The URL can be used to link to this page

FLD2015-02007k � ��« COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD - PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT J '�'°°`'�``'°`� STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: AGENDA ITEM: CASE: REQUEST: GENERAL DATA: Agent... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 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 ... ... . May 19, 2015 E.1. FLD2015-02007 Flexible Development approval to permit a Retail Plaza with a height of 30 feet, a front (south) setback of 57 feet (to building) and five feet (to pavement), a front (west) setback of zero feet (to building), 10 feet (to pavement), a side (east) setback of 16 feet (to building) and five feet (to pavement) and 47 parking spaces (four spaces per 1,000 square feet of Gross Floor Area) in the Commercial (C) District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2- 704.F; to permit a non-residential off-street parking use with a front (west) setback of 10 feet (to pavement) and side (north and east) setbacks of 10 and five feet (to pavement), respectively in the Medium Density Residential (MDR) district as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of CDC Section 2-304.G; and to reduce the front (south) landscape buffer from 15 feet to five feet, reduce the side (east) landscape buffer from 12 feet to iive feet and reduce the side (north) landscape buffer of from 12 feet to 10 feet, reduce the required number of canopy trees, eliminate the required interior landscape requirement and eliminate the required foundation plantings along the front (west and south) fa�ades of the existing building as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program under the provisions of CDC Section 3-1202.G. Robert Pergolizzi, AICP/PTP; Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. 1822 Drew, LLC. 1822 Drew Street; northeast corner of Drew Street and Tulane Avenue 0.85 acres Commercial General (CG) and Residential Medium (RM) classifications Commercial (C) and Medium Density Residential (MDR) Districts None Medium Density Residential (MDR) District Institutional (I) District Commercial (C) and Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) Districts Commercial (C) and Medium Density Residential (MDR) Districts Office and non- Retail Plaza and non- residential off street parking ` V��tti ►T�L�1 Level II Flexible Development Application Review xm."3 � ANALYSIS: Site Location and Existing Conditions: The 0.85-acre site is located at the northeast corner of Drew Street and Tulane Avenue. The subject site, developed in or around 1973, is comprised of two parcels with approximately 150 feet of frontage along Drew Street and 250 feet of frontage along Tulane Avenue. The site spans two zoning districts (C and MDR) and Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) classifications (CG and RM). The portion of the site within the C District (0.59 acres) has been used as an office and includes a one-story building nearly 12,000 square feet in area. The building currently hosts one active tenant space consisting of approximately 1,200 square feet or about 10 percent of the building floor area. The portion within the MDR District (0.26 acres) has been used as a parking lot and comprises roughly the northern third of the property. It should be noted that the limits of the zoning and FLUP designations do not match in that a portion of the CG FLUP classification extends into the area within the MDR District. In other words the portion of the site with the CG FLUP classification (0.66 acres) is larger than the portion of the site in the C District and the portion within the RM FLUP classification (0.19 acres) is smaller than the area within the MDR District. Please also note that where intensity of use (Floor Area Ratio and/or Impervious Surface Ratio) is discussed those figures are based on their respective FLUP classification areas. Conversely, references to the specific uses (retail plaza and non- residential off-street parking) is generally related to the zoning district (with the exception of a brief discussion as to permitted uses per the underlying FLUP classifications). The building is located entirely within the portion of the site within the C District. The parking lot component on the north side of the site is mostly within the portion of the site within the MDR District. Parking is also located along the south side of the site along z W Y z PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION MdCINLEY ST � PROJECT ( ' � � / Ir; � SITE ( —�i�T ¢ HARDING ST I� � '�— --� Z . --- - � — DREW ST ------- -------- -, • Q r-- � I W w W'< a v��, I Z Z o o I � z � i o � Z °� � Z < i � `� Z l� CLEVELAND ST ( } ..-� �----, �---, �-- � __ . �.__ LOCATION MAP 324 �397 31B 3,2 L` 6� lll�L.• � 3� 3 ^' .. HARDING ST a,s 22o j�?,i.... � � o� ti .. � 209 J!y � ^ Soo�. o�r.�..�ONFN'�y �aWJO�6N';v��QpyQp�q Qcpmy W W 6) W Cco �4 �t0 � � h l'u ee ,.�v.qy0'. b �0�0 . �.. � w � �a w �,,m�ww w wc� �........ __ DREW ST �lv a` � f � � '. �� m Q m m m° rzo � �I � ,,z: ZONING MAP 324 313 DETACHED DWELLING .,,,, :T. � � � HARDING ST ll'�I��. b 10�.. � Z 215 220 f N. a� � w 2t� • • �. : z W 109 . : • • �, RETAiL PLAZA � �TAIL PLAZA � � -......-- DREW ST �zsr.a� VEHICLE SERVICE ° ° SC`HOOL ,zo � „2 Z 115 EXISTING SURROUNDING USES MAP CommuniTy Development Board — May 19, 2015 FLD2015-02007 - Page 1 - � C�l.�l 1'1't�1�41 Level II Flexible Development Application Review ' a�,• x�,-M , .. . PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION Drew Street. Cross access to the commercial lot to the east exists. The portion of the site within the MDR District has been long-used as a parking lot serving the office building. The overall site is accessed via two two-way driveways along Drew Street. A second driveway along Tulane provides access to the parking in front of the building. The parking lot to rear of the building is accessed freely from Tulane Avenue; there is no curb and "driveways" are not formally defined. The lot is generally in poor condition neither striped nor maxked and there is no landscaping to speak of. Solid waste is addressed through a shared dumpster on a site on the west side of Tulane Avenue. Taken together, the site is nearly completely either paved or occupied by a building with the exception of a swath of sod to the north of the building approximately 23 feet in width and which roughly spans the width of the property. The immediate vicinity is characterized by a variety of residential and non-residential uses with several other retail plazas along Drew Street including one to the east and west of the subject site. An automotive garage is located to the southwest across Drew Street and a school is to the southeast also across Drew Street. Tulane Avenue terminates approximately 240 feet north from Drew Street and about 65 feet north of the subject site. Single-family homes are located to the north of the property. Site History: The subject site has not Development applications. been the subject of any previous Flexible Standard or Flexible Code Enforcement Analysis: There are no active Code Compliance cases for the subject property. Development Proposal: The proposal is to renovate the exterior of the existing building, convert the existing building an office use to a retail plaza with the initial addition of a small coffee shop and generally update the building and site. The CDC provides that development or redevelopment requires that new uses meet the requirements of the CDC. The Code broadly defines development and redevelopment to include a change of use. Therefore, since the use of the site is changing from office to retail plaza all development parameters including parking and setbacks must be met. The existing parking areas and building do not meet a variety of setbacks including those along the south, west and east (as listed in the request). To be clear, the primary request is to allow the existing building and the bulk of the existing parking to remain in place. Improvements will include exterior upgrades to the building include but are not limited to new windows, doors, two new secondary front entrances, a standing seam metal mansard roof, and a new main entrance into the building resulting in a Key West-style building. Building finish materials include stucco finish, hardie siding and decorative louver details. The primary colors of the building will be Fairview Blue, Silver Bells and Aqua Marine. A new architectural detail will be centrally located on top of the building. Site improvements will include the provision of landscape buffers to the maximum extent possible while maintaining the existing building and providing a Code-compliant complement of parking. Landscaping will be provided which, while not meeting the letter of the CDC, will make the best use of available land and provide the most amount of landscape practicable without removing the existing building and while provide adequate parking. It should be noted that asphalt currently is located generally up to nearly all property lines and there is no Community Development Board — May 19, 2015 FLD2015-02007 - Page 2 � C1L�1 Vtt�L�i Level II Flexible Develo mentA lication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT p pp . DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION , _? „ ;�T='e'... . _ . . . landscaping to speak of on the site. Pavement will be removed to the fullest extent possible from all setbacks however; the applicant desires to provide the required number of parking (47 spaces) to adequately serve the proposed retail plaza. Landscape buffers consistent with north and east setback requirements for the parking lot are provided. A new PVC fence six feet in height will be provided along the north side of the site. Furthermore, the site includes two instances where more than ten parking spaces are provided in a row exceeding the maximum allowance of 10 spaces in the row. In short, the applicant proposes to change the use from office to retail plaza while maintaining the existing building and parking and updating and improving the building and site as much as practicable. The applicant has mitigated these deiiciencies through the provision of landscape material to the m�imum extent possible. The landscape plan includes a variety of shade, ornamental and palm trees (live oak, red maple, bald cypress, holly and cabbage palm), as well as shrubs and ground covers (viburnum, iirebush, gold mound duranta and j asmine). Interior renovations are also proposed which include gutting and reorganizing the interior spaces to provide at least five new tenant spaces including a small coffee shop and an interior courtyard. In addition, space has been allotted in front of the coffee shop space facing Drew Street to accommodate limited outdoor seating. The anticipated hours of operation will be Monday through Thursday between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. and Friday and Saturday between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. In short, the request is to convert the use of the building from office to retail plaza but to essentially maintain the location of the existing building and parking. The applicant has joined the two properties together through a unity of title which eliminates the common property line currently dividing the parking area to the north from the portion of the site containing the building to the south. Access to the site will be from the existing two-way driveways at the southwest corner of the site along Tulane Avenue and southeast corner of the site along Drew Street which will provide access to the existing parking spaces on the south side of the building and site. Access to the parking lot on the north side of the building will be limited to a second two-way driveway near the northwest corner of the property also along Tulane Avenue. The existing driveway centrally located along Drew Street will be removed. The existing sidewalk along Drew Street will be maintained. The site does not currently include a stortnwater facility. The proposal includes a stormwater facility at the northwest corner of the site. Solid waste will be provided via the currently shared a dumpster located on the property on the west side Tulane Avenue. A formal deed restriction which provides access to the dumpster for the owner(s) and tenant(s) of the subject site will be required to be submitted prior to the issuance of any permits with the exception of clearing and grubbing and/or demolition permits. Special Area Plan: None Comprehensive Plan: The proposal is in support of the following Goals, Objectives and/or Policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan as follows: Community Development Board — May 19, 2015 FLD2015-02007 - Page 3 � Cll��l ►'rlll�l Level II Flexible DevelopmentApplication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT �..°��.'.�- DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION Future Land Use Plan Element: Objective A.3.2. All development or redevelopment initiatives within the City of Clearwater shall meet the minimum landscaping / tree protection standards of the Community Development Code in order to promote the preservation of existing tree canopies, the expansion of that canopy, and the overall quality of development within the City; and Policy A.3.2.1. All new development or redevelopment of property within the City of Cleanvater shall meet all landscape requirements of the Community Development Code. Drew Street is designated as a Secondary Scenic Corridor within CDC Section 3-1203 and within the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Primary and Secondary Scenic Corridors axe those roadways expected to have enhanced landscape standards applied to properties along them. Furthermore, Drew Street is specifically listed as a"Corridor to Redevelop" within the Linkages section of the FLUE of the Comprehensive Plan. There is currently no landscaping on the site. The proposal includes what Staff believes is the most amount of landscaping practicable without completely or partially demolishing the building or resulting in an inadequate amount parking. The landscape design meets the intent of Article 3 Division 12 of the CDC. Therefore, the submittal supports this Objective and Policy. Policy A. S. 5.1. Development should be designed to maintain and support the existing or envisioned character of the neighborhood. The proposal provides for a use (retail plaza) permitted as a Minimum Standard use within the C District and a non-residential off-street parking use otherwise permitted as a Flexible Development in the MDR District. The general character of area is typified by retail plazas and other associated non-residential uses along Drew Street. Residential uses exist farther to the north. The CDC does provide the flexibility to consider proposals on the merits of their design and potential impact on a site by site basis. The proposal with regard to landscaping is consistent with other properties which have been subject of Level I and Level II site plan approvals and provides a reasonable compromise between improving the site to the m�imum extent practicable and a strict application of the CDC. In addition, the site design is consistent with the intent of the development parameters flexibility set by the Community Development Code with regard to parking, setbacks and landscaping. These development parameters were specifically created because many areas of the City were inconsistent with the appearance and character desired by the citizens of Clearwater as evidenced by the creation and subsequent adoption of the City's current Community Development Code. Therefore, the proposal supports this Policy. Goal A. 6. The City of Cleanvater shall utilize innovative and flexible Planning and engineering practices, and urban design standards in order to protect historic resources, ensure neighborhood preservation, redevelop blighted areas, and encourage infill development; and Policy A.6.2.1. On a continuing basis, the Community Development Code and the site plan approval process shall be utilized in promoting infill development and/or planned developments that are compatible. Objective A.6.4 Due to the built-out character of the city of Clearwater, compact urban development within the urban service area shall be promoted through application of the Clearwater Community Development Code. Community Development Board — May 19, 2015 FLD2015-02007 - Page 4 - � CleR�Rl��l Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT - P pp DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIV[SION u ,;: �� Policy 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 Zand development and concurrency management regulatory systems as a method of promoting urban infill. The 0.85-acre site, as mentioned, was developed in 1973. The existing building, while structurally sound and completely serviceable, has not been able to effectively compete in the marketplace vis-a-vis office tenant attraction and retention. The continuation of office uses within the existing building, according to the applicant, has become untenable. Therefore, the interior and exterior rehabilitation and modification of the building to serve as a retail plaza on the edge of an existing stable residential neighborhood with an updated and improved site plan including new landscaping and efficient onsite traffic circulation patterns is an appropriate reuse of the site. The proposal, which makes an appropriate reuse of the site and building while emphasizing enhanced aesthetics (landscaping) and a complete upgrading of the exterior of the building is the sort of project envisioned as an apt recipient of flexibility from the otherwise required development parameters as provided by the above Goal, Objective and Policies with regard to its location within the urban service area and the provision of an attractive, compact redevelopment plan. Therefore, the proposal supports this Goal and Objective. Community Development Code: The proposal supports 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. As mentioned, the site was developed in 1973. The proposed retail plaza will serve as an appropriate neighborhood use. It will constitute a project consistent with elements of the Comprehensive Plan, as provided above. The proposed development is similar to the treatment other sites have received in the area vis-a-vis landscaping and other site improvements as mitigation to justify flexibility from certain the CDC requirements such as quantity of canopy trees, foundation planting, buffer width, setbacks and the permitted number of parking spaces in a row. