The URL can be used to link to this page

FLD2014-08023� � le r � ��r ;� MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: CASE: REQUEST: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT October 21, 2014 E.1. FLD2014-08023 Flexible Development application to permit 357,219 square feet of manufacturing use in the Industrial/ Research and Technology (IRT) District with a lot area of 838,569 square feet, a lot width of 745.44 feet (along Calumet Street) and 329.74 feet (along Hercules Avenue), front (north) setback of 35.45 feet (to existing building six); front (north) setback of 1.14 feet (to proposed pavement), front (east) setback of 24.24 feet (to proposed pavement); front (west) setbacks zero feet (to existing access walkway), 24.36 feet (to existing buildings four and five), and 19.13 feet (to existing building six); side (north) setbacks of zero feet (to existing pavement), 15.58 feet (to existing building five), 3.49 feet (to existing pavement), 15.02 feet (to existing building seven), 19.62 feet to (existing building one), 15.36 feet (to existing building eight), six feet (to existing concrete slab), 13.55 feet (to existing building ten), 14.56 feet (to existing pavement), five feet (to proposed pavement) and zero feet (to existing pavement); side (south) setbacks of five feet (to proposed parking), 62.99 feet (to proposed building eleven); side (east) setbacks of zero feet to (existing pavement), 10.11 feet (to existing building six), 5.9 feet (to existing concrete slab), 25.46 feet (to existing building eight), 10.16 feet (to existing building ten), 24.24 feet to (proposed parking), side (west) setbacks of one foot (to proposed pavement), 23.21 feet (to proposed building eleven), 6.53 feet (to proposed parking); a building height of 41 feet; and 564 parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-1304.D.; as well as the elimination of the required shrubs in the perimeter landscape buffer to the north and west of buildings two through six, the elimination of the required perimeter landscape buffer on the east side of building six, the elimination of a portion of the required perimeter landscape buffer north of building five, the elimination of a portion of the required perimeter landscape buffer west of building seven, the elimination of the required perimeter landscape buffer east of building eight, the elimination of the required perimeter landscape buffer along the north, south and east property lines adjacent to the existing creek and drive, the elimination of the required trees along a potion of the south property line, the elimination of the required foundation plantings along the north and west building facades of buildings two through six, the elimination of the required foundation plantings along the north building facade of building six, a reduction to the required area of landscaped islands from 150 square feet to 128 square feet, a reduction to the required number of trees from 292 to 162 and increase the number of parking spaces in a row from 10 spaces to 15 spaces as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G. GENERAL DATA: Owner/Applicant……….… Agent……………………... Instrument Transformers, Inc. Kevin Bynum, Long & Associates Location………….............. 1925 Calumet Street; approximately 470 feet southwest of the corner of Calumet Street and Hercules Avenue Property Size…................. 19.25 acres Future Land Use Plans..... Industrial Limited (IL); Industrial General (IG) Zoning……………………. Industrial/ Research and Technology (IRT) District Special Area Plan.............. N/A Adjacent Zoning.... North: IRT District South: Unincorporated Pinellas County East: IRT District West: Unincorporated Pinellas County Existing Land Use............. Warehouse and Manufacturing Proposed Land Use……… Warehouse and Manufacturing Community Development Board October 21, 2014 FLD2014-08023 – Page 3 Level II Flexible Development Application Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 19.25-acre site is located on the south side of Calumet Street approximately 470 feet southwest of the corner of Calumet Street and Hercules Avenue. The site has frontage along Calumet Street of 745.44 feet and along Hercules Avenue of 329.74 feet. The site is within the Industrial, Research and Technology (IRT) District with two corresponding Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) classifications: Industrial General (IG) and Industrial Limited (IL). The site contains 11 buildings of one and two-stories totaling 230,157 square feet. Seven of the buildings are generally located along the north side of the site, three of the buildings are located generally in the southwest corner of the site with one building located generally in the southeast corner of the site. All 230,157 square feet of existing buildings are currently being used for light manufacturing and warehouse. There are 306 off-street parking spaces dispersed throughout the site. The site is accessed via Calumet Street and two direct connections to Hercules Avenue. Along the entire southern boundary of the site there exists a functioning CSX rail line. Between the rail line and the site exists a landscape buffer containing various species of mature trees and shrubs. The landscape buffer blocks the view of the property from the rail line as well as properties to the south. The subject site is located in the center of a fully developed industrial area with uses consistent with the IRT District. In the immediate vicinity are manufacturing, warehouse, indoor storage and governmental uses. The majority of the properties to the north, south and west are located in unincorporated Pinellas County. Site History: LMDR HDR I C C C T C1L��l�l Level II Flexible Develo ment lication Review FLANNING&DEVELOPMENT p �p DEVELOPMENTREVIEWDIVIS[ON . . ....+a.":.._ .. . . - . application FLD2013-04017 approved the addition of 208,149 square feet of manufacturing for the site. On July O1, 2014, annexation application ANX2014-07010 was submitted for a 1.5-acre property abutting the southwest corner of the subject property and was approved by the City Council on October 02, 2014. The property is under the same ownership and has a consistent zoning (IRT) and land use (IG) as the subject property. The proposal before the Board only differs from the 2013 approval by the addition of parking on the portion of the property annexed into the City and the removal of a building for parking at the northeast corner of the original site. Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no active Code Compliance cases for the subject property. Development Proposal: The current proposal includes a reduction to the proposed additional manufacturing use from 208,149 to 188,865 square feet as well as an increase in parking from 353 to 564 spaces. The additional manufacturing use will be broken up between two buildings. An 188,049 square foot manufacturing facility will be generally located in the middle of the site and an 816 square foot chemical storage building will be located generally in the southeast corner of the site. 61,803 square feet of existing buildings including two on the north side of the property, four on the west side of the property and one in the southeast corner of the property are to be demolished to provide room for off-street parking. Site improvements include adding landscaping along a11 property lines, along the west facade of the new manufacturing facility buildings and in the interior of the site. There are 564 off-street parking spaces proposed, including 12 handicapped spaces. As mentioned, access to the site is from Calumet Street (west) and two points of access from Hercules Avenue (east). These accesses will be maintained with the proposal. Solid waste will be provided via two dumpster located in the center of the site. The enclosure will match the exterior of the existing buildings with regard to fit, finish and materials. A signage package has not been submitted with this proposal however, any proposed sign will need to meet all applicable Sections of the CDC. Special Area Plan: None Community Development Code: Floor Area Ratio (FARL Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-1301.1, the maximum FAR for properties with a designation of IL and IG is 0.65 and 0.75, respectively. The proposal is for the expansion of manufacturing use with a total gross floor area of 357,219 square feet at a FAR of 0.43, which is below the above referenced maximums. Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR� Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-1301.1, the maximum allowable ISR within the IL and IG FLUP categories are 0.85 and 0.95, respectively. The overall proposed ISR of the site is 0.78, which is consistent with Code provisions. Community Development Board October 21, 2014 FLD2014-08023 — Page 4 ' Lll.�l ��L4� Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT P Pp DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION ' ��, �..; Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1302, Minimum Standard Development Standards, the required lot area and lot width are to be a minimum of 20,000 square feet and 200 feet, respectively. The site has a lot area of 838,569 square feet (19.25 acres) and a lot width of 745.44 feet along Calumet Street and 329.74 feet along Hercules Avenue, which is consistent with Code provisions. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1304, there are no minimum required setbacks for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to CDC Table 2- 1302, front, side and rear setbacks to primary structures for manufacturing uses are 20, 15 and 15 feet, respectively. Setbacks to parking are based upon the required landscape buffers. The proposal includes front (north) setback of 35.45 feet (to existing building six); front (north) setback of 1.14 feet (to proposed pavement), front (east) setback of 24.24 feet (to proposed pavement); front (west) setbacks zero feet (to existing access walkway), 24.36 feet (to existing buildings four and five), and 19.13 feet (to existing building six); side (north) setbacks of zero feet (to existing pavement), 15.58 feet (to existing building five), 3.49 feet (to existing pavement), 15.02 feet (to existing building seven), 19.62 feet to (existing building one), 15.36 feet (to existing building eight), six feet (to existing concrete slab), 13.55 feet (to existing building ten), 14.56 feet (to existing pavement), five feet (to proposed pavement) and zero feet (to existing pavement); side (south) setbacks of five feet (to proposed parking), 62.99 feet (to proposed building eleven); side (east) setbacks of zero feet to (existing pavement), 10.11 feet (to existing building six), 5.9 feet (to existing concrete slab), 25.46 feet (to existing building eight), 10.16 feet (to existing building ten), 24.24 feet to (proposed parking), side (west) setbacks of one foot (to proposed pavement), 23.21 feet (to proposed building eleven), 6.53 feet (to proposed parking). The proposal does not meet the minimum standards for existing sidewalks, existing pavement for parking and mechanical equipment pads and existing and proposed buildings. The setback reduction to existing conditions will eliminate non-conformities that have minimal impact on adjacent properties. In addition, the setback reductions to proposed building eleven will also have minimal impact on surrounding properties. The proposed manufacturing building eleven on the west side of the property will be viewable only from a minor portion of Calumet Street. The difference between the current proposal and the FLD2013-04017 approval is less setback flexibility requested along the east property line (formerly the site of proposed building nine). In this area, landscaping is proposed between the east property line and new parking area. Along the north, south and west property lines in the area of additional parking, a five-foot setback is shown. This setback to parking is consistent with the previously approved setback to parking along the south property line. Maximum Building Height.• Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1304, there is no maximum height for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to the aforementioned CDC Table 2-1302, the maximum allowable height for manufacturing use is 50 feet. The maximum proposed building height of 41 feet is less than the allowable height within the IRT District and is therefore consistent with the CDC. Community Development Board October 21, 2014 FLD2014-08023 — Page 5 � C�l��l ►1�L�1 Level II Flexible Develo mentA lication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT P PP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION Minimum Off-Street Parkin�: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-1304, the minimum off-street parking requirement for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project shall be determined by the Community Development Coordinator based on the specific use and/or ITE Manual standards. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to CDC Table 2-1302, the minimum required parking for manufacturing use is 1.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet. The proposal includes a total of 357,219 square feet of manufacturing use which results in the need for 536 parking spaces. The development proposal provides for 564 off-street parking spaces, which equates to 1.58/1,000 GFA. Twelve of these spaces will be handicap spaces meeting Code requirements and the parking proposed is consistent with the CDC. Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-201.D.1 and 3-903.I, all outside mechanical equipment must be screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. All proposed mechanical equipment will be screened in compliance with the above Code provisions. Sight Visibili , Trian�Zes: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the proposed driveways on Calumet Street and Hercules Avenue, 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. 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. There are existing overhead utility lines, serving this development along the right-of-way along the west side of Hercules Avenue. Due to the site configuration along Hercules Avenue consisting of three separate areas contiguous to the right-of-way separated by adjacent properties, the undergrounding of these utilities is not practicable. The proposal includes undergrounding of the utility distribution lines. Landsca.pin� Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, required perimeter buffers are based on adjacent uses and/or street types. The required landscape buffers are 15 feet (west — arterial street), 10 feet (north and east — local street), five feet (north, south, east and west — non-residential). In addition, CDC Section 3-1202.E provides that interior landscaping must be provided which is equal to or greater than 10 percent of the vehicular use area. The proposed vehicular use area is 289,600 square feet requiring 28,960 square feet of interior landscaped area. CDC Section 3-1202.E also provides that no more than 10 parking spaces may be in a row. Finally, CDC Section 3-1202.E requires that all facades facing a street must include a foundation planting area of at least five feet of depth along the entire fa�ade excluding areas necessary for ingress/egress. This proposal provides Code compliant buffer widths and landscape materials except where the existing building locations do not allow adequate space as well as the perimeter of the proposed parking on the west side of the site which does not meet the requirements of CDC Section 3- Community Development Board October 21, 2014 FLD2014-08023 — Page 6 ° Clearwater Level II Fiexible Develo ment A lication Review YLANNING & DEVELOPMENT P PP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION .. . �'Y.. . . 1202.D. The proposal does not meet the requirements of CDC Section 3-1202.E in that foundation planting shrubs along the north and west fa�ade of existing building six are not provided. Between existing building six and Calumet Street exists stormwater retention area and accent trees are proposed at the top of bank. The site, given the total perimeter distance and the amount of interior landscape area provided, requires the provision of 292 canopy trees where 162 trees (or the palm/ornamental tree equivalent thereo� are provided. The proposal includes 35,620 square feet of interior landscape space which meets the requirements of CDC Section 3-1202.E. As noted, landscape buffer widths, certain foundation planting areas and the quantity of provided canopy trees do not meet the provisions of CDC Article 3 Division 12. The applicant has mitigated these deficiencies through the provision of landscape material in excess of the minimum otherwise required by the CDC. Furthermore and as previously mentioned, a CSX rail line runs the entire length of the south property line and between the rail line and the south property line the area contains mature trees and shrubbery screening the south property line from view of abutting properties and the Hercules Avenue right-of-way. The landscape plan includes a variety of shade, ornamental and palm trees (cathedral live oak, river birch, red maple, winged elm, bald cypress, silver buttonwood, lavender crepe myrtle, cabbage and pygmy date palm), as well as shrubs and ground covers (downy jasmine, Simpson's stopper, schillings holly, parsons juniper, shell ginger, waa� myrtle, fakahatchee grass and sand cordgrass). The buffers will be planted to the maximum extent possible given existing space constraints. Solid Waste: Seven solid waste and recycle dumpsters/ containers are proposed in the center of the site that are not visible from adjacent properties or rights-of-way. SSignage: A formal signage package has not been presented at this time. Any forthcoming signage package must meet Code requirements. Community Development Board October 21, 2014 FLD2014-08023 — Page 7 � C1LN1 1'1' �L�l Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT p pP DEVEIAPMENT REVIEW DIVISION � . , . '�, .., .. ... . COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards for Manufacturing as per CDC Tables 2-1301.1 and 2-1304 (IRT District): Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Floor Area Ratio IL 0.65 0.43 X IG 0.75 Impervious Surface Ratio IL 0.85 0.78 X IG 0.95 Minimum Lot Area N/A 838,569 square feet (19.25 acres) X Minimum Lot Width N/A 600 feet along Calumet Street X Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A North: 35.45 feet to building X' 1.14 feet to pavement East: 24.24 feet to pavement X West: 19.13 feet to building X' Zero feet to pavement Side: N/A North: 15.02 to building X' Zero feet to pavement South: 62.99 feet to building X Five feet to pavement East: 10.16 feet to building X' Zero feet to pavement Rear: N/A West: 23.21 foot to building X' One feet to pavement Maximum Height N/A 41 feet X Minimum Determined by the 564 spaces X Off-Street Parking community development coordinator based on the , specific use and/or ITE Manual standards � See analysis in Staff Report Community Development Board October 21, 2014 FLD2014-08023 — Page 8 '_ vi�ti� 1't �Ll.l Level II Flexible Development Application Review ��"� w r.. � PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT 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 2-1304.D. (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project) (IRT District): 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development. 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning wouid result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off=street parking 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, visuatly interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: ❑ Changes in horizontal building planes; ❑ Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; ❑ Variety in materials, colors and textures; ❑ Distinctive fenestration patterns; ❑ Building stepbacks; and O Distinctive roofs forms. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildines. ' See analysis in Staff Report Community Development Board October 21, 2014 FLD2014-08023 — Page 9 Consistent � Inconsistent X X X X X X '��Nl 1'1'LI�L�I Level II Flexible DevelopmentApplication Review ... . .. , _ �t;,��-.. � . PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL APPLICABILITY STANDARDS: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per CDC Section 3-914.A: l. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. 5. 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 oronerties. � See analysis in Staff Report Consistent � Inconsistent X X X X X X COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM STANDARDS: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Comprehensive Landscape Program as per CDC Section 3-1202.G: 1. Architectural theme. a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall be designed as a part of the architectural theme of the principal buildings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for development; or b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape program shall be demonstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the pazcel proposed for development under the minimum landscape standards 2. Lighting. Any lighting proposed as a part of a comprehensive landscape program is automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is closed. 3. Community character. The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater. 4. Property values. The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape program will have a beneficial impact on the value of property in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. 5. Special area or scenic corridor plan. The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape program is consistent with any special area or scenic corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in which the parcel proposed for development is located. Consistent Inconsistent X� X X X NA NA SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of September 04, 2014 and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient, based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: Community Development Board October 21, 2014 FLD2014-08023 — Page 10 � Cl�.tt��t1L�1 Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT p PP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION ��.