The URL can be used to link to this page

FLD2014-11030. � C ��t�� .. _ . .' _.. _.". _ _! ^� �,,.� 1 . —�.�" v,'+�..A'1"�"'—�r �.`^�.,a �i..�+" �"'� MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: CASE: REQUEST: GENERAL DATA: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT January 20, 2015 E.S. FLD2014-1103 0 Flexible Development application to permit a 1,895 square foot restaurant with a 750 square foot outdoor seating area in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 7,209.52 square feet; a lot width of 70 feet (along South Gulfview Boulevard); a front (west) setback of 2.2 feet (outdoor seating area) and 27.28 feet (to building); a side (north) setback of 1.08 feet (to structure) and 3.21 feet (to building); a side (south) setback of zero feet (to concrete driveway) and 13.89 feet (to building); a rear (east) setback of 3.03 feet (to concrete) and 49 feet (to building); a building height of 6.10 feet (from Base Flood Elevation to mid-point of pitched roo� and 16 feet (from existing grade to mid-point of pitched roo fl, with zero parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2-803.D, and a reduction to the foundation landscape requirement on the front (south) facade from five feet to zero feet as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G. Agent ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... The Sustainability Group, LLC Applicant/ Owner ... .......... Location ... ... ... ... ....... ...... . Property Size ... ................ Future Land Use Plan...... Zoning ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. Special Area Plan.......... Adjacent Zoning.... North. South: East: West.• Existing Land Use............ Proposed Land Use... ... ... Nikana Holdings, LLC 411 S Gulfview Boulevard; east side of South Gulfview Boulevard approximately Fifth Street and South Gulfview Boulevard intersection 0.16 acres : � r ,�'� ," , Resort Facilities High (RFH) Tourist (T) District Beach by Design; Beach Walk District; Tourist (T) District Tourist (T) District Tourist (T) District Tourist (T) District Retail Sales/Services Restaurant � � �',f��` ' `� slr�� /�/' �\, � `�� . .; � � � �'; � . �, � .�:�� - , • ,�� . . � � 4�:► � ,� , = �� s�{ Y_ � � ,�„I ,�.,. ' ,F,'�`,�w ,+ 171 feet south of the J�1 � , , ��'•`i .,�,N � ;�� a r� a � z� � �t� � � � �;,t M p ,�!�c ,�y �`�'�, ' � I,�c � �� :.,k �� . :�: :�.' �`�� •� 4� >�s�e•_ AERIAL MAP , ��Qit��L�l Level II Flexible Development Application Review " _ , e__, . �'4`a . . . . . ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 0.16 acre property is located on the east side of South Gulfview Boulevard approximately 171 feet south of the Fifth Street and South Gulfview Boulevaxd intersection and has 70 feet of frontage. The property is zoned Tourist (T) District and features a one-story retail use. The site is located within the special area redevelopment plan, Beach by Design, as part of the "Beach Walk" District which is a distinctive area of mixed use with resort hotels, restaurants, recreation and tourist serving retail uses. The immediate vicinity is composed of hotels, motels, retail sales and services, restaurants, and beach access parking lots. Structures in the area vary in height between two and twelve stories, and generally represent architecture from a myriad of styles. Site History: The existing one-story structure was constructed in 1940 and has been used as a retail store which has featured a variety of retail establishments over the yeaxs. The subject parcel was included as a part of a Hotel Density Agreement between the property owner and the City of Clearwater (HDA2014- 06004). The other properties included 401 South Gulfview Boulevard owned by ANCO Holdings, LLC and 421 South Gulfview Boulevard owned by Alanik Properties. The City Council approved the allocation of 100 units from the Hotel Density Reserve under Beach by Design on September 18, 2014. The owners plan to utilize the existing 127 hotel units located at 401 and 421 South Gulfview Boulevard and incorporate an additional 100 units from the Hotel Density Reserve through Beach by Design resulting in a new hotel with a total of 227 units although site plan approval for this hotel has not yet been granted. The land area of the subject property has been factored in to the overall development PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION � �� ,�> � �s � �rXS� �� - � 4N- `N.�'. : :o�ea� � ,� �-. � \ OP 0 J� w�.r��r � ,7s �'e �I `� OS/R ` ' 2 �s �i��s�w � �'1S V �� `. J 'Z jr . ,z �< `�, .-^ �� 63' 022 � �421 � -� _ rQ ,3 � � T t� � �.: �� F ,� � ZONING MAP � ,-. � �S1 � 346: 347 � 33S `: � �353 � Overnight :N�f°'6' ,; - - � Accommodation +or ` � + �'�� Ovemight y �►..t.. Accommodations Beach 4�0 --• �� . Walk 41� ' � Overnight � +a� e� Accommodation *�? � 4r, :, � a� A , �.,.. � �3 0 . � �4so ° ,�'!. °�a e � r Ap5 a� � EXISTING SURROUNDING USES MAP Community Development Board, January 20, 2015 FLD2014-11030 — Page 1 � Cl��l�l Level II Flexible Develo ment licatlon Review PLnr��G&navsLOrMErrr P APP DEVELOPMENT REV�W DIVISION u. . .. ... � , -. . � plan of HDA2014-06004. The overall all land area of 1.994 acres results in 114 units per acre. Code Compliance Analysis: There are no active Code Compliance cases for the subject property. Development Proposal: The proposed 1,895 square foot restaurant with a slightly elevated 750 square foot outdoor seating area will accommodate 15 seats outside and 20 interior seats for a total of 35 seats. The main entrance to the restaurant will be accessed from Gulfview Boulevard where the first floor will provide an open floor concept with outdoor patio seating leading into indoor seating with the bar serving as the divider between the two seating areas. The outdoor seating area will be located under a tiki covered roof which provides the concept for the restaurant. The restaurant will also provide a take-out food window located on the front south end of the building. The deck will be elevated 5.8 feet to allow for a stormwater dry pond underneath the deck. The restaurant will be accessed from the beach walk promenade by both a new ADA compliant ramp or by an existing paved sidewalk that leads to the building steps. The proposal does not include on-site parking and it is anticipated that the majority of the customer base will come from those already visiting and/or staying at the beach rather than serving as a destination in and of itself. The owner understands this property is a part of the future hotel development. They understand the subject building shall be demolished to allow for the hotel. At this time, the owners a part of the hotel development agreement have not submitted an application to be reviewed by either the Development Review Committee or the Community Development Board. Based upon the date by which they are required to obtain development approval (09-18-15), the date by which they will be required to obtain first building pertnit (one year from the date of the Development Order) as well as the possibility of requested building permit extensions (from six months up to one year by the Community Development Coordinator and an additional year may be requested by the owner from the Community Development Board when the Community Development Coordinator extension expires) it may take up to five years before the hotel could be under construction. The applicant is viewing the proposal as a temporary use until the hotel project commences, however, staff is reviewing the application as a permanent use. Special Area Plan: Beach bv Design: The Beach Walk District The City has demonstrated through the creation of Beach by Design and subsequent amendments to this plan that it recognizes the need for pedestrian-friendly development in order to create a vibrant active resort and waterfront destination serving tourists and locals alike. It is understood that a broad range of uses including retail sales and service, hotels and motels and restaurants contribute to the creation of the unique character and atmosphere that is Clearwater Beach. The area that comprises of the Beach Walk District from the Hamden Street and South Gulfview Boulevard intersection to Pier 60 Park is considered to be the primary "beachfront" destination on Clearwater Beach. Community Development Board, January 20, 2015 FLD2014-11030 — Page 2 ' C�eal 11' Lt,{.el Level II Flexibie Development Application Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT L . . . . _ ��;�^�:' .. _.. . � DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION The following Beach by Design, Design Guidelines are applicable to properties located within the "Beach Walk" district and supersede the Community Development Code. Beach bv Design: Section VII. Design Guidelines: Beach by Design provides that the implementation of the document involves more than community redevelopment initiatives, it also involves private development and redevelopment that conforms to design objectives and principles established in Beach by Design. These objectives and principles will help the City promote safety, encourage cleanliness, and provide a comfortable environment. It should be noted that any issue not addressed in the Design Guidelines shall be governed by the requirements of the CDC. Furthermore, the Design Guidelines are intended to be administered in a flexible manner to achieve the highest quality built environment for Clearwater Beach. Section A specifically addresses the issue of density. The proposal includes a restaurant with 1,439 square feet of floor area within a one-story building. The maa�imum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.0 allows up to 7,209.52 square feet of floor area. The proposal is consistent with Beach by Design and the CDC with regard to density and FAR. Section B specifically addresses height and is delineated in three subsections. Section B.1 provides that a height of up to 150 feet may be permitted where additional density is allocated to the development either by TDRs, or via the Destination Resort Density Pool pursuant to the CRD designation, or via the Hotel Density Reserve where the subject property is located between South Gulfview Boulevard and the Gulf of Mexico or on the west side of Coronado Drive. Otherwise, height is governed by the specific Beach by Design district or, lacking such direction, the CDC. The proposal provides for a building 16 feet above base flood elevation. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this provision. Section B.2 requires that portions of any structures which exceed 100 feet are spaced at least 100 feet apart. This section also includes overall separation requirements for structures over 100 feet in height as two options: (1) no more than two structures which exceed 100 feet within 500 feet; or (2) no more than four structures which exceed 100 feet within 800 feet. Since no portion of the proposed building exceeds 100 feet in height this section is not applicable to the proposal. Section B.3 provides that the floorplate of any portion of a building that exceeds 45 feet in height is limited as follows: a) Between 45 feet and 100 feet the floorplate will be no greater than 25,000 square feet except for parking structures open to the public; and, b) Between 100 feet and 150 feet, the floorplate will be no greater than 10,000 square feet; and, ' c) Deviations to the above floorplate requirements may be approved provided the mass and scale of the design creates a tiered effect and complies with the maximum building envelop allowance above 45 feet as described in Section C. 1.4 of the Design Guidelines. Community Development Board, January 20, 2015 FLD2014-11030 — Page 3 ' 4��a� �l' alel Level II Flexible Develo ment lication Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT p �p DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION . . �.:nx�s . . . Since no portion of the proposed building exceeds 100 feet in height this section is not applicable to the proposal. Section C addresses issues relating to design, scale and building mass. These topics are quantified in six parts as follows: Section C.1 requires buildings with a footprint of greater than 5,000 square feet or a single dimension greater than 100 feet to be constructed so that no more than two of the three building dimensions in the vertical or horizontal planes are equal in length. The proposed building footprint is approximately 1,439 square feet and no plane of the building extends for more than 100 feet. Therefore, this section is not applicable to the proposal. Section C.2 requires no plane or elevation to continue uninterrupted for greater than 100 feet without an offset of more than five feet. No portion of the building fa�ade continues for more than 100 feet in length. Therefore, this section is not applicable to the proposal. Section C.3 requires at least 60 percent of any elevation (with elevation being defined as that portion of a building that is visible from a particular point outside the parcel proposed for development) to be covered with windows or architectural decoration. The primary facades visible from offsite axe the north, south, and west facades. The proposed building will feature an extensive open patio dining area will extend along the street frontage. An extensive use of windows, open patio areas and tiki hut features occupy more than 60 percent of either of these three facades. Therefore, this provision is supported by the proposal. Section C.4 provides that no more than 60 percent of the theoretical maximum building envelope located above 45 feet will be occupied by a building. The maximum building height will be 16 feet to mid-point of pitched roof, therefore; this section is not applicable to the proposal. Section C.S requires that the height and mass of buildings will be correlated to: (1) the dimensional aspects of the parcel proposed for development and (2) adjacent public spaces such as streets and parks. The South Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way is approximately 70 feet in width while the South Gulfview Boulevard that the subject property abuts is approximately 22 feet wide. The outdoor seating area will be 30 feet from the east edge of the promenade. The building will essentially be located 27 feet from the west property line with the outdoor patio area beginning approximately 2.2 feet from the right-of-way which is consistent with other existing structures along Gulfview Boulevard. Given the height of the building there should be no negative effect on adjacent public spaces. Therefore, this provision is supported by the proposal. Section C.6 permits buildings to be designed for a vertical or horizontal mix of permissible uses. The development proposal is for a single use building. Therefore, the application is supported by this Guideline. Section D addresses the issues of sidewalk widths, setbacks and stepbacks. These topics are quantified in three parts as follows: Community Development Board, January 20, 2015 FLD2014-11030 — Page 4 � Cll��l Y1' [il�l Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review FLANNING & DEVELOPMENT P PP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION � '�� , °�.`�� , s,: Section D.1 provides that the distances from structures to the edge of the right-of-way should be 15 feet along arterials, and 12 feet along local streets where the proposal provides a 30 foot setback to the building from the beach walk promenade. In addition, decorative awnings and arcades and public balconies may extend into the public space and even into the right-of- way (provided they do not obstruct vehicular traffic). The proposal maintains the existing five foot sidewalk along the portion of Gulfview Boulevard adjacent to the property while as stated above the property is 30 feet from the promenade. The proposed outdoor patio area and landscaping planting beds is appropriate given the existing pattern of development in the area and the desire to locate active uses such as restaurants adjacent to sidewalks and is supported by the Comprehensive Plan as examined in greater detail elsewhere in this report. Therefore, this Guideline is met by this proposal. Section D.2 provides that except for the side and rear setbacks set forth elsewhere in Beach by Design, no side or rear setback lines are recommended, except as may be required to comply with the City's Fire Code. The proposal includes side (north) setbacks of 1.8 feet to storage building and 3.2 feet to building and a side (south) setback of zero feet (to driveway pavement) and 13.89 feet to building. Therefore, this Guideline is met by this proposal. Section D.3 addresses setbacks and stepbacks along Coronado and Hamden Drives. The proposal is not located along Coronado Drive or Hamden Drive, therefore this guideline is not applicable to the proposal. Section E addresses issues of street-level facades and the incorporation of human-scale features into the facades of buildings in four parts. Section E.1 requires that at least 60 percent of the street level facades (the portion of the building within 12 feet of grade) of buildings used for nonresidential purposes which abut a public street or pedestrian access way, will include windows or doors that allow pedestrians to see into the building, or landscaped or hardscaped courtyard or plazas, where street level facades are set back at least 15 feet from the edge of the sidewalk and the area between the sidewalk and the facade is a landscaped or hardscaped courtyard or plaza. The proposed building will feature windows along the entire front (west) fa�ade that will allow for pedestrians to see into the restaurant as well as patrons of the restaurant to view the Gulf of Mexico. In addition, the concept of the building is to appear as a completely open air structure with seating and customer interaction areas adjacent the promenade and sidewalk. No parking spaces are provided so the portions of this section addressing parking garages do not apply to the proposal otherwise, this Guideline is met by this proposal. Section E.2 provides that window coverings, and other opaque materials may cover no more than 10 percent of the area of any street-level window in a nonresidential building that fronts on a public right-of-way. No window coverings are proposed on windows on the west fa�ade facing South Gulfview Boulevard. The thatched roof eave and tiki hut structure will not obstruct window views towards the beach or into the restaurant at street-level. Therefore, this Guideline is met by this proposal. Community Development Board, January 20, 2015 FLD2014-11030 — Page 5 ' C�LtRl ►7�L�� Level II Flexible Development App�ication Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT � . . .. .. ... . . . . .. . . DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION Section E.3 requires that building entrances should be aesthetically inviting and easily identified. The entrance to the building is generous in size and includes landscaping and a grand staircase and tiki hut architectural element defining the main entrance and outdoor seating area. Therefore, this Guideline is met by this proposal. Section E.4 recommends the use of awnings and other structures that offer pedestrians cover from the elements especially at entryways. The proposed building will feature outdoor seating area covered by the tiki hut roof structure. Therefore, this Guideline is met by this proposal. Section F addresses issues related to the treatment of parking areas. To create a well-defined and aesthetically appealing street boundary, all parking areas will be separated from public rights-of- way by a landscaped decorative wall, fence or other opaque landscape treatment of not less than three feet and not more than 3.5 in height. Parking is not included as part of the proposed project. Therefore, this Guideline is not applicable to this proposal. Section G addresses issues related to signage. A sign package has not been included with the submittal. Any proposed signage wi11 be required to meet the requirements of this section of Beach by Design and any applicable portions of the Community Development Code. Section H addresses issues related to sidewalks (also addressed in part by Section D, above) and provides that all sidewalks along arterials and retail streets should be at least 10 feet in width. The subject property fronts on a remnant public right-of-way that has an existing five foot sidewalk. However, the promenade is considered the actual sidewalk link for the subject property to beach walk. Therefore, this Guideline is met by this proposal. The remnant right-of-way is to be eliminated when the hotel project is completed. Section I addresses issues related to street furniture and bicycle racks. The project includes a six stall bicycle rack on the south side of the property. Therefore, this Guideline is met by this proposal. Section J addresses issues related to street lighting. Street lighting installed by the City already exists along Gulfview Boulevard. Additional street lighting is not proposed with this development. Therefore, this section is not applicable to the proposal. Section K addresses issues related to fountains. A fountain is not proposed with this development. Therefore, this section is not applicable to the proposal. Section L addresses issues related to materials and colors. Finish materials and building colors are required to reflect Florida or coastal vernacular themes. The proposed building is indicative of the coastal designed architecture with outdoor dining and seating areas located under a thatched tiki hut roof structure. The exterior colors proposed include light salmon and white colors to accent the brown color of the roof structure. The proposed color scheme and material schedule meets the requirements of this section. Community Development Board, January 20, 2015 FLD2014-11030 — Page 6 � Ci�.Nl 11'�l��l Level II Flexible Develo ment lication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT P MP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DMSION . _< . . . .. �E'A�,- ' . ,. � Community Development Code ➢ Purpose, Intent and Basic Plannin� Objectives The proposal is supported by the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code as follows: Section 1-103.B.1. Allowing property owners to enhance the value of their property through innovative and creative redevelopment. The location and shape of the parcel is similar to other parcels in the area, however, the size is slightly smaller than the majority of the parcels fronting along Gulfview Boulevard. The proposed restaurant is consistent with the character of the area along Gulfview Boulevard with regard to use and the proposal will result in a project consistent with elements of the Comprehensive Plan, as provided above. Section 1-103.B.2. Ensuring that development and redevelopment will not have a negative impact on the value of surrounding properties and wherever practicable promoting development and redevelopment which will enhance the value of surrounding properties. Surrounding properties to the subject property include a variety of commercial and tourism related uses consistent with the Tourist District and the redevelopment of the existing retail use into a viable restaurant use will enhance the immediate area. The surrounding land uses of hotels, retail, parking lot and beach areas will benefit from the addition of a full-service restaurant within walking distance. The proposal is consistent with the level of design (both site and building) as applied to surrounding area properties and others throughout the City. It is anticipated that the proposal will result in a positive impact on those surrounding properties. Therefore, the proposal supports this CDC section. Section 1-103.B.3. Strengthening the city's economy and increasing its tax base as a whole. While the proposal is expected to have no net increase in the t� base as a whole, the overall result will be the redevelopment of an existing retail use into a full-service restaurant which will provide an architecturally attractive building which will support the intent of the standards of the CDC. Section 1-103. D. It is the further purpose of this Development Code to make the beautification of the city a matter of the highest priority and to require that existing and future uses and structures in the city are attractive and well-maintained to the maximum extent permitted by law. The proposal includes a new full-service restaurant with landscape planting areas and extensive outdoor customer area. Meeting the requirements of the CDC as well as Beach by Design. Section 2-801 Intent of the TouNist District and Resort High Facilities FLUP classification. The CDC provides that the Tourist (T) District may be located in more than one land use category. It is the intent of the T District that development be consistent with the Countywide Future Land Use Plan as required by state law. The uses and development potential of a parcel of land within the T District shall be determined by the standards found in this Development Code as well as the Countywide Future Land Use Designation of the property, including any acreage or floor area restrictions set forth in the Rules Concerning the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as amended from time to time. For those parcels within the Community Development Board, January 20, 2015 FLD2014-11030 — Page 7 ' C�Q�l f1'�L��Level II Flexible DevelopmentApplication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT � �Tfs`'a�A�:: °�'f,�T�;� �at:;� . .. . DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION T District that have an area within the boundaries of and governed by a special area plan approved by the city council and the countywide planning authority, maa�imum development potential shall be as set forth for each classification of use and location in the approved plan. Section 2.3.3.4.6 of the Countywide Land Use Rules provides that the purpose of the Resort Facilities High (RFH) FLUP classification is to depict those areas of the county that are now developed, or appropriate to be developed, in high density residential and resort, tourist facility use; and to recognize such areas as well-suited for the combination of residential and temporary lodging use consistent with their location, surrounding uses, transportation facilities and natural resource characteristics of such areas. The proposed restaurant is consistent with the permitted secondary uses of the RFH FLUP. ➢ Development Parameters Floor Area Ratio�FAR�: Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-801.1, the maximum FAR for properties with a Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) designation of Resort Facilities High (RFH) is 1.0. The proposed FAR is 0.26, which is consistent with the Countywide Plan Rules and the CDC. Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR� Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-801.1, the maximum allowable ISR is 0.95. The proposed project will have an ISR of 0.69, which is consistent with the Countywide Plan Rules and the CDC. Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, there is no minimum required lot area or lot width for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to CDC Table 2-802, Flexible Standard Development Standards, the required lot area and width for a restaurant is between 5,000 and 10,000 square feet and 50 and100 feet, respectively. The lot area is 7,209.52 square feet and the lot width is 70 feet which is consistent with the requirements of the CDC. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, there are no minimum required setbacks for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for comparison purposes restaurants in the T District are required a front setback between zero and 15 feet; a side setback between zero feet and 10 feet; and a rear setback of 10 feet to 20 feet. The proposed building front setback will be 2.2 feet to outdoor seating area and 27.28 feet to existing building; the side (north) setback will be 1.08 feet to existing structure and 3.21 feet to existing building; the side (south) setback will be zero feet to existing driveway and 13.89 feet to building; the rear (east) setback will be 3.03 feet to existing concrete and 49 feet to existing building. The east, north and south setbacks are to existing structures such as the driveway, storage building, and building. The front (west) setback will be 2.2 feet to outdoor seating area which is consistent with the requirements of the CDC. Community Development Board, January 20, 2015 FLD2014-11030 — Page 8 � Cl�[�l �(I L�� Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT P PP DEVELOPMENTREV�WDIVISION _.... ��; Maximum BuildinQ Hei,� Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, there is no maximum height for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project; however, pursuant to CDC Table 2-802, the maximum allowable height for restaurants can range between 35 and 50 feet. The proposed building will be a maximum of 6.10 feet (BFE to mid-point of pitched roo fl and 16 feet (from grade to mid-point of pitched roo� and 32 feet (to top of architectural pylon) which is consistent with the requirements of the CDC. Minimum Off-Street Parkin� Pursuant to CDC Table 2-803, a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project shall have off- street parking requirements determined by the Community Development Coordinator. As a point of reference, pursuant to CDC Table 2-802, a restaurant shall be required to provide between seven and 12 spaces per 1,000 GFA. Based on the requirements of CDC 2-802, the proposed restaurant would be required to provide between 13 and 22 spaces. The proposal includes zero parking spaces. The applicant has submitted a Paxking Demand Study which identifies sixty-three on-street parking spaces available within the immediate area. It also identifies and additional sixty-five parking spaces when Parking Lot #32 reopens. The study further identifies that the subject property is in close proximity to municipal parking lots, nearby hotels/motels, residential condominiums all providing for a high probability of "walk-up" customers. Additionally, the Jolley Trolley route passes directly in front of the proposed restaurant and has a designated stop near the site. A bicycle rack will be provided on site and there are a number of bicycle racks located nearby on the west side of Gulfview Boulevard adjacent the public restroom . All of the noted factors in addition to the sixty-three spaces in the immediate vicinity of the proposed restaurant will not cause adverse impacts to the surrounding areas, which is consistent with the requirements of the CDC. Mechanical Ec�uipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-903.I.1, mechanical equipment shall be screened from any public right-of-way and adjacent properties. The site plan does not show mechanical equipment to be located ground-level or on the roof. Any equipment visible from adjacent properties and from South Gulfview Boulevard shall be screened from view. The screening of inechanical equipment will be addressed at time of permitting. Si�ht Visibility Triangles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20- foot sight visibility triangles. The proposed project includes a sight visibility triangle on the north side of the driveway that will not have any landscaping or structure that will impact any existing sight visibility triangles, which is consistent with the requirements of the CDC. 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. The electric and communication lines are to remain as-is. If located exterior to the building, to ensure views are minimized, this electrical equipment should Community Development Board, January 20, 2015 FLD2014-11030 — Page 9 ' Cl�i rt aie� Level II Flexible Development Application Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ..,. .r .._ , �S ..w, - . . . . .. . DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION be painted the same color as the building. The location and potential views of such electrical equipment will be addressed at the building permit stage. Landsca�ing Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, there are no perimeter buffers required in the Tourist District for this site. However, pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.E.2, foundation landscaping five feet in width is required. The applicant has submitted a Comprehensive Landscaping Application consistent with CDC Section 3-1202.G. The proposed project includes a 2.2 foot wide landscape buffer along the front of the restaurant. In addition the landscape plans shows the improvement of existing greenspace with new landscape material such as shrubs (hibiscus, blue sage, and dwarf yaupon holly) and groundcovers (perennial peanut and beach sunflower) as well as the addition of trees (cabbage palm and silverwood button) on the north and east sides of the property which is consistent with the requirements of the CDC. The landscape plan shows three tonto crape myrtle trees to be planted in the greenspace area along the south fa�ade of the building. These trees may grow and encroach into the driveway and may not be appropriate for their location. The applicant shall remove these trees from the landscape plan and replace with a flowering type hedge that would be easier to maintain so not to grow into the driveway. Solid Waste: The proposal will utilize one roll out dumpster for trash removal. The dumpster will be located to the rear (southeast) of the building with the enclosure. The walls and materials of the enclosure shall be painted and similar to match the building and gates meeting City of Clearwater specifications. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City's Solid Waste Department. ➢ General Applicability Criteria Rec�uirements The proposal supports the General Applicability requirements of the CDC as follows: Section 3-914.A.1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. The proposal includes a 1,895 square foot, full-service restaurant with outdoor seating. The subject property is located within the T District on Gulfview Boulevard, directly facing the beach walk promenade. The area features a variety of retail sales, services, overnight accommodations, and restaurants. The buildings in the immediate area range from two to four stories with mostly beachfront hotels featuring multi-stories. The proposed tiki hut structure will be consistent with surrounding tourist orientated attractions and uses making up the existing development pattern, scale and character of the area and therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. Section 3-914.A.2. The proposed development will not hinde� or discourage development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. Most of the immediate area is built-out and the proposed restaurant development will provide an additional amenity to the existing combination of area land uses. The proposal will not impair the value of adjacent properties. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. Community Development Board, January 20, 2015 FLD2014-11030 — Page 10 � C�\.(41 1't�L�l Level II Flexible Develo mentA lication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT _ p Pp DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION �',�� :� . _ . . . � �%' . ; C': _ . Section 3-914.A.3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. The proposed development will adhere to current building practices and laws with the future restaurant operations falling under the prevue of the health board further ensuring the health and safety of the customer base and immediate community. The proposal will likely have no effect, negative or otherwise, on the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. Section 3-914.A.4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. The proposal has been designed to have a minimal effect on traffic congestion. It is anticipated that the site will depend on captured trips and that the customer base is anticipated to be primarily pedestrian. The Parking Demand Study has identified that there are 63 on-street parking spaces within the immediate area. It also identifies sixty-five parking spaces will come on-line in City Parking Lot #32 when it reopens in 2015 after construction of a new hotel on adjacent property. The proposal will not negatively impact existing traffic congestion and will in fact minimize traffic to the subject property as the majority of the customer base will be drawn from the immediate area of overnight accommodations and residential units. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. Section 3-914.A. S. The proposed development is consistent with the communiry character of the immediate vicinity. As previously discussed, the community character consists primarily of a variety of commercial and tourist oriented uses including retail sales and service, overnight accommodations, and restaurants. The architectural style of the building combined with the open air concept of the outdoor deck area will complement and enhance adjacent properties. A contemporary seaside theme will be utilized through the architectural materials of the proposed structure. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. Section 3-914.A.6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on adjacent properties. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse visual and acoustic impacts on adjacent properties. There should be no olfactory impacts of any kind with upgraded improvements to building components. The proposed building will be designed to blend into the immediate area and will provide an additional amenity to the existing combination of tourist oriented uses. The hours of operation will be consistent with other surrounding uses. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. ➢ Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria requirements The proposal supports the specific Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria pursuant to CDC Section 2-803.D.1-6 as follows: 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. The proposed restaurant improvements incorporate an existing structure and the location of the physical building maintains the existing setbacks with the addition of the outdoor seating area, tiki hut structure, and ADA accessible ramp. Although the subject property has limited Community Development Board, January 20, 2015 FLD2014-11030 — Page 11 '_ Vil.a��ll.l Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT P pp DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISiON � ... . . . . , . . ... . .. area to expand any structure on site the outdoor seating area will provide a design without requiring intrusion into the public right-of-way. The applicant has provided for a development proportionately-scaled to the site and consistent with the pattern of development in the area and as desired by Beach by Design. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. The development of the site will be consistent with a variety of Goals, Objectives and Policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of the CDC as examined in detail previously in this document. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. As mentioned, all surrounding properties are developed with a variety of commercial and tourist oriented uses including restaurants, overnight accommodations, retail sales and services. The proposal should have no impact on the ability of adjacent properties to redevelop or otherwise be improved. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development. As discussed in detail, the proposal is similar to and will support adjacent uses. In addition, the proposed building design, orientation, landscaping and site layout is similar to adjacent properties. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. S. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the undeYlying future land use catego�y, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of six objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; The proposed restaurant use is permitted as a Flexible Standard use within the T District and is permitted by the underlying future land use category of RFH. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district. As mentioned, surrounding properties are developed with a variety of uses typical of a commercial nature including hotels, retail sales and services, and restaurants. The proposed restaurant will support and complement surrounding uses with regard to form and function. The proposal will have no negative effect on the ability of surrounding Community Development Board, January 20, 2015 FLD2014-11030 — Page 12 � C��Ll.l Level II Flexible Develo ment lication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT p �P DEVEIAPWIENT REVIEW DIVISION u 3 c:,. . . . s:a:�;, ; . .. . properties to be redeveloped or otherwise improved. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the city. The subject property is located within the "Beach Walk" character district of Beach by Design and is consistent with the established criteria of the design guidelines as examined in detail in this report. c. The design, scale and intensiry of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area. The proposal provides for a use similar in type and site configuration to other existing surrounding uses within this area of Clearwater Beach. The property is located within the T District and provides for a permitted use and therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: ■ Changes in horizontal building planes; ■ Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; ■ Variety in materials, colors and textures; � Distinctive fenestration patterns; ■ Building step backs; and • Distinctive roofs forms. Within Beach by Design criteria, the proposed restaurant is being development within the "Beach Walk" character district. The project will add vitality and promote context for the streetscape envisioned within the character district. The proposed architectural character incorporates elements anticipated within Beach by Design, and therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. e. The proposed development provides or a ropriate buffers enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. The proposed buffers and setbacks provide appropriate buffering and distances between buildings, similar to adjacent and surrounding developments. The landscape design will present an inviting topical appearance and meets the intent of Beach by Design. Additionally, the applicant has submitted a Comprehensive Landscaping Application as part of the submittal; therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. Section 4-206.D.4: Burden of proof. The burden of proof is upon the applicant to show by substantial competent evidence that he is entitled to the approval requested. The applicant has adequately demonstrated through the submittal of substantial competent evidence that the request is entitled to the approval requested as required by CDC Section 4- 206.D.4. Community Development Board, January 20, 2015 FLD2014-11030 — Page 13 � C��.t�l �aLel Level II Flexible Development Application Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ., .. ... . . �=�5 �� . . .. . DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION Comprehensive Plan The proposal is in support of the following Goals, Objectives and/or Policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan as follows: Future Land Use Plan Element Oblective A.3.1 — All signage within the City of Clearwater shall be consistent with the Clearwater sign code, as found within the Community Development Code, and all proposed signs shall be evaluated to determine their effectiveness in reducing visual clutter and in enhancing the safety and attractiveness of the streetscape. The proposal does not include a sign package at this time. However, the applicant has committed to complying with all requirements of the CDC. Therefore, the proposal supports this Obj ective. Obiective A.S.S — Promote high quality design standards that suppo�t Clearwater's image and contribute to its identity. Policv A. S. S.1 - Development should be designed to maintain and support the existing or envisioned character of the neighborhood. The proposal provides for a use permitted as a flexible standard development within the Tourist District and a site design generally consistent with other development in the area along Gulfview Boulevard. The immediate area surrounding the subject property is pedestrian-oriented with a variety of commercial uses providing amenities to the visiting tourist as well as resident of the community. The proposed project will provide upgrades to the existing site and provide for an active desirable use within the established commercial area. Obiective A.6.1 - The redevelopment of blighted, substandard, inefficient and/or obsolete areas shall be a high priority and promoted through the implementation of redevelopment and special area plans, the construction of catalytic private projects, city investment, and continued emphasis on p�operry maintenance standards. In adopting Beach by Design the City recognized that large portions of the Beach could be classified as blighted, substandard and suffered from "obsolescence and age". One of the goals of Beach by Design is to reverse this trend of disinvestment. This goal is well on the way to being met (perhaps even exceeded) in many areas of the Beach. The proposal improves an existing site with a new restaurant and should be seen as one more step in the revitalization of the Beach and supports this Objective. Objective A.6.4 — Due to the built-out character of the ciry of Clearwater, compact urban development within the urban service area shall be promoted through application of the Clearwater Community Development Code; and Policv A.6.4.1 - The development or redevelopment of small parcels �less than one (1) acreJ which are currently receiving an adequate level of service shall be specifically encouraged by administration of land development and concurrency management regulatory systems as a method of promoting urban infill. The subject property is a small parcel in comparison to the majority of surrounding parcels and as such provides for limited development and/or redevelopment options which would be Community Development Board, January 20, 2015 FLD2014-11030 — Page 14 � C�e(�tl �tiLel Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT P pP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION � � +�� consistent with the CDC. The proposed full-service restaurant will provide a commercial amenity to the existing neighborhood. Objective A.6.6 - Tourism is a substantial element of the City's economic base and as such the City shall continue to support the maintenance and enhancement of this important economic sector. The proposed Restaurant will support the Tourist base and the proposal meets this Objective. Policv A.6.8.3 - Where appropriate, development shall provide a sense of pedestrian scale on streets through minimal front setbacks, similar building heights, street trees and proportionaliry of building heights to street widths. The proposal includes a renovated the site and building. As explored in detail previously in this document, the proposal is consistent with the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design including those provisions addressing pedestrian scale, setbacks, and proportionality vis-a-vis building height and street widths and supports this Policy. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS AND CRITERIA The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards for restaurant as er l;1Jl: 1 ables L-�U 1.1 anci L-�U�: Standard Proposed Consistent Inconsistent Floor Area Ratio 1.00 0.26 X Impervious Surface Ratio 0.95 0.68 X Minimum Lot Area N/A 7,209.52 square feet (0.16 X acres) Minimum Lot Width N/A 70 feet X Minimum Setbacks Front: West: N/A 2.2 feet to outdoor seating area X 27.28 feet to building Rear: East N/A 3.03 feet to pavement X 49 feet to building Side: North: N/A 1.08 feet to storage building X 3.21 feet to building South: N/A Zero feet to concrete X 13.89 feet to building Maximum Height N/A 16 feet from grade to mid-point X of pitched roof 6.10 feet from BFE to mid- point of pitched roof Minimum Determined by the community Zero spaces X� Off-Street Parking development coordinator based on the specific use and/or ITE Manual standards � See analysis in Staff Report Community Development Board, January 20, 2015 FLD2014-11030 — Page 15 • � C�l.t�l T'►aLl.r Level II Flexible Development Application Review - � ��6�r ..p, , 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: 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts on ad'acent properties. 1 See analysis in Sta„(f Report Community Development Board, January 20, 2015 FLD2014-11030 — Page 16 Consistent I Inconsistent X' X' X' X' X' X' � li��.Ri ft' L4L�� Level II Flexible Development Application Review u, . �..�s.� :� �t�'.: 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 2-803.D. (Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project): � 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development. 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing; e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront use. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district; b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the City; c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; d. In order to form a cohesive, visually interesting and attractive appearance, the proposed development incorporates a substantial number of the following design elements: ❑ Changes in horizontal building planes; ❑ Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, porticos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; ❑ Variety in materials, colors and textures; ❑ Distinctive fenestration patterns; ❑ Building stepbacks; and ❑ Distinctive roofs forms. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. � See analysis in Staff Report Community Development Board, January 20, 2015 FLD2014-11030 — Page 17 Consistent � Inconsistent X1 X� X' X' X' � • � L1bN1 ►��Lel Level II Flexibie Development Application Review - .. . . ��"�`P°:,+��"� � . .. . � 1. Section A: Density. 2. Section B: Height. 3. Section C: Design, Scale and Mass of Buildings. 4. Section D: Setbacks. 5. Section: Street-Level Fa�ades. 6. Section F: Parking Areas. 7. Section G: Signage. 8. Section H: Sidewalks. 9. Section I: Street Furniture and Bicycle Racks. 10. Section J: Street Lighting. 1 l. Section K: Fountains. 12. Section L: Materials and Colors. � See analysis in Sta�f Report. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION Consistent Inconsistent X' X' X1 X' X' X� X' X' N/A' N/A� X' SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of December 4, 2014, and deemed the development proposal to be legally sufficient, based upon the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: Findings of Fact The Planning and Development Department, having reviewed all evidence submitted by the applicant and requirements of the Community Development Code, finds that there is substantial competent evidence to support the following findings of fact: 1. That the 0.16-acre site is located on the east side of Gulfview Boulevard, approximately 171 feet south of the intersection of Gulfview Boulevard with Fifth Street; 2. That the subject property is located within the Tourist (T) District and the Resort Facilities High (RFH) Future Land Use Plan category; 3. That the subject property is located within the "Beach Walk" character district of Beach by Design; 4. That the proposal is to renovate the existing one-story structure into a full-service restaurant and is subject to the requisite development parameters per Article 2, Division 8 of the CDC; 5. That the site is currently developed with a retail use; 6. The subject property is comprised of one parcel with approximately 70 feet of frontage along Gulfview Boulevard; 7. The proposal includes a front (west) setback of 2.2 feet (outdoor seating area) and 27.28 feet (to building); a side (north) setback of 1.08 feet (to structure) and 3.21 feet (to building); a side (south) setback of zero feet (to concrete driveway) and 13.89 feet (to building); a rear (east) setback of 3.03 feet (to concrete) and 49 feet (to building); a building height of 6.10 feet (from Base Flood Elevation to mid-point of pitched roo fl and 16 feet (from existing grade to mid-point of pitched roo�, with zero parking spaces; 8. A Comprehensive Landscaping Program application has been submitted and the project includes a 2.2 foot landscape buffer along the front of the outdoor seating area as well as Community Development Board, January 20, 2015 FLD2014-11030 — Page 18 � (' p��7n +p�. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT = li Vt1�l �1i�1\.l Level II Flexibie Development Application Review DEVEr.orMErrr �v�w niviscox ,..K�� _,� improving existing greenspace areas with new landscape material such as silverbutton wood, beach sunflower, perennial peanut, and hibiscus; and, 9. There are no active Code Compliance cases for the subject property. Conclusions of Law The Planning and Development Department, having made the above findings of fact, reaches the following conclusions of law: 1. That the development proposal is consistent with the pattern of development of the surrounding neighborhood; 2. That the development proposal is consistent with the Beach Walk District of Beach by Design; 3. That the development proposal is consistent with the Design Guidelines of Beach by Design. 4. That the development proposal is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; 5. That the development proposal is consistent with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of the Community Development Code; 6. That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Tables 2-801.1 and 2- 802, Community Development Code; 7. That the development proposal is consistent with the Standards as per Table 2-803 of the Community Development Code with regard to Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project; 8. That the development proposal is consistent with the Flexibility Criteria as per Section 2- 803.D of the Community Development Code; 9. That the development proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Landscaping Program as per Section 3-1202.G of the Community Development Code; 10. That the development proposal is consistent with the General Standards for Level One and Two Approvals as per Section 3-914.A of the Community Development Code; and, 11. That the application is consistent with the requirement for the submittal of substantial competent evidence as per CDC Section 4-206.D.4. Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends APPROVAL of Flexible Development application to permit a 1,895 square foot restaurant with a 750 square foot outdoor seating area in the Tourist (T) District with a lot area of 7,209.52 square feet; a lot width of 70 feet (along South Gulfview Boulevard); a front (west) setback of 2.2 feet (outdoor seating area) and 27.28 feet (to building); a side (north) setback of 1.08 feet (to structure) and 3.21 feet (to building); a side (south) setback of zero feet (to concrete driveway) and 13.89 feet (to building); a rear (east) setback of 3.03 feet (to concrete) and 49 feet (to building); a building height of 6.10 feet (from Base Flood Elevation to mid-point of pitched roo� and 16 feet (from existing grade to mid-point of pitched roo�, with zero parking spaces as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 2- 803.D, and a reduction to the foundation landscape requirement on the front (south) facade from five feet to zero feet as a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of Community Development Code Section 3-1202.G., subject to the following conditions: Conditions of Approval: General/Miscellaneous Conditions l. That the final design and color of the building be generally consistent with the elevations approved by the CDB; Community Development Board, January 20, 2015 FLD2014-11030 — Page 19 � C�eiii n aLl.r Level II Flexible Development Appiication Review DEVELOPMENT REV�W DI�VI Is oN �s �� _ 2. That prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan that shows the proposed tonto crape myrtles to be replaced by a flowering hedge within the greenspace along the south fa�ade of the building; 3. That prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall submit a rendering of the solid waste enclosure to ensure the walls and materials of the enclosure shall be similar and painted to match the building meeting City of Clearwater specifications. 