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. Section 1-103.B.2. Ensuring that development and redevelopment will not have a negative impact on the value of surrounding properties and wherever practicable promoting development and �edevelopment which will enhance the value of surrounding properties. Surrounding properties are dominated by a variety of non-residential uses including retail plazas, retail sales and service, schools, places of worship, automotive service stations and restaurants. With a residential neighborhood located to the north. The proposed change of use and building and site upgrades should positively affect the surrounding neighborhood. The proposal is, at the least, consistent with the level of design (with regard to both site and building) as applied to the aforementioned properties and others throughout the City which have been approved as part of Level II Flexible Development applications. It is anticipated that the proposal will result in a positive impact on surrounding properties through the provision of a needed viable use as part of an approved master site plan. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. Community Development Board — May 19, 2015 FLD2015-02007 - Page 5 � C1L�1 1'� Lt61�1 Level II Flexible Develo ment lication Review PL�� & naveLOrMEnrT p �p DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION � . . . . .,._, ��. ... . Section 1-103.B.3. Strengthening the city's economy and increasing its tax base as a whole. The proposal includes the redevelopment of an existing under-utilized office complex with a retail plaza. The proposal is expected to have a net increase in the tax base as a whole with the provision of opportunities beyond that which an office-only use can afford. It is largely beyond dispute that the City of Clearwater is fundamentally built-out where the primary option for improvement is the redevelopment and/or refurbishing of existing sites and buildings. Improving a property typically results in an increase in its value thereby positively contributing to the City's tax base and overall economy. The net result of the proposal will be another attractive redevelopment in the community which can only further interest in the improvement of surrounding properties. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. Section 1-103.D. It is the further purpose of this Development Code to make the beautification of the city a matter of the highest priority and to require that existing and future uses and structures in the city are attractive and well-maintained to the maximum extent permitted by law. The proposal includes the adaptive re-use of an under-utilized office complex with a retail plaza. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed upgrades to the building and site are considerably more attractive than what is there now and are attractive in their own right. The proposal with regard to landscape and building design is consistent with other beautification efforts undertaken, encouraged and installed by the City and private property owners in the City as a whole. Drew Street is a designated Secondary Scenic Corridor. While a specific Corridor Plan has not been adopted the intent is clear in that properties along designated Scenic Corridors, such as Drew Street, are expected to provide landscaping at least consistent with the minimum standards set forth by the CDC if not more. The proposal includes a landscape design consistent with that as already approved by the CDB and which makes the most reasonable use of the area available for landscaping. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. Section 2-701.1 Intent of the C District and CG FL UP classi�cation. The CDC provides that it is the intent of the C District to provide the citizens of the City of Clearwater with convenient access to goods and services throughout the City without adversely impacting the integrity of residential neighborhoods, diminishing the scenic quality of the City or negatively impacting the safe and efficient movement of people and things within the City of Clearwater. Furthermore, it is the intent of the C 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 C 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 Countywide Land Use Rules concerning the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as amended from time to time. For those parcels within the C District that have an area within the boundaries of and governed by a special area plan approved by the City Council and the Countywide Planning Authority, maximum development potential shall be as set forth for each classification of use and location in the approved plan. Section 2.3.3.5.4 of the Rules provides that the purpose of the CG FLUP classification is to depict those areas of the county that are now developed, or appropriate to be developed, in a manner designed to provide community and countywide commercial goods and services; and to recognize such areas as primarily consistent with the need, relationship to adjoining uses and with the objective of encouraging a consolidated, concentrated commercial center providing for Community Development Board — May 19, 2015 FLD2015-02007 - Page 6 ? Cle�l 1'1'�tl�l Level II Flexible Develo mentA lication Review PL`�xxrn�G&°EV�LOPMENT p pp DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION � ��.:��. � the full spectrum of commercial uses. Permitted Primary Uses include Office, Personal Service/Office Support, Retail Commercial and Commercial/Business Service. Section 2-301.1 Intent of the MDR District and RM FL UP classi acation. The CDC provides that it is the intent of the MDR District to protect and preserve the integrity and value of existing, stable residential neighborhoods of inedium density while at the same time, allowing a careful and deliberate redevelopment and revitalization of existing neighborhoods in need of revitalization or neighborhoods with unique amenities which create unique opportunities to increase property values and the overall attractiveness of the City. Furthermore, it is the intent of the MDR 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 MDR 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 Countywide Land Use Rules concerning the Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as amended from time to time. For those parcels within the MDR District that have an area within the boundaries of and governed by a special area plan approved by the City Council and the Countywide Planning Authority, maximum development potential shall be as set forth for each classification of use and location in the approved plan. Section 2.3.3.2.2 of the Rules provides that the purpose of the RM FLUP classification is to depict those areas of the county that are now developed, or appropriate to be developed, in a moderately intensive residential manner; and to recognize such areas as primarily well-suited for residential uses that are consistent with the urban qualities, transportation facilities and natural resource characteristics of such areas. Permitted Secondary Uses include Ancillary Nonresidential which is defined in the Rules in Division 7.2 as including off-street parking, drainage retention areas and open space buffer areas for adjacent, contiguous, nonresidential uses. The use of the site is proposed to be converted to a Retail Plaza (C District and CG FLUP classification) and an off-street parking facility (MDR District and RM FLUP classification) which will serve the adjacent commercial use which are uses permitted by the CG and RM FLUP classifications, respectively. Development Parameters: Note: Where appropriate separate Development Parameters will be provided fo� the respective portion of the site that is within the CG or the RMFLUP category, as the case may be. Floor Area Ratio (FAR� Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-701.1, the maximum FAR for properties with a Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) designation of CG is 0.55. The proposed FAR for the portion of the site located within the C District and CG classification on which the existing building is located is 0.45, which is consistent with Code provisions. Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR� Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2-701.1, the maximum allowable ISR in the CG classification is 0.90. Pursuant to the Countywide Plan Rules and CDC Section 2- 301.1, the maximum allowable ISR in the RM classification is 0.75. The proposed ISR for the Community Development Board — May 19, 2015 FLD2015-02007 - Page 7 � C�l.�l rY(�iL�l Level II Flexible Development Application Review P�Ar�rrING&DEV�LOPt'"¢NT � DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION � ....,. �. . .. portion of the site within the CG classification is 0.87. The proposed ISR for the portion of the within the RM classification is 0.65. Both figures are consistent with Code provisions. Minimum Lot Area and Width: Pursuant to .CDC Table 2-704, there is no minimum required lot axea or lot width for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to CDC Table 2-702, Minimum Standard Development Standards, the required lot area and lot width for Retail Plazas are to be a minimum of 15,000 square feet and 100 feet, respectively. The portion of the lot within the C District is 25,854 square feet and that portion of the lot has a width of 149 feet exceeding and/or meeting the otherwise minimum area and width required by Code. Pursuant to CDC Table 2-304, there is no minimum required lot area or lot width for Residential Infill Projects nor are there specified requirement for non-residential off-street parking pursuant to the same table. Regardless, the portion of the site within the MDR district has an area of 11,477 square feet and a width of 100 feet. Minimum Setbacks: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there are no minimum required setbacks for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to CDC Table 2- 702, front and side setbacks to primary structures are 25 and 10 feet, respectively. Setbacks to parking are based upon the required landscape buffers which for the front (south and west) are both 15 feet, respectively and five feet for the side (east). Rear setbacks do not apply to the subject site as it is a corner lot with two front and two side setbacks under the provisions of 3- 903.D. As noted, the proposal is restricted to a change in use whereby an existing office is proposed to be replaced with a Retail Plaza. As noted, the existing building will remain in place. Existing parking areas will generally remain where they are although the parking areas will be reconfigured and improved to provide landscaping where none exists as of the writing of this report and include the required number of parking spaces for a Retail Plaza. The proposal within the C District includes a front (south) setback of 57 feet (to building) and five feet (to pavement), a front (west) setback of zero feet (to building), 10 feet (to pavement), a side (east) setback of 16 feet (to building) and five feet (to pavement). The proposal does not meet the minimum standards for front setbacks. Pursuant to CDC Table 2-304, there are no minimum required setbacks for a Residential Infill Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to CDC Table 2-304, non-residential off- street parking within the MDR district requires a front setback of 25 feet and a side setback of five feet. As mentioned, rear setbacks do not apply to the subject site as it is a corner lot. The proposal within the MDR District includes a front (west) setback of 10 feet (to pavement) and side (north and east) setbacks of 10 and five feet (to pavement), respectively. The proposal does not meet the minimum standards for front setbacks. Maximum Building Height: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there is no maximum height for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to the aforementioned CDC Table 2-702, the m�imum allowable height for Retail Plazas is 25 feet. Pursuant to CDC Table 2-703, the maximum allowable height for Retail Plazas as a Flexible Standard Community Development Board — May 19, 2015 FLD2015-0200'7 - Page 8 � Cll.�l ►'1'�L41 Level II Flexible Develo mentA lication Review PLnx��rrG�DEV�LOrMExr P PP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION ��. � ��e;: �� development is up to 50 feet. The proposed building height is 30 feet as measured to the mid- point of the peak of the highest architectural feature. The bulk of the building is approximately 15 feet in height as measured to the top of the standing seam metal mansard roof. Minimum Off-Street Parkin�: Pursuant to CDC Table 2-704, there is no minimum off-street parking requirement for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. However, for a point of comparison, pursuant to CDC Table 2-702, the minimum required parking for a Retail Plaza is four spaces per 1,000 square feet of Gross Floor Area (GFA). The size of the building is proposed to be reduced to 11,690 square feet which requires 47 spaces where 47 spaces are proposed. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC section. Mechanical Equipment: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-201.D.1 and 3-903.I, all outside mechanical equipment must be screened so as not to be visible from public streets and/or abutting properties. Mechanical equipment will be located on the roof of the proposed building and will be concealed with parapet walls on all sides. Si�ht Visibilit.�gles: Pursuant to CDC Section 3-904.A, to minimize hazards at the proposed driveways on Drew Street and Tulane Avenue, no structures or landscaping may be installed which will obstruct views at a level between 30 inches above grade and eight feet above grade within 20-foot sight visibility triangles. This proposal has been reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineering Department and been found to be acceptable. Shrubbery planted within the sight visibility triangles will need to be maintained to meet the Code requirements. 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. Limited overhead utilities are adjacent to the south side of the site along Drew Street. Given that the proposal is limited to the establishment of a new use in an existing building it has been determined that placing these lines underground is impracticable. Landscaping; The applicant has opted to utilize the Comprehensive Landscape Program pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.G and as permitted pursuant to CDC Section 6-109.C.4. The criteria for a Comprehensive Landscape Program are provided below: 1. Architectural theme. a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall be designed as a�art of the architectural theme of the principal buildings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for development; or b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landsca�e program shall be demonstrably more attractive than landscapin� otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed or development under the minimum landscape standards. Community Development Board — May 19, 2015 FLD2015-02007 - Page 9 � C�l.�l �RL�� Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review FLANNING & DEVELOPMENT p pp DEVELOPMENTREVIEWDIVISION ,��a.