolm Acw v - RN N CC Gnmmomwn LmpMrv�'� CampMr WP Syoqrn romon Iicw - Ouasn Poim Wos��nqlo� Ouele - igtaiq Ptlm NC Moqno4o pmn0�liom - SauNrm 4apmlio x cnMee.m - wr� (w now�.m.�i �a�o-.e) Roberson �.w,,..� M„ �ARBOR SHORELINE � Resource ��M:,� w�.�EOa.� THE Croup,LLC _ �amno�E�a��a:�er��e.��. EXISTING TREE INVENTORY RICHMAN GROUP Lendacepe pmM1ileclunl DevOn 8 Con¢ullinB � """' 04/14 an s. a�m., �-le�al�5 Clearvn Y ^�..��e30f Florida �1 Paim 9eac , R 33a0� ` ,:.� : �,�..��.,.... : ". �.. a M 'a". �°'��'�.:; �.m"w. � A w u �. �..... .. w �.. � :.m;t.� P.,.. e..,�, ww-�.� ��...,,.,.e..,.�n ......,.,+b d y �......,...�...,... n........ ��.. ww> �..�w W.,.�..,ti..�.e..w��,........Mnaw,.a a:a'.wR m`d'.`..'...::.�'.e�u�.o.'. nw"'°°n.n"m°'w�..�n��i,.�' .dwm�h...� °'°�,�,w�:«',wn;��": w",:.m��.w°.::��.ua��a+na .�n.�m..�.�.. do.+ria�.ww.mw.�w.�.+c www.�.�w:.�e. meo�n eat� iw% ot IM a tnp ,wn.w�+ ^ v... cn ewea o� . nnmwAOM. em.e 1/ta. .n......neir wx.v.en .e wmw.a��p �� e M �n. e�eztlqp�M1SyaCmuenWMn�RMWM�noerpmMie �mlop�mml LeN. t1 �wit�eo DBN al {a w loqrr ��a tiw� � �en �MlutleE in IM Gislin9 Tm M�nWry. cMa�wO'Mt�awm�m MmnNn rtAWy va�.tllruMt W eruxaarpmMnM wMaeY�LLq I �n�biw wow �dbvMUn�wu.+e I 1� w Yw Y .NMY�Meew�me�newu[aYruweMyMnenulln +d�w+re am.eaer..w�..�w.dra.o-:�..�...n..e w4r+.a iw. e e+...e �.a m..mew mw....�ae.. n �... m � Wq�..ai:4�m�u u�'m��Fa4�t�tiwuiMr�� m�e'MmM�Ya�i wenM.�uwWn�a��'Ah ��dn W W�+Fw W M ��ab�ew��wP�'em. �. n�pe�a�M�+�1..o�su.�uKMw.nrm�ry.�ar�.a�s�n� tmeM1iaua�Y�owW�im�ma swl W wew.M ,na m • wi.a�w..y..p.en.eKi:.amo1:.P:�w.�0m.i� NORTH �rNWpn� �sYl� nNq�ienw�bpvmrtMm SGIEt•.�o w��:�. we�... a s ww.�.�.a p - M^�am� �EXISTINGTREE m - V INVPN�TORY _, ,.�a.�� o — w a,,,�„ ET1 J MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET ETi �o' ` .....�.-- ��--i -----T----... , � ,� p�� \ II � I ; , �. �, � II ' � e ; �, �' �=,90 � 1 � dE= a�' (�� , � � �-� �. 1 � °� ��.� � ��,, , Q � � , � o ib$° :Pa�a o:°:� I i V5 , I \ �6 ��9' I p 198 \J � ��V 1 � \ 'h'°° °.iw i��"o°.:.. \ 1 � a cw�oor-�*ro. � i � I � ��o�. � i , � , , z f � � � a � I � c oo I ��`1B � z� � aR� °t__� __-1-�• r.:.��.,o T /,c.t�r� i.x � oeH v�r s�.�.�y lag ��Tm CoMflcn Rolinq Z �_�Tras Typa umDx `�.�f Tnv�Comy�p��9 '�inee eFmn in orvqe, nol eM1O�n on e my 2 C �v pbbv — . PB P�rno Ew N�RW Bay OL Ouercua bu �N Oot w ae.��. rfqmiom —�liw OoY ON Ou�rsu� rvqm — Web� Oek PC — Dol� P � SoEOlNpolmsllo �� SoMtl Volm 1m cc cnnomo �m camp�w�a e comono. zo ren wrt wmn�' 1OTw:e�iw�e - o�.� vmm Nc Mogm9ia�grwailien - Soums o Mogwfwm NORTH z Cn��oe..n - GaK (xo ncac.mm m��e7 s�xEi -ao Robersan �,,,� ^�'° ^-•^•^ ^-r^- ^- Resource �E��',��,,,,�P„ ARBORSHORELINE THE � ,,.�� EXISTINGTREE Group,LLC �amuo�E�m�aa��eas�n��,��. EXISTING TREE INVENTORY � INVENTORY —_ ","°".'""'°Fl�s"•,°° 04114 RICHMAN GROUP m _ PIAN �anaaon� nRnnaom�i oa:�e� n co�.oume ma.