��_�: � 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 19.25 acre site is located on the south side of Calumet Street approximately 470 feet southwest of the corner of Calumet Street and Hercules Avenue; 2. That the subject property is located within the IRT District and the IL and IG Future Land Use Plan categories, respectively; 3. That the site is currently developed with 11 buildings; 4. That the proposal is to demolish 61,803 square feet of existing buildings and the construction of 188,865 square feet of manufacturing use for a total of 357,219 square feet of buildings on the site; 5. That the subject property is not located in a special plan area; 6. That the subject property has 745.44 feet of frontage along Calumet Street and 329.74 feet of frontage along Hercules Avenue; 7. That the proposal includes front (north) setback of 35.45 feet (to existing building six); frorit (north) setback of 1.14 feet (to proposed pavement), front (east) setback of 24.24 feet (to proposed pavement); front (west) setbacks zero feet (to existing access walkway), 24.36 feet (to existing buildings four and five), and 19.13 feet (to existing building six); side (north) setbacks of zero feet (to existing pavement), 15.58 feet (to existing building five), 3.49 feet (to existing pavement), 15.02 feet (to existing building seven), 19.62 feet to (existing building one), 15.36 feet (to existing building eight), six feet (to existing concrete slab), 13.55 feet (to existing building ten), 14.56 feet (to existing pavement), five feet (to proposed pavement) and zero feet (to existing pavement); side (south) setbacks of five feet (to proposed parking), 62.99 feet (to proposed building eleven); side (east) setbacks of zero feet to (existing pavement), 10.11 feet (to existing building six), 5.9 feet (to existing concrete slab), 25.46 feet ( to existing building eight), 10.16 feet (to existing building ten), 24.24 feet to (proposed parking), side (west) setbacks of one foot (to proposed pavement), 23.21 feet (to proposed building eleven), 6.53 feet (to proposed parking) and 564 paxking spaces (1.58/1,000 GFA); 8. That the proposal includes a request for the elimination of the required shrubs in the perimeter landscape buffer to the north and west of buildings two through six, the elimination of the required perimeter landscape buffer on the east side of building six, the elimination of a portion of the required perimeter landscape buffer north of building five, the elimination of a portion of the required perimeter landscape buffer west of building seven, the elimination of the required perimeter landscape buffer east of building eight, the elimination of the required perimeter landscape buffer along the north, south and east property lines adjacent to the existing creek and drive, the elimination of the required trees along a potion of the south property line, the elimination of the required foundation plantings along the north and west building facades of buildings two through six, the elimination of the required foundation plantings along the north building facade of building six, a reduction to the required area of landscaped islands from 150 square feet to 128 square feet, a reduction to the required number of trees from 292 to 162 and increase the number of parking spaces in a row from 10 spaces to 15 spaces as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G; and 9. There are no active Code Compliance cases for the subject property. Community Development Board October 21, 2014 FLD2014-08023 - Page 11 } C�eal ►ral�l Level II Flexible Develo ment lication Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT p �p DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION � Conclusions of Law The Planning and Development Department, having made the above findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law: 1. That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2-1301.1. and 2-1304, Community Development Code; 2. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility criteria as per Section 2- 1304.D., Community Development Code; 3. That the development proposal is consistent with the criteria for a Comprehensive Landscape Program as per Section 3-1202.G., Community Development Code; and 4. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level Two Approvals as per Section 3-914.A., Community Development Code. Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends APPROVAL of Flexible Development application to permit 357,219 square feet of manufacturing use in the Industrial/ Research and Technology (IRT) District with a lot area of 838,569 square feet, a lot width of 745.44 feet (along Calumet Street) and 329.74 feet (along Hercules Avenue), front (north) setback of 35.45 feet (to existing building six); front (north) setback of 1.14 feet (to proposed pavement), front (east) setback of 24.24 feet (to proposed pavement); front (west) setbacks zero feet (to existing access walkway), 24.36 feet (to existing buildings four and five), and 19.13 feet (to existing building six); side (north) setbacks of zero feet (to existing pavement), 15.58 feet (to existing building five), 3.49 feet (to existing pavement), 15.02 feet (to existing building seven), 19.62 feet to (existing building one), 15.36 feet (to existing building eight), six feet (to existing concrete slab), 13.55 feet (to existing building ten), 14.56 feet (to existing pavement), five feet (to proposed pavement) and zero feet (to existing pavement); side (south) setbacks of five feet (to proposed parking), 62.99 feet (to proposed building eleven); side (east) setbacks of zero feet to (existing pavement), 10.11 feet (to existing building six), 5.9 feet (to existing concrete slab), 25.46 feet (to existing building eight), 10.16 feet (to existing building ten), 24.24 feet to (proposed parking), side (west) setbacks of one foot (to proposed pavement), 23.21 feet (to proposed building eleven), 6.53 feet (to proposed parking); a building height of 41 feet; and 564 parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2- 1304.D.; as well as the elimination of the required shrubs in the perimeter landscape buffer to the north and west of buildings two through six, the elimination of the required perimeter landscape buffer on the east side of building six, the elimination of a portion of the required perimeter landscape buffer north of building five, the elimination of a portion of the required perimeter landscape buffer west of building seven, the elimination of the required perimeter landscape buffer east of building eight, the elimination of the required perimeter landscape buffer along the north, south and east property lines adjacent to the existing creek and drive, the elimination of the required trees along a potion of the south property line, the elimination of the required foundation plantings along the north and west building facades of buildings two through six, the elimination of the required foundation plantings along the north building facade of building six, a reduction to the required area of landscaped islands from 150 square feet to 128 square feet, a reduction to the required number of trees from 292 to 162 and increase the number of parking spaces in a row from 10 spaces to 15 spaces as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G., subject to the following conditions: Community Development Board October 21, 2014 FLD2014-08023 — Page 12 � p�� +�s 4. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT = C �.(41 1'�all.l Level II Flexible DevelopmentApplicatlon Review DavaLOrMENrxEEV¢.wDrvistox - � �,�:;� � Conditions of Approval: l. That the final design and color of the buildings be generally consistent with the elevations approved by the CDB; 2. That any/all future signage meets the requirements of Code and be designed to match the exterior materials and color of the primary building; 3. That issuance of a development permit by the City of Clearwater does not in any way create any right on the part of an applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the City for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law; 4. That all other applicable local, state and/or federal permits be obtained before commencement of the development; 5. That application for a building permit be submitted no later than October 21, 2015, unless time extensions are granted pursuant to CDC Section 4-407; 6. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the Fire Department may require the provision of a Water Study performed by a Fire Protection Engineer in order to ensure that an adequate water supply is available and to determine if any upgrades are required by the developer due to the impact of the project. The water supply must be able to support the needs of any required fire sprinkler, standpipe 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; 7. That the proposed solid waste enclosure match the existing buildings with regard to fit, finish and materials and that evidence of same be submitted to and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of any permits; 8. That prior to the issuance of any building permits the location and visibility of electric equipment (electric panels, boxes and meters) be reviewed and, if located exterior to the building where visible from any street frontage, be shown to be painted the same color as the portion of the building to which such features are attached; 9. That prior to the issuance of any permits, the correct height of proposed building eleven be shown on the architectural plans; 10. That prior to the issuance of any permits, all, Land Resources and Solid Waste conditions be met; and 1 l. That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all service lines onto the property shall be installed underground. ..._.------ Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: ew Jackson, Planner III ATTACHMENTS: Photographs Community Development Board October 21, 2014 FLD2014-08023 — Page 13 S � . r t' �r.� , ' .1 �'� - .. _ ..:..— . . . . � ��— ^`r" . - , _ ' - --` , � �.` .^ � .�..� �.,Y� . . . .�\��., � . Looking northeast at the southwest corner of the subject property. ,r ^ , : j }� � . ^j � � �J �� `�� `�' � ��ca � �' �� J � � �� k �.nA � �. `y3'...,YArv ,+,a��+.�,�++ � ...,J.. _, ... . � y " ' �:� k.;. Looking west at southeast corner of the subject property. . ,: �� --. � �, - _ �� Looking north from the southeast corner of the subject property. Looking west at entrance to the site. �'�t�" Pfn r , . �� 'r:r� ��p "'••...r. � �j.l�; . _ �,- : ._.�'`/ =\. _ Gc., _ ,...�.-.—.._ _ _ •• �,1�`��t�'t� .., - 'f j . .' '�. ___.— . - . � ~� ,�.ti•rwv......-,.,�;T,r .....�- .� . . . .,� -�� '• . '. � ` . ' --'.. -� - : :':Sr , '- : ;.�..: „ '- . . � ��_ ��" - . . _ . .. . . _.,, . ...... � rit �,. , , �.. Looking west along the south property line of the subject property. t t Looking south from the southeast corner of the subject property. 1925 Calumet Street FLD2013-04017 Page 1 of 2 � � � Looking west at north cnh-ance to subject property from Hercules Avenuc. �� r . $,.�,,. . . '.:' � �s�K''ri �" Sv°i . � . - - y� . 6"r h� *,� l,/ � 4. G� eW��'s�;�*' F*+ , r`;.,t 1.�- ,.� '� ,':`'3.r . . . _ . . '6t . _ �. . J� . . ` _. Looking south at subject property to the east and surrounding properties. �� ; " . V1! i _ � "' , `''^a � � � � _. � � ?a Looking west at subject property to the south and surrounding properties. �� ` �` � f \ * ;� � - - r � ` �' ' �'�5 - : � �� x''�; �_ i . ,�,� �.,,� z �',� i _ � ��i� � s ry ` . � � �� a.'.. � �� ' � ... . � . .. . � .. � . . ,: _. - -...... " --: =- � . _.. . ...<� , �' � ..' ..,.... .... - . .. .:. . :... ,i��. - , ':�, .. ..,—• „', 4'� � y�!_ ' . - .. ' Looking southeast at the southwest corner of the subject property. This is the portion of proper[y recently annexed into the City and the site of additional parking. 