4. That all signage be reviewed and approved pursuant to the City's sign ordinance and that the maximum square footage of any freestanding signs be limited to the minimum permitted by the CDC with regard to area, height and number without the opportunity to apply for a Comprehensive Sign Program; 5. That all irrigation systems be connected to the City reclaimed water system where available per Clearwater Code of Ordinances, Article IX., Reclaimed Water System, Section 32.376. 6. 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; 7. That all other applicable local, state and/or federal permits be obtained before commencement of the development; Timing Conditions 8. That application for a building permit be submitted no later than January 20, 2016, unless time extensions are granted pursuant to CDC Section 4-407; 9. That prior to the issuance of any permits all design considerations for construction within a flood zone be submitted to and approved by Staff; 10. 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; 11. That prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy that all required Transportation Impact Fees be paid; 12. That prior to the issuance of any building permits the location and visibility of electric equipment (electric panels, boxes and meters) and/or outdoor mechanical equipment be reviewed and, if electrical equipment is located exterior to the building where visible from any street frontage, and be shown to be painted the same color as the portion of the building to which such features are attached any mechanical equipment shall be screened from the public right-of-way and adjacent properties; 13. That prior to the issuance of any permits a final landscape plan which clearly shows all underground utilities on and adjacent to the site be submitted to and approved by Staff; 14. That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the sidewalk and any associated sidewalk amenities damaged or displaced due to construction of the proposal be repaired andlor installed to the satisfaction of City Staff. That prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy a copy of an approved SWFWMD permit shall be provided to Staff; Community Development Board, January 20, 2015 FLD2014-11030 — Page 20 Y li��.lil 1fRLel Levei II Flexible Develo ment lication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT P APP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION o. . .._...:�...., . .. . � � � 15. That prior to the issuance of any permits all sub-standard sidewalks and sidewalk ramps adjacent to or a part of the project shall be shown on plans to be improved to meet the requirement of Local, State and/or Federal standards including ADA requirements (truncated domes per FDOT Index #304); 16. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall provide details for the pervious concrete driveway shall be provided; 17. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, a cross-section of the deck and the pond shall be provided; 18. That prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall provide a boring log for the subject property; 19. That prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, a maintenance and operations plan for the pond underneath the deck shall be provided; 20. That prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, a maintenance and operations plan for the pervious concrete driveway shall be provided; and 21. That prior to the issuance of any pertnit, all requirements of the General Engineering, Traffic Engineering and Fire Departments be addressed. Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: Kevin . urnberger, Planner III ATTACHMENTS: Photographs/Staff Resume Community Development Board, January 20, 2015 FLD2014-11030 — Page 21 _"�,.� � ~` � � :�� , f ' � � �,:, �� - � �' � • �� .._.. . I,00king nortli from subject property. i �� i'I' �11111 i r_ "� 7' �c � ' ��`[:��%� . ��ti � - �� - �ly-,.^-' .� ' .fi�;. ,� � .._. _ � . Looking south from adjacent property to the north. Looking at rear yard area of subject property. �' � � : �� h � e. �.,,,,f�� Looking east at subject property from promenade. `/5" ' "�' . .... . � '... �� , `�""- � . , '�� - , �,� ,.�,�� '� -d.. �µ ' ' ".?� Looking cast from subject property. � � ■��o �� #' ,ia,y� I� �,�— ,}._ _�_ _ View of space between adjacent hotel property and proposed restaurant property. r.�,�, �tlili�,,.Jq � �� ;�. ��" ��f ��,�-y � r �r #��A y�d L t; 521 South Gulfview FLD2014-11030 Kevin W. Nurnberger 100 S Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 727-562-4567ext2502 kevin.nurnber�er(�a,mvc learwater.com PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Planner III March 2011 to present Planner II October 2010 to March 2011 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 County of York, Yorktown, Virginia 2007 to 2009 Reviewed residential, commercial and mixed use development site plans to ensure compliance with planning, zoning, subdivision, historic preservation, and environmental standards as well as design criteria, specifications, regulations, codes and ordinances. Led pre-application meetings with residents, neighborhood organizations, contractors, and developers regarding future projects which included state and local government agencies. Site Assistant Gahan and Long Ltd, Belfast, Northern Ireland 2006 to 2007 Enforced Article 3 of the Planning Order (NI) with land owners, developers and district councils on procedures relating to archaeological and built heritage remains on proposed development sites. On site assistant to project manager during the archeological process throughout the pre-development stage. Development Planner Versar Inc, Fort Story/Fort Eustis, Virginia 2005 to 2006 Developed survey strategies for the Cultural Resource Manager by reviewing local and state planning documents, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Preservation Planning on Federal installations, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, the Virginia Department of Transportation plan, and Virginia Power's public utility plan in the predevelopment stages of new development and building expansion projects to ensure protection of historic properties. City Planner Ciry Planning Commission, New Orleans, Louisiana 2000 to 2005 Primary subdivision planner assisting applicants throughout the subdivision process in accordance with the zoning and subdivision regulations of the City of New Orleans. Reviewed various zoning and conditional use applications. Prepared and presented staff reports to the City Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Adjustments. EDUCATION University of New Orleans, LA MA Urban and Regional Planning (2004) State University of New York at Buffalo, NY BA Anthropology (1999) LL ° � e��at�r � U Planning & Development Department �'ir'cXliii� �EaV�C�ii�TrificTiTi� r�i�3YiiCai�iiiii Attached Dwellings, Mixed-Uses or Non-Resident�al Uses IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT COMPLETE AND CORRECT INFORMATION. ANY MISLEADING, DECEPTIVE, INCOMPLETE OR INCORR�CT INFORMATION MAY INVALIDATE YOUR APPtICATION. ALL APPLICATIONS ARE TO BE FILLED OUT COMPLETELY AND CORRECTLY, AND SUBMITTED IN PERSON (NO FAX OR DELIVERIES) TO THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY NOON ON THE SCHEDULED DEADLINE DATE. A TOTAL OF Ii COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS (1 ORIGINAL AND 10 COPIES) AS REQUIRED WITHIN ARE TO BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE. SUBSEQUENT SUBMITTAL FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD WILL REQUIRE 15 COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPLICATION MATERiALS (1 ORIGINAL AND 14 COPIES). PLANS AND APPLICATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COLLATED, STAPLED AND FOLDED INTO SETS. THE APPLICANT, BY FILING THIS APPLICATION, AGREES TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. FIRE L�E?T P!?E! tMARY 5lTE P! eN R��lEI!!� �FF: $2�0 APPLICATION FEE: $1,205 PROPERTY OWNER (PER DEED): Nikana Holdings,LLC. MAILING ADDRESS: 421 $. GU�fVI@W BIVCI. CIW. 33767 PHONE NUMBER: 727-709-4800 EMAIL: mrcole27Ca)aol.com AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE: The Sustainability Group, (IC. MAILING ADDRESS: 6320 ROWa11 ROaCI. NG'W P01� RICit@y. FI 34653 PHONE NUMBER: 727-4$$-1002 ' �_ �(1 . f • •�� ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 411 South Gulfview Blvd. PARCEL NUMBER(S): 07-29-15-52380-000-0740 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LLOYD-WHITE-SKINNER SUB LOT 74 & N 10FT OF 75 PROPOSED USE(S): R@StaUfal1t DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: S6e Att8Ci11Y1@t1t'A' Specifically identify the request (include all requested code ffexibiliry; e.g., reduction in required number of po�king spaces, height setbacks, lot s1ze, !c* s:�i�+:h., sFecific us�, etc.): Planning & Development Departrnent,100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 7 of 8 Revised 01/12 LL o Planning & Development Department } Pa�ra��r �� , � n�� .�,��,� �. . � v�'* ,.r. .►'s r c�i�'i'i�i� LC�Cl��.l111C11l. r�i ��'ii�iCaiiu�i " Site Plan Submittal Package Check list IN AI]I�ITlnl� TC� TFIE Cf1MP1 F'TFn �I ��IRI F[1F\[FI f1PBRENT (FLL?� P.?PL�rATI�N; A1 I��n QPPI IrOT�f�Nt SHA� ! I��1 I II�F p CITE PLAN SUBMITTAL PACKAGE THAT INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION AND/OR PLANS: �l 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 i� ic�c i eSNvi �ScS. �I Fesponses to the General Applicability criteria set forth in Section 3-914.A. The attached Flexible Development Applicatian General Applicability Criteria sheet shall be used to provide these responses. �l Q cianarl a�r� CP�IP�,I ci�r-tia1i �f tha �rQ�►art;i ��-e�ara�l hv �a Ceoictararl �an{� c�ryeynr ihr�iirill1g the Inratinn nf tha ��n�artv� 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 t=.S. § 7lj.u�s3, ine appiication musi proviae tnai infiormaiion required by Section u-202.H.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 ar replacement of decking, stringers, railing, lower landings, fiie pifes, ar the patehing or reinforcing of existing piiing on private and commercial docks. �l A site plan prepared by a professional architect, engineer or landscape architect drawn to a minimum scale of one inch equals 50 feet on a sheet size not to exceed 24 inches by 36 inches that includes the following information: � Index sheet of the same size shall be included with individual sheet numbers referenced thereon. � North arrow, scale, location map and date prepared. lgl 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. 181 Lacatian and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian eircufation systems, both on-site and aff-site, with proposed points of access. lS) Location of all existing and proposed sidewalks, curbs, water lines, sanitary sewer lines, storm drains, fire hydrants and caa�niallc �r�rl an�i �rn�ncarl Rtiljtv eacarpantc, I$1 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. 18i Location of solid waste coflection facilities, required screening and provisions for accessibility for colfection. � Location of off-street loading area, if required by Section 3-1406. � All adjacent right(s)-of-way, with indication of centerline and width, paved width, existing median cuts and intersections and bus shelters. � Dimensions of existing and proposed lot lines, streets, drives, building lines, setbacks, structurai overhangs and building separations. �i r°.�Uii�i�is vi ��ru�tarC e�evat�a;� Urar,;��g; t"a: Cicjri�i iiic �ii�Na52u uUiitiifi� i,ci�iit ni�u �'iUli%ii�s i'iiaircPiBi�. Planning 8 Development Department,100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 4 of 8 Revised 01l12 ❑ Typical floor plans, including floor plans for each ftoor of any parking garage. ❑ Demolition plan. ❑ Identification and description of watercourses, wetlands, tree masses, specimen trees, and other environmentaHy sensitive areas. � If a deviation from the parking standards is requested that is greater than 50% (excluding those standards where the ciitterence batween the top and 'bottom oT the range is one parking space), then a parking demand stuciy wiii neea to be provided. The findings of the study will be used in determining whether or not deviations to the parking standards are approved. Please see the adopted Parking Demand Study Guidelines for further information. � A tree survey showing the location, DBH and species of all existing trees with a DBH of four inches or more, and identifying those trees proposed to be removed, if any. ❑ A tree inventory, prepared by a certified arborist, of all trees four inches DBH or more that reflects the size, canopy, and condition of such trees may be required if deemed applicable by staff. Check with staff. G ia i ranic impact Study snaii be required r'or aii proposed deveiopmenis if tne iotai generaied net new trips meei 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 ■ Qntiri�atar� ng�N t!'!� aona��tjnn rlopr�riac tha lPVPI Qf �aryira ac a�r�nr�torl jn tha ('it�rc f�mFrahanciya Plan tn 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 iraffic Operations Manager or their designee deems it necessary to require such a�ssessment in the plan review process. Examples include developments that are expected to negatively impact a constrained roadway or developments with unknown trip generation and/or other unknown factors. � H iandscape pian shaii oe provided ior any projec[ where inere is a new use or a cnange oi use; or an exisiing 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 n�t �thorin�iga Cery�iirorl jn rCr��tinn �qijtti tha a�,n,�li�a�i�n fnr rloyalnNrra�t �r��,n,rnyal; � 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, inciuding but not limited ta sidewalks, walls, fences, pools, patios, dumpster pads, pad mounted transformers, fire hydrants, overhead obstructions, curbs, water lines, sanitary sewer lines, storm drains, seawalls, utility easements, treatment of all ground surfaces, and any other features that may influence the proposed landscape. � Location ofi parking areas and other vehicular use areas, including parking spaces, circulation aisles, interior landscape islands and curbing. I� Drainage and retention areas, including swales, side slopes and bottom elevations. 1�6 Delineation and dimensions of all required perimeter landscaped buffers including sight triangles, if any. Planning & Development Department,100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 5 of 8 Revised 01l12 LL ° (' P��y�tPr U Planning & Development Department i�' 1G1�1�� V G��V�„.111�e111. 1'�'1�1p��LQ�l�J11 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 D€VELOPMENT RROPOSAL. 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. 5ee Attachment i�` 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate devefopment and use of adjacent land and buiidings or significantly impair the value thereof. 3. The proposed development witl not adversely affect the health or safety or persons residing or working in the neighborhood oi t �e �� puse� use. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for �eve�aNr �e��. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. 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 LL 0 Planning & Development Department � `�' �`'"'�� `'�� a icliiui� ��'dcif3"i?iiciii n""iia.uiivii Y Y�' � Flexibility Criteria PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO THE APPLICABLE FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR THE SPECIFIC USE(5) BEING REQUESTED AS SET FORTH IN iHE ZONING DiSTR1CT'(S) IN WHiCH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS IOCATED. EXPLAIN HOW, IN DETAII, EACH CRITERION IS BEING COMPLIED WITH PER THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL (USE SEPARATE SHEETS AS NECESSARY). 1 Ccc At#onhmcn� '(`� • VVV I\\ GVIIIIIVI IL V 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 8. Planning 8 Development Departme�t,100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 7 of 8 Revised 01N2 ° ��earwater U Planning & Deve�opment Department Flexible Development Application Affidavit to Authorize Agent/Representative 1. Provide names of all property owners on deed — PRINT full names: ,�/if'�/�/Y� ,/r7L.v/iV�� f.�-,GG 2. That (I am/we are) the owner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property: . ��' �'��"�` ��- �so - 3. That this property constitutes the property for which a request for (describe request): � ,� .��,�,��,vT" ,�l t . 4. That the un signed (has/have) appointed and (does/do) appoint: �. _ �, .. . as {nis/ineir) agent{s) to execute any petifions or oth�r d�tuments necessary lo affeci suct7 petiiian; 5. That this affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act on the above described property; 6. That site visits to the property are necessary by City representatives in order to process this application and the owner authorizes City representatives to visit and photograph the property described in this application; 7. That (I/we), the undersigned authority, hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. P pe n Property Owner STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS Property Owner Property Owner BEFORE ME THE UNDERSIGNED, AN OFFICER DULY COMMISSIONED 8Y THE LAWS OF TNE STATE OF FLORIDA, ON j�_ THIS � � DAY OF �._� � �.��'.� , �C�: � � , PERSONALLY APPEARED �`��-,� �n C�\�' . WHO HAVING BEEN FIRST DULY SWORN Q�PCS�D �`.NQ SAYS TNAT HE/SHE FULLY UPl�EP.STA `S T!-:E CO":TEl�TS 4F THE RFFIDAVIT THAT HE/SNE SIGl��D. 1 ,;�•`'� �:L; : C. BREINER ;+; : MY COMMISSION t FF 058557 �a;; �' EXAIRES: December 27, 2017 ::�„;�4�`j l3onQedrhruNot�yPuWicUnderv�ters Notary Seal/Stamp Notary Public Signature My Commission Expires: ._�'Q_.� ��2� �� , �(� ( �1 Planning 8 Development Departrnent,100 S. Myrtle Avenup, Glearwater, FL 33766, Tel: 727-562-4567; Faxi 727-562-4865 Page 8 of 8 Revised 01H2 � RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED Conditions Associated With €LD2�94-'i 1030 471 S GULFVIEW BLVD The followinq conditions must be safisfied before the aermit can be processed. Er.viro:�m�::t�! .°.�vE`.; ORDER STATUS DATE Sara" .las;�ns 552�8°7 CONDITION OF APPROVAL 11/19/2014 General Notes: 1. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Rsvi��v; additio�a! comments may be forthcomB!�� upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. 2. Offsite discharge of produced groundwater from dewatering shall comply with dewatering guidelines from Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), F.F+.C. 62-62 i �2 j. 3. Additional permits from State agencies, such as the Southwest Florida Water Management District or Florida Department of Environmental Protection, may be C��+Ui�r�C�. !y��ir�+l�� Bfi t��[ rr��j�vr� 4hP ��iIC�P# �!`r,rr! the requirements to obtain all other required permits and authorizations. ""SEE PAGE 1 ON DOCUMENT. Acknow/edged and notes have been p/aced on cover sh��# under �it� D�#a Ta�le �►4�e�, ORDER STATUS DATE CONDITION OF APPROVAL 11/25�2014 Must meet the requirements of NFPA 17A, Standard for Wet Chemical Extinguishing Systems, 2009 edition and l�FPP. 96, Star�a,d for Ventil�tion Con#rol �^d Fire Protection of Commercial Cooking Operations, 2008 edition. Provide fire extinguisher for the protection of Class K hazards. ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO C.D.B. "'SEE PAGE 32 OiV uOCiinnthii. ACKNOWLEDGED 11 /25/2014 Land Resource Review ORDER STATUS DATE Thatched roofing must be fire rated. ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO C.D.B. *"SEE PAGE 34 ON DOCUMENT. ACKt�c�iiv�Eu�Eu Ellen Crandali 727-562-4836 CONDITION OF APPROVAL t 1/2412G �4 L"dhi�e livc oak is o'�en a rec��nme�de� speLies, iye proposed location of the three live oaks is too small and does not allow for root room or for mature canopy spread. Revise to a smaller accent tree, such as the s�lver buttonwood alteady on the landscape plan. ""SEE PAGE 29 ON DOCUMENT. Acknow/edqed and live oaks have been replaced with Buttonwoods. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ISSUED ON 12/2/2014 STATUS Not Met STATUS Not Met Not Met STATUS ElQI �Pr PAGE 1 The follow�nq conditions must be satisfied before the permit can be processed. 11/24/2014 The six inch DHB palm shown at the back of the exiting Not Met rJll° &�4C'y frame i� (10 �0�1�8f �!lcr°. �:�2!'Ifi� 1* I� i".�I!I be replaced with another palm. **SEE PAGE 29 ON DOCUMENT. The tree depiction has been removed from the ��rrvev and (1) $�b�l Palme�Q will be replanted meeting code requirements. ORDER STATUS DATE CONDITION OFAPPROVAL STATUSNot Met 11/24I2014 Clarify the height to mid-point of Tiki Hut roof. Is it 16 f$�i �i ��..'a i$Ei Gi i�.� fi�iifi ZXi5ii11G yi7G'�@ $n� C. �`J feet from BFE?'`'SEE PAGE 34 ON DOCUMENT. Not Met The proposed height of the tiki thatch roof is 6'-10" from base flood elevation (BFE) to mid-point of roof. ihe existing structure will remain at the same height (approxirnately 11 feet from existing grade to flat tap of roat� Not Met 11/21/2014 Why not have a permanent interior kitchen installed typical of anv restaurant? Althouah you consider a temporary use until hotel is built - it must be reviewed as a permanent use/structure. **SEE PAGE 32 ON DOCUMENT. The plarrs have been revised to eliminate the vtit,�ivvi �vii�c�SfCPi �Ta1{rci aru %ii�ir�cii w3�i �ertii%cai internalty. 11/21/2014 Does the concession trailer on wheels? Will it be on foundation blocks? Will the concession trailer consist of o� �y ^a� Cil{t�ctura! eleme� ��S �tii$iC�2t� i 00�� Ci f7ici �+c^^a4�'i by Design guidelines?'`*SEE PAGE 32 ON DOCUMENT. The plans have been revised to eliminate the 4M�MVY% MMI�YGVP�VII Ll�ii�i Plh�'kitchar. �!i17niVi�9M internaUy. The owner is currently determining the existing sanitary sewer service line and a grease trap will be incorporated as part of improvements, � 9;21;201� Th� �;aa, e foota�� of a��e��o� y� �t; u�tares is 42 �ercent of the square footage of the principle building (which is approx 1400 square feet). The square footage of accessory structures need to be reduced to 25 percent or less of principle building. "'*SEE PAGE 27 ON UG(;iJi�iEiv I . Not Applicable. 11/21/2014 CDC Section 3-201 permits the square footage of accessory structures up to a maximum of 25 percent of tne square footage ofi the principie structure. `�StE PAGE 27 ON DOCUMENT. Not Applicab/e. 11/21/2014 The trailer is considered a vehicle but since it will be requirea io be iied down it is a structure not a buiiding. The existing storage building is also a structure. Both are accessory structures. **SEE PAGE 27 ON DOCUMENT. ; raieer �69i be r�rnQ�e�. 11/17l2014 Provide the estimated total value of project on completion on Page 3 of application. **SEE PAGE 3 ON DOCUMENT. !QtB� :�$�:!° ��!^!7�!^vgmglt:'� �l9 ��l�� RSPONSE TO COMMENTS ISSUED ON 12/2/2014 PAG E 2 11/17/2014 Later in the application material ii states the owner of the subject property also owns the adjacent properties which ��nsi�# of hotel�, H�s #he numb�r of auest and their associated hotel parking spaces been factored in to the parking study? Withethis Tiki *"SEE PAGE 12 ON DOCUMENT. The proposed restaurant deve/opment is standalone ii0� OiirBi hGiA/5 c7i�1�►��d f5j% f�c S�iNilCui?i. 11/17/201a Will they owner of the property be promoting the Tiki Hut as an arnenity to hotels or the subject site to remain stand alone? **SEE PAGE 12 ON DOCUMENT. Ti3� .%'irt'i�'..v'sGU ieS�au:&,'i� uCv�ic►j'3�8tT� i5 3i&nd&;�r� from other hotels owned by the applicant. 11/17/2014 Cover Sheet of plans, the table shows zero parking SNai:CS icyilii8u y�� b�0�'v1i lii �aiKil1g i:aiCCiiaiiOiiS indicates 18 spaces required. Revise. **SEE PAGE 25 ON DOCUMENT. The Site Data tab/e has been corrected to ref/ect r8utii; 8�cr'I �,ii&i s2G{'i�;� �-��3. 11/17/2014 May need to provide solid waste enclosure even within kitchen compound (Grading utility sheet) '"'SEE PAGE 28 ON DOCUMENT. iy CiUiii�%JLG! ��IOJIIP�C iiBS u&cir IIi�iUC%si E%riir�f�7 f�TE revised site p/an for a roll-out container. A dumpster staging area is also depicted an the revised site plan. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ISSUED ON 12/2/2014 PAGE 3 The foUowing conditions must be satisfied before the permit can be processed. 11/17/2014 Since the subject parcel was a part of the approved Not Met ii�i`i{D@Vciiij�iii8iii ri�fc8R18tit -'v'Jilai iS tii8 8titi�ij3aic� time table of the Tiki Hut verse when the hotel is to begin construction? Provide a detailed response. **SEE 11/17/2014 11 /17/2014 PAGE 1 ON DOCUMENT. i�i�Q� ri,9;�ilGAl3i� iA $ii@ yTt3jG�S�� c��Y�Ji}{�Pil�ir_t= Provide colored building elevations to give idea of proposed final exterior design. **SEE PAGE 34 ON QQ�I�MENT. Enclosed within the revised package rs a co/ored e/evation for the exterior fa�ade. Isn't the approved hotel design to be the catalyst fo� baac" re�ev�i�p�2r�t cr is it a�tic��ated that the restaurant may be a permanent use? (page 40 of 52) **SEE PAGE 39 ON DOCl1N1EIV7. The restaurant is stand-a/one deve/opment. 11/17/2014 The subject property is not located in the Retail and Restaurant District in Beach by Design. Revise. (page 43 of 52) `*SEE PAGE 42 ON DOCUMENT. Narratives have been corrected accordingly. 11/17/2014 Subject property is a part of an approved Hotel Density Reserve/Development agreement for a future Hotel. (Page 44 of 52) "*SEE PAGE 43 ON DOCUMENT. Not annlicab/e to the nroposed develonment. 11 /17/2014 11 /17/2014 Need to provide responses to the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment flexibility criteria rather than the submitted responses to the criteria for a restaurant use (a�s� �� # �z;. xx�� a�� t10�: e��u .h�r��. Enclosed within the revised package is a revised narrative package. rfuVi�i� a��IC�it'-�i i3��lltilfy �icy�i�C�l iC1 �ilQYv eXi�`_ifl� :�fl� proposed colors and materials (page 51 of 52). **SEE PAGE 50 ON DOCUMENT. Enc/osed within the revised package is a co/ored r�ndering �leqicting �olQrs and ma#erials. Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met 11/18/2014 Revise landscape plan to eliminate proposed accent Not Met trees in foundation buffer. They may block the view. Use medium shrubs and groundcovers similar to existing �Sl�ni rnate�iai ¢��,n� �rc�ren�� Sh��i 34 r� 52;: ** The accent trees have been removed. PAGE 29 ON DOCUMENT. 11/18/2014 provide a response on how delivery vehicles turn on-site Not Met a� are .hey backi�g out into ria �t of wa�? **S�� FA�� RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ISSUED ON 12/2/2014 PAGE 4 . . t 28 ON DOCUMENT. Delivery vehicles wiU pull into the existing driveway and back-out operating the same as oth�r resta�,ra►�� e��ta�i/ishmen#� on #h� bea�h. 1111$/2014 Provide a response discussing how the outdoor seating Not Met area is physically attached to the existing building. If not integ, ut�� as a part of b:.�;l�i^y it is an accessory structure/use that is not permitted in front of the principle structure. "*SEE PAGE 34 ON DOCUMENT. The sfructure will be attached to the existing, Solid Waste Review Mike Pryor ORDER STATUS DATE 12/3/2014 CONDITION OF APPROVAL 562-4923 STATUS Not Met A dumpster enclosuie will be added to the site for a roll-out container. The site plan has also been revised ta include roll-out con#ainer staging area for pickup. The followina conditions must be satisfied before the permit can be processed. 11�25I2014 Redevelopment of property for which no stormwater Not Met management facifities exist wifl be required to provids stormwater management{attenuation and storage).�s per the City of Clearwater Drainage Design Criteria, redevelopment is defined as the alteration of building, �t�ai�i�i�`��. � L'r �iiiic�.