� � Pursuant to CDC Section 3-1202.D, required perimeter buffers are based on adjacent uses and/or street types. The required landscape buffers are 15 feet (south — arterial streets), 10 feet (west — local street), five feet (east) where adjacent to nonresidential uses and 12 feet (east and north) where adjacent to residential uses). In addition, Section 3-1202.E provides that interior landscaping must be provided which is equal to or greater than 10 percent of the vehicular use area. The proposed vehicular use area is 17,613 square feet requiring 1,761 square feet of interior landscaped area. Section 3-1202.E also provides that no more than 20 parking spaces may be in a row and that all interior landscape islands be the depth of a parking space and no less than 17 feet as measured form back of curb to back of curb. Finally, Section 3-1202.E requires that all facades facing a street must include a foundation planting area of at least five feet of depth along the entire fa�ade excluding areas necessary for ingress/egress. The proposal does not meet the requirements of Section 3-1202.E in that foundation plantings along the west and south fa�ades are not practical and very little interior landscaping can be provided. It should be reiterated that the proposal is a change of use from office to retail plaza, that there is no landscape provided at the time of the writing of this report and that most of the site is currently occupied with paving and building. The proposal is, in essence, a retrofit which provides for a full exterior renovation of the existing building, the Code-compliant compliment of 47 parking spaces and the most amount of landscaping given the space available. Staff believes that the applicant has made a good faith effort to meet the intent of the Code. Therefore this criterion is met by the proposal. 2. Lightin� Anv lighting proposed as a part o,� a comprehensive landscape program is automaticallv controlled so that the lighting is tu�ned offwhen the business is closed. The applicant will ensure that all lighting meets the requirements of CDC Article 3 Division 13. Outdoor Lighting and will be turned off when the business is closed. Therefore this criterion is met by the proposal. 3. Communitv character The landscape treatment proposed in the com,prehensive landscape pro�ram will enhance the communitv character of the Citv of Clearwater. The applicant has proposed a landscape plan which takes full advantage of the site vis-a-vis available space for planting without fully demolishing the existing building. Staff believes that the proposed landscape plan will enhance the community character of the City. Therefore this criterion is met by the proposal. 4. Propertv values The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape pro��ram will have a beneficial impact on the value o,�property in the immediate vicinitv o„f the parcel proposed for development. The site currently includes no landscaping and is generally paved up to or within a couple of feet of any given property line. The applicant is struggling to balance the adaptive reuse of the building including extensive exterior improvements along with the provision of a Code- compliant number of parking spaces. As such, the proposed landscape plan converts as much Community Development Board — May 19, 2015 FLD2015-02007 - Page 10 � Clet�l ►'1(i�L�i Levei II Flexible Develo mentA lication Review PLaxx�NG�DEV�LOPMENT P PP DEVELOPMENTREVIEWDIVISION � : � �� land as practical to landscaping. The proposal will improve the aesthetics of the site and should have a beneficial impact on surrounding properties. 5. Special area or scenic corridor plan. The landscape treatment pro,posed in the comprehensive landscape pro�ram is consistent with an�special area or scenic corridor plan which the Citv of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in which the parcel proposed or development is located. The City has not prepared a plan for this area. Therefore this criterion is not applicable to the proposal. Solid Waste: Solid waste will be provided via the currently shared a dumpster located on the property on the west side Tulane Avenue. A formal deed restriction which provides access to the dumpster for the owner(s) and tenant(s) of the subject site will be required to be submitted prior to the issuance of any permits with the exception of clearing and grubbing and/or demolition permits. The proposal has been found to be acceptable by the City's Solid Waste and Fire Departments. Si�� A sign package has not yet been submitted. All signage for the site will have to be reviewed as part of a comprehensive sign program pursuant to CDC Section 3-1807.B. Compliance with General Applicability Standards: The proposal supports the General Applicability requirements of this Code as follows: Section 3-914.A.1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. The proposal includes the conversion of an existing office building to an 11,690 square foot Retail Plaza. The existing building was built in 1973 and is proposed to remain and be improved with a new fa�ade. The surrounding area is typified by a variety of other retail plazas, vehicle service, schools and other non-residential uses along Drew Street. Residential uses are located farther to the north. The proposal is similar in scale to other retail plazas in the area. The proposed Retail Plaza will constitute an appropriate use for the neighborhood. The proposal includes a complete renovation of the site providing as much landscaping as practicable while maintaining the location of the building and providing adequate parking for the use. Therefore, the proposal supports this Code section. Section 3-914.A.2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. The proposal is, as discussed in relation to CDC Section 3-914.A.1, above, consistent with the character of adjacent properties. The applicant has shown through substantial competent evidence that the proposal is similar in nature vis-a-vis form and function to adjacent and nearby properties. The proposal is not expected to impair the value of adjacent properties. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. Community Development Board — May 19, 2015 FLD2015-02007 - Page 11 D lile�l 1'T�l�l Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT P PP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION - �sM�,�,,� Section 3-914.A.3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. The proposal will likely have no effect, negative or otherwise, on the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. Section 3-914.A.4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. The site has operated as a non-residential use since 1973. The amount of building area is proposed to be reduced by approximately 200 square feet. Staff does not expect the proposed retail plaza to negatively affect existing traffic congestion. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. Section 3-914.A. S. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity. As previously discussed, the community character consists primarily of a variety of uses indicative of a moderately developed commercial corridor. The proposal is for the conversion of a modest, one-story office to a Retail Plaza. The proposal maintains the existing building but with an updated and improved fa�ade and new landscaping. 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 proposal should not result in any adverse effects. Interior renovations are proposed which include gutting and reorganizing the interior spaces to provide at least five new tenant spaces including a small coffee shop and an interior courtyard. In addition, space has been allotted in front of the coffee shop space facing Drew Street to accommodate limited outdoor seating. The anticipated hours of operation will be Monday through Thursday between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. and Friday and Saturday between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. The parking area on the north side of the site will be buffered with landscaping and fencing. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. Compliance with Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Criteria: The proposal supports the specific Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project criteria pursuant to CDC Section 2-704.F 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 site was development approximately 40 years ago. The applicant has found that continued use of the property as an office-only has proved to be untenable in the current economic climate and believes that introducing other uses typical of a retail plaza such as retail and restaurant will be a better fit for the property and will complement the neighborhood. The site and building have been in a state of decline if not disrepair for years. The applicant seeks to reverse that trend and completely renovate the exterior of the building and the site as a whole. The proposal includes maintaining the building, eliminating one driveway along Drew Street and fully defining the parking area on the north side of the site with two driveways as well as providing as much landscaping as possible while preserving the existing building and providing an adequate supply of parking. It would not be possible to meet all required setbacks to building without demolishing at least part of the building. Community Development Board — May 19, 2015 FLD2015-02007 - Page 12 t C��1 ►1'Rl�l Level II Fiexible Develo mentA lication Review PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT p pp DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION - �r��E. ; Assuming that it is reasonable to maintain the location of the existing building and that it is also reasonable to provide a Code-compliant supply of parking it also follows that it is not possible to provide that parking without some deviations in setbacks and landscape buffer width. Therefore, deviating from the use standards of the C District is required in order to establish the proposed Retail Plaza use on the site. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of this Code, and with the intent and purpose of this zoning district. The redevelopment of the site will be consistent with a variety of Goals, Objectives and Policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan as well as with the general purpose, intent and basic planning objectives of the CDC as examined in detail elsewhere in this document. Therefore, the proposal will be found to be 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 uses indicative of a commercial corridor or, to the north, with residential uses. The proposal should have no impact on the ability of adjacent properties to redevelop or otherwise be improved. In fact, Staff believes that the proposed site improvements may stimulate other property owners to improve their properties. 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 surrounding uses vis-a-vis use along Drew Street. Adjoining properties should not be affected by the proposal. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. S. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood,• and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of six objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor; The proposed use, a Retail Plaza, is permitted in the C District as a minimum development use. As mentioned previously, the CG FLUP classification permits retail plazas per the Countywide Land Use Rules. The proposal will provide for a viable commercial use which will also improve the site functionally and aesthetically. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified based on demonstrated compliance with all of the following design objectives: a. The proposed development will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in this zoning district. Community Development Board — May 19, 2015 FLD2015-02007 - Page 13 � Cl��[1L�� Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT p pp DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION � �� As mentioned, surrounding properties are developed with a variety of uses typical of a commercial corridor. The proposed Retail Plaza will support and complement surrounding uses with regard to form and function. The proposal will have no effect on the ability of surrounding properties to be redeveloped or otherwise improved. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. b. The proposed development complies with applicable design guidelines adopted by the city. There are no formal design guidelines adopted by the City applicable to the site or area. Therefore, this criterion is not applicable. c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development supports the established or emerging character of an area. The proposal provides for a use similar in scale and scope as already endemic in the area. The intensity of use is consistent with the underlying CG FLUP classification. 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 stepbacks; and ■ Distinctive roofs forms. As noted, the building is proposed to undergo a dramatic exterior renovation which includes a new standing seam metal roof, rooftop architectural embellishments, and a redesigned main entrance as well as two new secondary entrances. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. The proposal provides for the renovation of an existing building and the provision of as much landscaping as possible while still maintaining the preservation of the building and the provision of an adequate supply of parking. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. The proposal supports the specific Residential Infill Redevelopment Project criteria pursuant to CDC Section 2-304.G as follows: 1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from one or more of the following: intensity; other development standards. The portion of the site that contains the non-residential off-street parking use is currently in disrepair and generally undefined lacking definitive curb cuts, driveways or even properly marked stalls. The proposal will formalize the existing parking lot located within the MDR District and will help provide most of the required 47 parking spaces. Community Development Board — May 19, 2015 FLD2015-02007 - Page 14 � C�l.��lRL�I Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLArrr��rrG & nEVELOrMExr P PP DEVELOPMENT REV�W DIVISION � .�..�;awc,� Currently, this parking area extends to within a foot or two of the north property and to within inches of the east property line. The entire west side of the lot is an open-access driveway and is paved up to the right-of-way. The proposal includes a front (west) setback of 10 feet (to pavement) and side (north and east) setbacks of 10 and five feet (to pavement). In order to provide an adequate number of parking spaces the otherwise required front (west) setback of 25 feet cannot be provided. The applicant has removed as much pavement out of all setbacks as possible for the provision of landscaping where no landscaping exists. Redeveloping this portion of the site to meet the front setback requirement is impractical because removing any parking spaces would negatively impact the ability of the overall site to effectively provide adequate parking for the proposed Retail Plaza. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project will not materially reduce the fair market value of abutting pYOperties. As discussed previously, abutting properties have been developed with a variety of uses include retail plazas and single-family residential. The subject site, developed in the early-1970s, will be reused as a retail plaza. Specifically, the existing non-residential off- street parking lot has been place for many years without detriment to the surrounding properties. The continuation of the non-residential off-street parking lot improved with new fencing and landscaping is not expected to materially reduce the fair market value of abutting properties. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 3. The uses within the residential infill project are otherwise permitted in the district. Non-residential off-street parking is a permitted use within the MDR district. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 4. The uses within the residential infill project are compatible with adjacent land uses. The proposed non-residential off-street parking lot will serve as an appropriate transitional use between the residential neighborhood to the north and the more intensely developed commercial area to the south along Drew Street. The parking lot will serve a proposed retail plaza adjacent to the south along Drew Street which is an appropriate retail use for residential neighborhoods. As noted, the effective use of the site will not change with the exception of the provision of landscaping. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 5. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project will upgrade the immediate viciniry of the parcel proposed for development. The site was developed over 40 years ago. As the market has changed the site has been marginalized with regard to its capacity to attract new office tenants. Most of the floor area is currently vacant with one tenant occupying approximately 1,200 square feet or about 10 percent of the 12,000 square foot building. The opportunity to reuse the site for a vibrant new use which will support the residential neighborhood to the north should upgrade the immediate vicinity of the site. Specifically, the parking lot located within the MDR district will be improved with new fencing and landscaping and will provide a Code-compliant number of parking spaces for the proposed retail plaza it will serve. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. Community Development Board — May 19, 2015 FLD2015-02007 - Page 15 � Cl��[tLl.l Level II Flexible Develo ment A lication Review PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT p PP DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIV[SION � -�.;:.� ., . 6. The design of the proposed residential infill p�oject creates a form and function which enhances the community character of the immediate viciniry of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. The proposal includes upgrades to the exterior of the existing building as well as the provision of landscaping to the maximum extent provided by existing site conditions. The site including the improvement of a non-residential off-street parking lot that has been a fixture within the neighborhood for approximately 40 years and is consistent with the size, scale and scope of the surrounding neighborhood. As mentioned, the parking lot will be improved with defined driveways, marked stalls, fencing and landscape buffers. In addition, the retention of the parking lot is vital for the success of the proposed retail plaza to the south. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. 7. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height, off-street paYking, access or other development standards are justified by the benefits to community character and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of CleaYwater as a whole. The requested flexibility for the parking lot will allow the existing building to the south to be improved and adapted to a new use. The proposed retail plaza will serve the residential neighborhood to the north. Specifically, the parking lot located within the MDR district has been place for years without detriment to the surrounding area and will be improved with new fencing and landscaping. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with this CDC Section. Section 4-206.D.4: Burden o�proof. The burden of proof is upon the applicant to show bv substantial competent evidence that he is entitled to the a�proval rec�uested. 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. Compliance with Standards and Criteria: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards for Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects as per CDC Tables 2-701.1 and 2-704 (C District): Standard Proposed Consistent� Inconsistent Floor Area Ratio 0.55 0.45 X Impervious Surface 0.90 0.87 X Ratio Minimum Lot Area NA 37,331 square feet (25,854 C X District; 11,477 MDR District) Minimum Lot Width NA 150 feet X Community Development Board — May 19, 2015 FLD2015-02007 - Page 16 ? C�ear�aLel Level II Flexible Develo ment lication Review PLn�vr��rrG & DEV�LOeMENr p �p DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION . . ��^�_' .. . . � Standard Proposed Consistent' Inconsistent Minimum Setbacks (feet) Front: South: NA 57 feet (to building) / 5 feet (to X pavement) West: NA 0 feet (to building) / 10 feet (to X pavement) Side: North: NA 100 feet (to building) X East: NA 15 feet (to building) / 5 feet (to pavement) X Maximum Height (feet) NA 30 X Minimum 4 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. 47 spaces X Off-Street Parkin GFA 47 s aces � See analysis in Sta,(f Report The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the standards for non-residential off-street parking as per CDC Tables 2-301.1 and 2-304 (MDR District): Standard Proposed Consistentl Inconsistent Floor Area Ratio 0.50 N/A X Impervious Surface Ratio 0.75 0.65 X Minimum Lot Area NA 37,331 square feet (25,854 C District; X 11,477 MDR District) Minimum Lot Width NA I50 feet X Minimum Setbacks Front: N/A West: 10 feet (to pavement) X Side: N/A North: 10 feet to (pavement) X East: 5 feet to (pavement) East: 35 feet to pavement X Maximum Height N/A N/A X Minimum N/A N/A X Off-Street Parkin 1 See analysis in Staff Report Compliance with Comprehensive Landscape Program Standards: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Comprehensive Landscape Program as per CDC Section 3-1202.G: Consistent� Inconsistent 1. Architectural theme. a. The landscaping in a comprehensive landscape program shall be designed as a part of the architectural theme of the principal buildings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for development; or b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment X proposed in the comprehensive landscape program shall be demonstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for development under the minimum landscape standards 2. Lighting. Any lighting proposed as a part of a comprehensive landscape program is X automatically controlled so that the lighting is tumed off when the business is closed. 3. Communiry character. The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive X landscape program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater. Community Development Board — May 19, 2015 FLD2015-02007 - Page 17 � vi1��l 1'1'itl�l Level II Flexible Development Application Review i . . . ... �:^F�<.:Y:a :��' . . . .. . . 4. Property values. The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape program will have a beneficial impact on the value of property in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. 5. Special area or scenic corridor plan. The landscape treatment proposed in the comprehensive landscape program is consistent with any special area or scenic corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in which the parcel proposed for development is located. 1 See analysis in Staff Report PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION Consistent 1 Incon sistent X NA NA Compliance with General Applicability Standards: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the General Standards for Level One and 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 adjacent properties. � See analysis in Staff Report Consistent� � Inconsistent X X X X X Compliance with Flexibility Criteria: The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-704.C. (Comprehensive Infill Redevelo ment Project) (C District): Consistent� Inconsistent 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from X the use and/or development standards set forth in this zoning district. 2. The development or redevelopment will be consistent with the goals and policies of 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. Community Development Board — May 19, 2015 FLD2015-02007 - Page 18 X X �i � Vl{.�l ��L�1 Level II Flexible Development Application Review � . < . . �"•'°b;y;�a�,"G . , .. 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 foilowing 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; ❑ Buiiding stepbacks; and ❑ Distinctive roofs forms. e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhanced landscape design and appropriate distances between buildines. t See analysis in Sta,('f'Report PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION Consistent' X ►� Inconsistent The following table depicts the consistency of the development proposal with the Flexibility criteria as per CDC Section 2-304.G. (Residential Infill Project) (MDR District): 1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from one or more of the following: intensity; other development standards; 2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project will not materially reduce the fair market value of abutting properties. 3. The uses within the residential infill project are otherwise permitted in the district. 4. The uses within the residential infill project are compatible with adjacent land uses. 5. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. 6. The design of the proposed residential infill project creates a form and function which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed far development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. Community Development Board — May 19, 2015 FLD2015-02007 - Page 19 Consistentt � Inconsistent X X X X X X ' Clec�ti ►'1'[tbel level II Fiexible Develo ment rLntvrrirrc&nEV�r.orn�rrr p Application Review nEVELOPMENT�v�wnivisiox Consistent� � Inconsistent 7. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height, off-street parking, access X or other development standards are justified by the benefits to community character and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. 1 See analysis in Staff Report SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the application and supporting materials at its meeting of April 2, 2015, 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 0.85 acre site is located at the northeast corner of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and South Belcher Road; 2. That the subject property is located within the Commercial (C) and Medium Density Residential (MDR) Districts and the Commercial General (CG) and Residential Medium (RM) Future Land Use Plan categories; 3. That the limits of the zoning and FLUP designations do not match in that a portion of the CG FLUP classification extends into the area within the MDR District; 4. That an existing building is located entirely within the portion of the site within the C District and CG FLUP classification; 5. That the subject property is not located in a special plan area; 6. That the proposal is to reuse the site and existing building as a retail plaza and as non- residential off-street parking and is subject to the requisite development parameters per Article 2 Divisions 3 and 7, respectively, of the CDC; 7. That the proposal is also to continue to use the portion of the site within the MDR district as a non-residential off-street parking lot; 8. The subject property is comprised of two parcels with approximately 150 feet of frontage along Drew Street and 250 feet of frontage along Tulane Avenue; 9. That the proposal includes a Retail Plaza with a height of 30 feet, a front (south) setback of 57 feet (to building) and five feet (to pavement), a front (west) setback of zero feet (to building), 10 feet (to pavement), a side (east) setback of 16 feet (to building) and five feet (to pavement) and 47 parking spaces (four spaces per 1,000 square feet of Gross Floor Area) in the Commercial (C) District as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project under the provisions of Community Development Code (CDC) Section 2-704.F; 10. That the proposal includes non-residential off-street parking with a front (west) setback of 10 feet (to pavement) and side (north and east) setbacks of 10 and five feet (to pavement), respectively in the Medium Density Residential (MDR) district as a Residential Infill Project under the provisions of CDC Section 2-304.G; 11. That the proposal includes a request to reduce the front (south) landscape buffer from 15 feet to three feet, reduce the side (east) landscape buffer from 12 feet to five feet and reduce the side (north) landscape buffer of from 12 feet to 10 feet, a reduce the required number of Community Development Board — May 19, 2015 FLD2015-02007 - Page 20 ' C1l.c�fJ, �Al��l Level II Flexible Development Application Review PL^NN�vG & nEVELOrMENT - . � ,�,� , DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DMSION Conditions of Approval: General/Miscellaneous Conditions: 1. 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; Timing Conditions: 2. 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; 3. That prior to the issuance of any permits, except for demolition and/or clearing and grubbing, a site plan which indicates that all parking spaces are shown to be compliant with the CDC which may necessitate the removal of the tree diamonds along the south side of the building be submitted to and approved by City Staff 4. That prior to the issuance of any permits, except for demolition and/or clearing and grubbing, evidence of filing with the Clerk of the Court of a formal agreement which provides access to the dumpster on the property located on the west side of Tulane Avenue for the owner(s) and tenant(s) of the subject site will be required to be submitted to City Staff; and 5. That prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy that all requi�r_e�d Transportation Impact Fees be paid. -' ,� ' �--- � Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: f`� � ,.:. Mark T. Parry, A�CP, Planner III Community Development Board — May 19, 2015 FLD2015-02007 - Page 22 ) � �� ,,;7*> � I�� „ — �, ,� � a� _ � . �'--. m�- .,xk_e'k�a.,>� .. . . ., ... ' 1a32� ... � ;�.. .� . . ,. ivt`: .. . .... Looking northeast from south�vcst corner of site. ��- � � 'm� � � � .�_ -�� Looking north s��uthea,<i c<�rner of site. �� ,... � �� . � .w� - l . �� .x.. _ .. . . . .. ... . r._ .. . �. . .. . _ .. . � . � Looh�n� uwth from nurth�ast curner ��t�sitc. � , , �;__ . � --"f*+�-- � . '�'i _. � -`•;—'� f F'l411�+1ti :. � _ - (�n""R!^ . I,00king n�rth fmm ��uth��est corner �f site. — .. , ' ��,� : Looking northeast from west side of site. , `''�' � . � �. : , r �, ` � ��;,. � � �, � �� F - -.�. >. _ . _ ,. - �'a�°_�"o�'°�""`;-" ` . : :..=�,.:.: :..�� : .�; - _ -y _ .a _, � :,r�,; �-� . - . ��,.�� ,. �,,� � ,�,`� _ �. �,� .; ,� � .�, . � , � � _ � nw.. -� ; �' -� � .; ,• , �'"Y� �asx��y '''*3' .-�^'""�'s ` �d"S`.r - ` � . R*:��,. , . ... L�,oking south ��e,l ti�om nonhcast corncr ut ,ite. 1822 DREW STREET FLD2015-02007 ►�r.� _�:�11� 7:�.7:�• 100 S. Myrtle Avenue Tel: (727) 562.4741 Clearwater, FL 33756 E-mail: mark.parry@myclearwater.com SUMMARY OF QUAL/FICATIONS A dedicated, AICP certified professional Planner focused on contributing to the field of Urban Planning experienced in public and private sector planning. An excellent communicator, able to effectively interact with clients, local government officials and business professionals at all levels. Experienced in various aspects of urban design and planning, zoning regulations and permitting. OBJECTIVE To secure a Planning position which will allow me to continue improving the built environment and my community through sound and innovative planning and design principals. EDUCAT/ON COOK COLLEGE, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY, New Brunswick, NJ B.S. Landscape Architecture Major, Urban Planning Certification B.S. Environmental Planning and Design Certificate Urban Planning Golden Key National Honor Society,� Sigma Lambda Alpha American Planning Association (Florida Chapter); member AICP #020597 40-hour OSHA (Hazwoper) Training PLANNEFt I11 PLANNING DEPARTMENT, CITY OF CLEARWATER 04/12 - Present 08/98 — 04/05 • Responsible for nonresidential and single/multi-family site plan review and permitting. • Assist in the implementation and subsequent review of the Community Development Code. • Responsible for assessing and writing Community Development Code amendments. • Land Development Code development, interpretation and application. • Provide, inspect and direct landscape review/design. • Acting Development Review Manager 9/99 — 11/99 and 01/05 — 03/05. . Manage and direct Associate Planners. • Review, process and present variance/conditional use, land use/zoning atlas amendment and annexation applications at in-house and public review meetings. • Principal Planner in creating and implementing Clearwater's Downtown Design Guidelines. Assisted in the implementation and application of the Clearwater powntown Redevelopment Plan. SENIOR PLANNER DEVELOPMENT 8� ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, CARDNO TBE 04/05 — 04/12 • Planner of record for Cities of Indian Rocks Beach, Seminole and Cleannrater and Town of Belleair. • Responsible for nonresidential and single/multi-family site plan review and permitting. • Perform site design and inspections. • Provide technical planning support for engineering department. • Provide support for Zoning Code, Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and Land Use Plan amendments. • Research and write Evaluation and Appraisal Reports. • Create and update Special Area Plans/Form-based Codes. • Provide CADD support. • Assist with creating redevelopment marketing material. • Perform technical environmental services including soil and groundwater sampling. Designer/Owner GREENSCAPES-GLD, MARLBORO, NJ 9/92 - 6/98 • Founded and established a local garden and