1925 Calumet Street FLD2013-04017 Page 2 of 2 Matthew Jackson 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 (727) 562-4504 matthew.iackson(�a,mvclearwater.com PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE ❑ Planner III February 2013 to present City of Clearwater, Clearwater, Florida Duties include performing the technical review and preparation of staff reports for various land development applications, the organization of data and its display in order to track information and provide status reports, and making presentations to various City Boards and Committees. ❑ Planner II City of Clearwater, Clearwater, Florida May 2011 to February 2013 October 2008 to June 2010 Regulate growth and development of the City in accordance with land resource ordinances and regulations related to community development. Landscape plan review including: conceptual, and variance. Reviews and analyzes site plans and conducts field studies to determine the integrity of development plans and their compatibility with surroundings. Interdepartmental and zoning assistance. Respond as a City representative to citizens, City officials, and businesses concerning ordinances and regulations. Make recommendations and presentations at staff level at various review committees, boards, and meetings. ❑ Planner I Calvin-Giordano and Associates, Fort Lauderdale, Florida May 2005 to December 2007 Project manager for various development applications such as plat, site plan, rezoning and variances. In-depth government agency, in-house and client coordination to ensure that the projects maintained submittal schedules stayed within budget constraints and attained approval. Schedule and lead project kick-off ineetings, ensure municipal project conditions were resolved, produce supporting documents and make site visits as well. Research and prepare due diligence reports including subject matter such as zoning, land uses, densities, available public utilities and land development costs. Member of emergency mitigation committee formed to prepare and mitigate for natural or man-made disasters affecting Calvin, Giordano and Associates and local municipalities. ❑ Manager Church Street Entertainment, Orlando, Florida September 1999 to February 2004 Supervised and managed daytime and nighttime operations of a bar and nightclub entertainment complex including 100+ staff. Conducted hiring and training operations including security and inventory control. Managed and reconciled nightly gross revenues as well as preparing and delivering deposits. Assisted in taking inventory and preparing weekly inventory orders, marketing and special events. ❑ Linguist USArmy, Fort Campbell, KY October 1991 to October 1995 Maintain fluency in the Arabic language and knowledge of customs and culture as well as military readiness for possible deployments or training operations. Co-managed intelligence gathering operation in Haiti including coordination between multiple Special Forces units and civilian authorities. Interpreter between U.S. and Egyptian soldiers during training exercises. Liaison between Special Forces battalions to coordinate certification training. EDUCATION ❑ Master of Arts, Urban and Regional Planning, Florida Atlantic University, 2007 ❑ Bachelor of Arts, Urban and Regional Planning, Rollins College, 2004 . 0 � � � ��m��rwater Ci 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 SCHEDUIED 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 COPIESj. 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): Instrument Transformers, �t1C. MAILING ADDRE55: P.O. BOX 4900 D@pt. ZO'I PHONE NUMBER: 7Z% - GH7 - 3'IZrJ Ennai�: Ray.Penkalski@ge.com AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE: Ray Penkalski nnaiuNS ao�RESS: GE Multilin Transformers, 1907 Calumet Street, FLorida 33765 PHONE NUMBER: 727 ' 6�7 - 3� 25 EMAi�: Ray.Penkalski@ge.com ADDRESS OF SUBIECT PROPERTY: � 9Z5 C8IU171@t StP@2t, FLorida 33765 PARCEL NUMBER{5}: O'I-Z9-'I5-O0000-340-'ISOO LEGAL DESCRIPTION: S@e attaCll@CI SIl@@t "Attachment A" PROPOSE� usE(s): Light industrial manufacturi DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: FOt' Clal'Itj/, the specific deviations bein requested area delineated and Specifically idenrify the requesr described on Sheet No. C2.1 on the submitted plans. (inctude all requested code flexibility; e.g., reduction in required number of porking spaces, height, setbacks, !ot size, lot width, specifit use, etc.J: Planning & Development Oepartment, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 1 of 8 Revised 01112 � � �a�r�va�er � Planning & Development Department Flexible Development Application Data Sheet PLEASE ENSURE THAT THE FOIIOWING INFORMATION IS FILLED OUT, IN ITS ENTIRETY. FAIIURE TO COMPLETE THIS FORM WILL RESUIT IN YOUR APPLICATION BEING FOUND INCOMPLETE AND POSSIBLY DEFERRED UNTIL THE FOLLOWING APPUCATION CYCLE. ZONlNG DtSTRICT: FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DE5IGNATION: I RT IG EXISTiNG USE (currently existing on site): Light industrial manufacturing PROPOSED USE (new use, if any; plus existing, if to remain): ��ght industrial manufacturing SITE AREA: 838,569 sq. ft. GROSS FIOOR AREA (total square footage of ail buildings): Existing: 230,157 sq. ft. Proposed: 357,219 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable: 628,927 sq. ft. 19.25 acres GROSS FLOOR AREA (total square footage devoted to each use, if there wili be multiple uses): First use: 357,219 sq. ft. Second use: -- 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: 27% Proposed: 43% Maximum Ailowable: 75% BUILDING COVERAGE/FOOTPRINT (ls� floor square footage of all buildings): Existing: 192,219 sq. ft. ( 22.9 % of site) Proposed: 307,617 Sq, {t, ( 36.7 / of sitej Maximum Permitted: 628,927 sq. ft. ( 75.0 % of site) 6REEN SPACE WITHIN VEHICULAR USE AREA (green space within the parking lot and interior of site; not perimeter buffer): Existing: 33,236 sq. ft. ( 4.0 % of site) Proposed: 35,620 sq. ft. ( 4.2 % of site} VEHICULAR USE AREA {parking spaces, drive aisles, loading area): Existing: 223��29 sq. ft. ( 23.4 Proposed: 289,600 sq. ft. ( 34.9 % of site} % of site) Planning 8 Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, F� 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: T27-562�865 Page 2 of 8 Revised 01/12 0 � IMP�RVlOUS SUtiFACE RA710 (total square footage of imperviaus areas divided by tt�e tota�square footage of entire site}: Exiscing: 79°10 Proposed; 7$°l0 ___.. ._..._ ___.__ Maximum F+ermitted: 95°Iv �ENSI7Y (units, rooms or beds per acre}: Existing. " Fraposed: -- Maximum Permitted: -- OFP-STREET PARKING; Existing: 306 Proposed: 564 Minimum Required: SEE RARKING STUOY BUIIDING NEIGHT: Existing: Propased: Maximum Permitted � � WHAT IS THE ESTIMA1Eb TOTAI. VALUE OF TME PROiECT UPON COMPLETtON? $ 21.5 Million 2�DNING DISTRICTS FQR ALL ADJACENY Plt+f�PERTY: North: See A#tached Map Z-1 South; See Atfached Map Z-1 East: See Attached M1Ilap Z-'C west: See Attachetl Map Z-1 STATE OF fIOR{DA, COUNTX I,�F PINELIAS I, the undersigned, acknowled�e that all Sworn to and subscribed befo�e me this .�� day af representations made in this application are true and ��y,,,'� ,`�C,��`� , to me and/or by accurate to the best of my knowledge and authorize City representatives to visit and phatograph the �^y�V ��''^� �� , who is personally icnown has prope described in this applEcation. produced as identification. r� G'�/�' �- property owner ar representative �fotary pubiic, My commission expires. � � +��' EMILY RAMEY �� MY COMMISSI4N M FPOSU763 a F.XPIRES: Juu��ry OS, 3028 Planntng 8� [?evelapment [3epatiment, 100 S. Myrtie Avenue, Giea►water, Fl 3S75fi, Tei: 727•5fi2-4567; Fax: 72?-562-d865 Rage 3 of 8 Revlsc�d Q1t12 � � ��n� Planning & Development Department c Flexible Development Application � Site Plan Submittal Package Check list IN ADDITION TO THE COMPLETED FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT (FLD) APPLICATION, ALL FLD APPLICATIONS SHALL INCIUDE A SITE PU4N SUBMITTAL PACKAGE THAT INClUDES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ANDiOR 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 shali be used to provide these responses. ❑ A signed and sealed survey of the property prepared by a registered land surveyor including the location of the property, dimensions, acreage, location of all current structures/improvements, location of all public and private easements including official records book and page numbers and street right(s)-of-way within and adjacent to the site. ❑ If the application would result in the removal or relocation of mobile home owners residing in a mobile home park as provided in F.S. § 723.083, the application must provide that information required by Section 4-202.A.5. ❑ If this application is being submitted for the purpose of a boatlift, catwalk, davit, dock, marina, pier, seawall or other si milar marine structure, then the application must provide detailed plans and specifications prepared by a Florida professional engineer, bearing the seal and signature of the engineer, except signed and sealed plans shall not be required for the repair or replacement of decking, stringers, railing, lower landings, tie piles, or the patching or reinforcing of existing piling on private and commercial docks. ❑ A site plan prepared by a professional architect, engineer or landscape architect drawn to a minimum scale of one inch equals 50 feet on a sheet size not to exceed 24 inches by 36 inches that includes the following information: ❑ Index sheet of the same size shall be included with individual sheet numbers referenced thereon. ❑ North arrow, scale, location map and date prepared. ❑ Identification of the boundaries of phases, if development is proposed to be constructed in phases. ❑ Location of the Coastal Construction Control Line {CCCL), whether the property is located within a Special Flood Hazard Area, and the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) of the property, as applicable. ❑ Location, footprint and size of all existing and proposed buildings and structures on the site. ❑ Location and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems, both on-site and off-site, with proposed points of access. ❑ Location of all existing and proposed sidewalks, curbs, water lines, sanitary sewer lines, storm drains, fire hydrants and seawalls and any proposed utility easements. ❑ location of onsite and offsite stormwater management facilities as well as a narrative describing the proposed stormwater control plan including calculations. Additional data necessary to demonstrate compliance with the City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria manual may be required at time of building construction permit. ❑ Location of solid waste collection facilities, required screening and provisions for accessibility for collection. ❑ Location of off-street loading area, if required by Section 3-1406. ❑ All adjacent rightfs)-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 01112 ❑ Typical floor plans, including floor plans for each floor of any parking garage. ❑ Demolition plan. ❑ Identification and description of watercourses, wetiands, tree masses, specimen trees, and other environmentally sensitive areas. ❑ If a deviation from the parking standards is requested that is greater than SO% (excluding those standards where the difference between the top and bottom of the range is one parking space), then a parking demand study will need to be provided. The findings of the study will be used in determining whether or not deviations to the parking standards are approved. Please see the adopted Parking Demand Study Guidelines for further information. ❑ A tree survey showing the location, DBH and species of all existing trees with a DBH of four inches or more, and identifying those trees proposed to be removed, if any. 0 A tree inventory, prepared by a certified arborist, of all trees four inches DBH or more that reflects the size, canopy, and condition of such trees may be required if deemed applicable by staff. Check with staff. ❑ A Traffic Impact Study shall be required for all proposed developments if the total generated net new trips meet one or more of the following conditions: ■ Proposal is expected to generate 100 or more new trips in any given hour (directional trips, inbound or outbound on the abutting streets) and/or 1,000 or more new trips per day; or ■ Anticipated new trip generation degrades the level of service as adopted in the City's Comprehensive Plan to unacceptable levels; or • The study area contains a segment of roadway and/or intersection with five reportable accidents within a prior twelve month period, or the segment and/or intersection exists on the City's annual list of most hazardous locations, provided by the City of Clearwater Police Department; or � The Traffic Operations Manager or their designee deems it necessary to require such assessment in the plan review process. Examples include developments that are expected to negatively impact a constrained roadway or developments with unknown trip generation andJor other unknown factors. ❑ A landscape plan shall be provided for any project where there is a new use or a change of use; or an existing use is improved or remodeled in a value of 25% or more of the valuation of the principal structure as reflected on the property appraiser's current records, or if an amendment is required to an existing approved site plan; or a parking lot requires additional landscaping pursuant to the provisions of Article 3, Division 14. The landscape plan shall include the following information, if not atherwise required in conjunction with the application for development approval: ❑ 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. ❑ 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. 