� i�i�Zi��ii� f°cr�%iui�a of � pr;"�,i�i��r' `r'Jiii^vii necessitates the Community Development Code review process. **SEE PAGE 28 ON DOCUMENT. Stormwater treatment will be accounted for in an above ground treatment area. 197cf of treatment wil! be provided, equal to 1/2" treatment over the site, minus half credit for existing impervious area. Since the elevation of the existing driveway is too low to gravity flow towards treatment area, pervious concrete will be specified to allow for infiltration of the drivervay runofi. The overall net impervious area onsite will be reduce; hence, no additional QRL�ER STP.?l!S DATE GQNI��T�fJJtil !JF f�PPR(l�(�►I 11R02014 General Note(s): 1. Applicant shall comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule and paid prior t4 � C�rtifi�a#e Qf Occup�ncy {C.O.). The TIF for #he change of use from retail to restaurant with credit is $10,425.86. 2. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon ��bmitta! ef � 3uiid'+ng �ermit ApNli�a#:�n. �SEE ��C�E 'i ON DOCUMENT. Comments 1 and 2 above are acknow/edged. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ISSUED ON 12/2/2014 STP.TJ� Not Met PAGE 5 e PARKING ANALYSIS FOR TI KI H UT RESTAU RANT 411 SOUTH GULFVIEW BLVD. CLEARWATER BEACH, FLORIDA 33767 PREPARED BY: :��° ��1� � �� ±'� �u��t�l �i�b�l�t� , ��t_��.��.) 6320 ROWAN ROAD NEW PORT RICHEY, FL 34653 727-488-1002 �\��; c � ,�'}�',��°, � � ,� �' N . 69878 � s � �4-1•�""'� , "�. T �.{ f3 1� 7�5�i � 1{��RL ' JASaN D. BOYD PE #69878 December 15, 2014 Florida State Certified Professional Engineering Firm Certificate of Authorization: 29400 INTRODUCTION �: Th� �� .��'�� l��.[ ��.��i1�'11;� , � � �� €�� i�.� 8t � � �.' c� r "��:� �.�. �� r� �� $�� ... .� �i,R�H[TECTURE:INTERIORS � gia[LA/�,C �,� � � � � jj � .`� 1 1 h ��l�f�'�'i� .- . The project site is (ocated at 411 South Gulfview Blvd., between 5`h Street and South Hamden. Previously, the site was home to the Aloha on the Beach T-shirt shop. The proposed improvements will transform the interior and exterior of the building to a dine-in restaurant establishment known as the Tiki Hut. Other improvements include outdoor seating area under a tiki covered roof. Other improvements include implementation of a ADA accessible ramp along South Gulfview leading patrons into the establishment. Specifically, the building modifications will yield the following: Total Bldg(s) sf =1,895 Interior Seating =20 seats Main Bldg. sf = 1,439 Outdoor Dinin� = 15 seats Storage sf = 456 Total = 35 seats The proposed use is similar to other restaurant establishments along South Gulfview, no private off street parking is provided for patrons. Due to the project's unique location along South Gulfview, and within the Tourist (T) zoning district, the clientele will be tourists, local workers, beach residents, and beach visitors. Essentially, the business model for this development is based upon capture of existing pedestrian traffic. As discussed with City staff, and again, due to the project's location, Tiki Hut Restaurant is not a"destination locations"; hence, the project is not a trip generator, per se. Per the Community Development Code, Section 2-803, a minimum of 13 to 23 parking spaces are required per 1,000 square feet of restaurant gross floor area (GFA). Based upon 1,895 gross floor area, this equates to a requirement of 7(low) to 12 (high) parking spaces. Per section 2-802, restaurant establishments require 12 spaces per 1,000 GFA. Tiki Hut GFA x 4 spaces = 1,895 sf x 12 spaces (hi�h) = 23 spaces 1,000 sf 1,000 sf A more equitable calculation takes into consideration the parking spaces allotted previously to the Aloha on The Beach retail shop, and deducts this amount from the Tiki Hut Restaurant requirement. The aforementioned calculation is shown below: Per section 2-802, retail establishments require 4 spaces per 1,000 GFA. Aloha on the Beach GFA x 4 spaces =1,895 sf x 4 spaces = 8 spaces 1,000 sf 1,000 sf Max. required Tiki Hut Restaurant Spaces —Aloha on The Beach Retail Shop = 23 — 8 = 15 spaces The City's Community Development Code recognizes the special and unique situations inherent within Clearwater Beach, and, per Section 3-140 of the Code, Parking demand study. 1. If flexibility of the parking standards is requested that is greater than 50 percent of the top end of the range (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. Prior to the preparation of such study, the methodology shall be approved by the community development coordinator and in accordance with accepted traffic engineering principals. The findings of the study will be used in determining whether or not deviations to the parking standards are approved. The City of Clearwater, through its vision and future planning for Clearwater Beach, acknowledges the very significant element of "pedestrian traffic capture" as clientele for the retail establishments on the beach that are located within walking distance to public parking, street parking, residences, and resorts. The City also recognizes that availability of convenient parking serves beach goers, provides parking for businesses, and certain businesses act to capture beach visitors with little, if any, effect on the beach parking demands. This analysis evaluates the parking availability within the project's vicinity. METHODOLOGY Per the methodology meeting with City Staff, the operational hours and employee shift data were obtained for Tiki Hut Restaurant. As in previous beach parking studies, it is estimated that 80% of employees require a parking space and the remaining 20% arrive by other means such as walking, biking, Jolly Trolley, rides to work, etc. Based upon prior beach studies/surveys, it is also conservatively estimated that 50'� of customers drive to the site area while the other 50% are people who are vacationing/staying at the beach, beachgoers, local residents, employees of other businesses within the beach, etc. In reality, for a business such as Tiki Hut Restaurant, it is very reasonable to estimate the vast majority of customers (90% or more) are attributable to people already at the beach whose secondary, if not tertiaryvisit, is to Tiki Hut Restaurant. Additionally, within 500 feet of the project, a parking accumulation study was performed on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday from 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM and 6:00 PM to 9:00 PM. The areas studied include on-street parking along South Gulfview from 5`h Street south to South Hamden Drive. Additionally, on street parking was studied along South Hamden from 5"' Street to South Gulfview. Additionally public parking Lot No. 32 at 332 South Gulfview will open in 2014 allowing for 65 additional stalls within the 250 feet radius. The aforementioned areas yield a total of 63 parking spaces. Table A below lists the parking spaces per area. TABLE A... Total Available Parking Within 500 feet LOCATION No. of Parking Spaces Lot # 32 65 S. Gulfview 40 S. Hamden 23 Total No. of Spaces 63 (65 spaces associated with lot #62 Concurrently with the parking study, a customer pattern study was performed — during the same days and times - for Frenchy's South Beach and Ice & Cream Creamery. Below is the square footage and available seating for Frenchy's and Green Apple. Frenchv's • 3,273 GFA (from Pinellas County property appraiser's website) • 140 indoor and outdoor seats Green Apple 1,100 GFA (based upon site visit and estimation from aerial) 15 indoor seats III. DATA COLLECTION & ANALYSIS, Frenchv's South Beach For the following discussion, please refer to TABLE 2. Frenchy's is located on the beach, immediately adjacent to the east side of Beach Walk, and has a GFA of 3,273 sf with 140 total indoor & outdoor seats. Frenchy's has five (5) parking spaces in the rear. One space is always dedicated for the manager's parking, and at most two (2) spaces are occupied by the managers, but only during a shift change. The remaining three (3) spaces are for patron parking. Due to its parking limitations, the maximum number of patron-occupied parking spaces was three (3).. The maximum number of customers was 45 at 1:00 PM on Sunday (which coincided with maximum occupied customer parking spaces, 2(two). Interviews and discussions with the managers and staff reveal the vast majority of clientele are walk-up customers whose primary purpose was to visit the beach. There is also a contingent of repeat local customers who mostly walk to Frenchy's. Due to its location and parking limitations, it is expected the majority of customers would walk to Frenchy's. There is a segment of clientele that parks and then walks to Frenchy's; however, due to the location and distance of the parking areas, this segment was not readily quantifiable. Based upon the maximum number of observed customers (45) at 1:00 pm on Sunday, the maximum observed occupancy rate is: (45 customers)( 100%) = 32% 140 seats DATA COLLECTION & ANALYSIS, Ice & Cream Creamerv For the following discussion, please refer to TABLE 1. Ice & Cream Creamery is located at 460 Mandalay Avenue. Ice and Cream has approximately 1,100 sf of GFA along with a total of 15 seats. Per TABLE 1, the maximum number of patrons was 7 at 1:30 PM on Sunday. Similar to other stores within this strip along Mandalay Avenue, Ice & Cream does not provide any off street parking. The only available parking is in the rear of the building, and this parking is reserved for one(1) employee of. Ice & Cream Creamery requires only one (1) employee per shift. Interviews and discussions with the store manager reveal the clientele is basically entirely composed of walk-up customers. The manager explicitly stated he was not aware of anyone who drove to his location for the sole purpose of visiting his store. This theme of walk-up customers was also corroborated by the manager of the adjacent retail store, Freaky Tiki. The manager of Freaky Tiki indicated he was not aware of anyone who would drive explicitly to this area for the express purpose of visiting his store. Rather, he said his business was more affected by weather and seasonality — noting that "....on nice, sunny days, we get more people coming in our store. People just like to come, visit the beach, and then, if they want, they come by and browse." Based upon the maximum number of observed customers (10) at 1:00 PM on Friday, the maximum observed occupancy rate is: (7 customers)(100%1 = 46% 15 seats DATA COLLECTION & ANALYSIS. 250 feet within Tiki Hut Restaurant Please refer to TABLES 1A, 16, 1C, 2A, 26, 2C, 3A, 3B, 3C & GRAPH 1 for the following discussion. Florida State Certified Professional Engineering Firm Certificate of Authorization: 29400 ��' �� _�'��'� ��.[ i��._��li�y� .. ., �y,.�^¢�� « B�h�r� ��.� �z��:��. ARCHIT�I:C°I"URI:� 1 N�I�FRIURS TIKI HUT RESTAURANT ATTACHMENT A DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTS December 12, 2014 ��q�itt�r,y� er`°" �+� � � .� M1 � �'~ �� _ _ ._. The subject property is located at 411 South Gulfview on Clearwater Beach within the Beach Walk district. Redevelopment of the property includes removal of approximately 518 sf of pavement while bringing ADA components into compliance. Additional improvements include construction of an open-air, timber framed, and thatched seating structure, remodeling of the existing structure and fa�ade. A kitchen will be incorporated internally along with dining and restroom area. The Tiki Hut is a restaurant establishment selling various items; food, beer, wine, non-alcohol beverages, and merchandise. Other property improvements include removal of substandard parking stalls along the back of the property while meeting minimum setback standards for the rear lot line. The Tiki Hut will allow patrons to dine either indoors or outside under the Tiki hut's thatch covered deck. This proposal generally maintains the current side and rear setbacks and request a modification to the front (west) building setback. The Request includes: • Conversion from retail to restaurant use. • Reduction in front (west) setback from 27.28 ft. (building) to 2.20' (elevated tiki deck area). • Relocation of southern buffer landscape trees further onsite from within the required setback due to existing infrastructure. • Modification from required off street parking to shared parking within public on street parking available along S. Gulfview and S. Hamden Drive and public parking lot #32 (65 spaces) within the vicinity once reconstruction ceases (See Parking Analysis). Attachment `A' Description of Request Florida State Certified Professional Engineering Firm Certificate of Authorization: 29400 ��,a,. � � �� fj K t ��x..� �� i �� a � � � �z_� �� .� & ��I1�.� �� . � �� . �: � ARCHITECTURE i 1 NTERIORS TIKI HUT RESTAURANT ATTACHMENT B GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA December 15, 2014 ��$�si�r��y� � �� +Sf + � � � �°MS1�'°'� � - .- . 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with scale, bulk, coverage density and tharacter of adjacent properties in whith it is located in Redevelopment of the property is consistent with revitalization goals of the comprehensive code and character set forth the Tourist designation. 411 South Gulfview falls within the Beach Walk district of Beach by Design located between South Hamden and 5`h Street. The east side of South Gulfview Boulevard is aligned with existing restaurant and hotel establishments with newly constructed mixed- use components. Aloha on The Beach is an existing retail establishment building heights of approximately 10 to 11 feet to the top of parapet wall from existing grade. Towards the north is an overnight accommodation estabFishment known as Sea Side Inn & Suites with heights exceeding 50 feet or 4 stories. Towards the south and east of the property, contains another overnight accommodation known as Magnuson Hotel with a height appearing around 50 feet plus or 4 stories. The west side of the subject property contains South Gulfview Boulevard with on street parallel parking, beach access and Jolly Trolley bus stop. Most buildings within the area have a coverage and/or density either meeting or exceeding maximum allowed along with zero lot lines. The Tiki Hut Restaurant is a stand-alone development proposing a conversion from a retail to restaurant use. The existing structures will be reconfigured to include indoor warming kitchen, restrooms and limited indoor dining area. Primary seating area will be outdoors covered by a thatch tiki roof system. Minimal front setbacks are requested for the outdoor seating area matching most developments along South Gulfview. The Tiki Hut Restaurant will capture 100% pedestrian walk-up traffic from tourist, neighbors and residents of the Clearwater Beach. The building will complement and be in harmony with the adjacent neighbors by matching similar setbacks, on-street parking demands, and bulk, in regards to minimizing the impervious surface ratio, therefore, helping to contribute towards programmatic and visual interest down South Gulfview. Beach by Design guidelines do not discuss specific character criteria for this Attachment "B" Ge�eral Applicability Criteria _ _. ._ compliance with local development regulations, improving the pedestrian environment along South Gulfview, while creating an estab�ishment for visitors of Clearwater Beach, thus contributing economically to the surrounding area. d. The proposed use provides for the provisian of atfordable housing; i. The subject project consists of a restaurant use and is not applicable. e. The proposed use pravides for development or redevelopment in an area thaf is characterized by other similar development and where a land use ptan amendment and rezoning would result in a spot land use or zoning designation; or, i. Redevelopment of the subject property contributes to revitalization efforts of the surrounding area by bringing the parcel into compliance with the Community Development Code, while removing non-conforming back out parking further contributing to Beach Wa�ks' pedestrian environment. f. The propased use provides for the development of a new, andlor preservation of a working waterfront use. i. The proposed development helps contribute to existing and/or adjacent waterfront establishment along South Gulfview for the 'Beach Walk' district. 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; i. The proposed development will not impede, but act as a catalyst for redevelopment to other non-conforming properties within the `Beach Walk' district. 5th Street and Coronado Drive contains several developments with substandard parcels per the Community Development Code and non- conforming parking or drive-aisles; further deteriorating pedestrian friendly environments within the Beach Walk district. The proposed development will not impede but enhance potential for redevelopment to surrounding properties. b. The praposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the city; i. The proposed redevelopment is consistent with Beach by Design's revitalization efforts for the Beach Walk district. The project allows for removal of sub- standard back-out parking; further enhancing pedestrian environments along Beach Walk. The restaurant further supports connection to Beach Walk's enhanced pedestrian environment along South Gulfview to other districts. The proposed building is smal�er in scale, thus eliminating many of Beach by Design's guidelines. c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area; i. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed project supports Beach by Attachment "c" Flexibility Criteria Design's Beach Walk district by providing pedestrian friendly environments connecting adjacent use(s) particularly along South Gulfiriew Blvd. d. In order to form a cohesive, visualiy interesting and attractive appearance, the propased development incorporates a subs#an#ial number of the foliflwing design elements: i. Changes in horizontal buiiding ptanes; The proposed structure is a small, simple wood structure with a thatch roof. The thatch roof is pitched, reminiscent of architecture indigeneous to beach communi#ies. ii. Use of architectural details such as columns, cornices, stringcourses, pilasters, particos, balconies, railings, awnings, etc.; The propased building is structured and detailed as a vernacular Tiki beach structure. The timber structura, thatch roof, and wood railings are detailed to reflect the hand crafted nature ofi Tiki Huts. iii. Variety in materials, colors and textures; Again, we are proposing timber structure, thatch roofing, and wood railings; all materiais appropriate to Tiki Huts. iv. Distinctive fenestration patterns; The Tiki hut is an open structure, there are no windows. The existing building will retain the existing window and door openings, v. Building stepbacks; and Distinctive roofs forms. The roof and structure are appropriate for a Tiki Hut. 7. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. i. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers for a restaurant from adjacent overnight accommodation use by implementing landscaping and maintaining existing fence lines further buffering from adjacent uses. The current configuration maintains the existing distances between buildings for emergency access needs while increasing the existing buffer along the eastern property line. Furthermore, the development incorporates landscaping between the outdoor deck area and sidewalk along South Gulfview with understory trees, shrubs and ground cover. The building perimeter landscaping will also be brought into compliance with local landscape requirements that are consistent with other developed properties throughout the Beach Walk district. Restaurants 1. Lot area and width: The reduction in lot area will not result in a building which is out of scale with existing buildings in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; There are no request for any reductions to lot area or width. The existing parcel suffices meeting the 5,000 sf minimum square foot at 7,209.52 sf. The lot width also exceeds these requirements as outlined under Clearwater Community Development Code "T" Tourist district. 2. Height: Attachment "c" Flexibility Criteria The increased height results in an improved site plan and/or improved design and appearance; Maximum height allowed is 100 feet within the district. The proposed tiki structure will be maintained at 6'-10" from base flood elevation to mid-point of roof, which falls weli below maximum height allowed. There are no requests to increase height beyond what is allowable per code. 3. Setbacks: a. The reduction in front setback contributes to a more active and dynamic street life; The reduction to the front setback(s) allows for a more dynamic street life by creating a pedestrian friendly environment along South Gulfview Blvd. while connecting the city's newly constructed beach walk environment similar to most establishments within the Beach Walk district. b. The reduction in front setback results in an improved site plan or improved design and appearance. The reduction to the front setbacks allow for functionality of internal operations, while taking into account miscellaneous restaurant requirements such as loading, trash and other utilities. Overall the development maintains consistent setbacks with adjacent properties along South Gulfview and within Beach by Design's Beach Walk district. c. The reduction in side and rear setbacks does not prevent access to the rear of any building by emergency vehicles; Access to three sides will be maintained at ali times around the perimeter of the property for emergency access. There is no request to reduce the rear or side setbacks. The reduction in side and rear setback results in an improved site plan, more efficient parking or improved design and appearance. There are no requests at this time for a reduction to the side or rear setbacks. The existing rear setback will be enhanced to minimum code standards of 10 feet. 4. Off-street parking: a. The physical characteristics of a proposed building are such that the likely use of the property will require fewer parking spaces per floor area than otherwise required or that the use of significant portions of the building will be used for storage or other non-parking demand-generating purposes; The proposed restaurant establishment lies within the City of Clearwater's Tourist (T) district and Beach by Design, and, as such allows for the capture of pedestrians vacationing within the area, beach visitors, local workers from other establishments, and residents. A request is being made to eliminate onsite parking requirements. See Parking Analysis for details. Attachment "c" Flexibility Criteria b. Fast food restaurants shail not be eligible for a reduction in the number of ofF-street parking spaces. The design and functionality of Tiki Hut Restaurant creates a dining experience allowing patrons to sit indoors or outside in an open-air environment. The establishment is not considered fast food and will provide a sit-down meal with brewed beer, non- alcoholic beverages, and food. The restaurant is not a fast food, but sit down. A request is being made to reduce onsite parking requirements, since its immediately adjacent to Beach Walk. c. Adequate parking is available on a shared basis as determined by all existing land uses within 1,000 feet of the parcel proposed for development, or parking is available through any existing or planned and committed parking facilities or the shared parking formulas in Article 3, Division 14. There is adequate parking within 1,000 feet of the subject parcel through sharing of on street parking stalls. See parking reduction studyfor details. 5. The design of all buildings complies with the Tourist District design guidelines in Division 5 of Article 3 SECTION 3-501 TOURIST DISTRICT BEACH BY DESIGN DESIGN GUIDELINES A. Density The maximum permitted density of residential development shall be 30 dwelling units per acre. Through the use of Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs) from other property located within the Clearwater Beach Community Redevelopment District, the maximum permitted density for residential development may be increased by not more than 20 percent. Historicallythe maximum permitted densityfor overnight accommodation uses has been 40 units per acre. In order to assist in the redevelopment of Clearwater Beach, the maximum permitted density in Beach by Design shall be 50 units per acre.* It also allows this maximum density of 50 units per acre to be exceeded through the allocation of units from the Destination Resort Density Pool, the allocation of units from the Hotel Density Reserve, and the use of TDRs from other properties located within the Clearwater Beach Community Redevelopment District in compliance with the following provisions: 1. The amount of TDRs used for resorts/overnight accommodation projects shall not be limited provided such projects can demonstrate compliance with the provisions of this Plan, the Community Development Code and concurrency requirements. 2. AnyTDRs gained from the additional 10 overnight accommodation units per acre authorized by this section of Beach by Design shall only be used for overnight accommodation uses. The conversion of such density to another use is prohibited. Beach by Design also supports the allocation of additional density for resort development through the Destination Resort Density Pool established in Section V.B.1 of this plan, as well as the allocation of additional density for mid-price hotels through the Hotel Density Reserve established in Section V.6.2 of this plan. The maximum permitted floor area ratio for nonresident development is limited to 1.0 pursuant to the Pinellas County Planning Council intensity standards. The proposed project does not include a request for TDR's. Attachment "c" Flexibility Criteria B. Height Maximum height is prescribed by the respective zoning districts in the Community Development Code unless otherwise restricted by Beach by Design. The height may be increased, however, to one hundred fifry feet (150') if: 1. additional density is allocated to the development either by transferred development rights, or via the Destination Resort Density Pool pursuant to the CRD designation, or via the Hotel Density Reserve where the subject property is located between South Gulfview Boulevard and the Guif of Mexico or on the west side of Coronado Drive; 2. portions of any structures which exceed one hundred feet (100') are spaced at least one hundred feet (100') apart (with no more than two (2) structures which exceed one hundred feet (100') within five hundred feet (500'); or four (4) structures which exceed one hundred feet (100') within eight hundred feet (800') so long as the elevations of all structures which exceed one hundred feet (100') when such structures are viewed from the east do not occupy a total of forty percent (40%) of � a north south vertical plane which is parallel to the alignment of Coronado and North Mandalay of the budding envelope above one hundred feet (100'); and The Proposed development is limited to 6'10" above base flood elevation, thus not applicable to the above criteria. 3. the floor plate of any portion of a building that exceeds forty-five feet (45') in height is limited as follows: a) between forty-five feet (45') and one hundred feet (100'), the floorplate will be no greater than 25,000 square feet except for parking structures open to the public; and b) between one hundred feet (100') and one hundred fiftyfeet (150'), the floorplate will be no greater than 10,000 square feet; and c) deviations to the above floorplate requirements may be approved provided the mass and scale of the design creates a tiered effect and complies with the maximum building envelop allowance above 45' as described in section C. 1.4 below The Proposed development does not exceed a floorplate square footage of 25,000 sf. Also, the structure in not greater than 100 ft. in height. This section is not applicable to the project. C. Design, Scale and Mass of Buildings No particular architectural style is prescribed. However, good architecture, from a community character perspective, comes in all shapes and styles. There is, however, in every community an established vocabulary of the "good," the "bad;' and the "ugly." New buildings should respect this vocabulary and enhance the community character wherever possible. The more daring the design, the more sensitive the particular architecture is to failure. Quantifiable aspects of the architectural vocabulary are: 1. Buildings with a footprint of greater than 5,000 square feet or a single dimension of greater than one hundred (100) feet will be constructed so that no more than two (2) of the three (3) building dimensions in the vertical or horizontal planes are equal in length. Attachment "c' Flexibility Criteria For this purpose, equal in length means that the two lengths vary by less than forty percent (40'�) of the shorter of the two (2) lengths. The horizontal plane measurements relate to the footprint of the building The proposed development only consists of 1,895 sf in total building coverage area and does not have a single dimension more than 100 ft. in length. The longest building dimension is only at 48.30 feet. This section is not applicable. 