-iah�mnss an s. ao��wrvnw.. swami Q _ CNarc.ate�. WeatPalmBeac�.0.liCOt 0911911d ET2 Fbritla _ H°51 CS�1^ C0v of Clearwater—Tree Invmtorv Standards 1. A tree that is dyUy, severery Eecilning, hezerdous, harborin0 a commuNce6ie dlsease or a hee tlesignatatl by me Slate of FbrWa's F�ro6c Pesl Plent Council es a cetepory #7 ecoloB��a� Pest I.e., BrarJlien pepper Vee (SChlnus fereDlnMllollus). A Vee wIN a reW8 of 7 stwul0 be renwve0 as it R beyond 7ea4nent en0 is e threal to cause persanel injury o� propertydamaga Y. A trae e#iibiting serious sbuctural tlafecls such as cotlominaM stems with include0 bark et or neer Ne bese, la1ge cavNies, lerge areas of tleceyeA waotl, aown tlle6ack, crecketl7splil scalloW brenchw, etc. In additian, e tree wiUi health ksues such es bw ene�gy, lax Iive crown retio, serbus Oisease ar insect prohlems, nutritional tleficlencles or soil pH problems. A tree wIN a retlnp of #2 slmuW ba remoosd unless tl» proDtem(s) can De freatetl. A irea wtlh a#2 wrMilion rellng WIII typ�ally raqutre e consitlere6le artwunt ol malntenance W quallfy for en upgreEe of Ne wntlllbn raUng. 3. A Iree with a�.erage sWClure end syslemic �eelf� efW wtlh proClema �he� cen he cortacted with rtrotlerete melntenence. A tree wfth e codominent stem not In the basal area Ihet wilt he subotdineled or ceblatl entl brecetl or a coCominant stem t�at wlll soon �eve IncqMeE Eark cen be IncIW ed es a#3. A Iree wlt� a rffiIrg ol p3 �ea avereBe eppeerence, cmwn tlansiry eM pva crown retb entl ahoultl be preservatl If pouiCle. 4. A tree wllh e rating of 4 hes goad sWcture end systemlc heatth wlth mirwr probtams thet ran he eesity correctetl with Mnor meintenence. The Iree shoultl heve en etlrective eppeerenCe end be Bssentlelty ffea ol any dBbllNelinO al5ee5e M InSecl pfoDlam. T�e Uea SMuld Blso have eDove evare9e Crown 40n5Ny BrM Iive crown relio. MeNre irea9 exhlbiling scers, oW wountls, smell cevities or other problams thal ere not Aebilileqng cen Ue IncluOeC in Nis grouD PaNCUlerly I! thay possess unpue torm or othar easNatic ementties relating b Ihelr ege. A free wlth a reling of 4 Is velueble to Ne property anG s�oultl be preserved 6. A tree wtth very high live crown retlo erM emeptlonsl sttucture entl systemk heeflh entl Wrtually Ree of Insed of disease proDlems a nuVitbnal deticlerwles. A trea In Ihh catepory s�oultl �ave e 6alencetl crown with encepibnel eesthe6c amenllles. A tree In this category stwuW 6e M a spacles Net possesus Chareaxkllcs Inherent lo b�avlty enC wiNSlentlinB con5tructlon impecls. A Irea wllh e#5 retlng lentls wnsiderebb velue fo ihe sNe end should Ce Incorpoiamtl into Ne site Oesign. A Vea wilh e#5 retlng Is worlhy ot signlflcent slte plen modlflce�bn W ensura Its preservetbn. 6. A specimen tree. A speclmen tree Is e Vee that possessas e combl�relbn ol superlor qualitles in regeMS to systemb heeqh, sWCturel sVenB�� tlensily, Iiw crown ratb, Mrm (balanceU crawn), overell aesNetk appeal, stre. speclas, epe e�A unquenass. A Breat effort should be me0e to preserve e speckrren Iree Inclutling shlPong sVUCWres thet woulU etiversey Impect ihe Vee. In etlAitbn, a specFren tree shouM heva an uritlisturbeU eree equel to Its tlripline (equal to Ne Dranch apreeC to grow in. Only an wWariancaU entl compelenl Intemational Society otArbMkultura (I,S.AJ Certlfie0 Arhorist should be ellowetl ro work on e specimen Vee. su� � - w NORTH Roberson ��,.� �� ARBOR SHORELINE �a p rvy MEXISTINGTREE Resource �E��+w'� EP.��: THE p - 10�0°� INVENTORY Group,LLC HamitlonEiginearinB�SUrvry�g,lnc EXISTINGTREEINVENTORY RICHMANGROUP m - SUMMARY&NOTES :�,°A 04/14 - LanCaupa ArcM1ilaclural Dec�B� 8 Lonaull�ng °�°°�e 4]] S. RosemaryPve.. Suile 301 � �- �•,>�� ClearnreGr. 04/19I19 ET3 ,�,� P,�m ��. � �,o, ...,�.. o Fbritle -'