0 Location of parking areas and other vehicular use areas, including parking spaces, circulation aisles, interior landscape islands and curbing. ❑ Drainage and retention areas, including swales, side slopes and bottom elevations. ❑ Delineation and dimensions of all required perimeter landscaped buffers including sight triangles, if any. Planning & Development Department, 140 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 5 of 8 Revised 01/12 � (� � ��^� Planning & Development Department � t.� �� C Flexible Develo ment A lication P pP 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, buik, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. See Attachment C 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. The develoamenf. shouid it proceed. would be in harmony with the adjacent propertv uses and zonings and does not encroach on the development ability of the surroundingproperties or Buildings The proposed buiiding meets aU a�pficabJe setbacks and coverage requirements for a property zoning IRT. The project would continue to sustain and wouid promote future growth and development resulting in an increased value of real estafe for the surroundinqproperty owners 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 development should it proceed is an expansion to an existing manufacturing faci(ity and does not change the existing character of the industrial and manufacturing neighbort►ood in which it resides. The submitted traffic study show the adjacent fransportation infrastructure is su�ficient to support the proposed expansion without reducing the leve/ of service Additionally the proposed deve%pment should it proceed will improve the appearance of the property along Calumet Street and Hercules Avenue. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. The proposed development. should it proceed. would improve localized trafiic ftow and has multiple access aoints with good access to both Calumet Street and Hercules Avenue. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The proqosed development. should it proceed, would be consistent with the community character inthe immediate vicinity and promotes growth and development This area is primarily an Industrial and Manufacturing area which is consistent with the proposed development. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. The development would minimize adverse effects since al/ manufacturing activifies witl be conta+ned within the existi� and proposed buildinas. Since the existing facility currently operates on a 24 hour rotation fhe proposed development should it proceed. would not cause an increased impact to surroundinqproperty owners Visual acoustic and olfactorv imoacts to the surroundinq properties are minimized by the unique site layout fhat confines the shipping and receivinc� acfivities to the center of the oroperty which would be surrounded by the existing and p�osed buitdings 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 � 1 r�vater ��a � Planning & Development Department Flexible Development Application Flexibilitv Criteria PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO THE APPLICABLE FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR THE SPECIFIC USE(5) BEING REQUESTED AS SET FORTH IN THE ZONING DISTRICT(5) IN WHICH THE SUBIECT PROPERTY IS IOCATED. EXPLAIN HOW, IN DETAII, EACH CRITERION IS BEING COMPLIED WITH PER THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL (USE SEPARATE SHEETS AS NECESSARY). 1 See attached sheet "Attachment B" 2, See attached sheet "Attachment B" 3. See attached sheet "Attachment B" 4. See attached sheet "Attachment B" 5, See attached sheet "Attachment B" 6, See attached sheet "Attachment B" �. See attached sheet "Attachment B" g. See attached sheet "Attachment B" 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 , �, � , , . � � 7 . :q. ..:�. :i � i �.. i i. .t , w� �..=� � � T ' *s —. • � �� ". � t � ' 3 � � � s . . � r � � � . � 1. Nrovl�te n�m�s oi aii �ro�erty vwn��s on de�d:— PRit�T fult riiam�a: �cs'�re�,��,-� '°�`�,�s-�o�w��'s�,'�t �' _ 2. That f( atYtlwe �r�) ttis� owrter4�) and re�Qrd #ltle hotder{s} of-the fc�ilow3n�. �"5'+��c �'. �'t �„`�.�,a,r�t t � � �. J� c't c �t cr �. 7#�8t thiS property �isnstit�t�stiae pr,rspexty for+�rhich a req�s�st far {desGrib� requ.est): Flexibls infill development approval 4, '�t,at.the.und�rsi�n�c! {#y�s/#►avcj appc�nt�� anr! (daesldoj a�p�o�nts 1925 Calumet Street Kevin M. B�num PE __ :____ as (hi�JtEy�irj a�,ent�;s} }n c�act�r.tste �ny p�lStia�ss crr other da�ti��n�rnts necc?ssary tq a#fQCt such �e#[tipn; 5. That tht� �{11d�vit ha:� k�ei� e3s��uted ta it��iutc the Clty of �Iearwater, �iorida to t�nsider �t�d att tir� the Above dPSC�ik�ed p1'di�!�Y�:: G. 7h�t`�sfte �+1a1tffi.tt� th� �Sr�ip�rl�y'are necessary by Gity repte5enta�lYes Ntc'att#tp' C� �k5�cess thls r�ppiientlon and xhe flvrrner authauizes Caty r��sr�serrtativ,�s #o viS�t a�td �th�to'graph th�;�ropps'�+,des�t`ibed #n this applieat�o�t; 7. Thai.(CJwCj, the undt�rsigne��u�har#tY ��r+�bY ce ifY t #�Se foregoing fs iru�+ and ctsrreci. ��' �i� � ��1-1(� �% � .�_ Prop : y �wrier _____._._.. _.__.__ ��. Prs�perty Owrrer Property t'�wner �. _ ._�_.____ _�ro�erkY ��ner �.. STA'I'�<OF FT.GtRTC1A, CQYfNTY'f�F �Ih1�SLLAS ��t�r�� t�i� ��ci��t��a, �;i� ti�F��R c�u�ir �e�r�t��sstar��t� �Y �t�t� �i,uus t�� rt�� s�'a:�-� t�� c�ra��%a, �n� �rr��s , � � c�n,� o�' . �...�...�. - - v J._ � �� i-��► , ��so��.��r a��A�� __ `' - w�► ��vi�� e�� r�u��r sv+ro�� i' SF _ A.�NDaSAti`SyTkiA3` N�lSH� I�t3k.�Y UNflERSfiAN [�S Tt-iE Ct7NTFNT� pF itiE A�Ftt?t�ViT Tl-iA"f" €��15f-E� St�NE=f�_ �'"'v KATt�.�t $C . �+�r r'Ml�a - �r at � � � ,. ' �' �� M�gir 1> Flt'f �k ' , �� ` ��t!� Nataty f�ubll� t t�re ��.�.. �►�'A�►, �.. Pt� Mp Gat�imiasi�n �xPi��s: � � �� i i � i�S�ktY}i11$ & t3t1'�1ap�ii�tit �3t1{}�Y3hIQii#. 3Up 3, tYlyTt19/kYBitiAB. Ci6�81'w8[eY,_FL 33756. Tcai: 7�7.68Z-45D7; F�M: 7.SC7-B�1-�b6� i�a��.�L+i s ��i?(3`v�t9� ATTACHMENT A ITI Instrument Transformers 1925 CALUMET STREET CLEARWATER, FL 33765 PARCEL # 01-29-15-00000-340-1500 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A PARCEL OF LAND LYING WITHIN THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 114 OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST AND THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST ALL IN PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICU�ARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: AS A POINT OF REFERENCE COMMENCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA AND PROCEED N 8922'21" W, ALONG TH E NORTH BOUNDARY OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 12, A DISTANCE OF 50.01 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF HERCULES AVENUE AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE S 00°t7'46" W, ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 171.55 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE; THENCE N 72�5'04" W, ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RI GHT-OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 1139.02 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST BOUNDARY OF THAT CERTAIN PARCE� DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 8136, PAGE 873 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE N 04°48'11" W, ALONG SAID WEST BOUNDARY, A DISTANCE OF 302.92 FEET; THENCE N 00°10'30" W, ALONG SAID WEST BOUNDARY, A DISTANCE OF 59.90 FEET; THENCE S 89�0' 46" E, A DISTANCE OF 60.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF CALUMET STREET; THENCE N 00°13'30" W, A�ONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF- WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 499.91 FEET TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 113.99 FEET AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS N 45"16'32" E, A DISTANCE OF 162.61 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, AND ALONG SAID ERSTERLY AND SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF CALUMET STREET, A DISTANCE OF 181.06 FEET; THENCE S 89°14'S0" E, A DISTANCE OF 64.47 FEET; THENCE S 0022'39" E, A DISTANCE OF 239.75 FEET; TH ENCE S 89°10'47" E, A DISTANCE OF 199.99 FEET; THENCE N 00°17'42" W, A DI STANCE OF 30.00 FEET; THENCE S 89°14'S1" E, A DISTANCE OF 292.98 FEET; TH ENCE S 00�18'15" E, A DISTANCE (JF 100.01 FEET; THENCE S 89`i�4'29" E, A DI STANCE OF 100.00 FEET; THENCE S 00`D8'S4" E, A DISTANCE OF 147.04 FEET; TH ENCE S 89�9'24" E, A DISTANCE OF 134.44 FEET; THENCE N 00�3'15" W, A DI STANCE OF 46.50 FEET; THENCE S 89�1'51" E, A DISTANCE OF 160.78 FEET TO A POINT ON THE AFOREMENTIONED WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF HERCULES AVENUE; THENCE S 00°18'24" E, ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LIN E, A DISTANCE OF 108.39 FEET; THENCE N 89�1'35" W, A DISTANGE OF 394.98 FE ET; THENCE S 00"15'33" E, A DISTANCE OF 46.10 FEET; THENCE S 89�0'48" E, A DIS TANCE OF 395.00 FEET TO A P�INT ON THE AFOREMENTIONED WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF HERCULES AVENUE; THENCE S 00�12'S5" E, ALONG SAID WESTERLY R IGHT-OF-WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 49.80 FEET; THENCE N 89�4'28" W, A DIS TANCE OF 358.76 FEET; THENCE S 00°19'S7" E, A DISTANCE OF 424.56 FEET; TH ENCE S 54�6'43" E, A DISTANCE OF 158.35 FEET; THENCE N 89°43'35" E, A DI STANCE OF 212.97 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 17.74 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. TOGETHER WITH THE FOLLOWING TRACT: COMMENCE AT THE SOUTH 1/4 (THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4) OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND GO NORTH $9�1'54" WEST, 50.01 FEET, ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF SAID SECTION 1, TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF HERCULES AVENUE; THENCE SOUTH 00°18'13" WEST, 171.55 FEET, ALONG SAI D WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE SEABOARD SYSTEM RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY; THENCE NORTH 72`54'38" WEST, 1139.02 FEET ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 72�54'38" WEST, 224.36 FEET, ALONG THE AFOREMENTION ED NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF- WAY LINE; THENCE NORTH 00�9'S2" WEST, 297.58 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89�8'38" EAST, 1$9.97 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00°t 2'55" EAST, 60. 00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 04°45'32" EAST, 302.82 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINN ING. ."D � ZONIl�tG MAP � --i HERCULES AVE. Z77 � �NrT � ��l�C�T� AAC001624 EB 1828 ffidGINEBt�S�ARCFIITE<. PS, INC. MAyHATfAN CEN`ER , PHONE: (813)839-0506 4525S.MANHATTAN AVE FAX: (813j 839-0616 TAMP0. FLORIDA 33611 c� D r C � m � � � JOB NO.: 201417 DRAWN: KMB CHECKED: KMB DATE: 07-30-14 :O � �z SCALE: 1" = 200' Z-1 REFER TO DWG: ATTACHMENT B The following are responses to "Flexibility Criteria for Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects" (as found on page 7 of 8 of the "Flexible Qevelopment Application".) We are requesting deviations because the development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without such deviations from the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. Due to the existing boundaries around this site, which include a CSX Rail Line to the south and numerous other similarly zoned properties, we are requesting the attached variances which include a reduced southern bountlary and minor variations in the landscape buffers to increase the development viability for expanding the light manufacturing capabilities of this site. 2. The proposed development of this project should it proceed, would be consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. The proposed development should it proceed is in scale, kind and nature af the adjacent properties and similarly zoned. The use is light industrial manufacturing, and the expansion of this plant will increase jobs in the local work force and bring skilled labor to the area, increasing the economic impact of this facility. The facility has multiple access points to both Calumet Street and Hercules Avenue, access to local roads and highways, and is centrally located in the county. The proposed development should it proceed is consistent with the planning objectives and further supports the adjacent properties with increased value, production, exposure, and potential job creation. 