landscape business. • Plan and oversee installation of commercial and residential landscaping projects utilizing a variety of CADD and photo-manipulation programs. • Develop and implement advertising programs, brochures and graphics. • Estimate, bid and negotiate jobs. • Source and negotiate purchase of materials and equipment. • Manage, train and schedule installation crews. Program Supervisor LONGSTREET FARM, MONMOUTH COUNTY PARK SYSTEM, HOLMDEL, NJ • Assisted in formulating and running children's summer program ("Hayseed"). • Created and coordinated daily programs and schedules for 6-9 year old groups. • Supervised several other programs throughout the year. • Created a demand which was twice the program's capacity after the first year. COMPUTER SKILLS 6/87 - 8/93 Access, Microsoft Office, Microsoft Works, ClarisWorks, MS Word, Land Designer Pro, Permit Plan, Excel, Cornerstone, AutoCADD, PowerPoint, Publisher � � �w��:�� F�` �'�,� Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. � �� Land Development Consulting ��,w� < Engineering • Planning • Transportation • Permitting A �� ICOT Center 13825 ICOT Boulevard, Suite 605 ' � Clearwater, FL 33760 Phone: (727) 524-1818 Fax:(727)524-6090 April 10, 2015 Mr. Mark Parry, AICP, Planner III City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, 2nd Floor Ciearwater, FL 33756 Re: 1822 Drew Street FLD 2015�02007 Revised P�e I i m i n a ry Site Plan Dear Mr. Parry: Pursuant to your DRC comments letter received April 1, 2015, and discussions at the April 2, 2015 DRC meefiing the following are our responses to your comments: Enqineerinq Review — General Conditions Comment: 1, If the proposed project necessitates infrastructure modifications to satisfy the site-specific water capacity and pressure requirements and/or wastewater capacity requirements, the modifications shall be complet�d by the applicant and at their expense. If underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, the installation shall be c�mpleted and in service prior to constructi�n in accordance with Fire D�partment requirem�nts. Response: Acknowledged. Comment: 2. The sheets C1-C3 vioere rev�ewed for G�neral Engineering criteria. Th� additional details . provided in th� application pacicage may have been necessary fow other departmental rsrriew� to provide flexible development approval. C�n�truc#ion detail� shall be reviewed rr�or� th�r�ughly prior to receipt of the building permit. Response: Acknowledged, we are only seeking CDB review/approval at this time. Site permits will follow if appraved by CDB. April 10, 2015 Page 2 of 20 Prior to the Communitv Development Board Comment: 1. Please show the sanitary easement that runs through the center portion of the property on the civil site plans. Response: We have requested a title report to determine if an easement exists for this sanitary line. If not, a sanitary sewer easement will be granted to the City of Clearwater. The sanitary line is shown on sheet C3. Comment: 2. As per Community Development Code Section 3-1701B, Sidewalks required, Plan considerations, if the remodeling of an existing structure will exceed by 50% of the assessed evaluation of the property where a sidewalk does not exist, an applicant shall provide for construction of a sidewalk in an easement or right-of-way. If the property owner qualifies for an exception, the property owner shall pay a fee in lieu of constructing the sidewalk to be used to construct a sidewalk at a future date. Response: There is no room for sidewalks along Tulane Avenue. The applicant will do a"payment in lieu of sidewalk" for the Tulane Avenue frontage per DRC. Prior to issuance of Buildinq Permit 1. Please provide information on the staging area and route for the construction materials and equipment. Response: The staging area and route for construction materials is unknown at this time. This will be determined prior to issuance of building permit. Comment: 2. Fire lines and potable water lines shall be separate taps on the water main. Response: Acknowledged, that the fire line and potable water lines shall be separate taps on the water main. The potable water line is already connected to the building. A new fire line is being proposed as shown on sheet C3. Comment: 3. Restoration of City roadways shall meet city standards. Response: Acknowledged. April 10, 2015 Page 3 of 20 Comment: 4. Please apply for a right-of-way permit for any work within city right-of-way. The form can be found online at: http•//mvclearwater com/qov/deptslpwa/enqin/FormsApplications.asp Response: Acknowledged. A ROW use permit will be submitted with Site Permit process, subsequent to CDB approval. Comment: 5. All new sidewalks and sidewalk ramps adjacent to or a part of the project should be built up to standard, including A.D.A. standards (raised detectable tactile surfaces or truncated domes per FDOT Indices #304 and #310). Response: ADA ramps are already located at the corner of Drew Street and Tulane Avenue. The truncated domes will be added as shown on the plans on sheet C3. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancv: Comment: 1. If any easements are vacated or created, they shall be recorded with the city. Please contact Chuck Lane with any easement vacation or creation requests (727.562.4754). Response: Acknowledged. Comment: 2. Please provide a copy of an approved right-of-way permit from Florida Department of Transportation for any work in the state right-of-way. Response: A FDOT Permit will be applied for and obtained subsequent to CDB approval. Environmental - Prior to issuance of �uildinq Permit Comment: 1. Provide erosion control measures on plan sheet and provide notes detailing erosion control methods. April 10, 2015 Page 4 of 20 Response: Acknowledged. These items will be added during the Building Permit Review process. Environmental - General iVotes Comment: 1. DRC review is comments may Application. a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Response: Acknowledged. Comment: 2. Offsite discharge of produced groundwater from dewatering shall comply with dewatering guidelines from Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), F.A.C. 62-621. Response: Acknowledged. Comment: 3. Additional permits from State agencies, such as the Southwest Florida Water Management District or Florida Department of Environmental Protection, may be required. Approval does not relieve the applicant from the requirements to obtain all other required permits and authorizations. Response: SWFWMD and FDOT permits will be applied for an obtained subsequent to CDB approval. Fire Review Comment: 1. Provide and show on the plan minimum 30 foot turning radius for emergency vehicle ingress and egress at all entrance and exits. Acknowledge PRIOR TO CDB. Response: As discussed and agreed upon at DRC the fire truck access can be from Tulane Avenue since that is where the hydrant is loeated. The existing turning radii at Tulane Avenue and Drew Street have been added and are shown on sheet C3. Please see attached Fire Truck Turn Exhibit. April 10, ZO15 Page 5 of 20 Comment: 2. This building meets the definition of a Mall Building as defined by NFPA 101 2012 edition chapter 3 section 3.3.36.9. Shall meet the requirements of NFPA 101 36.4.4.10 Automatic Extinguishing Systems. Acknowledge PRIOR TO CDB. Response: The existing building is not sprinkled. The architectural plans will be modified with the addition of a sprinkling system subsequent to CDB approval. Comment: 3. All underground fire lines must be installed by a contractor with a class I, II or V license with separate plans and permit. Acknowledge PRIOR TO CDB. Response: Acknowledged. Comment: 4. Sheet C3 shows proposed fire hydrant to be used for firefighting use. An additional supporting fire hydrant is required to supply the FDC. This fire hydrant shall be located within 25-50 feet, as measured along a normal access route, of the fire department connection. FDC shall be a minimum of 15' from building. Fire Department Connection shall be a 2 112 inch Siamese connection listed for such use. Acknowledge PRIOR TO CDB. Response: There is an existing fire hydrant located on site. Since a FDC has to be added an additional fire hydrant has been added as shown on sheet C3. The location maybe modified during the architectural design process and the final location will be determined during the Site Permit/building permit process. Comment: 5. Tamper switches are required to be installed on the fire supply DDCV and must be connected to the FACP. ACKNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO CDB. Response: Acknowledged. Comment: 6. Please show location of dumpster to meet the requirements of NFPA 1 2012 edition chapter 19.2.1.4 Rubbish within Dumpsters. Provide details. Please acknowledge prior to CDB. April 10, 2015 Page 6 of 20 Response: As discussed at DRC, the existing dumpster that currently services the building is located on the west side of Tulane Avenue and is shared by neighboring sites. A shared dumpster agreement will be provided subsequent to CDB approval. Land Resource Review Comment: 1. Revise trees shown in bottom of stormwater pond. Cannot have landscaping in fihe bottom of the s#ormwater pond. May be along top of bank. Revise live oak placement at the northwest corner of the property and coordinate with stormwater. Response: Response: Landscape plans have been revised. These are bio-swales that are meant to treat the storm-water prior to underground vault storage. Trees are shown on the slope of the swale, not the swale bottom. This was clarified at the DRC meeting. Comment: 2. The provided landscaping does not meet the current minimum requirements (island width, buffer width) and as such must be a comprehensive landscape program. Through that program the provided landscaping must be higher quality and native species. Revise the crape myrtles and foxtail palms to be native accent trees and palms such as yaupon holly, cassia, walters viburnum, wax myrtle and sable palms. Species also considered to be Florida Friendly may be considered. Response: A Comprehensive Landscape Program application was submitted and has been included again as part of this resubmittal. The landscape plans have been modified. Comment: 3. The very small landscape islands (fountain landscaping) along the front (south) of the building must provide more detail than just annuals. Typically annuals may be part of an overall landscape to provide color, but there needs to be permanently established ground cover and shrubs (if even shrubs can fit in those areas). Response: Annuals have been traded out for Agapanthus. April 10, 2015 Page 7 of 20 Comment: 4. With palms the minimum required palm must have 10 feet of clear trunk at time of planting. Revise any proposed palms to be measured by clear trunk (with a minimum of 10 feet), and not to be measured by overall height. Response: Clear trunk heights have been added on the landscape plans. Planninq Review — General Site Plan and Application Comments Comment: 1. Application pages 2 and 3 of 8: This site is a little challenging in that we are working with two zoning districts and two FLUP classifications with different FAR and ISR requirements. To add to the confusion, the zoning and FLUP lines do not match in that the CG classification extends into the portion of the site in MDR District. Here is what I think we should do. First, call out the areas of the site in the C arrd MDR Districts and then in the CG and RM classifications. Then call out the FAR for the portion of the site within the C district only - remember that retail plaza is not allowed in the MDR district. Then call out the ISR for the CG portion and the ISR for the RM portion. Response: The site data table has been revised accordingly. FAR is calculated based on the "C" zoning land area only, and the ISR is calculated separately for each CG and RM land use category. All FAR and ISR figures are below maximums permitted. Overall the ISR is being reduced. The zoning and , land use areas and designations have been added to plans and are shown on sheet C2. Comment: 2. Sheet C3: Clarify if cross access to the site to the east be maintained with the proposal. Response: Cross access to the site is not being maintained. A curb and a 5-foot landscape buffer are replacing the former drive aisle. Comment: 3. Sheet C3: Clarify how solid waste will be accommodated on the site. Response: The building is currently sharing the dumpster across the street. The solid waste is being walked to the dumpster across Tulane Avenue. As stated above a shared dumpster agreement will be provided subsequent to CDB approval. April 10, 2015 Page 8 of 20 Comment: 4. Sheet C3: Please place sight visibility triangles as appropriate on this sheet. Response: Sight triangles have been added to plans and are shown on sheet C3. Comment: 5. Clarify what sorts of fencing is proposed. Include details such height, color and materials. Response: The proposed fence along the northern boundary would be a 6-foot high white PVC fence. This has been labeled on the plans and is shown on sheet C3. Comment: 6. Sheets A1.2 and A1.3: Please re-label the elevations as north, south, east and west. Response: The elevations have been revised. The directional names have been added to the Plan Elevations on Sheets A.1.2 and A.1.3. Comment: 7. Sheets A1.2 and A1.3: Clarify the colors and materials proposed. Response: The elevations have been revised to include the proposed colors and materials. Comment: 8. Sheet L-1.00: We are trying to avoid a monoculture of crepe myrtles in the City. Please swap out the crepes with another type of accent tree. Response: The crepe m�rtles have been swapped out for another type of accent tree. Comment: 9. Clarify where mechanical equipment will be located and how it will be screened from view. Response: The mechanical equipment will be relocated to the roof of the building. Mechanical equipment will be located to between the cupola and the new mansard roof at the front of the building. See perspective. These will be screened from view on all sides. April 10, 2015 Page 9 of 20 Comment: 10. There are limited overhead utilities along the south side of the site along Drew Street. Per CDC Section 3-912 overhead utilities need be placed underground unless impracticable, Clarify if these lines will be placed underground and if not why not. Response: These overhead utility lines will not be placed underground as the existing building is being redesigned and it would be impractical to locate the lines underground. Comment: 11. Clarify if the interior is proposed to be renovated in addition to the exterior. Response: See added note on sheet A1.1 which depicts the interior renovations. Comment: 12. Clarify how many tenants are in the building and/or how much of the floor area is currently rented. Response: Presently there is only one tenant, Geodata Survey Services, Inc., which � rents approximately 1,200 SF as office space and they will remain as a tenant. Comment: 13. Clarify the height of the building with the proposed changes in place. I come up with a height of 30 feet to the midpoint of the new proposed roof structure. This is fine but we need to add it to the request. Response: A revised building elevation has been provided. The highest point of the raised cupola (mid-point) has been added and is 29-feet 4-inches, which has been rounded to 30-feet for the FLD application request. Comment: 14. Keep in mind that a Unity of Title will be required prior to the issuance of any permits. April 10, 2015 Page 10 of 20 Response: A duly recorded Unity of Title was provided to staff in March 2015 and is included in this submittal. Comment: 15. Clarify what sort of signage is envisioned for the site. I am not seeing freestanding signs as being appropriate or possible given the space available. Response: It is anticipated that the signage will be placed on the front facade facing the street. Comment: 16. Clarify when the site was developed with the building and parking lot. Response: The site was developed in 1973. The rear parking lot has been utilized to service the existing building. Comment: 17. Clarify the anticipated hours of operation. Response: The anticipated hours of operation would range from 6AM — 9PM weekdays and 6AM — 11 PM on Friday and Saturday evenings to accommodate a potential coffee shop. Landscape Plan Comments Comment: 18. The plant data table provides the plan should be consulted for the clear trunk height of the fox tail palms but only the overall height is provided. Please indicate the CT height. Response: Landscape plans have been revised to show CT heights. Comment: 19. I understand that we are working the best we can with the space available - I totally get that. With that said, the landscape plan as is is not going to fly. We are asking for buffer reductions on the north, south, east and west, a reduction in perimeter shade trees from 21 trees to 7.66 trees, an increase in the number of parking spaces in a row from 10 to up to 14, the elimination of interior landscaping and the elimination of foundation landscaping. Not to put too fine a point on but we are basically throwing April 10, 2015 Page 11 of 20 the landscape section out the window in an effort to get this property usable without demoing the whole building. Providing duranta and jasmine as the buffer along Drew Street, for example, is inadequate. We need to revamp the plan. Response: Landscape plans have been revised. Comment: 20. Most of the area marked as vehicular use are landscaping is actually counted as buffer. On that note, none of the actual area which would count as vehicular use landscape area meets the dimensional requirements for interior landscape area. Basically, we are almost totally eliminating the interior landscape area requirement. Response: Acknowledged. The applicant is attempting to place as much landscaping in the buffers as possible while maintaining 47 paved parking spaces. Staff was making a determination on whether this was acceptable or not. This has been designed in surrounding municipalities with success. Comment: 21. If you want the bald cypress to count as shade trees they need to be installed at least eight feet in height. I did not include them in my tree count at this point. Response: Landscape plans have been revised. General Applicability Criteria Comments Comment: 22. Criteria 1 through 4: No comments. --- Acknowledged. Comment: 23. Criterion 5: Clarify where the outdoor seating will be located. Response: Outdoor seating will be provided along the western half of the front facade (Drew Street). Comment: 24. Criterion 6: Clarify the proposed hours of operation, screening, buffering, fencing, etc. April 10, 2015 Page 12 of 20 Response: The application was modified to include the hours of operation, the type of screening, and the buffering that was being proposed for the site. Comment: 25. Generally, change the proposed use from coffee shop to retail plaza. Response: Retail plaza has been substituted for "coffee shop" throughout all of the application documents. Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Proiect (CIRP) Criteria Comments Comment: 26. Criterion 1: In addition to what you have already put down you probably also want to mention when the property was developed, the condition of the existing building, the fact that the building cannot meet certain setbacks without being at least partially if not completely demolished, the amount of space that is currently rented out for office (if any), the amount of time that the building has been underutilized (to show that changing the use form office to retail plaza is warranted and reasonable). I imagine that when you add up all the facts it will be shown to be impractical to keep the building as an office and equally impractical to tear down the building and start from scratch. If all that is true then the only logical conclusion is that the development or redevelopment of the property is otherwise impractical without the requested deviations. Also, the proposed use is not retail or a coffee shop but retail plaza. Response: These additional items as mentioned were added to the narrative. Comment: 27. Criterion 2: The development is for a retail plaza; there is no need to mention the coffee shop. Once the use is established as a retail plaza a coffee shop can go in without any issues. It is recommended that you explore and address, at the least the following items from the Comp. Plan - Future Land Use Plan Element Goal A.6, Objectives A.3.2 and A.6.4 and Policies A.3.2.1, A.5.5.1 A.6.2.1, and A.6.4.1. Response: These additional items as mentioned were added to the narrative. Comment: 28. Criterion 3: No comments. --- Acknowledged. April 10, 2015 Page 13 of 20 Comment: 29. Criterion 4: The proposed use of the property is a retail plaza not a coffee shop. Response: Retail plaza has been substituted for "coffee shop" throughout all of the application documents. Comment: 30. Criterion 5a: We do not need to mention the portion of the site within the MDR district here because this is only talking about the CIRP which is only allowed in the C district. Response: The narrative has been modified accordingly. Comment: 31. Criterion 5b: No comment. --- Acknowledged. Comment: 32. Criterion 5c: the reuse of the site is as a retail plaza. Response: The narrative has been modified accordingly. Comment: 33. Criterion 5d: No comment. --- Acknowledged. Comment: 34. Criterion 5e: We do not need to mention too much the portion of the site within the MDR district here because this is only talking about the CIRP which is only allowed in the C district. The rest of the response is good, though. Response: The narrative has been modified accordingly. Comment: 35. Criterion f: No comment. --- Acknowledged. Comment: 36. Criterion 6 a through b: No comment. --- Acknowledged. April 10, 2015 Page 14 of 20 Comment: 37. Criterion c: We need to talk about the height. The permitted height is 25 � feet with an additional 16 feet for mechanical equipment, elevator overrun and the like. I think the height is 30 feet as measured to the midpoint of the highest roof structure. I am not saying it is a problem but I just want to be accurate. Response: The height has been changed to 30-feet at the midpoint of the roof. This has been added to the requisite section of the FLD application. Comment: 38. Criterion d: No comment. --- Acknowledged. Comment: 39. Criterion e: You may want to mention that as much area is being turned to landscape buffers where no landscaping exists and while preserving the excising building and providing adequate Code-compliant parking. Response: The narrative has been modified accordingly. Residential Infill Proiect (RIP) Criteria Comments Comment: 40. Criterion 1: At this point we should only be talking about the MDR portion of the site. You should probably limit the discussion to the parking lot component. The bulk of the response provided is good, though. Response: The narrative has been modified accordingly. Comment: 41. Criterion 2: Clarify how long the lot has been used as parking. Response: The lot has been used as parking as.long as the building has existed, since 1973. The narrative has been modified accordingly. Comment: 42. Criterion 3: No comment. --- Acknowledged. April 10, 2015 Page 15 of 20 Comment: 43. Criterion 4: You may want to mention that landscape buffers will be provided where none exist. Response: The narrative has been modified accordingly. Comment: 44. Criterion 5: The parking lot will serve a retail plaza. You probably want to mention that the existing building is not a viable office anymore given market conditions and the only option available is to change the use of the site. The parking lot in the MDR district is probably vital for the success of the proposed retail plaza as it will provide the bulk of the required parking. A refurbished parking lot with new landscaping serving a new use in an upgraded building is likely to upgrade the immediate vicinity. Just some thoughts. Response: The narrative has been revised accordingly. Comment: 45. Criterion 6: Again, the proposed use is a retail plaza. You probably want to focus on the existing conditions of the parking lot and the proposed improvements to the lot. You may want to tie in the success of the proposed retail plaza with the retention of the parking lot in the MDR District. Response: The narrative has been revised accordingly. Comment: 46. Criterion 7: Double check the ISR as it relates to each FLUP classification. Response: As requested, the ISR calculations have been revised as shown on the cover. The overall ISR is being reduced from current conditions. Comprehensive Landscape Proqram Criteria Comments Comment: 47. Criterion 1: Clarify if all of the proposed plants are actually native. I am counting maybe three species of natives. Clarify how the proposed landscaping will flow with the surrounding context. If I were responding to this criterion I would include a brief discussion about the existing level of April 10, 2015 Page 16 of 20 landscaping and some of the reasons why full landscape buffers are not practical to provide. Response: Comprehensive landscape Proqram application was revised as recommended. Comment: 48. Criterion 2: This is, actually applicable. Please clarify that lighting will be turned off when the business is closed. If lighting is not proposed than mention that. Response: The site lighting will be turned off when the businesses are closed. Comment: 49. Criterion 3: Clarify exactly how the proposed landscape plan will result in the embracement by residents and tourists of local businesses. Sounds a bit far reaching to me. I would probably talk about the extent of existing landscaping and the struggle to rehabilitate the building and adapt it to a new use while preserving the building and providing enough parking to satisfy Code requirements and the needs of the proposed retail plaza. Response: Comprehensive Landscape Proqram application was revised as recommended. Comment: 50. Criterion 4: I am not sure I understand what the response to this criterion means. I might address this criterion by mentioning that the site currently includes no landscaping and is generally paved up to or within a couple of feet of any given property line. I might also mention that the property owner is struggling to balance the adaptive reuse of the building including extensive exterior improvements along with the provision of a Code- compliant number of parking spaces. As such, the proposed landscape plan converts as much land as practical to landscaping. Finally, I might finish with some sort of statement that the proposal will improve the aesthetics of the site and should have a beneficial impact on surrounding properties. Response: Comprehensive Landscape Proqram application was revised as recommended. Comment: 51. Criterion 5: No comments. --- Acknowledged. April 10, 2015 Page 17 of 20 Disclaimer Comment: 52. Please note that additional comments may be generated at or subsequent to the DRC meeting based on responses to DRC comments. Please carefully review the listed request. It is ultimately the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the request reflects what is wanted. In order to be reviewed by the CDB on May 19, 2015 15 sets (revised as needed) must be submitted no later than noon April 10, 2015. Response: Acknowledged that additional comments may be generated. The application materials have been carefully reviewed and reflect our intended requests. The revised sets of materials are attached. Solid Waste Comment: 1. Nothing talking or showing garbage service. Is this business going to continue to share garbage service with neighboring business? Response: The building is currently using the existing dumpster across Tulane Avenue that is being shared by the neighboring properties. As stated above a shared dumpster agreement is in process and will be provided subsequent to CDB approval. Stormwater Review - Prior to CDB Comment: 1. Please clarify if the southern parking (front parking) lot is to be completely demolished or milled and resurfaced. Response: The south (front) parking lot will only be milled and resurFaced as shown on sheet C3. Therefore, this drainage area may be removed from the project area for the stormwater calculations. Comment: 2. Storm-water vaults are highly discouraged as they do no not meet the intent of the City's storm-water design criteria. If proposed, please provide supporting documents that validate the use of storm-water vaults on this development, and any substantial hardship that can be demonstrated. Response: It is acknowledged that the City discourages the use of underground vaults. As discussed at DRC, the importance of providing code required April 10, 2015 Page 18 of 20 47 parking spaces precludes having enough pond area for water quality treatment and attenuation, thereby making it necessary for underground storage. All of the treatment is being provided above ground being subjected to sunlight per City requirements. Only the attenuation is being stored underground. These elements will provide a benefit compared to the existing situation. Comment: 3. In no circumstance shall vertical walls on detention ponds be permitted adjacent to right of ways, along the boundaries of adjacent properties, on more than two sides of a detention pond, or on any side of a pond serving only as a water quality facility (City of Clearwater Storm-water design criteria handbook Pg.6). Response: There are no vertical walls on the drainage areas that are adjacent to any right-of-way. DRA 2 has a wall that is parallel but not directly connected to the adjacent site. There is landscaping bordering the property line and an existing wire fence located along a majority of the property boundary. Both drainage areas DRA 1 and DRA 2 only have two walls and are only a foot and half deep. Comment: 4. Side slopes are not permitted to be steeper then 4:1 (City of Clearwater Storm-water design criteria handbook Pg.6) Response: The side slopes of the drainage areas have been revised from 3:1 to 4:1 as shown on sheet C3. Prior to Buildinq Permit Comment: 1. Please provide drainage calculations demonstrating sufficient capacity for the site. Please use the rational method. Response: Drainage Calculations will be provided with the Site Permit submittal subsequent to CDB approval. Comment: 2. Please provide pond cross-sections including seasonal high water table (SHWT) called out, 6-inches of freeboard from the top of control structure to top of bank required and 6-inches of clearance from SHWT to bottom of pond required. April 10, 2015 Page 19 of 20 Response: This information will be provided with Site Permit submittal subsequent to CDB approval. Comment: 3. Call out all roof drains on drainage sheet, and ensure flow is directed to storm pond. Response: A note has been added stating that the roof drainage has to be connected to the stormwater system as shown on sheet C3. A proposed roof drainage system has been added to the plans and may be modified during the architectural design process. General Comments Comment: 1. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review. Additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Response: Acknowledged. Traffic Enq — Prior to CDB Comment: 1. The tree diamond that is inside the parking space(s) creates a noncompliant parking space. The minimum dimension for a parking space shall be 9' wide by 18' long with a 24' drive aisle. Response: As discussed at DRC, these small triangular islands will not interfere with parking of a car and essentially function as a concrete wheel stop. These triangles have been successfully used in other parking lots within Pinellas County. The overall goal is to provide landscaping along the front of the building where there is a predominance of impervious surfaces. General Note(s) Comment: 1. Applicant shall comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule. This fee shall be paid prior to a Certificate of Occupancy {C.O.). The TIF amount for the new retail project is $392.76. April 10, 2015 Page 20 of 20 Response: Acknowledged, that the TIF for this proposed retail project is $392.76. Comment: 2. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; adelitional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Response: Acknowledged. Enclosed for your review of this FLD application are 15 copies of the following: 1. FtEVISED Flexible Development Application; 2. Affidavit to Authorize Agent; 3. Legal Description; 4. Copy of Warranty Deed; 5. Recorded Unity of Title 6. REVISED Comprehensive Infill Criteria Narrative; 7. REVISED Residential Infill Criteria Narrative; 8. Traffic Assessment; 9. REVISED Storm-water Narrative; 10. Fire truck Turn Exhibit 11. REVISED Comprehensive Landscape Program Application; 12. Boundary Survey (15 copies + one letter sized copy); 13. REVISED Preliminary Site Plan (15 copies + one letter sized copy); 14. REVISED Landscape Plan(15 copies + one letter sized copy); 15. REVISED Floor PIan/Building Elevations (15 copies + one letter sized copy including letter sized copy of colored renderings) Please call if you have any questions or require any additional information to facilitate your review. We look forward to the May 19, 2015 CDB hearing. Sincerely, / � Robert Pergolizzi, ICP, PTP Principal cc: Peter Marks,1822 Drew, LLC Roberta Klar, Klar & Klar Hunter Booth, Booth Design Group File 15-006 ° �learwater � U Planning & Development Department Flexible Development Application Attached Dwellings, Mixed-Uses or Non-Residential Uses IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT COMPLETE AND CORRECT INFORMATION. ANY MISLEADING, DECEPTIVE, INCOMPLETE OR INCORRECT INFORMATION MAY INVALIDATE YOUR APPLICATION. ALL APPLICATIONS ARE TO BE FILLED OUT COMPLETELY AND CORRECTLY, AND SUBMITTED IN PERSON (NO FAX OR DELIVERIES) TO THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY NOON ON THE SCHEDULED DEADLINE DATE. A TOTAL OF 11 COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS (1 ORIGINAL AND 10 COPIES) AS REQUIRED WITHIN ARE TO BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE. SUBSEQUENT SUBMITTAL FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD WILL REQUIRE 15 COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS (1 ORIGINAL AND 14 COPIES). PLANS AND APPLICATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COLLATED, STAPLED AND FOLDED INTO SETS. THE APPLICANT, BY FILING THIS APPLICATION, AGREES TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. FIRE DEPT PRELIMARY SITE PLAN REVIEW FEE: $200 APPLICATION FEE: $1,205 PROPERTY OWNER (PER DEED): 1822 Drew, LLC (Attn: Peter Marks) MAILING ADDRESS: 107 Moore Street, Princeton, NJ 08540 PHONE NUMBER: (609) 497-9640 EMAIL: AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE: Mr. Robert Pergolizzi, AICP/PTP Gulf Coast Consulting, Inc. MAILING ADDRESS: 13825 ICOT Blvd., Suite 605, Clearwater, FL 33760 PHONE NUMBER: 727-524-1818 EMAIL: pergo@gulfcoastconsultinginc.com ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1822 Drew Street PARCEL NUMBER(S): 12/29/15/00000/330/0300 & 12/19/15/00000/330/0400 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Attached Legal Description PROPOSED USE(S): Retail Plaza DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Flexible Development request to modify existing building to include retail use (coffee shop) within Specifically identify the request a buiiding containing existing o�ces. Fiexibility to setbacks to reflect existing conditions. Flexibility to (include a!I requested code flexibility; setbacks in an MDR zone for non-residential off-street parking to achieve code required parking. e.g., reduction in required number of parking spaces, height, setbacks, lot Height increase to 30-feet where 25-feet is permitted for decorative cupola. size, lot width, specific use, etc.): Ptanning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 1 of 8 Revised 01/12 ° Clearwater U Planning & Development Department Flexible Developrnent Application Data Sheet PLEASE ENSURE THAT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS FILLED OUT, IN ITS ENTIRETY. FAILURE TO COMPLETE THIS FORM WILL RESULT IN YOUR APPLICATION BEING FOUND INCOMPLETE AND POSSIBLY DEFERRED UNTIL THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION CYCLE. ZONING DISTRICT: FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION: Commercial (C) and Medium Density Residential (MDR) Commercial General (CG) and Residential Medium EXISTING USE (currently existing on site): Existing office building PROPOSED USE (new use, if any; plus existing, if to remain): Retail Plaza SITE AREA: 37,331 (25854 C, 11477 MDR) Sq, ft. 0.857 GROSS FLOOR AREA (total square footage of all buildings): Existing: 11,940 sq. ft. Proposed: 11,690 sq. ft. Maximum Allowable: .55 FAR, �a,zzo (c o�iy� sq. ft. acres GROSS FLOOR AREA (total square footage devoted to each use, if there will be multiple uses): First use: Sq• ft• Second use: sq. ft. Third use: sq. ft. FLOOR AREA RATIO (total square footage of all buildings divided by the total square footage of entire site): Existing: 0.46 (C only) Proposed: 0.45 (C only) Maximum Allowable: 0.55 FAR BUILDING COVERAGE/FOOTPRINT (lstfloor square footage of all buildings): Existing: 11,940 sq. ft. ( 32 % of site) Proposed: 11,690 Sq. ft. ( 31 % of site) Maximum Permitted: 20,532 sq. ft. ( 55 % ofsite) GREEN SPACE WITHIN VEHICULAR USE AREA (green space within the parking lot and interior of site; not perimeter buffer): Existi ng: � sq. ft. ( � % of site) Proposed: 1,779 sq. ft. ( 5 % of site) VEHICULAR USE AREA (parking spaces, drive aisles, loading area): Existing: 18,968 sq. ft. ( 5� Proposed: 17,613 sq. ft. ( 47 % of site) % of site) Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 2 of 8 Revised 01/12 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO (total square footage of impervious areas divided by the total square footage of entire site): Existing: o.as (cc > i o.ss �RM ) Proposed: 0.87 (CG) / 0.65 (RM) Maximum Permitted: 0.90 (CG) / 0.75 (RM) DENSITY (units, rooms or beds per acre) Existing: NA Proposed: NA Maximum Permitted: 15 units/acre OFF-STREET PARKING: Existing: 11 spaces Proposed: 47 spaces Minimum Required: 47 spaces BUILDING HEIGHT: Existing: 1-story (11.5 feet) Proposed: 1-story (30 feet) Maximum Permitted: 25-feet WHAT IS THE ESTIMATED TOTAL VALUE OF THE PROJECT UPON COMPLETION? $ 200,000 ZONING DISTRICTS FOR ALL ADJACENT PROPERTY: North: Medium Density Residential (MDR) South: Institutional (I) East: Commercial (C) and Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) West: Commercial (C) STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all Sworn to and subscribed before me this �`�� day of representations made in this application are true and '� �, to me and/or by accurate to the best of my knowledge and authorize , , City representatives to visit and photograph the �Ghtr+ � I'�O�d�Z!_, Who is personally known has property descri�ed in this application. produced as identification. of properi� ok�er or representative Notary�'iublic,Y Mycommissionexpires: �Q,� �� :=o`'�r'°°4�: JACQUELINE M RIVERA 't `€ MY COMMISSION #FF121863 e;�, � o�, `-•.',�aF�;d?:'.� EXPIRES May 11, 2oys (ao7) 3se-o153 FloridallotaryService.com Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 3 of 8 Revised 01/12 o Plannin� �. Developrnent Department � �l�arwat�� Flexible Development Application �°� Site Plan Submittal Package Check list IN ADDITION 7'O THE COMPLETED FLEXIBLE DEVELOPMENT (FLD) APPLICR,TION, ALL FLD RPPLICATIONS SFfALL INCLUDE A SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL PACI<AGE THAT INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING IIVFORMATION AND/OR PLANS: � Responses to the flexibility criteria for the specific use(s) being requested as set forth in the Zoning District(s) in which the subject property is located. The attached Flexible Development Application Flexibility Criteria sheet shall be used to provide these responses. � Responses to the General Applicability criteria set forth in Section 3-914.A. The attached Flexible Development Application General Applicability Criteria sheet shall be used to provide these responses. � A signed and sealed survey of the property prepared by a registered land surveyor including the location of the property, dimensions, acreage, location of all current structures/improvements, location of all public and private easements including official records book and page numbers and street right(s)-of-way within and adjacent to the site. �❑ If the application would result in the removal or relocation of mobile home owners residing in a mobile home park as provided in F.S. § 723.083, the application must provide that information required by Section 4-202.A.5. N.p ❑ If this application is being submitted for the purpose of a boatlift, catwalk, davit, dock, marina, pier, seawall or other similar marine structure, then the application must provide detailed plans and specifications prepared by a Florida professional engineer, bearing the seal and signature of the engineer, except signed and sealed plans shall not be required for the repair or replacement of decking, stringers, railing, lower landings, tie piles, or the patching or reinforcing of existing piling on private and commercial docks. �I A site plan prepared by a professional architect, engineer or landscape architect drawn to a minimum scale of one inch equals 50 feet on a sheet size not to exceed 24 inches by 36 inches that includes the following information: � Index sheet of the same size shall be included with individual sheet numbers referenced thereon. � North arrow, scale, location map and date prepared. � Identification of the boundaries of phases, if development is proposed to be constructed in phases. up � 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. �1. Location and dimensions of vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems, both on-site and off-site, with proposed points of access. � Location of all existing and proposed sidewalks, curbs, water lines, sanitary sewer lines, storm drains, fire hydrants and seawalls and any proposed utility easements. � Location of onsite and offsite stormwater management facilities as well as a narrative describing the proposed stormwater control plan including calculations. Additional data necessary to demonstrate compliance with the City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria manual may be required at time of building construction permit. N� ❑ Location of solid waste collection facilities, required screening and provisions for accessibility for collection. �US�`% �' �a°n'�� ` e�� u �tF, ❑ 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 witlth, existing median cuts and intersections and bus shelters. � Dimensions of existing and proposed lot lines, streets, drives, building lines, setbacks, structural overhangs and building separations. �. Building or structure elevation drawings that depict the proposed building height and building materials. Planning & Development Depariment, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 4 of 8 Revised 07/12 �. Typical floor plans, including floor plans for each floor of any parking garage. QiQ ❑ Demolition pian. ��. ❑ Identification and tlescription of watercourses, wetlands, tree masses, specimen trees, and other environmentally sensitive areas. ❑ If a deviation from the parking standards is requested that is greater than 50% (excluding those standards where the Ndifference between the top and bottom of the range is one parking space), then a parking demand study will need to be � provided. The findings of the study will be used in determining whether or not deviations to the parking standards are approved. Please see the adopted Parking Demand Study Guidelines for further information. � A tree survey showing the location, DBH and species of all existing trees with a DBH of four inches or more, and identifying those trees proposed to be removed, if any. �P, � 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. �❑— ��1"Iy. A TrafFic Impact Study shall be required for all proposed developments if the total generated net new trips meet one or more of the following conditions: C cj�,� �f-Gf�,n, QSSe�S r�G�'�� ■ Proposal is expected to generate 100 or more new trips in any given hour (directional trips, inbound or outbound on the abutling streets) and/or 1,000 or more new trips per day; or ■ Anticipated new trip generation degrades the level of service as adopted in the City's Comprehensive Plan to unacceptable levels; or ■ The study area contains a segment of roadway and/or intersection with five reportable accidents within a prior twelve month period, or the segment and/or intersection exists on the City's annual list of most hazardous locations, provided by the City of Clearwater Police Department; or ■ The Traffic Operations Manager or.their designee deems it necessary to require such assessment in the plan review process. Examples include developments that are expected to negatively impact a constrained roadway or developments with unknown trip generation and/or other unknown factors. � A landscape plan shall be provided for any project where there is a new use or a change of use; or an existing use is improved or remodeled in a value of 25% 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 Ardcle 3, Division 14. The landscape plan shall include the following information, if not otherwise required in conjunction with the application for development approval: 1� 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. 1�. Location of existing and proposed structures and improvements, including but not limited to sidewalks, walls, fences, pools, patios, dumpster pads, pad mounted transformers, fire hydrants, overhead obstructions, curbs, water lines, sanitary sewer lines, storm drains, seawalls, utility easements, treatment of all ground surfaces, and any other features that may influence the proposed landscape. � Location of parking areas and other vehicular use areas, including parking spaces, circulation aisles, interior landscape islands and curbing. � Drainage and retention areas, including swales, side slopes and bottom elevations. �1. Delineation and dimensions of all required perimeter landscaped bufFers including sight triangles, if any. Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrfle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 5 of 8 Revised 01/12 o Planning �i Development Department � C ear�vater Flexible Development Application � General Applicability Criteria PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO EACH OF THE SIX (6) GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA EXPLAINING HOW, IN DETAIL, THE CRITERION IS BEING COMPLIED WITH PER THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. 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 building is existing. The architectural improvements will include a new mansard roof, minor building modifications and substantial parking lot improvements to add landscaping. Site will meet all required ISR and FAR criteria and will remain a single-story building. Surrounding uses are primarily retail with a residential use to the north. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impairthe value thereof. All surrounding properties are currently already developed with retail uses and associated parking, as well as multi-family residential uses and a single family home to the north (#221 Tulane Ave). The redevelopment will place buffers to the north where none currently exist and provide landscaping and paving improvements that will increase the appearance and thus property values in the area. This may provide incentive for other improvements. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. The building is primarily vacant. This renovation and upgrade will provide employment opportunities for those living nearby. The proposed coffee shop will not adversely affect the neighborhood, and the site /building upgrades will be a significant improvement to the area compared to existing conditions_ The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. The expected trip generation is 518 daily trips with 32 occurring during the PM peak hour. An existing substandard driveway to Drew Street will be removed and replaced with landscaping and a sidewalk connection. The removal of this driveway will be a safety upgrade that will provide better access control and minimize traffic conflicts/congestion and increase pedestrian friendliness. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The community character is primarily retail fronting Drew Street with residential immediately adjacent to the north. The parking lot and landscape improvements will enhance the community character, and the proposed retail piaza with outdoor seating will provide visible activity that is currently lacking along the Drew Street corridor. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. The retail plaza will be indoors with minimal outdoor seating adjacent to the front of the building. There will be landscaping/screening added. The affects on adjacent properties is minimal. The significant landscaping improvements wili enhance the area and provide activity to a primarily vacant building. Retail hours of operation are expected to be 6AM-9PM and 6AM-11 PM Fridays and Saturdays. Planning 8� Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 6 of 8 Revised 01/12 ° �lear�at�r � U Planning & Development Department Flexible De�elopment Application Flexibilitv Criteria PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO THE APPLICABLE FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR THE SPECIFIC USE(S) BEING REQUESTED AS SET FORTH IN THE ZONING DISTRICT(5) IN WHICH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED. EXPLAIN HOW, IN DETAIL, EACH CRITERION IS BEING COMPLIED WITH PER THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL (USE SEPARATE SHEETS AS NECESSARY). 1. z. 3. 4. 5. 6. �. s. See Attached Narrative See Attached Narrative See Attached Narrative See Attached Narrative See Attached Narrative See Attached Narrative See Attached Narrative � Planning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 7 of 8 Revised 01/12 ° �learwater �� Planning tBr Development Departrrient Flexible Development Application Affidavit to Autha�°ize Agent/Representative 1. Provide names of all property owners on deed — PRINT full names: 1822 Drew, LLC _ Mr. Peter Marks 2. That (I am/we are) the owner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property: 1822 Drew Street _ 3. That this property constitutes the property for which a request for (describe request): Flexible Development Application 4. That the undersigned (has/have) appointed and (does/do) appoint: Robert Pergolizzi, AICP/PTP as (hisJtheir) agent(s) to execute any petitions or other documents necessary to affect such petition; 5. That this affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act on the above described property; 6. That site visits to the property are necessary by City representatives in order to process this application and the owner authorizes City representatives to visit and photograph the property described in this application; 7. That (I/we), the undersigned authority, hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. 