2. No plane of a building may continue uninterrupted for greater than one hundred linear feet (100'). For the purpose of this standard, interrupted means an offset of greater than five feet (5'). The proposed development only consists of 1,895 sf in total building coverage area and does not have a single dimension more than 100 ft. in length. The longest building dimension is only at 4830 feet. This section is not applicable 3. At least sixty percent (60%j of any elevation will be covered with windows or architectural decoration. For the purpose of this standard, an elevation is that portion of a building that is visible from a particular point outside the parcel proposed for development. At least 60% of the building fa�ade will be covered by architectural decoration. 4. No more than sixty percent (60%) of the theoretical maximum building envelope located above forty-five feet (45') will be occupied by a building. However, in those instances where an overnight accommodations use on less than 2.0 acres that has been allocated additional density via the Hotel Density Reserve, no more than seventy-five percent (75%) of the theoretical maximum buiiding envelope located above forty-five feet (45') may be occupied by a building unless the property is located between Guifview Boulevard and the Gu�f of Mexico, then no more than 70% may be occupied by a building. There is no buiiding proposed with a theoretical building envelope over 60%. This section is not applicable. 5. The height and mass of 6uildings will be correlated to: (1) the dimensional aspects of the parcel proposed for development and (2) adjacent public spaces such as streets and parks. The proposed height and mass of the building is correlated to dimensional aspects of the proposed parcei and is consistent with adjacent and surrounding properties within Beach by Design Beach Walk District. The proposed fa�ade will incorporate architectural features and a covered outdoor dining area with a tiki hut extending to the public right- of-way. 6. Buildings may be designed for a vertical or horizontal mix of permitted uses. Redevelopment of the subject property consists only of a restaurant use without a request for mixed-use occupancy. Attachment "c" Flexibility Criteria D. Setbacksand Stepbacks 1. Rights-of-way. The area between the building and the edge of the pavement as existing and planned should be sufFiciently wide to create a pedestrian-friendly environment. The distances from structures to the edge of the right-of-way should be: Fifteen feet (15') along arterials, and b. Twelve feet (12') along local streets A ten foot (10') pedestrian path is key to establishing a pedestrian-friendly place in the nonresidential environment. Accordingly, arcades may be constructed in the public space, but may not narrow the pedestrian path to less than ten feet (10'). Decorative awnings and arcades and public balconies may extend into the p�blic space and even into the right-of-way (provided they do not obstruct vehicular traffic). Outdoor cafe tables are also permitted in the public space, subject to the requirements in Section H, Sidewalks. The building is proposed to have a reduction to the front setback with approximately 2.20' between property line and edge of outdoor dining area due to existing utility meters. The subject property falls within the City of Clearwater Beach Walk District. Part of City improvements included a walkable promenade area with pedestrian friendly pathways. City improvements resulted in many structures within the District being able to have a zero lot line due to enhanced pedestrian pathways adjacent to. The proposed development incorporates a tiki hut covered structure over the outdoor dining area. 2. Side and Rear Setbacks Except for the setbacks set forth above, no side or rear setback lines are recommended, except as may be required to comply with the City's Fire Code. There is no request to reduce the side or rear setbacks. Emergency access is maintained in regards to existing conditions. 3. Coronado Drive Setbacks and Stepbacks. To reduce upper story massing along the street and ensure a human scale street environment, buildings using the hotel density reserve along Coronado Drive shall be constructed in accordance with the following: a. � Buildings constructed with a front setback of fifteen feet (15') or more shall stepback with a minimum depth of fifteen feet (15') from the setback line at a height not more than twenty-five feet (25'). Buildings constructed with a front setback greater than or equal to ten feet (10') and less than fifteen feet (15') shall stepback at a height not more than twenty feet (20'). The required stepback/ setback ratio is one and one-half feet (1.5') for every one foot (1') reduction in setback in addition to the minimum stepback of fifteen feet (15'). Buildings constructed with a front setback of less than ten feet (10') shall provide a building stepback at a height not more than fifteen feet (15'). The required stepback/ setback ratio is two and one-half feet (2.5') for every one foot (1') reduction in setback in addition to the minimum stepback of fifteen feet . Attachment "c" Flexibility Criteria (1s'). d. To achieve upper story facade variery and articulation, additional stepbacks may be required. To avoid a monotonous streetscape, a building shall not replicate the stepback configuration of the neighboring buildings including those across rights-of- way. e. Required stepbacks shall span a minimum of 75% of the building frontage width. The proposed development is located along South Gulfview and is not applicable. E. Street-Level Facades The human scale and aesthetic appeal of street-level facades, and their relationship to the sidewalk, are essential to a pedestrian-friendly environment. Accordingly: i. At least sixty percent (60%) of the street level facades of Buildings used for nonresidential purposes which abut a public street or pedestrian access way, will be transparent. For the purpose of this standard: a) street level facade means that portion of a building facade from ground level to a height of twelve feet (12') b) transparent means windows or doors that allow pedestrians to see into: ii. the building, or iii. landscaped or hardscaped courtyard or plazas, where street level facades are set back at least fifteen feet (15') from the edge of the sidewalk and the area between the sidewalk and the facade is a landscaped or hardscape courtyard or plaza iv. Parking structures should utilize architectural details and design elements such a false recessed windows, arches, planter boxes, metal grillwork, etc. instead of transparent alternatives. When a parking garage abuts a public road or other pubiic place, it will be designed such that the function of the building is not readily apparent except at points of ingress and egress. The proposed development contributes to a more dynamic and friendly pedestrian environment along South Gulfview. The subject development allows for pedestrians to look into the establishment observing architectural features and the existing building. 2. Window coverings, and other opaque materials may cover no more than 10'� of the area of any street-level window in a nonresidential building that fronts on a public right-of-way. The proposed structure will not allow for any window coverings or other opaque materials to any areas greater than 10%. The intent of the windows fa�ade is to allow pedestrians to look into the establishments brewing equipment and process. 3. Building entrances should be aesthetically inviting and easily identified. Goods for sale will not be displayed outside of a building, except as a permitted temporary use. This standard does not apply to outdoor food service establishments. Attachment "c" Flexibility Criteria All sale of goods will be displayed only within the buildings footprint. 4. Awnings and other structures that offer pedestrians cover from the elements are recommended. Awnings help define entryways and provide storefront identity to both pedestrians and drivers. A covered tiki hut area will be constructed over an elevated deck along for pedestrians to take cover from natural elements. The tiki hut will be a focal point into the building along with ADA compliant ramp identifying the establishments entrance. F. ParkingAreas To create a well-defined and aesthetically appealing street boundary, all parking areas will be separated from public rights of way by a landscaped decorative wall, fence or other opaque landscape treatment of not less than three feet (3') and not more than three and one-half feet (31/2') in height. SurFace parking areas that are visible from public streets or other public places will be landscaped such that the parking areas are defined more by their landscaping materials than their paved areas when viewed from adjacent property. The use of shade trees is encouraged in parking lots. However, care should be taken to choose trees that do not drop excessive amounts of leaves, flowers, or seeds on the vehicles below. Entrances to parking areas should be clearly marked in order to avoid confusion and minimize automobile-pedestrian conflicts. Attractive signage and changes to the texture of the road (such as pavers) are recommended. When a parking garage abuts a public road or other public place, it will be designed such that the function of the building is not readily apparent except at points of ingress and egress. The subject property removes several non�onforming parking stalls along the rear lot line creating vehicle maneuvering conflict points. Redevelopment of the property will capture 100% pedestrian customers visiting, residing, or shopping on Clearwater beach. See Parking Reduction Analysis. G. Signage Signage is an important contributor to the overall character of a place. However, few general rules apply to signage. Generally, signage should be creative, unique, simple, and discrete. Blade signs, banners and sandwich boards should not be discouraged, but signs placed on the sidewalk should not obstruct pedestrian traffic. Signage will be relocated to the northwest corner of the property or affixed to the building fa�ade. A separate sign package will be will be submitted by others for review and permitting. H. Sidewalks Sidewalks along arterials and retail streets should be at least ten feet (10') in width. All sidewalks along arterials and retail streets will be landscaped with palm trees, spaced to a maximum of thirty-five feet (35') on centers, with "clear grey' of not less than eight feet (8'). Acceptable palm trees include sabal palms (sabal palmetto), medjool palms Attachment "c" Flexibility Criteria (phoenix dactylifera 'medjool'), and canary island date palms (phoenix canariensis). Sidewalks along side streets will be landscaped with palms (clear trunk of not less than eight feet (8')) or shade trees, spaced at maximum intervals of thirty-five feet (35') on centers. 1. Portions of required sidewalks may be improved for non-pedestrian purposes inciuding outdoor dining and landscape material, provided that movement of pedestrians along the sidewalk is not obstructed; and 2. non-pedestrian improvements and uses are located on the street side of the sidewalk. Distinctive paving patterns should be used to separate permanent sidewalk cafe improvements from the pedestrian space on the sidewalk. To enhance pedestrian safety and calm traffic, distinctive paving should also be used to mark crosswalks. The City of Clearwater has constructed an enhanced pedestrian friendly environment along South Gulfview with sidewalk greater than 10 feet in width. The existing beach walk area also already incorporate required landscaping, thus this section is not applicable. I. Street Furniture and Bicycle Racks Street furniture, including benches and trash receptacles should be liberally placed along the sidewalks, at intervals no greater than thirty linear feet (30') of sidewalk. Bicycle racks should also be provided, especiaily near popular destinations, to promote transportation alternatives. Complicated bicycle rack systems should be avoided. The placement of street furniture and bicycle racks should not interrupt pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk. The propose development will offer a 6-stall bicycle rack for visitors of the establishment along the front building fa�ade promoting the concept of pedestrianism as an alternative form of transportation for visitors, residents and employees residing or visiting Clearwater eeach. J. Street Lighting Street lighting should respond to the pedestrian-oriented nature of a tourist destination. In this context, it should balance the functional with the attractive — providing adequate light to vehicular traffic, while simultaneously creating intimate spaces along the sidewalks. Clearwater's historic lighting is an attractive, single-globe fi�ure atop a cast-iron pole. The proposed development is not proposing placement and/or improvement to existing street lights. K. Fountains Fountains provide attractive focal points to public spaces and add natural elements to urban environments. They should be interesting, engaging and unique. While it is important not to overburden architectural creativity regarding fountains, they should meet at least the following standards in order to be a functional and attractive component of the public space: Attachment "c" Flexibility Criteria 1. They should be supplemented with street furniture such as benches and trash receptacles, and 2. They should have rims that are: a. Tall enough to limit unsupervised access by small children, and b. Wide enough to permit seating. Fountains shouid be encouraged in landscaped and hardscaped courtyards and plazas. Property improvements does not inciude the use of fountains due to the limited amount of space. L. Materials and Colors 1. Facades Finish materials and building colors will reflect Florida or coastal vernacular themes. All awnings should contain at least three (3) distinct colors. Bright colors will be limited to trims and other accents. Glass curtain walls are prohibited. 2. Sidewalks: Sidewalks shall be constructed of: a. Pavers; b. Patterned, distressed or special aggregate concrete; or c. Other infused treatment that distinguishes the sidewalks from the typical suburban concrete sidewalks. Materials should be chosen to minimize the cost and complexity of maintenance. The popos e d s d� c� e s a s m�I sm �rifi b e rs � c �fi �e �i a ti� h qof "iYe ffia� h �ofi qdhed , emrs c enbfaic �ic�fi eridgeneou s d� beac h c om m u s�'s . The pop�s ed bulrigs s� c� ed and d e�hid as a venac u�rlbeac h srta c� �e. Ther'rh b e rs �a c� e, li� h po� and wood ri�s aie d e�id �� c�e I�and c c-� d nam �e of la-i u�. 3. Street Furniture d. Street furniture will be constructed of low-maintenance materials, and will be in a color that is compatible with its surroundings. The proposed bicycle rack will be powdered coated green and able to be removed for storage onsite if necessary. No other furniture, lighting or elements are proposed. 4. Color Palette i. Recommended palette for building colors is presented within Beach by Design criteria. See architectural renderings for color selection. Attachment "c" Flexibility Criteria Fountains provide attractive focal points to public spaces and add natural elements to urban environments. They should be interesting, engaging and unique. While it is important not to overburden architectural creativity regarding fountains, they should meet at least the following standards in order to be a functional and attractive component of the public space: 1. They should be supplemented with street furniture such as benches and trash receptacles, and 2. They should have rims that are: a. Tall enough to limit unsupervised access by small children, and b. Wide enough to permit seating. Fountains should be encouraged in landscaped and hardscaped courtyards and plazas. Property improvements does not include the use of fountains due to the limited amount of space. L. Materials and Colors 1. Facades Finish materials and building colors will reflect Florida or coastal vernacular themes. All awnings should contain at least three (3) distinct colors. Bright colors will be limited to trims and other accents. Glass curtain walls are prohibited. 2. Sidewalks: Sidewalks shall be constructed of: a. Pavers; b. Patterned, distressed or special aggregate concrete; or c. Other infused treatment that distinguishes the sidewalks from the typical suburban concrete sidewalks. Materials should be chosen to minimize the cost and complexity of maintenance. The proposed structure is a small, simple timber structure with a thatch roof. The thatch roof is pitched, reminiscent of architecture indigeneous to beach communities. The proposed building is structured and detailed as a vernacular Tiki beach structure. The timber structure, thatch roof, and wood railings are detailed to reflect the hand crafted nature of Tiki Huts. 3. Street Furniture d. Street furniture will be constructed of low-maintenance materials, and will be in a color that is compatible with its surroundings. The proposed bicycle rack will be powdered coated green and able to be removed for storage onsite if necessary. No other furniture, lighting or elements are proposed. 4. Color Palette i. Recommended palette for building colors is presented within Beach by Design criteria. See architectural renderings for color selection. Attachment "c" Flexibility Criteria Z O H 0 0 Y ¢ Z ¢ m J Y Q H � > J m > LL W � � W LL � J Q �� cn Q � W r— J vU �a��°—= ISSUEO DRAWING LOG: 0wh �: PROJECT NO: �- � � 14.60 DRAWING TITLE: ARCHITECTURAI SITE PLAN ISSUE DATE: - 12.8.2014 SHEET: I� 1 / �■ � x�� "s, �. � # . �. ; �� Ki�� ,� _ �``�v � s"s°a�� T..r c�r�r�R t� si;na�nn -yy^�}'��' .w-. '�. `+' ��,.��. W ��'4{� �",�� v "��t�,�;, �� iaF�-�.-�w'� �'�.✓4��{'{ "' \ ... . . ... . � s�r��a�.rt�i. t'� f tv �5T �; l4`�C�Eiti GL!�IkR�fl " SY57L1�S .�r7d?P CT6 C�Et'e.¢�. "�, i �v o��+r {a.� r�w� �.. _ ,� V�iES7 ELEVATIQN 3ii8•+� r.fY^ � � � � , � � ,�� .�,�r �, . � . �;��: ;� �« � , � �� . �� - _ � . . �_,� � � � � �� . �.�t� �� P{.�»y�,,,� -x.c. r�.. , �� $�, ) "� ,,:�i 2f � - �� ° »�„,� � ��,w a 1 �� w s �,� �;o- � � � � � , �, �,k � �. , �,� ,. . . .. .. ..... . .... ... . �� . .. .. . .... . . . . �a � �` � � �`� `4 � � .�: �� ;,�*. � � �'m ` � d: ,w � � k �.. �«� �� ; �p � , a�,;. "`� w..,�.� , �, �»; ��, � ��. � � � ;; t� � .�� _.� � i r i"5 � tt , � } �`� � � j �' :� � �� Y k ; .' 4 � �? � ' `'g "' ; � � � t � ,a � r E �;` , , � p ��;f�,. �$�Y if�s4r' gi�i � �� {�� i ,9 �'� p��n��k t`i'tj�y�i��i� t � �� 'a��° � ". ��.1 ) �b, �. � :�� . .._ , . .. €' E �� E �� ( i � i i ( i . �� ; � Fn . ' . ._. ' t�t �� ri �� , t s�•g� ,«� .� ��` a��t', z fi +� i� }��# '� t ��E ��a gi ' °� cE � ;`+ �, i � � { �''` ` �, ", e � 5�:, � � � } � .. t k 1 �i.��+�� a��a�t� „�- kX�SithG 6vat,�S�NG Er4� .��„'E r"r'�.£;:� '�xf� �+?LL 4�e�s.�#,o�7';,"�,`�:�,;v('',�1�+:i'�l�' F3i�st. �` E". �� F 'v 1's1 C,�� P€�W Af�,4 t.C)hi{�I..LAt+.i't`tc�.h4p ___ i w� w� �� 94'-+fl.4'#", .. �TV�aei �ie�z �� wri-a.tECx�rta�e . .. . .. � .�' � ia � �� eeb � � L Y � � � o� � � 4 � �� --� 3C d F— t t> :`n�#b�G �'�9iri.�}4n` �,��_..�.,.,. �ror,?�ci � 14.f�U :�,�,��,� �f�,.� ELEVA�'IQNS =�f",>t�. 4�++rk. 12.�.24't4 sr��r. A-2f� 1 .�� a ��,�, �,�,� �. � ; `;° 7TeW �„? ..�4 &kP,j^i �ik.J . 4ti';sr'� Cb!bTYS( CtF �f71tiCi ,cy ..... . . y* RCX�' �::�'41 's�1B^4,`� � u � '� "—a�- F�'�+ ., «� =� w . ---�,�y. s�'�r ♦ 1 tu,,...q.:f( rv1W'qV IY6; b�' :#.C;wM.kYY:�?:rl.'.{(:tti7."tCR?+k', !_°2i��. . �iR. . A�., i%�� NO#2TH ELEVATtC7td � ��-.a.rr ru« e '1�za-,a '.`�a : ie.i�;.�. .+� GEKtsn..c:w�� ^�e. xq'..a Ns;X'r t w:.e4 q�'1�, V+'i�,�'.,,+4 ,__� , __ � � i F +IY-RW` � �4'ai;.�: :r :S^ii}.ea! � ��. A's'a,i„i �� . +�.A.4:''w' h ,��,r�r n�s�_ , �, ..y,, � �. REV t S` iS.a?' 9r�s� \ . -...af,, x�.,., s:w":. :`�r,.,; =a � �,*, ;, i �.:. .. . "5. t .._.____....__ . . !��`�SC�t3TH EtEVATVph1 � ' � t[3Pa1'XP .. ;�',1 { 1 ± S i � � � . . .� e �. '�� . �.,,.�_,. � R: . I&Fl�AN i. i�TPRNIEC2 i�di9Ci+79 flCMIL1R f'F!C?.EC7� FrtLE . .. � .`.a J � � � � � � t p� � k � d �: Z Q �t � � �� <t a�`- �r i � �i.�.4,'S;:T�3»' f°,�5C�L7 DfiAMWN4j i.Ck's �� S. F3WAW _1.(':�t %(,�� .. 1�,6i17 c+?n.w,rac: rzz�;e. _`____' �`C�:l.i F�6Y� 92.$.2014 3iEET� .. . . l�'G�i� �� e IPROJECT LOCATIC)N� ' R. ._:.. �: �:. �� fi : �� n;� �:v �� C,��. . t�� =.aP'�,J� �� "�. �i L �`• � �, �,. ; �� .. �� ,. � }� � : �� , i ��"��' l+Y�`� '^�i , � - �� ". ' 43t�4'` ��r� 1 - i ° r�i� - _ .... f .* / r+� � �t i � �. �" ` >� ' e �:y. !. .. � f.y�, ��''� y r , „ ?� a .., ,� y � �+4.., �, � .. a s.. �� { J' � ., {� t � �� . }Ct ��.. ..a .�,��..,,,k "- �� ir_"# �T � r �% i �7.� �.��,if�t �C �n�.. > . 4 � . - t � : a � :,. . .+. . . :: 1 P�: ; � r ��;� � tA ':��' �'ir. .4� •.E�"/�a�"Ld��c . �'� � � . �` ��p , �� 1 _�f a'�`S� ,.. � �� 1�1"i0.d.. ti�.�l ..�� .� ,lt . � � _ 3 �� a'� "�� . -� �.�`; � yti � .,� � ,�; ` �'-:`�'�� , 'd^a.� - ..�..,. C---- LEGAL DE:SGRIPTION ----- ---- --- LLOYD-WHITE-SKINNER SUB LOT 74 dc N tOFT OF 75 -SECT: 7, TWPJ: 29S, RNG: 15!_ - rLVUU THE PROPERTr SHOWN HEREON APPEARS TO LIE IN FL000 ZONE "'JE", $ASE FLOOD 4F 13.0' ACCORDING TO TFI� FLOOD INSIJRANCE RATE MAP NUMBER 12103C 0102 G, ftEVISED SEPTE:MSER 03, 20��3, FOR PINEl1AS COUNTY, FL.ORIDA. NOTE CONSTRUC'fiON SHALL BE IW ACCARDANC,E WI'TH THE LA'fEST EDI?IONS C�F FLOR�DA DEF'aRTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIOIV, ROADWAY AMD TRAFFlC DESIGW STANDAF2DS AND CITY QF CLEARWATER CONSTRUCTI��d STANDARDS. :� � � � i . • � NIK:�NA, HOl_DIN�S, LLC 421 SOU�fH GI�LFVIE:W BL�JC►. t�LEAR,�/VATE'R, FL 3376 i' P F�OJ ErCT L_QCr��TI O��I : TI KI H Ui RE:STA,U RA►NT 411 SOUTH GU�LFVIE:W BL�JD. C;LEAF;WATER, FL 3376i' P'�RC�EL I [�: 07-29-15-52380-00O-0740 DR(: RkVIEW 18 A PRENEUUI5IYE FO{2 BUILpNG PEFtNfT RENEW, PRIORTO F38UANCE OF A BIALdNG P'FRMIT I1NY AND ALl PERFORMANCE BASED f:R0�S1ON AND SEdMENf.4TiW1 CbNTROL MEASUF�B MU8T BE APFROVED BY ENNRONMENTAL ANOIOR STORMWATER ENCsINEEPoNG, BE INSTALtED PQ20PERLV AND INSPE;TF.D. �- FIRE DEPARTIJIENT NOTES:- - -� 1. NOTEALLWMPSTERS,AI'IDANYII3SOGU1TE08CREENINGWNICNCOPIBLSTSOFCOMBUIIiIBLE PENGING 11ROUN0 iXE ULL'MPSYER PAD SXALL HAVE A MINIMUM SEPAftpTION FROM 7NE NEAREST BUILpNG OR BUILDINC: UWERHIING OF iEN FEF:T�aO'�. 2. TIHIS IS A CXANGE OF USE, MUS� MEET THE REUU4REMEN73 OF NFF'A fe STANDARD FORVEM711ATION CONiROL AND FIRE PF:OTECTION OF CAMMER�IA.L COONING OVERATq)pkfi P00! EpTpN µp t7 p SANNDARD FOR WET CHE7AICAIL EXiINGU13MING $'YETEMS ZOOY EDfi50�. 3. TWERE IS AN E10STING FIRE NVDMNT WRHIN t60 FEET OF TNE SUEUE�F SITE LOCA7EDAT PIE CURNER OF SOUTH GULFVIEW ANO SiH SiREEl. 4. BIOC SHALL BE REAiU'AE D TO MEET F/�C 6P�60 FILORI(M FlRE PREYENTN]N CODE 70INSTALI S:.GNAGE AT ENTRV IXIOAS TO IDENTIFV IF'fNiS HUILqNG M118 BEEIJ GJNSTRUC7ED WITM LI'3NNIEIOHT TRU33 f'L�70R AND ROOF SYSTE M. YOU MAY CANTACT 1NIS OFiPCE fOR A COPY �7F DETIULBAT717.5l2�I.tti 712082.0. 5. TYPICAL NOTE: KNCI% 130% ANO KNO% PLUGS, I�ORM MAY BE OBTAINE[I PROM TXE OMSpX OF I�RE PREVEhT10N SERVM:E:i. CONTIRACTON BHALL OBT/.IH,q qTY RIGNt-0E-WAY P�ERMIT WITH MAIM'ENI1N4"E OF 7RIIFFIG PLAN FOi RNV W ORK WITNIN TM': C�TY OF CLEARWATER'8 RIGHT#-WAY PItlOR Tq COMINENGEMENT OF GON9TRUGTOPI PREPAIRED BY: ��r 1 � � � �:,�� ust��na�ility 6320 ROW'AN ROAD NEW F��ORT RICHEY, FL 34653 P: (727) 488-1002 F: (727) 645-5105 www.SGrot�pfl.com i�OENCY A�PUCAT'IO�YIPERMIT R DATE ISSUED / GATE E%PIRES CITV OF CLf-J Z�M'ATER DEV. REVIFW FLD2014=11030 ::\'✓F�NMD NOPERMITRE��UIFiE:O-FILE#705020 DECEMBLR5,20'4 NFDES FDEP SI=1b'IER & WATER � CITY OF CLEF.RWATER R-0-W aATE: 12.12.14 INUEX COVER SHEET DEMOLITI�JN PIAN SITE PLAN GRALI�IG, DRAINAGE & UTILITY PLAN LANDBC:APE PLAN LANDSCAPE & GENERAL. C�ETAILS � � C1 C2 C3 G4 C5 �arws4rtcers a�roxs rov �v�ra' ' S1TE DATA TABLE NOTEs: I. OWNER NAME: N!KANA HOLDINGS, LLC LZI SOUTH GULFVIEW DLVD. CLEAFWATER, FL 337t:J 2. ENGINEER/LAN)5CAPE DESIGN: THE SUSTAINA8IL17Y' GROUP, LLC 5320 ROWAN ROAD NcW FORT RICHEY, FL 34653 PHONE: 727.488.1002 FAX: T27.645.SID5 3. ARCNITECT NAI9[�. BEHAF. + PETERP.NE!C� 4RCHITECNRE 103 ROGERS STREE"" �_LEAFWATER, F� 35756 PHONE:727.488.949G FAX:727.478.3074 ». PROJECT ADDRESS: »il SOUTH 6ULfVIE�N 6LVD CIEAF.WATER,FLORID4 33767 PARCEL ID k: 07-29-I5-52380-0OOCi 40 5. ZONING: "T' - TOURIST 6. FUTURE LAND-U5E: "RFH' - RESORT FC,CILITIES HIGH 7. BEACH 8Y DBSIGM DIS'fRICT: BEACH WALK e. EXISTING US�c: P,ETAIL OVERALL PRpJhCF AREA: �S=NG: PROPOS � PROJECT PREA�. 7.2C�9. � L9.52 SF (0.16 G RESTAURANT 1,439.00 SF I 4i9.00 SF STORAGE� 456.UU SF [ii6,00 SF BLDG COVER4GE TOTAL. 1,895.OG SF I,B95.00 SF SIDEWALK/DECiVFAMP � 532 OC SF 2S5 00 SF VEHICULAR USE o.REA (PVMT.)2J55 00 SF 2.01� 00 SF TREATMENT AF!E4./DECK 0 OG SF E'9L.00 SF TOTAL IMPERVIC�lS AREA: 4,9b2 (IC� i0.68 ISR 5,0.-T.'.00 SF-(0.69 � TOTAL OPEN SI'ACE: �'�4 t0.0 AC 2 172. 2- 5�0.0� A� PARKING SPACE:S: �i SP C ;� SPAC HEIGHT= ❑'-0 (hSTORY) II'-Y ;I-STORY) d'-10' (TIKI HUT) FLOOR AREA RATIO: •SEE eio7E �FI2 BE�oW RESTAURANT�, 1,439 CC �>F (C.20 FAR) 1,439 00 SF (0.20 F STORAGE: 456 CC .:F (C.06 FAR) 4!iti.00 SF (0.06 F. BLDG COVER4GE TOTAL: 1,89S.CC aF (G26 FAR) 1,895.00 <F (0.26 F II. SETBACKS�. XIS ING: PROPDSEU REQU WEST (FRONT): 27.28 FT. (TO BJILDIN6) 27.28 Fi�. (TO BUILDING) IS' 19.35 FT. (TO SiEPS) 210 FT. (1'0 DECK) NORTH (SIDE): I OB PL (TO BJIL�ING) LOB F1�. (TO BUILDING) �p• OAO FT. (TU STAIRS) 0.00 F1�. (TO STAIRS) SOUTH (SIDE): 13.89 FT. (TO BJILOING) 13.89 Fi�. (TO BUILDING) 10' 0.00 PT. (TO P'JMp 0.00 FT. (TO PVMT.) EAST (REAR): 3.03 FT. (TC� BJILJING)_ 3.03 F1�. ('f0 6UILDING) ZO' 2. E:KISTING BUILDING HEIGHT: II'-0' F'f. fFROn exisiiNC cRace TO F�._AT TOV OF ROGF,� 8 6'-IO' FJR T�KI HUT (FRa, 6FE Tu MiD-POPR oF rtoaF) PER SECTIOM 2-BQ3, FOR "T' DIS7RICT FlEKIBLE STANDCFD ➢Ey�L P 1�E Z. �Ei' S. E;i� �P EA� 1.439.00 GF.4 PPRKING RECIUI�ED: I H: (I,d9!'i SFU(1,000 SF) x 12 SPACES = 23 SPACES LOW: (1,09!i u�F)/(I,000 SF) z 7:iPACES = 13 SP4CES 14. THIS PROPERTY APPEARS TO LIE NIITHIN FLOOD ZONE "VE" (E1=13), AS SM9NM ON THE FLOOD INSURAIJCE RATE MAP, COMINUNITY PANEL ftl^cI0:SC0102G, PUBLISHEO EIl' FHE FEDERA� EMEFGENCY MANAGEMENt AGENCY, EFFECTIV,_: �p9/03/03 I5. ALl UNPAVED & PAVED AREAS DIS'fURBED WITHIN RIGHT-0E-W4Y SHALI BE 3E5TOFED TO ORIGINAL OF. BE7TER CONDITION. 16. ANY WORK 1NI'�'WIN THE R-O-W, 4VILL P.EOUIRE A RIGHT-0E-WAY USE PERMIT FOP. LANDSCAPING AIJD ALL OTMER IP1PF20VEMENTS ASSOCIATF_D WITH THE PR6JECT. 17. SOLID WASiE WILL BE PROVIDED BY G RO�L-0UT WMPSTER. I8. PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALKS SHALL BE IM1STALLED IN ALC012D�NCE WITH THE CIiY OF C�EARWATER'S RE�UIREMENTS AND STANDARDS. AlL PROPOSED SIDEWALKS SHALL NOT EXCEED A CROSu SLOPE OF 2%. 19. GUTTERS, COVlh1:;P0UT5, UTILIT'! E�CYES, AND OTHER MISC. SITE FIXTURE> YVfil_ BE PAINTED.SCP,EEiNE.D. OR OTHERWISEi ODNCEALED, OR BL?IJDED IN BUILDING A7CHITECTURE. 20. ALL UNUSE7 bR14EWAY5 MUST BE FEMOVED AND REPL4CED WITH CURB, SIDEN'ALK, AND L4NDSCAPING TD MATCH EXISTING CONDITIONS OR BET1'EA.. ?I. EXTER�OR LIGHTING SHALL BE ATTACHED ON THE EXTEFIOR OF THE BUILDIMG. 22. SIGN IMPROVEhIENTS WILL BE SUBMITTED UNDER SEPA2ATE SEPARATE SIGP PERMIT qPPLIC.CTtOM. 23. SEE PARKIpIG REDUCTION SNDI' FGF' DETAILED PARICI�G UEMAND WFORMATIOP:. 24. APPLICANT SHP,LL COMPIY WITH THE CUP.RENT TRANSPORTATION IMPACT F_E ORDINANCE ANJ FEE SCHEDULE ANI� FAID PRIOR TO ISSUaI!VCE OF BUILDING F'EFHIT OR CERTIFICATE OF �CCUPANCY. 25 AN ABESTOS :>UP.�VEY IS USUALLY RE�UIRED PRIOR TO :qNDUCTING ANY pE110LITION OR RENOVA710N5. OVRJER SHALL CONTACT PINELLAS COUNTY AIR �UALITY (727;4G4-4422) FOR MORE INFORMATiON. 