3. The proposed development should it proceed, would not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties. The proposed development should it proceed would improve the potential development of surrounding properties by improving the traffic flow, landscape, aesthetics, antl character of the zoning district. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development. Rather, the adjoining properties will improve and benefit from the proposetl development should it proceed with improved property boundaries, fencing, landscape, character and aesthetics. Proposal/For Planning Purposes Only/Contingent on Final Business Approval 5. The proposed use shoultl it proceed, shall: a. Be permitted in this zoning district as a flexible development use as it is consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan and code. b. Be a significant improvement and economic contributor to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy and creating skilled jobs for an established Company. c. Be an expansion and redevelopment of an existing economic contributor to the City as a globally recognized Company, d. Not provide for the provision of affordable housing, as it is not related. e. Be proposed for redevelopment in an area that is already characterized by other manufacturing and industrial uses. f. Not provide working waterfront use, as it is not related. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance herein with all of the following objectives: a. The proposed development should it proceed would not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties. The propased development should it proceed would improve the potential development of surrounding properties by improving the traffic flow, landscape, aesthetics, and character of the zoning district. b. The proposed development should it proceed, complies with all applicable design guidelines adopted by the City. c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development should it proceed support the established or emerging character of the area. The development is in character with adjacent properties, borders a CSX Rail Line along its length, and meets a reasonable height as to not impede on surrounding properties. d. The proposed development should it proceed, forms a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance by incorporating the following design elements: i. Use of architectural details such as reveals, reglets, windows, overhangs and color ii. Maintains all setbacks or increases such setbacks iii. Variety in color and or texture e. The proposed development should it proceed, provides for appropriate buffers, with enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between builtlings. Proposal/For Planning Purposes Only/Contingent on Final Business Approval Attachment C The adjacent properties are zoned IRT, M-1, M-2. The development proposed by this project, should it proceed, would not exceed the scale, density, thresholds, or heights for an IRT zoned property. The existing and proposed use would continue to be Light-Industrial Manufacturing, which is consistent with the zoning and future land use of the surrounding properties. To characterize the surrounding properties, information available from the Pinellas County Property Appraiser's Office is utilized below for comparison to the proposed development. The property directly to the South is an existing CSX rail that is in character with the proposed Light- Industrial Manufacturing. The properties directly abutting along the Northern boundary general consist of other Manufacturing and Warehouse facilities of similar type construction and are listed below: Owner: Property Size: Land Use: Property Use: Structure Type & SF: CLEARWATER TOP CO INC (01-29-15-d0000-340-1400 ) 1.1 Acres Light Manufacture Garage type units complex - rented to small businesses, retail, wholesale or manufacturing Concrete Blk/Stucco, 6,968sf Owner: WOLF, EDWARD 1 LLC (01-29-15-00000-340-1100 ) Property Size: 0.86 Acres Land Use: Warehouse Stor/Dist Property Use: Genera) Warehouse Structure Type & SF: Concrete Block, 6,036sf Owner: GESSERTS INC (01-29-15-00000-340-0900} Property Size: 0.63 Acres land Use: Warehouse Stor%Dist Property Use: General Warehouse Structure Type & SF: Concrete Block, 9,782sf Owner: Property Size: Land Use: Property Use: Structure Type & SF: Owner: Property Size: Land Use: GENED LLC (01-29-15-00000-340-3000) 0.92 Acres Light Manufacture Garage type units complex - rented to small businesses, retail, wholesale or manufacturing Concrete Block, 4,058sf WEISS, HANNA TRE (01-29-15-00000-340-3100) 0.82 Acres Off Bldg 15tory Page 1 of 3 . Attachment C Property Use: General Office - Non-Professional One Story (advertising, travel & employment agencies, pest control Structure Type & SF: Concrete Block, 3,880sf The properties directly abutting along the Eastern boundary consist of Warehouse and Light Manufacturing land uses of Concrete Block and Metal construction as listed below: Owner: MENAUI PROPERTIES LLC (01-29-15-�0000-340-3300) Property Size: 0.42 Acres Land Use: Warehouse Stor/Dist Property Use: General Warehouse Structure Type & SF: Concrete Block, 6,416sf Owner: S B J RESCH FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LTD {01-29-15-00000-340-3510) Property Size: 1.26 Acres Land Use: Warehouse StorJDist Property Use: General Warehouse Structure Type & SF: Prefinished Metal, 15,202sf Owner: WILD TURKEY LAND DEVELOPMENT II LLC (01-29-15-00000-340-3600) Property Size: 2.65 Acres Land Use: Light Manufacture Property Use: Business Park/Flex Structure Type & SF: Prefinished Metal, 33,264sf Calumet lies to the West of the proposed project and properties across Calumet Street consist of other Light Manufacturing and Warehouse type facilities as listed below: Owner: RANGE ROAD PROPERTIES LLC ( 01-29-15-00000-340-2500) Property Size: 0.32 Acres Land Use: Warehouse Stor/Dist Property Use: General Warehouse Structure Type & SF: Concrete Block, 5,552sf Owner: Property Size: Land Use: Property Use: Structure Type & SF Owner: Property Size: Land Use: RANGE ROAD PROPERTIES LLC (01-29-15-00000-340-2400) 0.43 Acres Light Manufacture Light Manufacturing, Small Equipment Mfg. Plant, Electronic, Small Machine Shop, Instrument Mfg., Pr Concrete Blk/Stucco, 12,306sf RING G M B H(01-29-15-00000-340-1800j 0.54 Acres Warehouse Stor/Dist Page 2 of 3 0 Attachment C Property Use: General Warehouse Structure Type & SF: Concrete Block, 9,070sf Owner: PORRELLO REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS LLP (01-29-15-00000-340-1810) Property Size: 0.55 Acres Land Use: Warehouse StorJDist Property Use: General Warehouse Structure Type & SF: Prefinished Metal, 8,864sf Owner: BOGART, PATRICK C (O1-29-15-00000-340-1700) Property Size: 0.51 Acres Land Use: Warehouse Stor/Dist Property Use: General Warehouse Structure Type & SF: Prefinished Metal, 7,500sf Owner: SOUTHPORT CONSTRUCTION CORP (01-29-15-00000-340-1600) Property Size: 1.64 Acres Land Use: Warehouse Stor(Dist Property Use: General Warehouse Structure Type & SF: Prefinished Metal, 15,OOOsf Owner: NEWCOMBE, DANIEL R (01-29-15-00000-340-1300) Property Size: 0.41 Acres Land Use: Warehouse Stor/Dist Property Use: General Warehouse Structure Type & SF: Prefinished Metal, 7,200sf Directly abutting the property to the Southwest is also characterized as Light Manufacturing as listed below: Owner: LEA, CLARK M 1R (01-29-15-701b4-300-2803) Property Size: 1.05 Acres Land Use: Warehouse Stor/Dist Property Use: General Warehouse Structure Type & SF: Concrete Block, 20,646 sf & Concrete Block 1,798 sf Therefore, when you consider that the directly adjacent properties and those properties across Calumet have similar type building construction in Concrete and Metal and the property uses and land uses are of similar type to the proposed development, it can be concluded that the proposed development should it proceed, would be coherence and representative of the existing developments in the area. Page 3 of 3 �4 �+�ar�vat�r �� Planning & Develop�nent Department Comprehensive Landscaping Application 17 IS INCUMB�NT UPON THE APPI.ICANT TO SUBMIT COMPLETE AND CORREC7 INFORMATION. ANY M15LEAOfNG, OECEP7NE, INCC)MPLETE OR INCORRECT INfQRMATION MAY INVAUDATE YOUR APPLICAT{ON. ALL APPUCATiONS ARE TO 9E Ftll£D OUT COMPLETEIY AND CORRECTLY, AND SUBMITTED IN PERSON (NO �AX OR pELIVER1ESj TO THE PI.ANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY NOON ON 7HE SCHEDUIED OEADLINE DATE. A 7tJTAL Of 11 CQMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPUCATION MATERIAL5 (1 ORIGINAL AND 10 COPIES) A5 REQUIRED WITHIN ARE TO BE SUBMI'i�ED FOR REVIEW BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE. SUBSEQUENT SUBMITfAI FQR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOpMENT BOARQ, IF NECESSARY, W[LL REQUIRE 15 COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPUCATION MA7ERIALS (1 QRIGINAI ANd 14 COPIES). PLANS AND APPLKATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COLLATEQ, STAPlEO AND FOLDEL7 INTO SETS. THE APPIICANT, BY FILING THIS APPLICATION, A6REES TO CDMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABtE REQUIREMEN7S OF THE CpMMUN1TY DEVEI.OPMENT COdE. PBOP�BTY OWNER {P�ER pEED}; ��r�tfUt7C�llti TrQ�1SfOftTlBfS IIIC MAiur�� Aoa��ss: P 0 B�x 490p Qept 2Q1 PFiONE NUMBER; %�T �j$% ��25 Ennaii: Ray Pienkalski@ge com AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE: Ray Penkaiski MAILING ADaRESS: GE Mulfilin Tran�formers,19�7 Calumet Street Clearwater Florida 3�"t65 pHONE WUMBER: %�T - �� = 3'IZ�3 EMa+t. Ray Penkalsk�ae com Aaa��ss oF sus�ECr PROPERTV: 1925 Calumef Street Ctearwater Fiarida 33765 oESCRiPTiorv oF REau�sr: Li�,ht industrial manufacturing ._ Speciflcally identijy the request �ee attached 1e#t@r from AndersoniLesniak Limited (includs all requested code ftexibitity; e.g., reduction in required number oj parkrng spoces, beiyhi, setbacks, !oC c;3p_ !nt width_ sneciflc use. etc. }: STATE OF PLORiDA, COUNTY Of PINEILAS I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all Sworn to and subsc�ibed be#ore me this �jC� �'�''� day of representations made in this a�plicatian are true and "'�� ,',,}Q�� . to me and/or by accurate to the best of my knowled�e and authorize T City representatives to visit and phatograph the Kevir� M. Bynum, PE , who is personally known has propert�pdescrib�ed in this application. produced as identificatian. re of property owner or representative Notary ¢u'trlic, My commission expires: Planning & flev�fopmQnt Depa�trrrent, 140 S. Myrtla Avenue, Glearwater, Fl 33756, TeI: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562•4865 page 1 of 2 vvsr+nn++nnn� Revised 01H2 ��' EMILY itAMEY �� MY COMMISSION M F1�080763 '�� E3tPIRE:S: Janwry 43,10i6 ° 1 rwater �� U Planning & Development Department Comprehensive Landscaping Application Flexibility 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 shai� be designed as a part of the architectural theme of the principal buiidings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for the development. See attachetl letter from Anderson/Lesniak Limitetl 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. See attachetl letter from Anderson/Lesniak Limited 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. See attached letter from Anderson/Lesniak Limitetl 3. Community Character. The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater. See attachetl letter from Anderson/Lesniak Limited 4. Property Volues. The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landsca.ping program will have a beneficial impact on the value of the property in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. See attached letter from AndersonlLesniak Limited 5. Special Area or Scenic Corridor Plon. 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. See attachetl letter from Anderson/Lesniak Limited Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562�1567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 2 of 2 Revised 01/12 � � � �� s � �, �� i ;;� � �� `�.� � ., � � � � �� . �4_� m= _ � � uz- a } +: t � �s �w�� .�`% .�.�� ; COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPING APPLICATION — FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA September 10, 2014 1) REQUESTED LANDSCAPE WAIVERS: Eliminate perimeter Landscape buffer on east side of Building 6. Eliminate Building Foundation planting on north and west sides of Buildings 2-6. Eliminate required shrubs from the Landscape buffer on the north and west sides of Buildings 2-6. Eliminate perimeter Landscape buffer on west side of Building 7. Eliminate perimeter Landscape buffer on east side of Building 8. Eliminate required trees from the Landscape buffer on the north side of 175 Hercules Building. Eliminate perimeter Landscape buffer on north and south sides of creek. Eliminate required trees from the north side of the southern entry drive from Hercules Avenue. Eliminate required trees from the Landscape buffer on the south (railroad). Eliminate required trees from the west Landscape buffer on the west side of the new SW parking. Eliminate perimeter Landscape buffer on the north portion of the west side of new building. Reduce Total Required Trees from 292 to 225. Reduce the requirement for interior islands to 128 SF. All of the interior islands that are less than 150 SF are planted with small trees or paims, so the root space is adequate. All of the interior islands are planted 100% with small shrubs or ground cover to protect the trees from mowers and to reduce long term maintenance. LANDSCAPE DESIGN PROPOSED IS BETTER THAN THE MINIMUM LANDSCAPE STANDARDS The proposed plant palette includes a wide selection of mostly native trees, shrubs and ground cover. Interior Greenspace areas exceed the minimum requirements and have been heavily planted with masses of ornamental grasses, ground cover and dwarF shrubs. The proposed Landscape will create a pleasing environment for the employees and surrounding properties and exceeds the minimum Landscape Standards. 2) LIGHTING The exterior lighting will be pole and building mounted full cutoff, dark skies LED fixtures. They will be controlled by Time Clock and Photo eye sensors. All City of Clearwater Lighting Ordinances will be followed. 3) COMMUNITY CHARACTER The plan indicates the removal of a number of invasive exotic trees from the property. This will reduce the spread of these invasive species to surrounding properties and provide additional areas for new landscape. The proposed perimeter trees will grow and create a green screen between the property and its perimeter roadways. This will enhance the esthetic appeal of the property and contribute to the beautification of the community. 4) PROPERTY VALUES The property will be transformed from an industrial environment with little greenspace to a lushly planted "campus like" environment. Green buffers will block views of the parking areas from public view. The trees in the parking islands will provide shade for humans and habitat for birds, squirrels and insects. The attractive landscape will be esthetically pleasing and will increase the value of the abutting properties. 5) SPECIAL AREA OR SCENIC CORRIDOR PLAN A variety of trees have been specified to provide color and seasonal change through the year. The Crape Myrtles will have lavender blooms in the summer, the Maples will have red foliage in the fall and the Cypress will have bright green foliage in the spring. The Muhly Grass will have bright pink plumes in the fall and the Downy Jasmine willed be covered with white flowers in the spring. The plant palette for this design will provide seasonal interest all year long and the resulting landscape will be an asset to the City of Clearwater. iree lnv�n�or�y �� I�'t � 1901 Calt�met S�re�t Prapared By: Alan Mayberry, Cansultin� Arborfst Prepared �or: �.ong & AssQ�ciates Architects/�ngineers, ir�c. �fhe fa{lowing r�port is submitted by Alan Mayberry, Cansuiting Arborist, anr� inciudes findin�s that t believe are accurate based ran my education, experience and knowiedge in th� field nf __ _ . _ _ _�lrboricutture:.1-have r�o -interest personaliy -or financ�ally 1n-th#s -prc�perty -and my report -is - -- - factuai and unbiased. Tree inventary Qvervi�w The fcillawing tree inventory provides an av�rall conditic�n rating far ail tr�ees lQCated an the subject pro�erty that are within the scape of the prap�sed work and d�fined as pratected trees by the pravlsions af the City of Clearwater Cade of �3rdinances. 1'his repnrt �l�o inciud�s 1��v�sivc� �x��i� �r�c� ��cci�s that are located wifihin the scc�pe of the new woric but are exempt from code provisions. '�hey are in�tud�d becaus� they ar� growing within the existing parkin� lot area� ar�d p�se a khreat to cause property damage Qr persc�nal injury and can creat� a malntenance nuisance due to thelr invasive characteristics. The overall condition ratir�g reflects an assessment af a tr�e's h�alth, structural integrity and tQ �,�.4�,�� ,�� ;,��_ �� x��rs«.�.?�u�� .s�r��cri�iution. The subject �roperty Is an ir�dustrial us� ct�ns�isting of buff�in�s �nd asso�iateri��arking tc�ts. 7he site cantains native tr�es that have b�er+ ptant�d in Ir��eri�r� tan�s�ape islands mc�st Hk�ly to meet city landscape code re�q�irements. The native tree species inelude th� Iiv� oak (Quercus virgtniartc�), tt��.►��,_� x=�� ;^{�i�,, �� „��f��',�«�F� :,r,F., ;_,;, Snut�ern magno�ta (�9cr�nolra grandifloraj. frs adc�it€on, �M� sit� cc�nt�in$ �n a�ursc��n�� c�f t�rc invasive exatic wc�m�n's tangW� tree tAlblzla leb�a��k�� Th€� ��?QC9�� cc��rs �� in�ivit��.�a�� lrt�tn ay�i►vriisx i._tc�R:i�r:.��:se i�i.at4�,i*;. :knii cti� ii�ic";Ka,`,�s n��r �he west and south prop�rty lines. 1n addition, th� hi�hty invast�r� Braziftan pepper tree {Schfnus terebinthlfatius) �ccurs within the thickets. Th� tr�ee #+�ventc�ry raies i��dividual trees and provides r�cammendatic�ns for rem4vai ar r�tentior� of the tree as well as maintet��t�c:e: �ti:.;t��7F�.._:: '. _._ ' -. --;•=��rnm�nded far preservafit+�n. 7he Tree inventory Data sectton which fc�it�ws the tree inventory pravides an explanattan oF the rating system and haw indivld�Eal �rees �r�e scor¢d. ,-:� ;, ��-, :; _; �y.w ��4„ ��.�:y�� ; ,;,��3=u�q��r u�si� €z�r 3-5 years. Nowever, ev�nts such as drought, Ei�P�tr�in�, rrr+�ci��r�icai �'vut ci��nag�, fr��ze, improper maintenance and severe storms c�n dc��,,r�,��-�r�e t�te rat�� I��c� c�f � tree, Conversety, remedial maintenance can upgrade the valu�. If you suspect that a tre� has been �dversely affected, have th� tree inspected by a qu�lified In�ernational Society of Arboriculture (ISAj Certified Arburist. _ .. . , . .'. , �' ;_��_ <,s�=-3�:�� r� �nver�tory recomm�ndatiar+s when selecting .., _ - - , �rt€� _:e-.: �� tK tida.��r �r��s �o t�� `eserv�c� c=or� �xar�t��l�, t��s or �alms r�ted 4.0 and higher ar� strang candidates� t� b� cor��id��d f�r preservatior�, whil� tre�s or patms rated 2.� an�i I�wer should b�e remaved 1 � �� un3ess atherwis� noted in th� 3nventory. Trees or paims rated 2.5 are g�neraliy recomrnended far remov�l unless rer�edia) work is performed tv upgrad+� them. Trees or palm� rated 3.p and 3.5 are aver��e trees that have gaod patential and are warthy af pr�servation efforts. NtJTE: Tree sixe r�ferences trunk diameter in inches for trees {measured at A.5` above �rad� unless the tree forks belaw that p�oint -�then the diameter is measured at th� narrowest area between �rade and the fork. 1'his tree inventory was conducted on actober 28 & 29, 20�,1, Tree I�nventory �� 1 401. 11",11" Woman's Tvn�ue �Alblxta lebbecky �,tl Cammet�is; Tt�e waman's t+on�ue tree is designated as a Categary C3ne fnvasiv� exotic tree by the Flnrida Exatic Pest A1ant Council, �s it threat�ns native ptant communities by its ag�ressive abiltty ta invade, colc�nize anc! crowd out nativ� plant species. Acc�rdingly, this sp�cies is prQ�ibited fram pl�nting in most counties lr� �tarida and is requlr�d by St�te Stat�+te or local Gocfies ta b� r�rnaved in mast n�w devefopments. In addtCio�n ta its invasive characterfstics the woman's ton�ue tree has brittl� w�ood and is prone suf%r fr�eze damage if the t�mperature drQps b�louv 32 degr�es. '�his species �s �ssi�ned a 1.f1 overalf conditton r�ting and recommend�d for r�movai. Tree number 401 �as the structural defecti of an 3n�luded basai cadominant trunk which predisppses a tr�e tc� fail. Recvr�mend removal. Maintenan�� not+�: Sc�me of th� trees on this site have suffered damag+� to th+�ir lower trunks due to th� stee) decks af lawnmpwers cutting through �he bark. ��camm�n�! maintainin� muich rings arc�und trees to prever�t this damage, 4C�2. �" �outhern magnolia (Ntar�nalia gran�itJara) 2.0 Comments: This tree was previnusly topped causir�g severai trunks to develop �ar�llel tn eath ather, This alf�nment af branches wiii cause codQminant branches �nd dec�y du� to rubbing laranches. The tree is systemicaJly heatthy but has �aor structure. in adc�iYio�, �he tree is grQwing beneath a street light and associated wires and will sventualty 1�ave to be prun�d to accommodate the wires as this s�ecies can r�ach 70' in height. Recqmmend rernava) due to pvor struczur� and tMe tree's loc�tion k�eneath utility wires. Malntenance note: Sev�r�i trees in the invenfiar� vuill be recommended for s�ructural pruning. ihis prunin� is desi�ned to improv+� tiree structure by subardinat#ng cadominant branches �nd str�ngthentng the centrat lead�r. 7re�s that have been structuralty prunecf are stronger �nd iess 2 likely to fail. Structural pruning is samewhat esoteric at this time and should oniy be per�armed by arborists who are accredit�d as �Certified Arborist through the International Sacf�ty af ArE�ariculture and who know the principles of �tructural pruning. �03. 11" Live o�k (Quercus vi�'giniarta) 3.5 Comments: This tr�e has gvod struc#ure and health. It has a�ird�ing raoC on the wesfi side that has caused an asymmetriCai base but the tree app�ars ta have salved this problem. It would benefit #rom the rernoval of stubs and structural pruning, Recommend preservation. Note. S�veral nf the kr�es in the parking lot area have surFace roots or �irdltng roats mc�st likely causer� by thE landscaper leauing the artiflcial burlap around the roots balls after planting, This causes roots to grow up and aut of the burlap t�� aroun�i inside the buriap. 1€ new �rees are �lanted t�se a la�ndscape campany that installs firees per the sp�cifications defined in the American Nation�) Standards Institute (ANSI) fiterature r�gardin� new t�ee inskaNation. 4A4. 9" iive oak 3.0 C+�mmenCs: Thts tree has three girdling r4vts and surface roats which downgrade its cvnditlon. It is heaitf�y artd the overatl structure is good.ltecomrnend preservation along with the remc�vai of stubs and dead wood. Not�; Many of th� trees in this tnventory have branches #hat have been sfiubbed aff du�e tc� tihe proximity of parked cars. Stuia cufis ar� imp��aer euts that I�ad to deeay. Recommend prunin� all stub cuts back to col�ar cuts. Additian�IlyA th�ese trees wUl have ta be pruned p�riqdica�ty to maintain elearar�ce over the parEcing IoC. Ait pruning shnuld b� fn accordance w�th applicabie ANSI A300 standards and p�rform�ed by an ISA Certifled �rborist. 