26. APPLICANT SFIALL BP.ING ALL SUB-C�.TANDARD SIDEW4LC5 AND SIOEWALK RGFIP�S ADJACENT TO JR A PART OF THE FRCJECT UP TO STANGl+RD, INCLUDING I_ATEST A.D.A. STANDARDS FOF RAISED DETECTABL'�E SURFACES OR TRUN�ATED DOMES PER F00T INDEX N304, L,ATEST ED!TION. 27.OfF51TE DISCNAFGE OF PRODUCED GROUNOWATER FkOM 6EWATERING SH4LL COMPLY WITH DEWATEFI�N6 GUIDEUNES FROM FLORIDA DEPARTMIEMT OF ENVIRONMENT�� PROTECTION (FDEP). F.A.C. 62-6'tIC'). 28. ADDITIONAL PERMITS FROM STA'fE 4GENGES. SUCH AS SW7HWEST ROR'DR WATER MANAGEME�T �ISTRICT OR FLOF!IDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTP.I �RGTECTION, MAY BE REOI�IRE. APPROVAL �0f a NOT RELIE4E THE AFPLICANT FROM THE � REOUIREMEM7S TO OBTAIN ALL OTHER RE�UIRED PEF21i17S OR WTHORIZA'fICiYS. ISF INAX) O a ¢ V � w � PLAN N IN6, �+i�•r.� _ T Q � �� } � U ,O �� : (` � A m O�D �J. .. , � * i q Q # W >,�� a � W b�4 b� �� W � o vaw�c r ORIG�NALMTF� t1.31.1J cuccKEOOr� mn OE&iGNED3Y�. RM C1 of c7 _ i�' l ... �, , . ' , ; '� . . . _- � - .. `� _ . ;� • : ; . _ . I f �� ," �4 _ ,' ;! :✓ ,�� ,_, ;�,%'�� ,�.��, �� "� � � � � � � � `�, � � �. �. � j� 6.�8, ,�,�9 � l � ��`�., _ -" � i .: �� , � � . � - , \ � ///i �� -� � : k-�. �f ;. , � 6�� ,s,� � � � � ; � EXIST�NG PENCE TO RENuAIN q �J4 ! /��' i (TYP.) � ^ �� RC= � A �r � C 4 '" ! �� i � ), t �_� �� \�0245 -T- � � � / ��L'' CONTRACTOR'f0 INSTALL TEMFORARY �� '�� { � ��y � � � � � _TR.ENCHED FI�TER FABRIC BARF2IER � �r `� l 6A }� PER CITY OF CLEARWATER INDEiR#607 `?�' G'✓ '9/�� `,' �i� � t i _ y � (TYP.) F�I. �'Y' � - ,� ��///� �6' � L EX�STIN6 TREE TO REMAIN. � i ��F y � � // ,�> �� CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL TREE � ". ? � — a �� / /�J ry � j� W �`' .BARRICADE PER CITY OF CLEARWATER � -�_ � � . . . �� v '� ! C�,�� 3 �,� ,. INDEX #904 / ��-��SJ . .: ' . . � - . . �.�_,y.' - SJ' . � � . � � _�� %�r . :� � ,� � - � � A o> �6,' C' �� ;P � �C � � i F<�� ` i r � ' E . . ' � . o,�y-� 76D� 9 ., , \27�,.�Fi � � / �i �� ' T�'/� � - t � �"� � ��4 �; � � �°F" � 7��' �c S�1/ s F�V� B�� -, � -� i\� / %%r // \\`\ \ �F � � � �. , FG �Q �.� � � ��U� y � o��, � s `� �� j�, ��a �� -� , � � , �� , � � . �� , � ;, �•5' S� , J ,. v 7� r�-. H, X \ . . 9, �y L� �i � /� i �V� ��V '`7� ,SS9'S �� _a..li � � y \ C"�<sT�i<F(� ��.�, r �, V ,"� � i `\'� � �y� � si °'•'� �- � ��1�� ss� ��ooA� �� •B" TO�, s�'8%��i �� _ �� ; th � CONTRACTOF TO SAW CUT\�. �' � � � 6,4 t � O � �/�/ r U i � ,, �v �' \ �� ?�` S„C /' � � �, ' REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE t � �n�'� OJS' 1h'P�� - PAVEMEN'�, CURB, ETC. (TYP.) , � � . . ; � ` ` � � IB� � � i � � ��, �� ,�, �' tt _ '� . ,- � r , �._ .�:. " ' ��- ,, . � ' , � % �� ,�,�� '_DC �� ,( . �� .. �� ,� � ,��. � ��,�s --- � � � �� CONTRACTOR TOINSTA4� THMPORARY - TREPdCHED FI�TER F,4BRIC BqRR1ER �.��F �, , % , � � �1 � "�„� PER CI'fY OF CLEARWA7'ER INDEX#607 ' �'✓0 "T�� . „� � EXISTIN�i FENCE TO REM,61N � � � � � �� ,i� � � ,,� . � (TYP.) �. /j � (�i �`� Y .-� (TYP.) � � 'i I �� / ' , _ , � i ��/i � / �., � \ ; . (°W r `F�� tt / 'r � ! i ` � �'�.,� °�� I �- �� .._\� f�0��o , �� , ti� � � k.� � � � � � ¢ ,, � �� 33 � � ,•. "� 49' �_ _ � � � � � � � �� _ , � x r� � • � � � �- �,, �� , �_�. , i ; _� � � - � �, _ ,__ =XISTING SIGN Td BE REMOVEO ----- / / � � /,� D-1 ; / _ _ _ % i' � / �` � i = !' (; • . � � � /�/ �; ''£ 39 \ , % j �`,.�-�,-. i � ' � •�,�, \ ll� � � C:�JNTRACTOR TO SAW CUT 8 "� � �i /^ / F?EMQVE EXISTING CONCRETE i �\ ``� ,\ 1� ��` �� / F'AVEMENT, CURB, ETC. (TYP.) !-.- � � EXFSTIN6JQfAT2R.8 R�c;LpIMED �i `" METER T0 F'EMAIN'(GON7RA(.TOR T0� ,Y _ i� PROTECT Dk1RING O/ / � " — i_- __ ` ' � _._ � CONS7RUC710MDf7'fR.) (J�,C� �` ` �� i' , � — \� � COqsj� � -, `�� /�O d �� ' � , , __ _ C�, �� `� � � �� \ � � s �� . , _ ��. � �._ ;' z � / � � �' l,qy�PiL _ �� _ . . � �' _�� , ti�� y �,' A ��`'Jl �� / ; �_ E„L� �\�\ ��' 1 �,, .,. y C�� ' \\-� \ `�s /// _ �� i� �, �., ` '' ,�� ``\ ' � � �� WRB INI.E'1�. �``-� � ; _ --�-- � `��, ��. �`\\ � lOE' 0- wkTE'� P �\ � \ ` v \^ �� `�� N/v✓ � ,_ J � // , - _� LEGEIVD �� — PROPE4TY LINE i� % ' ��EXISTINGINFRASTRUCTURETOBE �j � REMOVED � EXISTaMG TREE W/ DRtP LIPJE � ,,,� � � `1 TO BE REMAIN „� �' ra 20' 30• _�� asTSniG ror�o��,�ic SCALE: 1 "= 20' SPOT E�EVATION GRAPHIC SCALE LANO PLANNtNG,LANDSCAPE t SUST/�INABLE OE816N = �` , � "�'� „t �in .� �� ii C a�� I�~, i y V, GENERAL P�OTES: I. SEE ��HEET C2 FOR GENERAL CONSTRUCTIOPJ A N D D E M O I_ I T I O N P L A N i V O T E S. 0 CONTRACTUR TO CONTACT PINELLA:� COUNTY AIR J J� QUALITY D'=PARTMENT (727-464-4L2?) PRIOR TO -� m�` START OF DEMOLITION TO OBTAIN AE3ESTOS SURVEY cn W J REQUIREME:NTS. � , � 2. ALL iJTILITiES SH��LL BE CUT 8� CAPPED PRIOR � J� TO DEMOLITION. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY CIT`( � � W OF CLEARWATER'S WASTEWATER DEf'ARTMENT � C9 Q SUPERVISOR, PRIOR TQ 3TART OF CONSTRUCTION. Q =� 3. CONTRACTOR TO NROTECT AlL EXISTING Z �� UTILITIES I�URING DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION. � O W 4. CONI'RACTOR SHALL ENSURE THAT ALL Z � U SERVICES ��RE NOT INTE:RRUPTED TO OTHER N PROPERT�E5 DURING COIVSTRUCTION. � 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RES�OIVSIBLE FOR t�LL ENVIRONMENTAL TESTIPJG REQUIRED PRIOR TO DEMOLITiON. 6. CONI'RACTOR SNALL REMOVE A,LL EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO STARTING SIT� � WORK. Z o � 7. INSTaLL SiLT FENCE PER MANUFACTURER'S Q z' SPECIFICA'CIONS. AND SFiALL HAVE A BACKFI�LED j m`° a TRENCHED. � W u. C` 8. CONI'RACTOR TO INS3ALL TREE BARRICApES PRIOR TO iSSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT. � LL w ~ 9. THE CITY OF CLEARVIATER, AT AF'PLICANT'S j �� EXPENSE, INILL REMOVE/RELOCATE A,NY/ALL WAT[R = METERS, INCLUDING REC�AIMED WA"fER METERS. Y �� Ci 10. ALL I'ROPOSED SERVICE LINES FOR ON-StTE ; f- ,<- -r ELECTRICA.L AND COMMUNICATION LINES SHALL E3E � `' � V� w t � PLACED U�DERGROUND. � o �I. SEE ,ARCHITECTUFAL AND STRUCTURAL PLAt�9S ¢ � FOR DEMOI.ITION DETAII.S OF STEPS AND BUILDING m� � ELEMENTS � 0 a � 0 �w,�—�n—oz�n _..r , � �-� o �r � f' � /nV�.�p.�'q., OOOCI � f ��t .. m �p �� "+ � pO1a ' �;� �.OZ�m �� . �. � � 1 `ui U \ �� ' c �. .�� _ VIN4LC{h: 113113 �tEUEY�. JB GNEONV pM :� �0. �.'2 of C7 � ._._._ w i � . �� . .�•'�� - '�� ..�� 6 PERM t�TT , A ' `` ... '. `` � . . . .. . IVIL ENCINE�.ERIN , ITTI \ , \ .. ,, ... ....... _ � � NNFUiG, UINDSCAPE ..` � i � '�.,� � -��. . \ '� � �� .. . _ /� LAND PlA / 6 A9NpBLE DE81GN > ��cENo I / � � S. �� _ o ��..f _ \, j � �' ,_ .l . F�,� �� i \ Xt�� \\ i r� � � S'�U \ ; � � � � . . . . �..� �9 � / : 0� ! � y S � _ 7 '. ��..,.� c .. _ _ __ i�fYOPERTY LINE , � � y, � y � � i / � 8'v5 � - � - . .. !� . '•� . / ��~� � \� E?CISTINGTOPpCW'�PHIC � � ��$� � ;. � / � l. . . . . � . . \X-- <` S .� � . / // � . . . � 1` ` 8`;p, `�, � ` ,, .; SPOT ELEVATIC�N � � ° . �� , (? ;. ;� .� � � � � \ f/E'\4 . c�. ..: � � - , ; � ; . - . . � . �� ✓� y � �� ' . ,�- , .. � � �i. I : l � � . . - , . - . . �i � l .. , . V C � �� . �, � � � �� f / � ," �,� ,� � / . . . , . _ . , . . � � `. r 6' �� Jk.l Q ! . j _ � `r^---�� F°ROPOSED PERVIC�USAREA o' 20' � �j . � ' s 6� �� 16�� o � g i �� es/ % ��: —�� N �� y) t: . . � �N� , � . . � . /�i. . � � ' . . ... . .. � � ` ��j � i / , t � � � ��- � � »�,, � j '� � SCALE: 1"= 20' � � � � � 6`' ' ' EX STIMG CONCRE E PAVEMEM'f GRAPHIG SCALE ,. i . � �- � l � i � � ��... � � 1 , � ��i �� cqC- �� _ ,� � �� TO REl�7AIN (TY'P.) A :� ti q ��. , � � � 11.3P' � � � / i^' `'`: y5„ / � �i' �� \ / , EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN (TYP.) �� - ��` ,y _ ' `� �! / � t EXISTRJf, FENCE `� l/ . / . . ,Sj�� 7�. i ' ': �,r� .� f�`��\\ ^� � , '� � 62 • j�'i�� TO REMl�GN (TYP.) _ 0 i�� . \ �Z9 5So � ! -• � ��\\ �. � � . . " : � -,., . . . r� � � �_ � \�- � . y; . � , . . �nCG°,o(// �\ � . '_, \ � , % � \ � �, o� � i``�� t " � � 8� �Ay ,f- " �� ti Q D � �`CI��„A . C�Y� ,.�,T�i'��i�' �•\� , \o� � c � . �1.. .. ` . 6 � -�.�,�� %c�� '�' F ,. ' 3' �— � � �° / � �� Q�l' ��` S' � n � / � � T�� `' - �� r�"'� , � "'- U � � J m M � M � W � Z _ � �' v ��-`� � � �0 , � ` c`' Y �i! --' ; _ - - � ___ ,...��.�,-� p � H C � \�/�� S B�„ �� _ � � � � �� , , l� �� Q �J �� e� � , �� eea„ with Q F- � � J � .. X �\ 1,9' Q 1/ , ' / / 411 k `�, t /5 tabar canthWOUS � Z � �' ��\ ` �i a��; �� 4�� CONTRACT9R TO MATCH O W �/ �� EXISTING CURB EIEV ,�: ' �C �� d�orana mN. sw'�^9 9a� itIVJ Z (n J , % � �-,� _, , � ii -2,. „ . � v ;' ` �9'x8' DUMPSTER (ROLL-OUT , 1-/6 a! 4' ow�tr � ` CONTAINER) ENCLOSURE '. g' �� p� . _`J/i`��-� — t � �.,:.... '� � � � , � �tYF ) OUT9bOR DIf11N�, AREA�Wf•�DVERED TtKI HUT (750 SF) � ,�, i % (FINISH EL0012 ELEV=5.83D � � �`-�^�,� /'� y fi¢4L i;,�qds �'-� � (SEE ARCHITEt:7UPAL PLAN$ FOR i� /' ��_,..�.,.� � 14' . �' � �� OESIGPi�d DETAiLS)(YKf'_? � � �/ M� � � • � �� . � � , � � 8,. Z . � . . . \ � . � � � EbSTING PAYEAIENT 70 REMAW � � � ,• . . . ��4 . . ,38 . _,`� , '` " 5;, CO�UINA SHELL WATER GUALITY \ \ J` �l 8� 28' a�� footk�q � m M \ i'it AR�d 'A' (197 CF) ' `� ` r' (SEE �II7EClURAL k S1RUCTURAL Fa- � LL Q \� �'d✓ TOf' ELEV=4.55 '� � �EXISTING FENCE TO � PLANS) � � \ VdEik ELEV=4.25 REMAW (TYP.} � �� '\ �LEVATION W � � a \� B0TT6M ELEV=3.85 � `\ N-T•S• � J FW- F ,, , � � j/E' � � ll � = U' � V;i ,.,. \., _ � �� - � � � , , ... �� ; �.,,� � �� ` <. � ` `�49' ° � , . a�-e' �c � ¢ �.,��, s � , i �i . � \ , \ \ r---, l � J < w ►_ � .= ..w.� � G �, �� \ / = � ��- t . � � v c� � \\ � ! � � � ��\� / � BUIIDING PERIMETER LANDSCAPING (164 SF) �/ �� i r — �i / � a ;; , \ J s'�- a�a. sted b�l�ara. W �� Q / � cana FlNd (�)P) ,. � � f.,, � 0 � � , � � �.\ . 'y \�:� .. � r , . � / g'_g m s . , � �.. � . .. ._.. __.._ ¢ ti �� ,~ `` APPR��XIIHATE LOGATION �� \iv � ^ . / � � � � OF MOIJUMENT SIGH (TO BE SUBMITTED- � _ _- - - �+ � �.; � I� � 1 � 48' wa 9. UNDER SEF'ARATE PERMIT) � � i 1`� ' i claaraia mti. Z� ` -=- - � -E-_ � � nf J9��. ; ' �� oo � U \ � BUILDING PEFIMETER LANDSCA?ING (66 SF) . � ti � /,� � U o . /�_, \ 9 9� � YP•i � �� n�, � � REMOVABLE. TRITON (6 BdKE! 1 ( ` °� ° t o a ` , �'�-_ [� � / POWDER CO�ATED RACK 1 EXJSTIN6 WATER ANp RECLAIMED� �` � � , ""�-� w �= - . . '`�� METER TO REHAIN (TYP.) /� _ O w^ , F�l//`�( _ _ / , PLAN � � " `-� O/�� h 6• I N C H T H I C K P E R' J I O U S C O N C R E T E � �A,�� '� P Ph hds a� �� CCINTRACTOR TO IFiSTALL 23' x 6' ��vd�e ADA RAMP � W4TER QUALITY AREC� 'B' (324 SF) --��` -�_ j' j � �x�� o^ C �(1:12 SLOPE} W/ HANDRAILS 8 MATCH ESISTING GRADES � � ' TOP LLEY=4.00 TO 3.Fip �_ "-- g` � q s r A T T O P O F > T E P S A N D S I D E N r p L K A L O N G S.J � Q O " B O T T 6�1 EIEV=3.50 T�3 4. 0 0 � � I� U M P S T E R E N C L O S U F� E S I N G L E � w�• -�- O Z� n '� GULFVIEW BLVD. (SEE ARCh1TECTURAL 8 � NON—TRAFFIC BEARING �S STF!UCTURAL PIANS FOR DESIGN 8 `r n�rai�scrvP.> �j)IFIED FOR ROLL—OUT CONTAIN� �� `� o��_, 6� '\ . � � � � ��i� .m�rocf�el . , � , /L . �K �� _ �� - � i � ROIL-0 - � �...i��'� �� .; °� � � � ua � f � � i'1REA (7yp �ONI AINER STAGING a€ �,�� (�. Z m . _ � . . \ .ti ��.. O � �j i � ��V � � � -� ,, ° � � �� , ,\ , CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL 19LF OF STRAIGHT `�\_ i �� n� �PER CITY OF CLE4RWATER INDEX #IOI (TYP.)� _, ` �� E z �\ , ... '., � CHECKEDF JB \ J -.____` � � � 2 20' S13>IT VISIBILITY TR'IANGLE OESiGNmHY� RM ` ` �_,�_�,�� (NO LANDSCAPING SHALL EiE INSTALLED WIl'HIN sNeerwo " `��- eu� inr.� r \ VISIBILITY TRIANGLE BETN'EEN 30-INCHES t1ND 8-FEET)(TYP.} C3 Of C% � � -ti"-^"� ��... �_..�..�-..r..�„� :. " � . .� r : � _ � _ ._ IVIL ENGINEERING, PEHMITTINZa'�` " INTERCEPTOR CELL SIZING CiiART LAND ��N,�ABL OESISGNPE ��n, A B C Y [ aour em� � �so re �^-r �-s r-r r-m� � . . �^n o � wm r-ar a•-a r-r s-r a-w Q w CAUTIOM NOTE: �(` � �-r '"B'" Q -{ Q1° °-0' °'-0' '-r �_r ''-'� ` N„ L C(7NTRACTOR TO USE CAUTION OVERHEAD TRANSMISSIt�N 1�1 � '�il �----','� , AND UMflERGROUND GAS MAIN WI'THIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY �� d'� ��`�`"� '•'""""''�'"�'�''""'"°�'°°""�0'""'"a'''�"°p� ' j \ OF MAPdOA�AY AVENUE AND BQYNI�NT STREEE�T. � ��I� � pAR M rpuM OMaDr tl1m t'1b0 ulan �xlht, \ �.. ' (r` RECUNFD) Z to nwkb�ml9 Hr p�r tY�� Md 6� ti.�a.a ot w,n�r ' , � % � �/ � . ��•• � , ,.. � � �� n� �wm�iae �� sa.,,m a a��.a .�i �,yrede�i� xw ow�.w.�er� �n. � . �«�c.�a � i / �. . � o' 3 � �. anaoo�r ee n4pr a ►,.ca a v4rro � �� ,i r� /6 � fr • . ,d 20• i.o � , C �mao nu�t � aw�s i�',��apmr�(damatr« wa�q to.ad ma tmm �. H. ",. /�' —��y � � riir �ss � N �� y � ' �� nw m a�s�w eo w �� a� �r S arnveals NwY arr�2.bOD P9 m�Mnum woi ewrrq x � _>� - - 11 �V� . t 1 � _ �� t-r a� umw �c�r e weaeo ww�. � � ;( SGALE: 1= 20' �•.� � �y , - y��, ' � ' %/ , � � i GRAPHlC SCALE (n " t ca�a�t« �eoapr e 2saar. 4 D151 AN� ' ., " 2 �awa: �rn �a+s ona. ea R241' � E HYDR�S ��- /� { sN�ir�m a wr�: �st� �ma a+rd. es � � � ; 1S'C�� F �R E ENT ,/^� � ��r� ` �� ` � � �� Q T+►. r � a o'�` s�true�iud�oia�� ww�ry�rw�e� ',f, TQ FUtYTHE q� � pPM h �` , � `"� � . ` �` LEG�ND \ � Frmt aknenb ut�ty�uabaM � PROF'�SED � �. � �/ ,,.�'�/� \ �.. ' <`:�� ,\ `V% � A laadc YI-20 truak +haN �I� �t PR M9MTQ '� - �/�r � �:� \ �� I . 0. Fi r/aNm �ot�r prix to NaS W of �bm. Y �� y�� 7. �� y, Wadc waEr YM M cmMd by —�_ . • �v ��\\ . � '`.. � .-. — — PROF'ERTY LINE �" '`'° � �� GREASE INTERCEPTOR � � t \�` � � � ' EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC 0 r � 750_ 1250 GALI=QN �. i �� SPOTELEVATION v J r� ,_. �. , �, � an �c« No. xr a».e , or� , � ' Y�� J m t� �iTA EXISTING R00� DRAIN DON�NSPOUT \� � �\\ M „ �W�T� � a c�A� �� FRDM ADJACENT PROPERTY '� � „ � W J � . � � � . V � ENOr1E�NO DVARI�ENf � . . � � � � � LL � � _ � , ,' SECDON VIEVL ' , Wiro ..wwa.� 4 ' F , / / � ' � J w � _ i` � �K oe. v.m �>;E� . �. �at � �' ,. f � MATCH EXIS'f. � � ~' � � ` '' �� '��' ` � � �� / GRADE AT EI_EV=L,3 Q � , � •� �� ^� \ ' � . �. � � �a . ` _�___. / � \ \ � __ . J � ,� . ,� �,� ��,� �� , � ` ! 1 1 ! F � _:� , ,_ �, � , .. �. � ..�� . , � �� ; ,, r,��, '� �r � c � ;� � ;' ,,_ . '�--'�-^-�'.�`��-- �•.�`-�� , � A � 0 w , _ \ z� i � f � / uwororM �_ ` 1 .- , A �-'� v� U t�'� � % YALVE ��`�� ' � >. �<a, �� •�'. '�� i� j/� � � � ( � CCMYRACTOR TO SAW CUT. REM01(E f4 Z � ; ' ��\ � �� '�'' A , - 1 INS'(ALL TRAPZILLA GREASE � � \\ � ,ti - ��• EXISTIN� ROOF DRAIN DC1'wVNSPOUT r x � INTIcRCEPTOR OVER EXISTING SANITARY ' �; �, L' I �� \(LEADER T4 BE EXTENDED TOWARDS LINE � �§� `�'�' V WATER QUAUTY QREA) f e� f 8 j!. INTIcRCEPTOR CAPAt:ITY: 1250G AL. hfAX ' — � �t% � � �' � , ,�, j �� _ , ` . _ , `. APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF EXIS7ING �� 4` �� DE:CK AREAFFE=5.8' ,- � � ' �K., ` IRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY � F� � �� ' �� -t � '� �� `�'. J� � �` � � �l � ' ! '� c w�_. � Z � � U' " �..� � � ;9j � 3 : QQUIN4 SHE � � a C LL WATEl2 �UALITY � jt / 1 � J M Q Z � - ; ., , ` ` \� � . '... � AREA 'k (197 CF) � � J � 7 T �� (�: L�" \ � `.�. TOP �LEY=4.35 ;` � � ti II. _ y �" , �„ , , F�; y( - � - l � EXISTING ROOF DRAIN DOWNSf'DUT ` W f� � WEIR ELEV=4.25 � � j� �' � ,,: , (�EADER TO t3E EXTENDED TO'dlARDS � ? W � � " BOTTUM ELEV=3.85 �' % � � �� ' .� \ ��- ��"1 / WATER �UALIT'Y AREA) � l � L� W � � ._ . . � � < , �� ° � � � � � J F' � � � c> ° Q Z 1- "�- \; � � ` � , � � �y � � � o � . � . �� .:: ' � _ ., �{ � � �F `�49 Y � � � �s _ , � � � � `, � ;; \ j . � � � ,�,�,�,,, I � ,� , .. C9 � � { � �� ` � � � � � MI�TCH EXIST fo1TC,CJE j� } � � � ��, .p � � � / �� / `�1�� - O �� / ��i-� ELEV=5.4t ly _ � w w w �.� �\ . r � � \ , `�. r - - ¢ � � CURB �NLET � 1'� t�� \ � ! PERVIC�US TOP ELEV=4.0� � / i�' � ` � �14:3 �3 � Q\ r � PERVIGUS 60TTOM ELE'J-3.50 j m� � � I -. ... a.so s es . l i / \ \,, ��- y, � , � . i D-1 � %' / � ' � ; \\ \� /, , D 6-INCH THICK PER / / ~ j �._ � ,. ,._ ,,.... l � . ! _...� � 3�A NE I �� E�.= ' 36 (2;" _- _' --� , � �" VIOUS CO�VCRETE � �M1' Iv,�. c:�.- -0.25 (15 : � _. i o, ��,�' z� y EXISTING WATER METER f/ ��- � / WATER QU,4LITY AREA 'B' (:i24 SF) ° o \\\ \ C RECLAIMED SER4'ICE TO REMAIN � " , j�� TOP ELfY=4.00 TO 3.50 a" ��-_____ \� � BOTTOM ELEV 3.50 TO 4.00 N o � -- � �l � � � � � / '�� ljG// ^ � ° a � � �1RANS, � �� Q % �_ J � �' � � ROLt.OUT CONTAINER STAGING AREA -� w° . \-�/-`�V'=•.,,•-�NV"'v'�/'�,.�'�.v I �y?• / FOR �ICN;UP ONLY � _ o � -\ �� MA'TCH EXISTIN6 TGP OF O / -._. i t � � , , ` , _ Z � �.,� SIDEWA�K ELEV:3.4t `�f � J � r ` PERVI4US PAVEMEIdT QND WATER QUALITY N�TE: C� � d� � � ` MATCH . NRADE � i �,,., ;. _,� _ z� I. OWIVER SHALL EIVTER INTO A RECORDED A��REEMENT FqR qST WATER �UALITY GRASS WEIR D AT ELEV=3.45 _ / // — � C \� TOP OF WEIR ELEV=4.25 � {PERVI�US 80TTOM 2.95) � `T �r M A I N' f A N E N C E A N C� C L E A N I N G O F P E R V I O U S F' A V E M E N T W I T H � S / o - �R(/ W/ 58 SF OF F'YVEP, ROCK � �t >- °� LO�AI_ VACUUM SERVICE CLEAN[N� COMPANY' 4N ANNUAL CA � - `3 � �/ > °D"� �'� (3 TO 6-INCH THICK MAX.) �h ` � � � � � � �(�,`� ��R� BQ$�� ffi 2. OYh'MER SHALL MAINTAIN ANG CLEAN WATI?R QUAUTY ��REA ��; ��/�r�r �`F � '�'�� /� � ,- z a, �H ON AtJNUA� BASIS. � h14TCH EXIST. GR,4DE , � " '4 � � � � W u� � i AT ELEV=:� 50 �� . � r � '� �1� � �� A„ � �-� EXISTING CITY OWNLD INLET �� r � � �� CUR IN I (PERVIOUS BOTTOM ELEV=3.D0) N RIM ELEV=3.52 �� `j TOP ELEV=3.03 THROAT ELEV= 2.14 °�� GEwERAL NOTE: SANITAR'Y SEWER MANH� ��µ ,� z, '' � NE INV ELEV=(-:i1.37 (30' RCPD ,. I. SEE: SHEET C2 FOR GENERAL C�'fRUCTIi;�N, GRqDING &'� ., ,;, \ sw iNV e�ev=(-)a 3� (so^ RcP) �E� �a DRAINAG�, AND UTILITY NOTES " .. \ _.�_,: __ �^�v�^ � ��,�� BOFTOM ELEV=t->s.sa �s�� RM _._ � -- _ ..•.�� -.,.. � .. -_. � � SHEE7 k0. ,_ ; .,., ; CURB N � �'^-^ '��. � _ � -�`��- C4 of c7 -_ -- � IPROPO,�ED PLE�NT US"r YS MBOL Id�,,,i. I NTBRC NAME �QMMON Nfdv1E $IZE REQU'IR PE AENTS -„-.r-.,-„-�,-�,-„-..-�..-�-.�.,-.,--�..�.,-.,-.,-��-.,-.,--,_. CE 4 CONOCARPUS ERECTUS Y'AR. SERICEUS SILVER BUTTC�NVYOUD ACCENT: 2.0" CALIPER (8FT HI-IC;HT ��.�.�/��.i^'^✓ V V `�r' �--i �/ t/ ��./�� "��/ SP 4 I SABAL PALA�ETTO CA6BAGE PALY6 12' C.T.H. MIM. LI 3� � LAGERSTRCIEMIA INDICA 'TONTO' CRAPE EuIYRTLE 2 1/2" CAL. (8' H"6� SHRUBS H 213 HIBISCUS R's7SASINENSIS HIBISCUS 3 GAL ,(36' O C SFACING) EP 42 ERANTHEMUM PULCHELLUMI OLUE SAGE 3 GAL ,(36" O.C' SFACING) IV �A ILEX VQMIT�RW'NANA' DWARF YAUPON HOLLYI 3 GAL., (36" O.{. SPACING) GROUND CO'JER AG 264 S� ARACHIS �3LABRATA, BENTH PERENNIAL PEANUT ROLL HB 32J HELIANTHUS DEBILIS BENCH SUNFL��"vER 3 3AL., (24" O.i� SPACING) * All other n��a paved areas outside of planting beds to be sodded with St. �lugustine "Florvtam". NOTE: THERE SHALL Blc NO ITEMS W9THIN THE 2�';c20' SIGHT VI8�16RLITY TRIANGLE5 WHICH DiJ PJOT MEET 1'FiE CITY'S ACCEPTABLE WERTICAL HEIGHT CRITERIA P,T A LEVEL BETWEEPJ 30 INCHES P.F30VE GRADE AND 8 FEET F�'�OVE GRADE. / ,1 \ , �jF�� .� ; z � �, � � � _� � �, �, . �� ' � � `' J R- / �, �) � \\ �� / ��I� _ �� , �� IV z� �iI , '• -�� / �, a. .. : � ; �_ � �'�_ � � � ," SCALE: 1"= 20' � ^ ` � � �`�-,... GRAPhI1C SCALE � l�, � H ,:. 1 1 / /� y� ,�`� �-. �R` l'�. � •�� `—^- N �,� ; 'w _ LFG�ND =_ EXISTING T'REE 7 ��~ .• � TYP. f HB � .— — � �� — PRGPERTY LINE \ 152} H .--� �00 �X STING TREE � \��1' TYP. �. ` EXIST�kG TREE W/ DRI? LINE \\ ,- � � .. ' � �� \.w TO EtE REMAIN HB "� ,\ � I .�`\ q Q. \ 28 � � � � � �� i � ... � H \ � �O� 0 � . t � 1e ..` 3QC:� � / - �� . �`� / yy�'P EXISTI�G TREE / � �� - � �� — -- ..� / Q T�'� � r,� ` ' " � 9,0� ' ,� �, �2.5�' � � `r. l �� — , � � r� `J, � � � � �� ,n � < � ti � � _ � . � � `�' � �'�,�y � . �, LS �� \ . � - �z , � > �• �� - � X . ��.../' ! � � -r% > � �_ � ^� �6 1 � / 1 -�' �+ '✓ '� ;,� �,. �o. �p � � <'�,� �� i,��, S � � - - � � PA`,r�. - ` c' ��' � � ��"y Fj, � � —� _� � l . -' � _ � , ; C(� f � � o' � � / �� a b 4' & : � � t�` �' � � ' .. " - , , 7_ ON � , _ , ; �o,. � \ _ _ t . , , i � �C� , /� � � f ` ^ � � � , �. �. � �, � � � v- � _ _ � , - _ �' 'G' `� ,' °s`� / ��Y , � � �B �;� � / ' � ` � �� ( J � " �D/� ..P i � CE � S l�i� ��` � ZG�'�E VF �� / h'�T� � �i a a �v, � _ G �, N i. i� � ��u.F.E.= �C. � ¢.�� V"S. � � � 9gEti��Op ��i��/ �z q�� RELOCA'fED SOUTHERN �� RF . � �� HB I �� ; �� BUPI=ER TREES � , _ �'(,. � �� / � �, �" �.I � � � i S :, \ ` �/ �� . � _ ��1�� L,�2 i �g �( \ 140 , '� � � . / , �` � . 0 . s,, \ . / • �. , � � � ,� �_ , - , , . - .. . c ��, � �.(r�� . �� J1 . . V� \�_- � � L � i r - v� � � � � 3, � T- 95 � ,�, � �, � �._.� � � � . � c�j � , _ � A � .,, t,5 d.;9 -i-� � � � � �4 -� � �! F � / \ � : ; , , ,� � h E, � � _ �;` �� `�- �F��ER�Aat FQ � .�_ �.� � � �`� `� ,- l �, � - ; �" � �; -_ � „ � A l. � �_� l �� > c. r� � � �� 4� M SP i � � � � �� - � � � Q� a G' "� � � � � .; ' � � � «� �, ��__ 2g'} . ✓ . �o I � 3B9, _ �� . � � . �� ` c � ` j, .'� ` , ; _ � . . _ . 5 � -� � ; �y r. ' ; ti �� / � � � � 4 a5 = , ,. � �' v � i`1 � �\ ,��LE� '��_F `" <. CE � „ a � �,� � � ` r� N; , � �� / , <� - .., � � . � � � i . �� t� , �� `. ,�, , � � , , �. � "_ � �� LI '¢+9� -� � �� 4 , � � � /�� `-�\�\\ � `� 3 r- __ i � � , c`/ // \\\\� % .. ^_`�..J /� . \ . / ] .-A ; �' � � ' � � �; � / � � � �� \ l � � - � � � r' 1 � r', \ l J � � \ \ 58 _-•�_ ,i \ - � � �; �� ?'� `BUILDING FERIMETER LANDSCC,PIMG (164 SF) � � ` \� "�°�. �`�� '" � � � � � '`�/ � '°- � �� °'� ,��'4� , �' �. �; � D-1 ; i `-�� ,� � � APPROhIMATE LOCATI��N 2 �� /'� : ��,� �'' ��- '' � � � � 1�39,3' � - . OF P1��NUMENT SIGH (70 BE SUBMI;TE'D� �J �� - - _ ___ , i� � ,� � � �� : � �� ` UNDER SEPARATE PERM��T) '� � �I � � ,.�:'"� / �� l� � li � � n � � �.,� n,- � -- � g�), � � � �R S��Y � � i � 1 �� ,�j� EP � ��.,� �� POWDER�C�JATED RACK 81KE) � � ��ti` F(0 R�� ti� ' �\ �I � 42 � � � � �.. _, ., FVF, r �A� � � , \BUIIDING PERIMETER LANLSCAPING (66 SF) `/� �4 ,�F � "� 20'X20 SIGNT VISIBILITY TFIANGLE I / (NO LANDSCAPING SHALL BE INSTALLED WITHIN �y4i �,. � � ��CfC ��., �� `� O�`� 1/ �VISIBILITl' TRIANGLE BL"TWEEN 30-INCHES AND 8-FEET)(TYP.} '��_,_ I � fi , �._ l Ci�qsT \ � , , A�O , -ti,� �� ' � , `-` I ,.�� ` L'/�� ;...;. �... �. �r �"'� r�� .�� ..._...\�,'` ` _ .� .�, �h-CO�'Yy"`.. '_... � `!1' ' .. �� . � _ �,_ � � � r'LNERE SHALL BE NO VEHICUTA.R TI+,AFFIC ALIODUI=d ONStTE `S�U^n„_ � �`�. � RIVER ROCK (3-INCEI TO 6-INCH MAX. GIAMETER) , �- � \ � � / v v v��+/ v/ V��./��/ N,LL IRRIGATION SYST�MS SHAI.L BE CCMF�ECTED TO THE CITV RECLAIMED � �� I iRR IGATION r�_ ��_ WATER SYSTEM WFiEF".E AVAILABLE PEF2 :LEARWATER COCE UF � � �ORDINANCES, ARTICLE IX., RECLAIMED Wl,TER SYSTEM, iEC�TION 32.376 � II9'll'�,8t10f1 SySt�lll SI12. � %8II8(I 8q1(� COI1f1QCt�d to reclaime� �water meter� shawn on Uh�LY �IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL UTILI.ZE A RECLAIMED CCMP�LCTION. f1��I1S 8fld Sf18�� CUlllp��l W�tfl �.li� pf L�@8fW8t21' COfll(IlU�ll�l �E�VB�OPI11Qilt COC�E I'P(jU11EtTl@f1rS. , LAND PLANNING,LANDSCAPE k SUSTAIm1ABLE DESIGN �' �"� � ��i � .�_ �L�„,� � p�� C �; a°�� ,� L:� � N �` � �� e ;; Vi (j m � M M �� W � �_ > cj � W � 7, � Q _ "I_ � � S{n J �-' �- U N � � � O cp J f7 � M d ~ W LL �� W � _ �� Z Y � �a � a ~ L� �7 V .. � O f — 0 = a � O L�L�..L __",y .T ' � c� s �_ . }�� v � m�� + m � � �o W : � ZWm _ O � �aw � �i ' Q w , � � CROJE iR�. iMl ORiGI LCAiE� 11.3`.13 CHEClCEDE�Y. JB CESIGNEp 3Y� RM SHEET MO �%� of C7 ppltiR �Rii G R? i� �� ►rr ar :: : d� � �:� r � �.r : : ��Y �r�t � tir�t E�� :� ��.��t� `��;�� x� i�it ��tt�, e��lt! �r, t�t�� t�i �,� �� ! si� e�� !r��t� �R%j� t� �� e;'� � ` �� +� �/E� �� ' � {� �� R�t �: ',i ` �t t� t,�s��t �lfr t�t� ! �[s : �� l�� t� E�} r �� {/ � � �� .. f �� i� ` � � ! � ��t+r � dE �� ij�s �� :� � r ��l��t'� ; � �� , t��[�t� ��; � � � !� � f ��s� [ r ` j*� i �� s�t�f=",:�.�t �� t �� t ; �� s � � �� t � a� � �� Etf! � � � t�� ; ! � � � � t�d� � �i� �t� ��#�f��e �:�� !s � e � � �� i( �� L �� _�� :��`�s�� #;�� ::� �� a t ; � �' $� �� ti $ � � p � � � � ,,,,,, ,�� ,,, C') � � �`oN�.e�,,.. F /!� � � � � + ;.� P ��CEkS�Of.��;,. E V• ° �".� . 89870 Q �-. \I °� � m g � * i s .�� 0 R V �P I � ' �.�,-, �� - � c JASf�1 G�k;;;F�t��'D N PE #69878 �ecer.Ree� t2. a^�� S ` Y ELCtTPGIICff/I. � �i� �a� � `� �� e� ��I DE6CRIPTION � �;� a � �' �� P:vP P► M M Y g�'i � ��s ��[i� �� _ � t � � t�� e _ � � � � � s �� l��t�r � g�_._ �� _�� ! � �� r 4 �� a� •� ►rrr� �� # ��_� �� s� � �F � TIKI HUT RESTAURANT �aAT�,: 411 S. GULFVIEW BLVD. CLEARWATER. FL 33767 LANQSCAPE DETkiLB � .�� ► �- : � � �� s VPY� � �� i#� ,, � ��; � ; � ,/�. wuw� �� !� ��a �t��y =�� i�i� ��.� � �� °�� rr� sr� � d � � � � 'J � � • •rr rr � �� s� R ��$ � , �� r� � i �� ,�� i�� ._�� .�� °� �� N � N � � �� ^�� .� �� NIKANA HOLDINGS. LLC eij. 421 SOUTH GULFVIEW BLVD. rj�t�� S stainabi CLEARWATER, FL 33767 `:; ��-o ruw van R v: tn�, �a-ioaz F: � S � __ 1J �1�/ a 6 u p,�� _ ' "'_ m .,r�.��,�.. S' 1' �� I-1 +-+�rn w.afw :surrao. � .�rt. 'o � �::.` y..� � Bar ab .. _ :�:::;:�: ' . . . �.. ... ..� 51RAICi1T Wt� .� SOCk O� Lillb o a Abaut�DrMxpy�� F� ^ � 3' TIRANSITION AT DRI4ES NOTE� � t. 7Mn afa M o t/2' Md JoY�t Wtwn bodc d au0 aM trtrway. 2 Cana�b Y� arbr !�Y M 3W0 pK wkh r�M "-„`►�y:��, Bar ' . ; ' . 1!' ��,-,.—r �•�4�?=�4°d!•'.•';. cAc�s�Jeoxsrei' . � ' _ . • . . 4' 'pvy ot M Driw� �� 2'R e•'"�'� t 6' Y 3'R \ � � A � : ,. n :�•:ti ; b k�' :4:r:.y;:.,;j�i4'R �',,. .�iEi:'!;i:E.ie:t:::ci�ic�i�;.'t: � .:::�:Z'r-�� e ►��: -.��• Mlnn un0 m Mqh Mdu d roodro� tM a+oM � Of VI� �1� 1110�7l�1 dN OOw y--�{.��- Ilt dN Y�.�pOM1lNllt Qld �N d1�0�01w Of �118 �p �Id 0� 6'. udMS oLw�(w �hew� m plsia � � � TYPICAL CURB CROSS SECTiONS pIY �0lX N0. 10h 1� t ILLt {7R' 01 O� NfJla► p�l� OOMAY�R �r w t�a N Or�lYw� s/4'rt � r surae. "j""' ;.-:,-: . 'b� l;t:�tiif:.; ..•.::;7•'� �� . t:; •:.; . _ _ J�_:::'r':;: _�'':�a:'v:: :v: f' Ba» nmES °. � .. - - YODIFlED CURe t ln.n waall w a 1/z" vAL1EY GUTTER Wf� sd jok�t Ml�w�n bxk � 1' of aup m0 dArwroy: �_� �� 2 (aonu�b h aurb� Nx! �� b� 3000 pl, Nlh 1br � A-3�4'R mrA rYnfirafp' 3/4'R 9' C �;:a: o � : �-� ' � � .�:.••.. ::q ;a. .y.:.. . ::r... ..�. � �� 4G � �F:;:�':R:►:. y�.: ° Baw � TifPICAL CURE� � � cR��ss sEC�or� � � �"°"`"° �°°°'' •�. G�rqaol�d sueA'od� ,� �.,� mn �oEx Mn ia� a a 7: MEOIAN CURB • . • . . • . . mr a msm ri.ma o�o asrm�,M PIN / DOMYEILm CURB Iuphdtk Cmw�ts potA to b 1' mn. tl�Ido�M a malq� �xbH^V br MldkrHp ti..ao m z'. raen .na a T�pe s-i� rc a:� �ati� n �.+m aiw.+w o.ur+e s�,,. Nm:� �' et o� Fetd Mii p�! Rrv/ee� hY YonMiMk $bG ��b��• Ts2' (K Yh idU ef �bwt �..a m�muo ��w�. ea. � �awnudw „.taioaem i � eaawFM ee a. p„i / . .. . .:.. .. . . . . . . �.. .... . . . � . �... . . �.. .�. ,: ...,.- . . ... . :.. ...: . : . � ... � . .� .... ' '.' T.: . `� . r''.,��. �....': i; .:�.-.;:;.: ,. . . •� c.=-' _ . . Eair:ii9 COna�� w a..kn T.ildckn�so of -�✓ �� T.�6' w.t9 W��u�E� aripkd &iu 6'. Mo 3�a" ASPHAIT SiREET AND DRIVEWAI' � REPLACEMENT REIXIIRED FOR CONCRETE REPLACEMENT REOUIF.E� unuT•r cor�s�ucnor� voR ur�urr coNSrHUCn�r� �fREET AND �RIVEWAY RE=PLF�CEMENT FOR �CR�TE & ASPHALTIC CCENCRETE SUKFAC an �ccx r�o. �a: + �_s + PLAN VIEW � s��y�� .n�..rtiwi yr.yr��i��'i.�r i�rMr��Mbp�y�\IIrW� • �M4M'MMA�W��wlr �pM��rrM�A/�/M4' an..wr�rsqr�s�,...�r x��r.`+�.��.��rsi w i w. � r�rw � ��a��M��T��I��qti�� ~� i rY �{ f �� t �1�� wMM � � ` , 6rt os�e o�Iw 0 rr�-�m �� rrv�cK om�w�Y caoss sECnar� i�� t t,w� e, r� �ner sa.t r�� I �� _---- ,�,. � .�: ".. �' � � ' secnar e-9 •�°•••�•••�• c••• Mw „ �1lenew W� W► M a s M o( f1w� I� �M T�YM fnUe� /t� , •� �• ' . r•-� � t �Met «n�1� swue SECTION A-A aaia aoe.ra a N -�. l�inaii�i� r � `/b' r �w��p� $� ��'Fl °'�°" {� 1.�' �� RETIlRNEI] d1R9 RAYPS Y Y 1� Wia �0• �G.s�c ��t� t�;' � � �. a.. ao. a,. w...r .«.. nurwna as at er emwx .. : �� s _ � � SECTON B-B. EiEYA110N a-A �� TYPICAL �ILE�\MY, ,. �'�n.v'"'�"�ir'i'�»"e��"�o"°"'°"` : ww . H.e� srw.a r,esurw r.o� wt e M � b r at tdnr e �aM� Car.wi.r MM IY��wN'�s �1t9r �HYSIG��ALLY�fiANDICAPPEI� � � �"� �''�""0r ""` �"` 16°`°�°"` rnr �ou ra ioae � a s �� ara. rrt- L�'l1I A t Y�W ��Q �� 'rYr R�lltllp 1 M�[ D MR 1/Y II�O 1001Y �! i OMA►Oill A/ IY S A I�MM q/ VY A� R �OIU fl�l0 N 1�EC ♦!Mq A�L��17d1eM�A�RE�IRMAL M�i M A T!M! l�fm M 1�i !i ML 0[IBt tO[ OMill Af � A�d SLL � 6 07AO06 1/Y i f�IOM Mlel �� • 1/YY td1 !O[ W A Y�; M�1� 1/Y lo Y-•, 0� Xi 1� M ll[ �wi�i+��i�:.�.�i:.w.{• - i—� �r',.•��' jw !i'v.�i' �).�Yi�1�11�l�IOlO�E O�IIL�R100flOi faaos �K ...' a� �w io � as M�o w x�s uuas wn�e pm� aor oaaaE am � V�9 an� l �IK 1 MK �1 �il C�UI O A�J19 qllf 7N�� /�C�di W: IOIr /IE �t SIDEWALK TYPICAL SECTION NTS wsrwa �r ru�w � arR art srrsi sr Mollt I im�pOI��Y1��fyM�,liS 1dw1YI�1IA0BI1M71YIDW: MIGL �Alllf RNI �� L � � MML 07��0 � 1/r � �1 �, M �YR � �1M� �. . CONCRETE SIDEWALK CONSTRUCT�ON DETAII �,w.� �► �.,� ,� ...� � z� RTER ff�BRIC �615 TO 9E WIEMAL ,wueT \ .WD�TONa S1RENOn� fLIFR iq�XC YAIEPoXL CAN !E �TTIiCMFO RI � 6-WOI �MAI� wRE uESN SCAEEn wq! �us' 9EEN FASiDIED 10 1FF PR:T3. \ u�xlRufN�qC �,«� ,� �.. .e...._.. INSTALLING A ,'� FILTER FABRIC Sll_T F NC Ott 1Np[[ Np. Wf; t QI 3 ^ee Ni.i I � � +� .�a a+� A.iorr ��s.m�� L I�r�Y �MY� O}�/�1� R 00/� � f1Yl � OIR rlK L MIr1A - p IO AIMI S R! Y� a Mv�ro+� _� is wM r: r wse. a � ��y�p�� t Y�N�N��1�/i�01� NN�IMOI�� i RI N��OS aa � CO�ICO��011 ��,�:.�,.�. � x �. S } TREE BARRI AnES mwuw� �� x r � � a ATTACHIkG TWO SILT fENCES tn iENQ �__L �� ]m: ipYS nrx nc o0 rosr oF xe ��_ YanO Rx¢ N91.'[ TE dD NSf Of 11C FlMI iEN1x 110[\1E lOfN _1-�— .�,x ., �,�. ,a�w oaa� a[cnox ro aurz � nort seN. rm ae r,�eia iump�u aacrc« o �uxm uius pA[ pTM �—_�_ � �"` � H � Q � W � H � x Y I"� � � U O J J � � Z 0 J � _ Z � Z � � �� - � �t� .� � �� 3 �� .�. � ...��'vP 7 � m � > M > M W � � �i � � � Q � � � � Q fA J .- U N � 3 ^ CO m M � J LL � W �Q C9 � vi � '�t U �� FQ'- W Ci � W z LLI L �,. V � � . p <r ; � d C .:� �m i "�ODCd� �f ��1iY � J Sil CnD oi .G W � 'y � �0�p%a� Z��°� tA °� � #�F O � 4 � {yl : d ;b, Sd� �� d �u i� ^ � O MO.IECTf TMI OWIGI WL C/.TE'. 11.31. �3 Q�ECNEDET'. J8 OE9IGI�EOUY'. RY SHEET NO. � �:% of C7 // � Florida State Certiiied Professional Engineering Firm Certificate of Authorization: 29400 �,�:. 1 ��' �� .� �� »� �� _�� ,��.� CITY OF CLEARWATER STORMWATER DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS REPORT Tiki Hut Restaurant 411 South Gulfview Blvd Clearwater, FL 33767 Original Date: December 9, 2014 ��c�,�,�� , � � „� � ' �� ., ; � �`��ttl��`` ; � �- . �� OQ��•' � � e � ""��% � ��,.... � __ �� iG `G t�� ,�- : ,��',% � �' '',,�, , : N . 69878 � �� , � � t � �.� � � � i�__t.--'i r.�`�`�� #�A�..�^fi DECEMBER 12, 2014 6318 Rowan Road, New Port Richey, FL 34653 Website: www.5GR0UPFL.com — Email: Jason sgroupfl.com (P) 727-488-1002 (F) 727-645-5105 I. PROJE�T CJVERVIEUV 6318 R�wan Road, New Port Richey, FL 34653 Website: www.SGROUPFL:com — Emaii: info@s��pfl.com {P}jF} 727-645-5105 INDEX I. PRO.iECT t?VERVIEIN A. Description and �ocatior� B. Existing Ganditions C. Pr�posed C�nditions D. �tormwater Criteria �. Sr�i! Canditions F. 4p�ration and Maintenance Ir�structions 11. CA��U�ATIONS A. Treatmeni Area Stage Storage B, M�iDRET Calculations (Treatment Voiume Drawdo�rvn) ili. ;4TTAGHMENTS Aerial • Lc�c�tic�n Map Gec�technical Investigati4n Report 6318 Rowan Road, New Por# Richey, FL 34553 Website: www.SGROUPFL.�om — Email: infoCu?s�roupfl.com �p}{F) 727-6A�5-5105 PROJEC7' i7VERVIEW A Description and Location The project is focated in Sectir�n 7; Township 295; Range 15E, .The project area consists of �.1 �i acr�s Ir��ate� at 411 Svuth Gulfview Blvd in CEean�+r�ter, Fbrida. The site is surrounded by commereial development artd is ir� close proximity to Glearwater Bsach. B Existinq Conditions The prc�ject area currently consists of tv�ro ct�mmercial buil�ings tc��aling approximately 2,U55sfi and associat�d parking area. There is approximately 4,962sf ofi existing impervic�us area an site th�t current(y shesi flaws tc� ihe public right of way stz�rm�at�� system to the south and �vest of the property. The existing finish fiaor elevations r�nge firom 4.44' to 5.83' while the surrounding gutter eleva#ions v+rithin the right r�f way are approximafely 3,32'. C. Praposed C+�ndifiians The propos�d project consists of renovation of #he cxis#ing structure inia a 1,439sf restaur�nt with associated outdaor seating area, Tl�e psoposed prvject v+iiil d�crease the tratal nei impervious area on the site by �-�15sf. Roof, deck, and side�vall� runoff will be dira�ted to an abave grour�d trea#m�nt area iocafied at the sauth west portion of the site. Storm�nrater treatment equiv�lent to 11� inches across the sit� �'l97c�j will be p�ovided via ihe abt�ue gr�und treatmen# area. Upc�n reaching the treaiment elevation af 4.25', stormwat�r wil{ pass the treatment �re� weir and flow into the right of uvay in Gulfview Blud. C7ue to the existing grades a# the driveway, it is impossible to gravity flaw the driveway drainage to a functional treatment area. Hence, pervious cancrete has been specifi�d fihroughou# the driveway area, increasing the overail infiiltratic�n and treatrnent on site td greater than +rvha# is required. Since impervious area is being decreas�d an site, attenuaiion is not requ�red. The treatment volume recc�vers within 24 hours as required by the City and as shown nn the attached Modret Calcula�ions. 6318 Rowan Road, New Port Richey, �L 34653 Website: www.St�ROUPFL.carn -- Email: infn�s�roupfl.eom (P}(F) 727-645-5105 D. Stormwater Criteria City of Cfearwater Psr the City of Cleantv�ter, 1I2" treatment volume within the above ground treatment are� is prc�vidsd for the contributmg basin area equai to 197cf of treatment. Half credit is given for exis�ing impervie�us area (4,962sf� onsit� theref�re the treaiment volume requirem��t is: i,2'i Osf —(4,962sfi x 1) = 4,729sf 4,729sf x (.�in/12in/ft) = 197cf. C}ue ic� a significant decrease in impe►-vious area, the starmwaier rnanagement system inherently attenuates the 25 year �- 24 hour storrn event ta runoff rates less than predevelopment levels. E. Soii Canditions A Geotechnical Report was c�nducted by Gulf Co�s� Testing Laboratory lnc, The soils in ihe area c�nsist of Urban fill sniis. �l seasonal high �aier leve3 {SHVV�I}} was esti�nated to be �ppraximately 1.3 feet beiow grade or at eievati�r� 3.t}'. The d�auble ring infi{trometer �DRI} reported a verticai infiitration t`ate flf �.7 inches per hour. F. C3peration and Maintenance lnstructions Operatir�n The progect's stormw�ter manag�ment system is a gravity operated system and requires nQ c�p�r�tor action ather khan maintenance. M�inienance 1. Swales/F'Qnds: All swaies sha11 be periodica![y m�wed and cleaned. During the mr�v,ring n�eration, swales shal! be ins}��tec! fior bare spots, darrtage, and erosion. Any bare spots greater than one (9 } square foot in area sha11 b� se�ded or sodded tr� r�place the grass cover. }n case of erosior� �r darnage wher� underlying sail is missing, the missing sc�ii shail be replaced and the area brought back to grade then seeded or sodded as required. 2. Inlet Grates: In�et grates will be checked monthly fior damage or blockage. Any damaged grates will be replaced or repaired. Any ciebris blacking fuii flow through the ga#e will be remnved. 3. Pipes and Inlets: Pipes and inlets wiq be inspected yearly far damage or binck�ge. Any damaged pipes or inlets r�i11 be repaired c�r r�placed. Any trash, d�bris, or sand deposits v�ill be removed, �318 Rowan ftnad, New Pc�rt Richey, FL 34653 Website: www.SGROUPFLcam — Email: ir+fo(«�s�rnup�l.com t�)t�) �2�-��s-��.os �ALCIJLAT10t�S 6318 Ro�ran Road. New Port Richey. FL 34653 Website: www.5GROUPFL.com — Email: 'snfo s�roupfl.sc�m {P)(F} 727-645-5105 Water Quality Treatment Galculatians Treatment Area Stage Stor�ge f318 R�wan Road, New Port Richey, FL 34653 Website: www.SGROUPFL.com — Email: info@s�roupfl.com {P)�F} 727-645-5105 STAt3E-STORAG€ VVORKSMIE�T AROJL-'GT NAME: PROJEGT A+Uh2#iER: DESIONER: DATE: TREATMEIIT YOLUME REQUIRED: T'REA7MEAlT�LEVATlON: TiR6fl�'MENTUQltlMR AROViDEA: ,+��' TiRi Hat Restau�n�€t 3db 12I"�1x{71-0 i97 af 4.16 1186 tf STA6E AREA AIiEA VQI.UGIE FT SF � CF 8.75 �6.(k7 O.C493 fl 4.t5 577.� 0.0182 1H7 Treamtrn��tElevation 425 G20.P� o.oiaa 257 MODRET {Treatment Volume t�ecovery} 6318 Rovuan Road, New Port Richey, Fl 34fi53 Website: www.SG�DifPFL,cc�rn — Emaii: infa s�,roupfi.com (P)�F) 727-�45-51t�5 • ! ' SUMMARY OF UNSATURATED 8c SATURATED INPUT FARAMETERS PR07ECT NAME : Restaurant Tiki Hut MANUAL RUIVCiFF UATA USED UNSATURATED ANALYSIS EXCLUDED Pcsnd Boitam Area Portd Volume betvveen B�tc�m & �NWL Pond �ength to Width Ratio {LJVtJ} Elevatir�n of Effet�i+�e Aquifer Base Eievatic�n of Seasnnal High Groundwat�r T�bie Etevation oP Starting Water l.evel Ei�vatizrn of Pc�nd Bc�ttt�m i7esign High Water Leve1 Eievatian Avg. Effective Storage Coetfieieni' of Soi1 for Unsaturated Anaiysis Ur�sa�urated Vertical Nydrautic Conductivity Factor of Sa#ety Saturateri No�izont�l Hydrauiic �o�ductivrty Avg. Effective Storage �oeffi�i�r�t c�f Soil for Satur�ted Analysis Avg. E�€ective 5torage Ct>efficient of Pond/Exfiltrakit�n Trench Hydraulic Control Fea#ures; Groundwater Cor�trol Featt�res - Y/N [7istance to Ed�e rsf P�nd EIeVaCiort of Water Level Imperwivus Sarrier - Y/N Eteva�ian of Barrier Ba�torr� Anatysis Date: 12/11J2014 4(76.0� ft� 19?.00 ft� 2.i�.} 1:t�0 ft 3.00 ii 3.$S ft 3.$S ft 4,25 ft fl.0� 13.{3t3 ftJd 2.i�0 �s.�� Jd D.QS 1.�D Top Sott4rn Left ttight N � � � (}.0{} CI.OD Q.00 t1.00 a,00 0.04 0,{�fl t�.�f} � � � � {�.00 O.flf) fl.U(} p.(}(} • ! ' TIME - RUNt3FF iNPUT DATA ..._.___....�..__...__....._ PRf��ECT NAME: RESTAURANT TiKI HUT .__..�.� —�,�, STRESS INCREMENT 1tOLUME PERIOD C1F TIM� OF RUNOfF NUMBER (hrs� ('��) Unsat {�.flt} � 0.0{7 � �.____ �.�1 197�00 � �.z.ao o.00 � za.�o a.oa � �s,c�o �.00 � 72.i}0 Q.�(l Analysis Date: 12j11/2a14 � ! ' SUMMARY �F RESULTS PRt}JECT NAM� : Tiki Hut Restaurant ---_.� Maximum Water Elevation: 4.249 f�et @ O.t�i hours Recovery @ 23.134 hours * Time increment when there is r10 runo�f Maximurn In�iitrativn Rate: 337� ft/day ATTAC H MI E NTS 6318 Rnwan Road, Nev� Fort Richey, FL 34653 Website: wtivw.SGRt�UPFt.cam — Email: info@s�;raupfl.cc�m ��7�� 2�-s4s-ssos l � 1 SI�'�, LOCATIL3N LO�ATION MAP '�?r5� �:GUnyeU At P�Er.60 .. . � Do; 6.nti,el 4%. . .� F35F111fjGHlC11 ��. �� Y '. �. � �Ji � Hyaft�R.eyency Clearivair• . ' ��'Be�ahRe.9n�!tl6pa � ., t � �. � �' �`.: � � 5'.%. Ci� a. x � y� ;', � ,.5�� -.� . �` f.>!=<�7 '�k ��, 1'" � �� E �� A�S�, .�� jry p � w� . , j` . . . . `�'�, � � ._ s t 4�� $�,; �� . . t:e;,:�sIIz � ff�y�:..., s;;:� f� r� , � ,� 4 fl.:, t : � � r� .a "f �, �� . v` ,�'. � .Y,.i.. �. ,�, . S �'b e��.Y� 6318 Rowan Road, New Pc�rt Richey, FL 34653 Website: www.SGRt?UP�L.com — Emaii: inf�s�raupfi.ct�rn {P}(F) 727-645-5105 � s��` �d40h( Ge�tecl�ni�a1 1nv�stigatior� Rep�art 6318 Rowan Road, New Pc�rt Richey, Fl 34653 Website: wwwSG�R�ilPFt.com — Emai1: inf�C+�s�;roupfl,com (P)(F) 727-645-5145 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY � The subject site is located at located at 421 South Gulfview Boulevard, Clearwater Beach, Pinellas County, Florida. The property is understood to encompass less than 1/4 acres. The existing property appeared to be a generally level area which was utilized as a dry-bottom retention pond area. The perimeter of the project area contained a earth-berm having a height on the order of three feet above the adjacent ground surface elevations. An adjacent hotel structure is located adjacent to the subject project. No areas of significant surface water were observed along the existing ground surface during the time of our site visit. It should be noted that the Gulf-of-Mexico is located within the immediate proxunity of the subject property. • The subject project is expected to consist of a one-story wood-framed tiki-hut type structure supported with timber post and beams. 'The first floor is expected to be structurally supported, and elevated approximately three feet above the existing retention pond area. The finished ground surface elevations are expected to generally coincide with the existing ground surface elevations. The structural loads are expected to be on the order of 20 kips for the timber posts. • The borings indicate the subsurface soils initially consisted of an EARTHFILL that generally consisted of SAND and marine shell fragments with some concrete fragments that extended from the existing grotuid surface to an approximate depth of three feet. The second soil layer generally consisted of a very loose to medium dense slightly silty SAND with marine shell fragments extending to an approximate depth of 23 feet, with an interbedded layer of very loose silty SAND encountered from an approximate depth of 13 to 17 feet below the existing ground surface elevation. The third soil layer encountered in boring B-1 consisted of dense silty SAND which extended to maacimum boring termination depths of 30.0 feet below the existing ground surface elevations. The third soil layer encountered in boring B-2 consisted of stiff silty CLAY which extended to an approximate depth of 27 feet below the existing ground surface elevations. The fmal soil layer encountered in boring B-2 consisted of a highly weathered LIMESTONE which extended to maximum boring termination depths of 30.0 feet below the existing ground surface elevations. . As recorded 'unmediately after drilling during the time of our subsurface exploration, groundwater was encountered at an approximate depth range of 13 to 4.0 feet below the existing ground surface elevations. The depth range is believed to be due to boring B-1 being performed along the existing earth-berm, which was approximately three feet higher in elevation from boring B-2. It is expected that the grotuldwater levels across the subject site will closely coincide with the surface water elevations of the adjacent Gulf of Mexico. � Based upon the site location, it is prescribed that the proposed stxucture should be supported with the use of a deep foundation system (piles). Efficient deep foundation systems are expected to consist of timber piling. Timber piles having tip diameters of at least 8-inches, butt diameters of at least 10-inches embedded approximately 20 feet below the existing ground surface elevations are expected to attain an allowable compressive capacity of at least 10 tons. It is noted that timber pile driving operations may create vibrations that could cause settlement damage, cracking or disturb occupants of nearby residences. In order to reduce the transmission of vibrations, predrilling to depths of at least ten feet below the existing ground surface elevations should be conducted and vibration monitoring should be provided during pile installation operations. • One DRI test was performed at an approximate depth of four inches below the existing ground surface elevations of the dry-bottom retention pond. The DRI test results indicated that the measured vertical infiltration rate was 6.7 inches per hour. GULF COAST TESTING LABORATORY INC. 5745 PARK BOULEVARD PINELLAS PARK, FL 33781 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ENGINEERING COUNCIL CERTIFIED CERTIFICATE of AUTHORIZATION # 00002370 PHONE: (727) 544-4080 FAX: (727) 544-7532 Email: infoCa�SCtlfl.com GULF COAST TESTING LABORATORY INC. PINELLAS PARK, FL 33781 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ENGINEERING COUNCIL CERTIFIED June 29, 2012 Mr. Jordan Behar Behar + Peteranecz Architecture 103 Rogers Street Clearwater, FL 33756 Subject: Geotechnical Exploration Tiki-hut addition Magnuson Hotel, 421 S. Gulfview Blvd, Clearwater Beach, Florida GCTL Project No.19074 Dear Mr. Behar: In response to your request, Gulf Coast Testing Laboratory, Inc. (GCTL) has conducted a subsurface exploration at the subject site. Enclosed are copies of the subsurface exploration report. GCTL appreciates the opportunity to provide Geotechnical Engineering services for this important project. Should you need additional services on this or any other project, GCTL offers the expertise of a selected collection of highly experienced, and motivated, Professional Engineers providing Geotechnical Engineering, Environmental Assessment services, as well as Construction Materials Engineering and Testing services. Please do not hesitate to call should there be any questions about the subsurface exploration. We look forward to the opportunity to work for your organization on this and future projects. Sincerely, GULF COAST TESTING LABORATORY, INC. LiO�W lZ. St't�P�S' f2i.C�DWVi� Don R. Stites, P.E. Rick Davis Principal Geotechnical Engineer President Florida Registration No. 42290 5745 PARK BOULEVARD PINELLAS PARK, FL 33781 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ENGINEERING COUNCIL CERTIFIED CERTIFICATE of AUTHORIZATION # 00002370 PHONE: (727) 544-4080 FAX: (72� 544-7532 Email: infona,gctlfl.com REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION FOR TIKI HUT ADDITION MAGNUSON HOTEL CLEARWATER BEACH, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA Prepared for: BEHAR + PETERANECZ, ARCHITECTURE Prepared by: Gulf Coast Testing Laboratory, Inc. GCTL Project No.19074 June 29, 2012 State of Florida Certificate of AuthorizaHon Number 00002370 GULF COAST TESTING LABORATORY INC. PINELLAS PARK, FL 33781 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ENGINEERING COUNCIL CERTIFIED June 29, 2012 Mr. Jordan Behar Behar + Peteranecz Architecture 103 Rogers Street Clearwater, FL 33756 Subject: Geotechnical Exploration Tiki-hut addition Magnuson Hotel, 4215. Gulfview Blvd, Clearwater Beach, Florida GCTL Project No.19074 Dear Mr. Behar: Gulf Coast Testing Laboratory, Inc. (GCTL) has completed the requested geotechnical exploration for the above-referenced project. The results of the subsurface exploration have been evaluated and are presented in this Report of Geotechnical Exploration. This report presents a review of the project information provided to us, a description of the site and subsurface conditions encotuitered as well as our foundation recommendarions. The Appendices to the report contain site and boring location figures, the results of our field and laboratory testing, boring logs, and site photographs. 5745 PARK BOULEVARD PINELLAS PARK, FL 33781 CONSTRUCTION MATERIAI�S ENGINEERING COUNCIL CERTIFIED CERTIFICATE of AUTHORIZATION # 00002370 PHONE: (72'n 544-0080 FAX: (72'n 544-7532 Email: infonn,gctlfl.com Magnuson Hotel, Clearwater Bench, Floizda GCTL Project No. 19074 June 29, 2012 Report of Geotechnical Exploratiori We appreciate this opportunity to provide our services to you and we look forward to serving as your geotechnical consultant throughout this project. Should you have any questions in regards to the information presented in this report, please do not hesitate to contact us at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, GULF COAST TESTING LABORATORY, INC. �vw 12. St'�te�- Don R. Stites, P.E. Principal Geotechnical Engineer Florida Registration No. 42290 ii Ri,clv l�cwi� Rick Davis President TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................1-1 2.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................................2-1 2.2 SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................2-1 2.3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ...........................................................................................2-2 3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION ..........................................................................................................3-1 4.0 LABORATORY TESTING .....................................................................................................4-1 5.0 GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ...............................................................5-1 5.1 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH .........................................................................................5-1 5.2 SEISMIC SITE CLASSIFICATION ........................................................................5-1 53 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................................5-1 5.4 GROiJNDWATER CONDITIONS ..........................................................................5-2 6.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................................................................6-1 6.1 GENERAL .................................................................................................................6-1 6.2 TIMBER PILES .........................................................................................................6-1 6.2.1 Capacity ............................................................................................................6-2 6.2.2 Settlement .........................................................................................................6-2 6.2.3 Pile Characteristics ...........................................................................................6-2 6.2.4 Pile Installation ................................................................................................6-2 6.3 PILE LOAD TEST PROGRAM ...............................................................................6-3 7.0 BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................7-1 APPENDIX • Figure 1— General Site Vicinity Map • Figure 2— Local Site Vicinity Map • Figure 3— Field Exploration Plan • Figure 4— 2010 Aerial Photograph • Soil Boring Logs • Site Photographs • Double Ring Infiltrometer Report Magnuson Hotel, ClemwaterBeach, Flo�ida GCTL Pr•oject No. 19074 June 29, 2012 Report of Geotechnical EzPloration 1.0 EXECUTIVE SLJMMARY . The subject site is located at located at 421 South Gulfview Boulevard, Clearwater Beach, Pinellas County, Florida. The property is understood to encompass less than 1/4 acres. The existing property appeared to be a generally level area which was utilized as a dry-bottom retention pond area. The perimeter of the project area contained a earth-berm having a height on the order of three feet above the adjacent ground surface elevations. An adjacent hotel structure is located adjacent to the subject project. No areas of significant surface water were observed along the existing ground surface during the time of our site visit. It should be noted that the Gulf-of-Mexico is located within the immediate proximity of the subject property. . The subject project is expected to consist of a one-story wood-framed tiki-hut type structure supported with timber post and beams. The first floor is expected to be structurally supported, and elevated approximately three feet above the existing retention pond area. The finished ground surface elevations are expected to generally coincide with the existing ground surface elevations. The structural loads are expected to be on the order of 20 kips for the timber posts. • The borings indicate the subsurface soils initially consisted of an EARTHFILL that generally consisted of SAND and marine shell fragments with some concrete fragments that extended from the existing ground surface to an appro�mate depth of three feet. 'The second soil layer generally consisted of a very loose to medium dense slightly silty SAND with marine shell fragments extending to an approximate depth of 23 feet, with an interbedded layer of very loose silty SAND encountered from an approximate depth of 13 to 17 feet below the existing ground stu face elevation. The third soil layer encountered in boring B-1 consisted of dense silty SAND which extended to maximum boring termination depths of 30.0 feet below the existing ground surface elevations. The third soil layer encountered in boring B-2 consisted of stiff silty CLAY which extended to an approximate depth of 27 feet below the existing ground surface elevations. The final soil layer encountered in boring B-2 consisted of a highly weathered LIMESTONE which extended to m�imum boring temunation depths of 30.0 feet below the exisring ground surface elevations. • As recorded immediately after drilling during the time of our subsurface exploration, groundwater was encountered at an approximate, depth range of 1.3 to 4.0 feet below the existing ground surface elevations. The depth range is believed to be due to boring B-1 being performed along the existing earth-berm, which was approximately three feet higher in elevation from boring B-2. It is expected that the groundwater levels across the subject site will closely coincide with the surface water elevations of the adjacent Gulf of Mexico. • Based upon the site location, it is prescribed that the proposed structure should be supported with the use of a deep foundation system (piles). Efficient deep foundation systems are expected to consist of timber piling. Timber piles having tip diameters of at least 8-inches, butt diameters of at least 10-inches embedded approxiinately 20 feet below the existing ground surface elevations are expected to attain an allowable compressive capacity of at least 10 tons. It is noted that timber pile driving operations may create vibrations that could cause settlement damage, cracking or disturb occupants of nearby residences. In order to reduce the transmission of vibrations, predrilling to depths of at least ten feet below the existing ground surface elevations should be conducted and vibration monitoring should be provided. • One DRI test was performed at an approxixnate depth of four inches below the existing ground surface elevations of the dry-bottom retention pond. 'The DRI test results indicated that the measured vertical infiltration rate was 6.7 inches per hour. 1-1 Magnuson Hotel, Clennvater Beach, Florida GCTL Project No. 19074 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS June 29, 2012 Report of Geotechnical Exploration The subject project is expected to consist of a one-story wood-framed tiki-hut type structure supported with timber post and beams. The first floor is expected to be structurally supported, and elevated approximately three feet above the existing retention pond area. The finished ground surface elevations are expected to generally coincide with the existing ground surface elevations. The structural loads are expected to be on the order of 20 kips for the timber posts. 2.2 SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is located at located at 421 South Gulfview Boulevard, Clearwater Beach, Pinellas County, Florida. The property is understood to encompass less than '/4 acres. T'he existing property appeared to be a generally level area which was utilized as a dry-bottom retention pond area. The perimeter of the project area contained a earth-berm having a height on the order of three feet above the adjacent ground surface elevations. An adjacent hotel stnicture is located adjacent to the subject project. No areas of significant surface water were observed along the e�sting ground surface during the time of our site visit. It should be noted that the Gulf-of-Mexico is located within the immediate proximity of the subject properiy. Photographs of the subject property have been included in the Appendix of this report. 2-1 Magnuson Hotel, Clearwater Bench, Florida GCTL Project No. 19074 2.3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE June 29, 2012 Report of Geotechnical Exploration The purpose of this study was to obtain information on the general subsurface conditions at the proposed project site. The subsurface materials encotuitered were then evaluated with respect to the available project characteristics. In this regard, engineering assessments for the following items were formulated: General location and description of potentially deleterious materials encountered in the borings, which may interfere with construction progress or structure performance, including existing fills or surficiaUsubsurface organics. • Identification of the existing groundwater levels and estimated normal seasonal high grotmdwater fluctuations. • Evaluation of recommended foundation systems to support the proposed structure. Identification of recommended shallow and/or deep foundation design parameters, as deemed appropriate. The following services were provided in order to achieve the preceding objectives: • Reviewed readily-available published geologic and topographic information. This may include information from Quadrangle Maps published by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and available soil survey information published by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS), as deemed appropriate. , • Executed a program of subsurface exploration consisting of subsurface sampling and field testing. Two Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings (B-1 and B-2) were performed at the subject project area. • Performed one Double Ring Infiltration (DRI) test in general accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) test designation D- 3385. . Visually classified and stratified representative soil samples in the laboratory using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Identified soil conditions at each boring location and formed an opinion of the site soil stratigraphy. • Collected groundwater level measurements and estimated normal wet seasonal high groundwater levels. . The results of the field exploration and laboratory tests were used 'm the engineering analyses and in the formulation of the recommendations. The results of the subsurface exploration, including the recommendations and the data upon which they are based, are presented in this formal written report prepared by an experienced Professional Engineer. 