405. 9" live oak �.0 Comm�nts: T�re tree has surfa�ce rat�ts. It alsn has stubs �nd d�ac# v+iood thae need to be removed. In addition, some branches ne�d tcr be raised aver th� parking [ot. i'he structure and heafth are gaod, Reeommend preservatian. q06. 5" Southern magnolia 2.q Gomme��: This tr�e has an 18" (�ang wound with decay an the narth side of the trunlc startin� at 2` above grade. ihe waund extends 2" into fihe trunk. The crown has low clensity as ifis systemic hea{th h�s been afiected by th� wnund �nd by lawnmower injury. Fi�comm�r�d remavaf as rt�� d�cay is progresstve and w�lt actverseiy affect the f�ealth and str�uctur� vf this tree. . 4Q'7. 8" live oak � �.5 Comments: The crown of this tree is one-sided and irregular due to competition fior growing space from tree #408. The health and structure are gaod. This tree could remain if tree #408 is removed (as recvmmended) and will improve over time if pruned correctly. 4Q8. 14" laurel oak {Quercus laurifolia) 2.0 Comments: The trunk c�f this tree has a 3' long seam on the west side that was probabiy caused by a crack. 7he crown is symmet�ical with very high density of foliage. It has great aesthetic appeal. The tree is located 5' from a retaining wali and dose to the edge of pavement of the parking lot. The tree has surface roots exaggerated because this area is suffering from erosion. Trees #407, 408 and 409 are growing withi� 18' of each other and this tree has affected the growth of the smaller live oak trees. Laurel oak trees are a relatively short-lived species and do not form heartwood. Consequently, decay tends to be progressive and causes structural defects years after the inception of a wound. This crack goes deep into the trunk �nd has caused a canker on the backside of the trunk. The decay is forming directly beneath an area of the trunk where several large scaffold branches emanate. In the interest of the future safety of the persons utiiizing this property, I am recommending remaval of thi$ tree due ta the wo�nd on the trunk. 409. 1Q" live oak 2.5 Comments: The crown of this tree is very one-sided to the north. But the structure and health are good. The tree has stubs that need removal and the crown needs to be raised. However, there is a large low valtage wi�e just above this tree followed by a rack of a three phase primary wire system. Trees #407, 408 and 409 will a!1 be affected by the utility wires in the future. Consequently, i am recommending removal of ali three trees as they are shade tree species and recommending replacement with accent type trees such as the crape myrtle (Lagers�roemia Tndica), yaupon holly (Ilex vomitoria) or the dwarf cultivar, `Littie gem' magnolia (Magnolia grandiftora ). 410. 6„� �„� �„ Woman's tongue Comments: lnvasive exotic with codominant trunk. Recommend removal. 411. 7" laurel oak 1.0 2.0 Camments: This tree forms an unequal codominant trunk 5' above grade. The larger cc,dominant then farms a tightly inciuded codorninant stem 7' abave grade. The crown is thinning, chlorotic and has very paor structure. Recommend remaval. 412. 16" laure) oak 2.S Comments: 7his tree is located 4' fr�m the edge of pavement of the parking lot. It has a beautiful crown and very good systemic i�eaith. 7he tree has surface roots that are exacerbated _ _ 4 __ by snil erosion at this lacation. The crown needs to be raised over the parking lot. This tr�e has very poor structure as the trunk splits 5' above grade and farms cadominant scaffold branches. This tree has a leader that could be improved if adjacent codominant branches are subordinated. This tree could be preserved if the praperty awners are willing to have the tree structurally pruned annually to reduce hazards through subardinating cadominant stems and strengthening the central leader. If there is not a cammitment to this type of pruning, I recomm�nd removal due to paar structure. 413. 11" live oak 3.0 Comments: The crown of this tree is one-sided due to competition from tree #412 and to a lesser extent tree # 414. The health and structure is good. It needs pruning to remove stubs and to raise branches aver the parking lot. Howeuer, in time the tree will imprave with praper prunrng. Recommend preservativn. 414. 3„� q„� �„ woman's tongue Comments: Codaminant Invasive exotic, recommend removal. 415: 8" woman's t4ngue � 1.Q Camm�nts: Invaisive exatic. Recommend removal. Trees #415 & 416 are growing in small landscape islands and the trees wiH ultimately cause damage ta the asphalt parking lot with their root systems if they are not removed as recammended. 416. 6", 7" woman's tongue Comments: Cadominant invasive exotic, recommend removal. 1.0 Note: 7rees #427, 418, 419 & 420 are not growing within the existing parking lot, but are growing in an open fie�d south of the parking lot. 417. 17" woman's tongue 1.0 Comments: This tree has extensive trunk decay and is an invasive exatic, recr�mmend removal. 418. 10" woman's tongue � Comments: This tree has extensive trunk decay and is an invasive exotic, recommend removal 419. 1.4„ worrran's tangue Camments: lnvasive exc�tic, recr�mmend removal. �. � _ _ _ _ ---_ 420. 10" woman's tongue 1.Q Comments: invasive exotic, recommend removal. Note; There are dense stands af invasive exotic trees that are either on this property or immediately adjacent to it to the west and sauth. These trees are aggressive and will continue to spread and cause maintenance diffic�ities to the subject property. It will be advantageous to have these trees remaved, aithough it may tak� a coordinated effart with adjacent property owr�ers. The removal of exotic invasive species should be performed by campanies with the knowledge, experience and ficenses to remove these trees in a rnanner that diminishes or prevents their regrawth. This concludes the tree invent+�ry. 7he following is an explanatian of the tree inventory rating system. Tree Inventory Data A tree inventory is a written record of a tree`s condition at the time af inspection. It is a valuable tool to priaritize tree maintenance and remove trees with problems that eould lead to failure and cause personal injury or property damage. The tree inventory lists four codes and also has a comment section. The following is an explanatian of the data used in the inventory: Tree# - location - Each tree is assigned a number for reference in the inventory that corresponds with a numt�er on the site plan that identifies the lacation of the tree in the field. Size — Tree size is a measure af the tree's trunk diameter measured at 4.5' above grade. If there is a fork in the trunk at that point the diameter is measured at the narrowest area below the fork. Palm species are measured in feet of clear trunk (C.T.). S,�j,7�C18S — Each tree is ii$ted by i#s common and botanical name the first time it is listed in the inventory. For �implicity the tree is fisted by its common name thereafter. Condition Ratin� — The conditian rating is an assessment of the t�ee's overall structuraf �trength and syst�mic health. Elements af structure include: 1} the presence of cavities, decayed woo�, split, c�acked, rubbing branches etc., 2j branch arrangements and attachments, i.e., well-spaeed vs. severai branches emanating #rom the same area on the krunk, codominant stems vs. singf� leader trunk, presence of branch callars vs. included bark. Elements of systemic heaith relate to the tree's overall energy system measured by net photosynthesis (food made) vs. respiration (food used). A tree with good systemic health will have a vascular system that maves water, nutrients and photosynthate around the tree as needed. Indi�ators af a healthy systemic system used in the overall condition rating include: 1j live crown ratio �the amaunt of live crawn a tree has relative to its mass), 2j crown density f density af the foliagej, 3} tip growth (shoot elongation is a sign that the tree is rrtaking and storing energy. _ _ 6 _ ._. 0 The ove�all condition rating alsa takes into consideration the species, appearance and any unique features. The rating scale is 0-6 with 0 being a dead tree and 6 a specimen. Increments of 0.5 are used to increase accura�cy. Examples of the tree rating system are as follows: 0- A dead tree 1- A tree that is dying, severeiy declining, hazardous, harboring a communicable disea�e or a tree designated by the 5tate af Florida's Exatic Pest Plant Council as a categary #1 ecalogical pest i.e., Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthi�alius). A tree with a rating of 1 should be removed as it is beyond treatment and is a threat ta cause personal i�jury or property damage. 2— A tree exhibiting serious structural defects such as codominant stems with included bark at or near the base, large cavities, large areas of decayed wood, crown dieback, crackedjsplit scaffold branches etc. In addition, a tree with health issues suc#� as low energy, law live crown ratic�, serious disease or insect problems, nutritiona) deficiencies or soil pH problems. A tree with a rating of #2 should be removed unless the problem(s) can be treated. A tree with a#2 condition rating will typically require a considerable amount af maintenanCe to qualify for an upgrade of the condition rating. 3- A tree with av�rage structure and systemic hea(th and wikh probEems that can be corrected with moderate maintena�ce. A tree with a codominant stem not in the basal area that will be subordinated or cabled and braced or a cadominant stem that will soon have included bark can be included as a#3. A tree with a rating of #3 has average appearance, crown density and live crown ratio and should be preserved if possible. 4- A tree with a rating of 4 has good structure and systemic health with minor problems that can be easily corrected with minor maintenance. The tree should have an attractive appearance and be essentially free of any debilitating disease o� insect problem. The tree should also have above average crown density and liv�e crown rafiio. Mature trees exhibiting scars, old wounds, small cavities ar �ther problems that are not debilitating can be inc�uded in this group particular�y if they possess unique form ar other aesthetic amenities relating to their age. A tree with a rating of 4 is valuaiale to the property and should be preserved. 5-- A tree with very high live crown ratio and �xceptional structure and systemic heaith and virtually free of insect or disease problems or nukritionai deficiencies. A tree in this category should have a balanced crown with exceptional aesthetic amenities. A tree in this category should be of a species that passesses characteristics inherent to longevity and withstanding canstruction impacts. A tree with a t#S �atin� lends considerable value to the site and should be incorparated into the site design. A tree with a#5 rating is warthy of significant site plan modi#icatian to ensure its preservation. 6— A specimen tree. A specimen tree is a tree that possesses a combination of superior qualities in regards to systemic health, structural strength, crown density, live crown ratio, form _ _ J _ _ (�alanced crown), averall a�sthetic appeal, s(ze, sp�cies, age and uniqueness. /� great effork $hould be made to preserve a specimtn tree includin� shifting structures that would ac�versely impace the tree. 1n addition, a s�ecimen tree should have an undisturbed area equal co its dripliRe (equal to the branch spreadi to grow in. Only an experienced and competen� In#ernational Society of Arboriculture jI.S.A.) CerC�fied Arb�rist shouid be ail4wed worl� on a specimen tree. Comm�n#s: The camment section serve� tc� note abservations rei�tive ta �th� tree but not coaered in the inventary dafia or expands art informatian in the inuentory data. It i��ay ir�clude e_. .. ___-----maintenanee-reeommendations-to-imprc�ve-the-tree's averall condition-r�tin�: !C may alsa have_ ___ _ recornmendations on wh�ther to remove or preserve a tr�e. :