2-2 Magnuson Hotel, Clearwater Beach, Florida June 29, 2012 GCTL Project No. 19074 Report of Geotechnical Exploratio`i The scope of this exploration was intended to evaluate soil conditions within the primary influence of the expected stnxcture foundations and does not include a thorough evaluation of potential deep soil conditions, such as sinkholes. An evaluation of potential deep soil conditions may be performed at your request and with authorization. In order to perform such an evaluation, it is expected that deeper soil test borings and Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) will be required. The scope of our services does not include a thorough environmental assessment or investigation for the presence or absence of hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, groundwater, or surface water within or beyond the site studied. Any statements in the report regarding odors, staining of soils, or other unusual conditions observed are strictly for the information of our client. 2-3 Magnuson Hotel, Clearwater Beach, Flor•ida June 29, 2012 GCTL Project No. 19074 Report of Geotechr:ical Exploration 3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION The general foundation soil types and associated design parameters were developed by performing two soil test borings within the proposed development area. T'he boring locations were deternuned in the field from existing ground stu-face features. The ground surface elevations at the boring locations were neither furnished nor deternuned. The soil boring locations are depicted on Figure 3 in the Appendix of this report. The soil test borings were initially performed with the use of manual drilling equipment to an approximate depth of four feet below the existing ground surface elevations in order to avoid possible underground utility interferences. The soil test borings were subsequently advanced with tri-pod drilling equipment using "Mud" Rotary drilling procedures to an approximate depth of 30 feet below the existing ground surface elevations. The soil sampling was performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1586, entitled "Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils." Samples were obtained "continuously" to a depth of ten feet, and at intervals of five feet thereafter. Representative portions of these soil samples were sealed in "air-tight" containers, labeled and transferred to our laboratory for classification and testing. 3.1 DOUBLE RING INFILTRATION (DRI) TEST One DRI test was performed following ground saturation in general accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-3385, titled "Infiltration Rate of Soils in Field Using Double-Ring Infiltrometers." The DRI test was performed at an approximate depth of four inches below the existing ground surface elevations within the dry-bottom retention pond area. The DRI location was determined in the field based on a site plan provided by the client, and based on ground surface features. The DRI test results indicated that the meast�red vertical infiltration rate was 6.7 inches per hour. The DRI test results have been provided in the Appendix of this report. 3-1 Magnuson Hotel, Clearwater Beach, Flor•ida June 29, 2012 GCTL Project No. 19074 Report of Geotechrtical Exploration 4.0 LABORATORY TESTING The soil samples were transported to our laboratory and were classified by the Geotechnical Engineer using the Unified Soil Classification System (LJSCS) in general accordance with ASTM Test Desi�ation D-2488. Due to the structural characteristics of the proposed facility and the nature of the soils encountered, laboratory testing was not considered necessary. It should be noted that all soil samples will be properly disposed of 30 days following the submittal of the GCTL subsurface exploration report. 4-1 Magnuson Hotel, Clearwater Beach, Florida June 29, 2012 GCTL Project No. 19074 Report of Geotechnical Exploratior: 5.0 GENERAI.IZED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 5.1 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH Based on the Aerial Photograph dated 2010, illustrates the subject property to be developed as a single- family residence. A copy of the aerial photograph has been included in the Appendix of this report. 5.2 SEISMIC SITE CLASSIFICATION Based on our review of the International Building Code, dated 2006, and our knowledge of the general subsurface conditions at the site, we believe the site should be considered to be a Site Class D. It should be noted that this classification is based on the subsurface exploration results and our experience in the area. A soil test boring extending to a depth of at least 100 feet may be performed to verify this site classification. 5.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Soil stratification was based on visual observation of the recovered soil samples, laboratory testing and interpretation of the field boring logs by an experienced GCTL Engineering Technician. The boring stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types of significantly different engineering properties; however, the actual transition may be gradual. In some cases, small variations in properties not considered pertinent to our engineering evaluation may have been abbreviated or omitted for clarity. The boring profiles present the conditions at the particular boring location and variations do occur among the borings and between soil samples. The borings indicate the subsurface soils initially consisted of an EARTHFILL that generally consisted of SAND and marine shell fragments with some concrete fragments that extended from the existing ground surface to an approximate depth of three feet. In order to avoid potential underground utilities, Standard Penetration Testing was not performed within this surficial soil material. The second soil layer generally consisted of a very loose to medium dense slightly silty SAND with marine shell fragments extending to an approximate depth of 23 feet, with an interbedded layer of very loose silty SAND encountered from an approximate depth of 13 to 17 feet below the existing ground surface elevation. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) values recarded within this soil layer generally 5-1 Mao uson Hotel, Clearwater Beach, Florida June 29, 2012 GCTL ProjectNo. 19074 Report of Geotechraical Exploration varied from 2 to 52 blows per foot (bp fl. The higher SPT values are believed to be partially influenced by the marine shell fragments. The third soil layer encountered in boring B-1 consisted of a dense silty SAND which extended to maximum boring temunation depths of 30.0 feet below the existing ground stuiace elevations. SPT values recorded within this soil layer were recorded as 33 bpf. The third soil layer encountered in boring B-2 consisted of a stiff silty CLAY which extended to an approximate depth of 27 feet below the e�cisting ground surface elevations. SPT values recorded within this soil layer were recorded as 10 bpf. The final soil layer encountered in boring B-2 consisted of a highly weathered LIMESTONE which extended to maximtun boring termination depths of 30A feet below the existing ground surface elevations. SPT values recorded within this soil layer was 50 blows per 0-inches of penetration. Subsurface formations requiring rock-type excavation operations (such as blasting and/or percussion hammers) were not encountered during our subsurface exploration. No "raveled" conditions indicative of "active" sinkhale or mining subsidence type activity were encountered during tnis subsurface exploration program. 5.4 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS As recorded immediately after drilling during the time of our subsurface exploration, groundwater was encountered at an approximate depth range of 1.3 to 4.0 feet below the existing ground surface elevations. The depth range is believed to be due to boring B-1 being performed along the existing earth-berm, which was approximately three feet higher in elevation from boring B-2. It is expected that the groundwater levels across the subject site will closely coincide with the surface water elevations of the adjacent Gulf of Mexico. Groundwater observation wells may be installed on-site to monitor groundwater fluctuations over a period of time and to pernut more accurate deternunations of wet season and dry season levels. 5-2 Magnuson Hotel, Cleanvater Beach, Florida June 29, 2012 GCTL Project No. 19074 Report of Geotechnical Exploration 6.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 'The following design recommendations have been developed on the basis of the previously described project characteristics and subsurface conditions encountered during this exploration. The test boring data was evaluated utilizing correlations between the measured standard penetration test resistances and the engineering performance characteristics of similar subsurface conditions. If there is any change in these project criteria, including project building locations on the site, a review must be made by GCTL to deterniine if any modifications to the recommendations will be required. The findings of such a review should then be presented in a supplemental report. After fmal design plans and specifications are available, a general review by GCTL is strongly recommended as a means to check that the evahiations made in preparation of this report are correct, and that earthwork and foundation recommendations are properly interpreted and implemented. 6.1 GENERAL It is understood that the subject property is located within a"VE-Zone" which requires a deep foundation system. Based upon our evahiation and analyses, the subsurface soils consist of predominately of loose to dense slightly silty SAND with marine shell fragments. In this regard, an efficient deep foundation system is expected to include timber piling. Recommendations for this foundation system are presented for your consideration. Initial construction operations should include the removal and/or relocation of and existing interfering structures, including underground structures and utilities. 6.2 TIMBER PILES Timber piles have the advantages of being easy to handle, easy to cut off, relatively inexpensive, readily available and naturally tapered. They have the disadvantages of decaying above the water table (if not treated), having low capacities, being prone to damage by hard driving and being di�cult to splice. It is noted that timber pile driving operations may create vibrations that could cause settlement damage, cracking or disturb occupants of nearby residences. In order to reduce the transmission of vibrations, predrilling to depths of 10 to 15 feet below the existing ground surface elevations should be conducted and vibration monitoring should be provided. : �I Magnuson Hotel, Clearwater Beach, Florzda GCTL Project No. 19074 6.2.1 Pile Capacity June 29, 2012 Report of Geotechnical Exploration Due to the type of proposed structure and subsurface soil and groundwater conditions, timber piles having a minimum tip diameter of eight inches and a minimum Butt diameter of ten inches are expected to achieve allowable axial compressive capacities of at least 10 tons at an approximate embedment depth of 20 feet below the existing ground surfaces. Uplift capacities of the timber piles having minimum embedment lengths of 15 feet are expected to be at least 1'/z tons. The lateral load capacity for the recommended minimum pile embedment depth is expected to be at least'/2 ton. 6.2.2 Pile Settlement It is anticipated that the piles installed at this site will achieve refusal-type conditions on the underlying medium dense SAND. Based on this information, we expect the total settlements will be approximately less than 'h inches and differential settlements on the order of 50 percent of the total settlements. 6.2.3 Pile Characteristics It is recommended that the timber piles meet the requirements of ASTM D-25 for round timber tip bearing piles. The pile should be clean peeled and pressure treated in accordance with the requirements of AWPA C1, C3 and the current Florida Building Code. The timer pile design stresses should be established in accordance with ASTM D-2899 and the Florida Building Code. Additionally, we recommend the timber piles be treated with ACA (Anunoniacal copper arsenate) and CCA (Chromated copper arsenate) due to the location of the proposed strucri�re in a temperah�re zone coastal environment. Prior to driving, it is recommended that timber piles be relatively free of defects and have a water content greater than approximately 20 percent (to minimize breaking) and less than about 50 percent (to minimize "brooming"). 6.2.4 Pile Installation The timber piles are expected to achieve satisfactory capacities at an approximate embedment depth of 20 feet below the existing ground surface elevations; these piles should be installed to minimum embedment depths of 15 feet below the existing grades. It is not unusual that piling length variations on the order of five feet to be encountered. The pile locations should be pre-drilled to a depth of 10 to 15 feet below the existing ground surface elevations immediately prior to pile driving operations. The piles should then be driven to the dynamic driving resistance as detexmined by an acceptable pile driving formula, such WEAP or to practical 6-2 Magnuson Hotel, Clearwater Beach, Florida GCTL Project No. 19074 June 29, 2012 Report of Geotechnical Fxploration refusal, whichever comes first. It is essential that driving be terminated irrunediately if "refusal" is reached to prevent damage to the piles. The pile driving hammer should have a rated energy on the order of 25,000 foot-pounds per blow. In arder to minimize driving difficulties due to densification of the soils and the reduction in capacity due to group action of the piles, it is recommended that the piles be driven with a center-to-center spacing of at least three feet. A mandatory Pre-Construction meeting with the Owner/Owner's representative, Structural Engineer, Geotechnical Engineer, Contractor and Piling Contractor should be held on-site, prior to initializing pile driving operations. The installation of all deep foundation systems should be in accordance with the Florida Building Code requirements. In addition, the installation of all piles should be monitored by an experienced GCTL Professional Engineer or his representative. The Engineer should verify and record all aspects of the installation. In general, the Engineer or his representative should: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7 8 Be familiar with all aspects of the installation. Be present continuously during driving. Record and approve the dimensions of each pile, locate and report any obvious defects. Count and record the blows for each foot of driving. Record the energy rating of hammer and adjust where appropriate for chamber presst�re. Have knowledge of soil conditions at the site and the minimum required penetration of each pile. Be cognizant of intended support mechanisms of piles on which to base approval or rejection or pre-drilling, etc. Have authority to stop pile driving when unanticipated difficulties or conditions are encountered. 6.3 PILE LOAD TEST PROGRAM Based on the conservativeness provided in the foundation recommendations, pile load testing is not considered to be necessary. However, should unusual pile installation be encountered, at least one pile may be tested to two times the allowable compression design capacity. The compression load test should be performed in general accordance with ASTM Standard D 1143 and under the direct supervision of a geotechnical engineer; the Standard Loading Procedure (paragraph 5.1 ASTM D 1143) is recommended for performing the compression tests. 6-3 Magnuson Hotel, Clearwater Beach, Florida June 29, 2012 GCTL Project No. 19074 Report of Geotechnical Exploratiort 7.0 BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. This company is not responsible for the conclusions, opinions or recommendations made by others based upon this data. 'The scope of the exploration was intended to evaluate soil conditions within the primary influence of the proposed structure and does not include an evaluation of potential deep soil conditions, such as sinkholes. The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the soil borings performed at the locations indicated. Regardless of the thoroughness of a geotechnical exploration, there is always a possibility that conditions between borings will be different from those at specific boring locations and that conditions will not be as anticipated by the designers or contractors. In addition, the construction process itself may alter soil conditions. If any subsoil variations become evident during the course of this project, a re-evaluation of the recommendations contained in this report will be necessary after we have had an opportunity to observe the characteristics of the conditions encountered. The applicability of this report should also be reviewed in the event that significant changes occur in the design, nature or location of the proposed construcrion. The recommendations provided herein are based in part upon project information provided to us and they apply only to the specific project and site discussed in this report. If the project information is incorrect or if additional information is available, the conect or additional information should be conveyed to us for review. Our recommendations may then be modified, if necessary. Experienced geotechnical personnel should observe and document the construction procedures used and the conditions encountered. Unanticipated conditions and inadequate procedures should be reported to the design team. We recommend that the owner retain GCTL to provide these services based upon our familiarity with the project, the subsurface conditions, and the intent of the recommendations and design criteria. 7-1 APPENDIX .- .�� . � � � FIGURES .�, S�'��t�+� �ida�t'S, ��.i's�n �� „�C<k$Jlir; "- �r'c.+�ttlrt�# .•� 1t{s�° �r�s� . . . . . �s�� #` �a��1S�n�r 2�ka��" �,.� �, General Site Vicinity Map Subject Property Pinellas County, Florida Project No.: 19074 Scale: As Shown Figure No.: 1 iSr� fis' 3L' 1t #s rJ ; .. �_ ��#G3l� � �iBGt*�CA� t �+ � f ', !s,`,' f�. , �C��a Ctt} � �� 6 � � �jl'y�_. ��` .. r�' „� �� [a�"« iis < . . . 4 t. ��'�.. � c� ri � t� ��l �_;�� : �� z��,t,�e ,_ �, � �� sa�� C:�Y, '� � �; >� �� . ��`! 'Y.d � A:Y � : � �,��+y fy#, F� ` p',}4&a'F'Kw"1a ! }0 3�,a,y,� �yf � ��Rtii.�.^.P'I `�-`� �+�Y'i�+.Nli� �' .�. � 4; ^ p�2's�f�a�tss�.r," �+�a�aur kx '"Y7k a.�.,sa xs ,�'�`"�'x '��I#I� � �'�' �f+ , � a «„ � ° . � �r�r # �r � " �LSr� �. ^� a, � "`i��C �in�Y � a 5}�k��` r+ i �, L��u±sr��k � �� : � s� < < � y� , ti��3 €�nyR ".�,r z ' �' CqAYCt'iri � j �r+ a r,r��,', , � $MA � � r � '� ��.�':w � 1tSul',+�i"j� �: �� j � .,� �r�s7�'in� . k�`'ak^rr�nre £' d� i � l,.i��. E,E�� , ' Stw r � �� ,� �� • ��a �e:�r itrs i�ca �� !NR : �5 ;y� ��Y;as." ye. . ;. ':«'a � � �.ai'a* 'Nti'�P.a �._ .1}n��J • �� .. .. � �Zi�:/34t'�i'��L�} ia � ��?�'i`#�:'� �1�/MI<�ii:i1�,� « � 3" k ��'� . ., �LY'� �+� � ,...�.. �'�'$ al�J#� � . , ,... ... ... , ... f1 4� f�. ��f �,l £ "�.. ��C�ii�c++'+4f. �3S . }a t`� � 7 E C °, ". � w.�.,��`1ke�+� �. �.� ,� �k1�� E61� ��b• �� . : � : � k«3ra C; E rv' C� i t7 A;....."< a.�'�tta+'�aa t__,.:.. Gulf Coast Testing Laboratory, Inc. 5745 Park Boulevard Pinellas Park, Florida PH:(727)-544-4080 FX: (727)-544-7532 � � � t `t`= � .. 7� il � - � 4 r5 s C3r�r�� i4Jr '� g� �}ntan S+ �s �-. � � � ��'A7k#r1 �.� �� . .: �^C� � ' _ �� . �� 6t�ns+� P�+i Rd 67� i�x � `' .a �� ` � ' � � � t � ^'' ��:� � � � �' � � � � � a�. s��_ . . . �: ' _ _. Suh� �'rc�r . � ,� '� ' �sa� � ��s � `ra: *•i,� : '� ` °� �@tY',i�tr� .�i1 '�f� � _ .: � t�a�rs:� �, � � �a��r: Rd' �+^��y; t� � iitt�w 5{ �a3 , �1ea��rrr�ter = �tartsTa�i S� s� ` � � � � � ��`�''� i�i�3tt�+ � � � � Fran#�s�` 4tt �ana leay te3 #r� Bzt Ps�r1i - ,�s Tt°nr�� S� � � 6Ap d .' �. �7n;i�t! Rtt � : ' �. Eq � �Q'� m; � i'� tia .�g?`O�tls S1 t? � � ' aae � Lek�i� �s �C!►e! C�+,i � , � � � gc�Cwir � � ; �#3 x'�� ' L�.'es��ura 5� � � _ y . � . � Project No.: Local Site Vicinity Map 19074 Subject Property Scale: Pinellas County, Florida As Shown Figure No.: 2 Gulf Coast Testing Laboratory, Inc. 5745 Park Boulevard Pinellas Park, Florida PH: (727)-544-4080 FX: (7271-544-7532 Field Exploration Plan Subject Property Pinellas County, Florida �ject No.: 19074 Scale: Figure No.: Gulf Coast Testing Laboratory, Inc. 5745 Park Boulevard Pinellas Park, Florida PH:(727)-544-4080 FX:(727)-544-7532 Project No.: 2010 Aerial Photograph 19074 Gulf Coast Testing Laboratory, Inc. Subject Property Scale: 5745 Park Boulevard Pinellas County, Florida As Shown Pinellas Park, Florida Fiaure No.: PH: (727)-544-4080 FX:(727)-544-7532 GULF COA5T TESTING LABORATORY INC. 5745 Park Boulevard Pinellas Park, FL 33781 Soil Boring Log 'roject Number: Project Name: Magnuson Hotel Boring Number: B-1 19074 Site Location: Pinellas County, FL Start Date: 06/26/12 Drilling Method: Tripod MR Completion Date: 06/26/12 SAMPLE COMMENTS EET SAMPLE INTERVAL BLOW N-Value MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 3LS) TYPE (BLS) COUNT o HA 0- 1.0 NA NA HA 1.0 - 2.0 NA NA HA 2.0 - 3.0 NA NA HA 3.0 - 4.0 NA NA Groundwater s SS 4.0 - 5.0 6-6 12 Pale Brown to Grayish Brown Encountered SS 5.0 - 6.0 3-3 6 Slightly Silty SAND 4.0 Feet BLS SS 6.0 - 7.0 4-2 6 with Marine Shell Fragments SS 7.0 - 8.0 2-1 3 (SP-SM) SS 8.0 - 9.0 3-2 5 �o SS 9.0 - 10.0 7-10 17 �51 SS I 13.5 -15.0 I 16-19-15 I 34 SS 118.5-20.01 1-1-5 SS 123.5-25.01 1-1-4 0 5 3o SS 28.5 - 30.0 10-13-20 33 35 (HA) = HAND AUGER (HSA) = HOLLOW STEM AUGER (SS) = SPLIT SPOON (HWR) = HIGHLY WEATHERRED ROCK EOB 30.0 Feet BLS (BLS) = BELOW LAND SURFACE (EOB) = END OF BORING (NR) = NOT RECORDED (NA) = NOT APPLICABLE � GULF COAST TESTING LABORATORY INC. 5745 Park Boulevard Pinellas Park, FL 33781 Soil Boring Log Project Number: Project Name: Magnuson Hotel Boring Number: B 2 19074 Site Location: Pinellas County, FL Start Date: 06/26/12 Drilling Method: Tripod MR Completion Date: 06/26/12 SAMPLE COMMENTS FEET SAMPLE INTERVAL BLOW N-Value MATERIAL DESCRIPTION (BLS) TYPE (BLS) COUNT o HA 0- 1.0 NA NA HA 1.0 - 2.0 NA NA HA 2.0 - 3.0 NA NA HA 3.0 - 4.0 NA NA 5 SS 4.0 - 5.0 4-1 5 Pale Brown to Grayish Brown SS 5.0 - 6.0 2-1 3 Slightly Silty SAND SS 6.0 - 7.0 2-3 5 with Marine Shell Fragments SS 7.0 - 8.0 9-10 19 (SP-SM) SS 8.0 - 9.0 10-20 30 �o SS 9.0 - 10.0 24-28 52 15I SS � 13.5 - 15.0 � 2-1-1 SS � 18.5 - 20.0 � 7-6-4 SS I 23.5 - 25.0 � 3-4-6 � 10 10 SS � 28.5 - 30.0 � 50/0" � 50/0" 35 (HA) = HAND AUGER (HSA) = HOLLOW STEM AUGER (SS) = SPLIT SPOON (HWR) = HIGHLY WEATHERRED ROCK Pale Brown to Grayish Brown Slightly Silty SAND with Marine Shell Fragments Highly Weathered LIMESTONE EOB 30.0 Feet BLS Boring B-2 is located approximately 2 Feet below Boring B-1 Groundwater Encountered 1.3 Feet BLS (BLS) = BELOW LAND SURFACE (EOB) = END OF BORING (NR) = NOT RECORDED (NA) = NOT APPLICABLE Magnuson Hotel Tiki Hut Pinellas County, Florida �., � _ _ ` '',,�� , '�°� � , .;. c � �M ; '��'� ` :�, t,„,. '. .3- . � �d� P � . . „�,.`�� r.( . ��;'no- 'Z�1'�, wk `^ •.r? tn �`._ . a�ca'�° . . r� ;�''N � €{'. - °� �' � �� _ � � �` � ' � : �� " � ` �!!�.° �" � � ��°�� `�' `� '`"�,- "',� p _ - ` �° � � ``� � �� ;; ��t � �� = • `°� �,,� ` � � '� � `�._ � � "��;`��, �' '� t��,�"ti. � � � � � ' � �r' s + ��*. y+� .'� � 3 .. . � � �* .�w� ,��.a �� M r Ct �.,.�` -� t `� i ��,d "P -.:k. �g ,'� � l !�; - �, � w �, �� } ...c� c;� ��#`r ��A- ,s`�" � 1 � � ".+Q � ��`'� � � � ,z..� ,e . �� t � . i� � atJr� 3�. � ` �L _�;. � � . .�.:, . �� ` a `ry' � �V �� •� •• - � � � � y, � � � 4 W 4• � �TMN��F AA�� W ` � . � : `+.. , x +`� � z.� �* � �� - �.�'�*�;rfl b � �'� � ..g l,4 _ . . ��'� �C�'s r"` �.'�j `i�*° ? � . � ' }i. �,"" t �Y ?�.�' M-FS'� .�w m . *^r �, '°.,y' _. ��,m� � ... �'� � +�t , `�' �,��+*�;""�` .. u �. .�� i, : �r,`�'"r�+,.�,'�.s. '�' ., ` a.% � o -i»�$`a�� '�' r. .F?,xd �� K . `�, �. . I �' °x�� " �` � �� "� � '�� '., � `: 't*� ,� �,,?��lit� i [ �i�� i ", t �� c �- �-,�* ' - - � • v .� Y�., C .^ �' +� � -� ,.` a �y, � � i r '" r' z� � s � ,. � Y y t S„� :, �, � 'w: . � .i�� „ ` C �y., } y{ !E F �: �� .�ii.'4 .. r M y �+T�� 6 q 'S . _ ,� A . 5 dr�rr �/w �y�� F S I � .._ -. �.KE �•M•T�'."iLC� ., a. m. .Ai �� .xR �� iL`S¢i r.d.fii '� .. .,�: � - ic� j xv k ..iC ', }. .x �, ... � �: F fi� 'S +F�h a* °y�9� °. 1�'.�."e..y�Y.�.�� _, u�k.. _ '3Y.:,.�,s, �ro �, � . �.,u'�.m. �.�.�,t. __�...a r�a�.. Photograph No. 1: View of subject property during field services for boring B-1. : a� ___ �, y, " g� � �: �aQ x . . i, t . _ ��. ; ,,y , „ k : . ,�,r f �,« �tf �^ - ♦ �4 � � � �Y ..(• � �P � @ �[„t-.� .a� ' `�,r+. i 4� aji+` , � w•'q A�'.'�- -; et �^ +�:,' �r >• �,� ;.�'z.',«- �` �*�'� � .e'. rp�� f '� _ e `� �� i ' ,s � . � ., , a `"` r � "'„� s a�. Photograph No. 2: View of subject property during drilling services for boring B-1. Gulf Coast Testing Laboratory, Inc. Project Lab Number 19074 Magnuson Hotel Tiki Hut Pinellas Cotmty, Florida � x ;� �;t�� ' �� `:,�� „z�� ;_ � �, �p� � - ', �x � � :s " � � . ax "'� � �` � � � 4� �� . �� s. � . ;�x � � K .� �-�� : : �."`�"` �*T '- "°§, �'�' ,r `�� v.�.- , ., �._ , � _ -�— �,�� _ ., � ��^�r.'ii`S�f.' ��.�:.t'��.._.__^�.;��.. . �u� G . �..:��..e,�.�- _• __.�_ . Photograph No. 3: View of subject property during drilling services for boring B-2. Gulf Coast Testing Laboratory, Inc. Project Lab Number 19074 DOUBLE RING INFILTROMETER REPORT �► � GULF COAST TESTING LABORATORY, INC. 5745 PARK BOULEVARD PINELLAS PARK, FL 33781 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ENCINEERING COUNCIL CERTIFIED CERTIFIACTE ofAUTHORIZATION # 00002370 PHONE: (727) 544-4080 FAX.• (727) 544-7532 CLIENT: Behar + Peteranecz Architecture LAB NO: 19074 PROJECT: Magnuson Hotel, 421 So. Gulfview Blvd., Clearwater Beach, FL DATE REPORTED: 6/28/12 DATE TESTED: 6/26/12 LOCATION OF TEST: Existing Retention Pond @ Approximately 20' E x 15' N of NW Corner of Building DEPTH TO EXISTING WATER TABLE: 1' 2" Below Bottom of Existing Retention Pond ESTIMATED SEASONAL HIGH WATER LEVEL: REMARKS: Test Performed at 0' 4" Below Bottom of Existing Retention Pond WATER TEMP: WATER pH: 10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 INCH PER HOUR •= INNER R1NG READINGS SOIL PROFILE , , I !. .. ? . .. :.... : . ... i _ . _... _' ...... _ . ....' ; N � F : , ; , _ ..........,.. ,.. �. . ,.... . . . ,..... _ ... ° �� ; ! ; L :....... �. � _;..._. _ . _. ��. _. :.. .._ . _ , . � ' • � '. _ T ; ; ; � R ,. ... � _. _... .. , .. ,._.. . _. .. ; . .. _ , . _. A : ............._ _................'..........._.......;............. _ . ....... _ : ;_... :..._ .._.:..... .....:. , __ , .. -' -- " I : ..................:............_...... ...... ....... . .......:........... ....... . . ................ :.. ....... _.. _.�...._ ..._� .............. __...... _...... . i -N i _ .. .... _ ._ , ._.... _, _ _. : ; � _ .. , ; R _............' _ .............__;.....................:....................:........_..... ; ; ; , ; ....................,...._......._._.;........,........: _...... , _.._:.... ;..._ '..... A i ° � :.. _ : _' _ ...: ..................:_ E � _ ....:..................s .................;.._...._. : : ... .. ....:.................... i i .5 1 2 3 4 5 6 Elapsed Time (Hours) INFILTRATION RATE = 6.7 INCHES / HR. Depth in feet. 0' S" 0' _10" �, -n„ -5' 0" CLASSIFICATION (EXISTING SURFACE APPROX. ELEV.) Grayish Brown SAND w/ Shell Fragments & Trace Silts Dark Grayish Brown SAND w/ Trace Shell Fragments & Silt Light Brown SAND w/ Shell & Shell Fragments Light Brown SAND w/ Shell Hole Terminated @ 5' 0" Below Bottom of Existing Retention Pond Hole Terminated at 5' 0" 24" This report is the property of the Client listed and cannot be copied or reproduced without written permission of the Client or GCTL.