1F % , �c+r�- frt..r�-, --T Property Owner a-t�_� g,�- Property Owner lb2z ��r��., L.�,c Property Owner STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PYNELLAS Property Owner BEFORE ME THE UNDERSIGNED, AN OFFICER DULY COMMISSIONED BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, ON `�� DAY OF `��`�`��`�- 2� I� , PERSONALLYAPPEARED THIS � . � �e.!, �.�- �v1 �.- t..S WHO HAVING BEEN FIRST DULY SWORN DEPOSED AND SAYS THAT HE/SHE FULLY UNDERSTANDS THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT THAT HE/SHE SIGNED. ASHLEY SAiTERFIEL6 Natary Public, 5tsts o( FloriQa My Cartm. Expirea June 1�, 201 � No. FF 134103 Notary Seal/Stamp .�,`Q�, ��,..� � ��, � � Notary Public Signature My Commission Expires: � � � � � Z�'@ � Planning & Development DeparEment, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 8 of 8 Revised 01/12 e- l' ` � � �' a - � ��` �� t � , { i � � 7 •� t'� j � � a e. '�. � > , � x .. , * �a t t � . ,.e ,. . .' . e ....r- ^-� . '—` r _' r ,S '• ' � � .--�- m • _ .. I � ', I._ •. ' � - ',� .,'�: - � � �i ° � �, �� .S � �� l� �� - r-- � - '�. :i : '`. / r" � j, i•': ��! - _ ,E..� � -! - , . - � -. - � - - � 4 --:-- ,, . �.�� r m �....� � (•. - N �� 1 - ; .�� __ � -_ . _ �. � - / ___ . . • . � ,� `,. �� - - , , , �i � _. � ', i 'z ' . ...� � .� -� i � � �1 . ..., _ . : ,. _ . , _. � :... _ . . � � � ` -- �__ � �; � ': � � • , _ ■ "_ � '�� . �� 1. ; �� , -'7'- f , � .' �! ; _ 5 I' ., '�... mm� s.!. 1.� 1 I. - �.. „�I �. � l � i--�-.� I'i �.',;,. - � - , r- r ' .r � '— _ "'°` f V�"" ! , •j � r �_,� t ;� t , i .- ._ . �—.. .. m.. .-,, sw.. . . ,�. .s. e . .. _..... j �.... r... , �. , .; _ � ;� �-_.� �. �_ � - . . — __. _ _� �. ; . �� ' __ . � . _ .. . __ � _ _ I •. a_ — - -� � = , .. _� � ..,.. , � ; �. .� '�- �;. .� ` . ,. , _. � ._ � . . � � ° _. ; _ � � v � ,.__ . __., �_. �; �� _ �� l I#: 2009216005 BK: 16672 PG: 331, 08/14/2009 $35.50 D DOC STAMP COLLECTION $5931.80 KEN COUNTY, FL BY DEPUTY CLERK: CLKDMC6 � �_ 3S. � �oc ��9��.�0 Prepar�d by and Returnto: Joseph W. Gaynor, Esquire Johnsan, Pope, Bokor, Ruppe! &�ums, LLP P.O. Box 1368 Clearwater, Florida 33757-1368 7elephone: 727-461-1818 at 03:15 PM, RECORDING 4 PAGES BURKE, CLERK OF COURT PINELLAS � , �, , ,� ,� _ „ __ -_. , _ - ,, _,�, , . ,, ., , ,, -- �. ,- -- , �' �``� � �`� � � � i � �� `� . , , -- � . , ,' -�% - , �_- , • ,' ,, � � . , � . ,, _ • .', � STATUTORY WARRAI��QEED,'�",' ��'��'S• �� 200�J, between ENDEAVOR THIS INDENTURE, is made on „ CAPITAL PARTNERS I, LLC, a Florida lir.�ited i�b�if�,�ompany ("Grantor"), whose posfi office address is 121 Moonachie Aveh�fe, ��Iloona�k�iE; N.1 07074, and 1822 DREW, LLC, a Flarida �limited liability company ("Gran�ee"),'whose post office address is c% RoDert Potter, Esq., 91 � Chestnuk�Stre�t;.Clean;�iater, FL 33756. , ; � �. -- �' WI'FN�ESSETH: , , � , Grantor, for and,.iij%con�ideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideraticm��o C�f�n�oi�n hand paid by Grantee, the receipt and suffiiciency of which are hereby��nrledged, has granted, bargained and sold io Grantee, and Grantee's heirs,-sue�es�a;s and assigns forever, the fo(lowing described lancf, situated in Pinellas Cvi�nty, �fq��da:;; , � �� `,� - ;'�, T1dE NOF�'TH 150 FEET OF THE SOUTH 2OtJ FEET OF ��; �TFFE=1Z1%�ST 148.92 FEET OF TH� EAST 1/2 OF THE -----_� 1(�/�EST 1/2 (7F THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE -''-�Ot1THWEST 1/4 OF SECTlON 12, TOWiVSHIP 29 �, SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST, PIIVELlAS COUNTY, FLORIDA. � :��, ��.' AND �� ; THE NORTH 100 FEET OF THE SOUTH 3�0 FEET �F ��' THE WEST 149.92 FEET OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE '- WEST �/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1I4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTIOfd 12, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST, PII�ELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA. Note to Administrator: The consideration for this conveqance is $847,314.00 PINELLAS COUNTY FL OFF. REC. BK 16672 PG 332 �---� SUBJECT to applicable land use and zoning restrictions and to easements, reservations and restrictions of record, if any, .� �� ,� �� _ i� __ -''-,�. _ , . ,` ,� ,� which are specifically not reimpQSed or extended hereby, -: _��, �� and to taxes for the year 2009 and subsequent years. �;�� ,', ��,�> � , � � �, � Granfor does hereby fully warrant fihe iitle to said land and will,defer�cF,the s�tne against the lawfi�ul claims of all persons whomsoever. ,'��' ��_- � ,-, �� ,, The tax parcel numbers for ihe aforedescribed property are: �, ��, ,� ; 12129/15J00000/330/0300 and 12129/15/000001330/0400 , _ _ IR! WfTNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has hereunto "s�� Grantor's hand and seal the day and year first above wriYcen. ,., ��,'. �,, , , �;'_ ..' , Signed, sealed and delivered � ` � �� in ihe presence of: '�idDEK��l,OFt CAPITAL PARTNERS I, ,' -_;� LL�; a�lorida limited liability company ,. � � � By:,lts �lanaging Member: � . ,; ,� �, , ;-� � � Sy: , . Si atur . � ,,'� ,��'' � � �' Eric Lear, Manager/lnterim � ,�,, '��'.'� Managing Member Committee P�int na �"<�� ', �a,r �i �P�% " �n� % �� ; , , nt ny ri�e; `,�,, ,, ,' / ,�_- : �,�A_% c � :1�.��..:_ ►' -- ' 2 ,: By: icholas m , Manager/ lnterim Mana ing Member Commitfee PINELLAS COUNTY FL OFF. REC. BK 16672 PG 333 . Sig ture . �� i 5-�-�n �Ia�-�-i �. Z Print n�� ,� , � l �� )f� Signature� �U � �I� °kY Print name STATE OF IV2�tt� ) COUNTY OF ) .� �� << �� _ �� --. � _ -. . _ `, � . ,, �, 8�: • `� . , � , Peter Marks, Manager/Int�rit�. �� Managing Member Cor��iitte�,�, '�,', ,i �, ,. � ,, , �� , , � _ ,, , _;; , ,� , __ , , ___ � � ,-,� �� ,, , , , � . ,, „ ,. � � ; , ,.. ... � � _ _ ,� °.-,:, ...-,.. , � ' , _ �.. � , ,',' . � .�,,,,,��,,,,, , , ', � r x '•,,, , �-. The foregoing instrument was ac�ROwJedgep taetor 2009, by Eric Lear, as Managerlinterirra' ' ,,�e company. He ersonal�y krtpwn ' to �; ,_: � ,i � �. � l �\ / ,; '�' �, me this � d�r'`��r•.,. '`��.,�,. mittee, on b�l��o�he �''•��_ me ��' � � Y / � ��' , ~ - A Q ' : IVotary Pl�i5lic Print name My commission 61ic, State ot New Jersey :DiPiltfTS3fon Expires May28, 2012 ,' —' i �� `�, �, � � . � � �i i STATE O�, � ) COUNTY Q� - } ",`'�;he foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1��'day,af. July, 2b��3,� 6y �iicholas Carnevale, as Ma ' ' er Co��,i��e,,�d'n ""•� .; . beh�lf', of%the cornpany. He personally known to me _ '•. °r� =; , ,,> . _ ' I ' _ F�° '� ^a • � <,�p ` , y� � � '`` .� = { Notary Pu6hc •; - �- _ .., Print name . My commission expir :r+ata�vP�S,;�,StotaofNewJarsey MyComm{ssion Ezplres May ?8. 2012 • 3 PINELLAS COUNTY F2, OFF. REC. BK 16672 PG 334 .� . �� • �� _ �� • �� ---. � � -�'� ,.- � . . ;� , , . STATE OF 2�_ ) ��,'� COUNTY �F �' i.�AS ) _- . � ,'; -.' ,'.��, ,, The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1% J� c(ay of Ji�l�, °� 2009, by Peter Marks, as Managedlnterim Nianaging Member Comrrtit#e�,��oh behaLf of the company. He [is personally known to rne],�.'[h�s '��od'uced as id�ntifiG'aEion]. �; ` , . �}, �� / , ot ry Put�l' ,s�;,,,.,,, .r�e.yar�a� ' t nam� � � � ::�? "�; • :�. �- MY COMMISSION # DD 882106 �, F�(RIRES•June162013 My cc�mmiss' expare�: �:Pfh�� sa,aeenwr�i�u�5 , ._ �� .44584.107377 � �� ; � �k394877 v1 - ECP/1808 Drew Statutory Warranty Deed �� ", • �� - - �. `� � � �' - �' � ) � ` �" , �� ` , . , i � � � �`. i � � . � '. •` _ � .` , ` . . . ,' . � �`. ,� . . , `� : .� _ ` .� `� `� � � `` � i � '\ ii i` � ` r � �� . � � ` i � � �__ � --_ i �� . �� ) � � 1 � i � � , �` � � _ � i 4 PREPARED BY AND RETURN TO: Steven A. Williamson, Esq. 911 Chestnut Street Clearwater, FL 33756 727-461-1818 KEN BURKE, CLERK OF CO�aT AND COMPTROLtER PlNELLAg COUNTY, FL INST# 2a15066968 03/10/2015 at 04:25 pIN OFF REC BK: 187p4 PG: 1704-1706 �OCtYpe�AGM RECORDING: $27,pp DECLARA.TION OF UNITY OF TITLE Property Owner: 1822 Drew, LLC, a Florida Limited Liabilify Company Property Address: 1822 Drew Street, Clearwater, FL 33765 KNOW OP ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that pursuant to the ordinances of the City of Clearwater pertaining to the issuance of building permits and regulating land development activities, the undersigned, being the fee owner (s} of the following described real property situated in the City of Clearwater, County of Pinellas and State of Florida, to wit: See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein; do hereby make the following declaration of conditions, limitations and restrictions on said lands, hereafter to be known and referred to as a DECLARATION OF UNITY OF TITLE, as to the following particulars: ]. That the aforesaid plot or combination of separate lots, plots, parcels, acreage or portions thereof, shall hereafter be regarded as and is hereby declared to be unified under one title as an indivisible building site. 2. That the said property shall henceforth be considered as one plot or parcel of tand, and that no portion thereof shall be sold, assigned, transferred, conveyed or devised separately except in its entirety, as one plot or parcel of land. 3. The sale, assignment, transfer, conveyance or devise of a condominium parcel created by a recorded declaration of condominium subjecting the property to the condominium form of ownership shall not be deemed a breach of the declaration of unity of title; however, the entire property shall continue to be regarded as unifed and as a single building site for all applicable code purposes. 4. That this Declaration of Unity of Title shall constitute a covenant to run with the land, as provided by taw, and shall be binding upon the undersigned, and the successors and assigns of the undersigned, and all parties claiming under them until such time as the same may be released in writing under the order of the City Manager of the City of Clearwater. The undersigned also agree(s) that this instrument shall be recorded in the public records of Pinellas County, Florida. � da of �'}'ti's i�__� 2015, in the County of Signed, sealed, witnessed and acknowledged this �> _ Y �.�--f?r }��--' State of � I l � � � �1 �� • O WNER: WITNESSES: , ignature �a_ ��'�'=� c.\C�i-rnYi�' Print name , Signatur p < � �< 1 n �� nnl� � ` 1 .�1{� ! li --�� - •- Print name STATE OF *\' V`�•......��'I�' iI .d��~coP . �15SIONF'' ,'P i+s ; � p� 2g pQ 'ro • _ : � ,J�y �s'�9F ; �. N�� k: �'• ; =2 : #EE097625 l � �� q9j.'!�rd :� '��; �„�� -f . A�� ... •� �.;,°�: 1822 Drew, LLC, a Florida limited liability company gy: ECP Property Holdings, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Manager By: :: Peter Marks, Manager The foregoing instrument �vas acknowledged before me this �� day of �`�C� rc. r , 2015, by Peter Marks, as Manager of ECP Property Iioldings, LLC, ited liability company, as Manager of 1822 Drew, LLC, a Florida 'mited liability company, on behalf of the company. �a Notary Public Signature � � ) Name of Notary Printed � � Notary Commission Num6er: (SEAL ABOVE) personally kno�+.n or produced identification " Type of identification produced �i -P Ll > >� fS � U t' � EXHIBIT A THE NORTH 150 FEET OF THE SOUTH 200 FEET OF THE WEST 148.92 FEET OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION � 2, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST, P{NELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN D TNE NORTH 100 FEET OF THE SOUTH 300 FEET OF THE WEST 149.92 FEET OF THE EAST 112 OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 114 OF THE SOUTHWEST � l4 OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHlP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA. COMPREHENSIVE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT P�oject C�ite�icz 1. The development or redevelopment is otherwise impractical without deviations from use andlor development standards set forth in this zoning district. The Commercial (C) zoning district lists "Retail Plaza" as a permitted use in the minimum Development Standard Development section (Table 2-702). Deviation to setbacks to pavement is necessary to be able to achieve the required code parking given the site constraints. The site has been developed since 1973 and demolishing the entire building is impractical. Currently, only a small portion of the area is rented as of�ce space and a change of use is warranted. In addition, existing pavement (parking) does not meet required setbacks, therefore proceeding as a Comprehensive Infill redevelopment project is necessary. In keeping with the mixed-use nature of the area, which includes retail plazas, offices, apartments, and a single-family homes, the proposed retail use is a reasonable use on this property. 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 a retail plaza is consistent with the CG land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan in that retail commercial uses are a permitted primary use. Retail plazas are also consistent with the Commercial (C) zoning of the property. The retail plaza will provide employment opportunities in close proximity to housing and will provide much needed street activity with the proposed outdoor seating. Goal A6 of the Comprehensive Plan encourages flexible planning and engineering practices in order to redevelop blighted areas and encourage infill development. Policy A6.2.1 specifies the site plan approval process should encourage infill development. Policy A.6.4.1 specifies redevelopment of small parcels (< 1 acre} shall be encouraged as a method of promoting urban infill. Policy A.5.5.1 specifies development should be designed to maintain and support the existing or envisioned character of the neighborhood. 3. The development or redevelopment will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding properties. The re-use of this site will not impede development or redevelopment of surrounding property. All surrounding property is currently developed with residential or commercial uses. The existing rear parking area is an eyesore which needs upgrading. This will be a benefit to surrounding properties. 4. Adjoining properties will not suffer substantial detriment as a result of the proposed development. Page 1 of 4 The re-use of this property as a retail plaza is compatible with adjacent land uses. All surrounding property is currently developed with residential or commercial uses. This property provides a commercial buffer between heavily traveled Drew Street to the south and the residential uses to the north. 5. The proposed use shall otherwise be permitted by the underlying future land use category, be compatible with adjacent land uses, will not substantially alter the essential use characteristics of the neighborhood; and shall demonstrate compliance with one or more of the following objectives: a. The proposed use is permitted in this zoning district as a minimum standard, flexible standard or flexible development use; b. The proposed use would be a significant economic contributor to the City's economic base by diversifying the local economy or by creating jobs; c. The development proposal accommodates the expansion or redevelopment of an existing economic contributor d. The proposed use provides for the provision of affordable housing e. The proposed use provides for development or redevelopment in an area that is characterized by other similar development and where a land use plan amendment and rezoning would result in spot land use or zoning designation; f. The proposed use provides for the development of a new and/or preservation of a working waterfront use a. The proposed re-use as a retail plaza is a permitted use in the underlying CG land use category and C zoning district. The CG category allows a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.55. The redevelopment will generally follow the bulk regulations for the C zoning district. b. The proposed use would contribute to the local economy by providing retail jobs once completed. It is not a significant economic contributor though. c. The existing plaza is an economic contributor, the re-use as a retail plaza will provide jobs and expand on this economic contributor. d. The reuse does not involve affordable housing. e. The area is characterized by predominantly residential and commercial uses. The re- use as a retail plaza is consistent with the underlying CG land use and C zoning, a land use plan amendment or rezoning are not needed. The existing property is in need of upgrading. The redevelopment will provide code compliant parking, drainage facilities, and landscaping improvements that will benefit the area and provide a buffer to the north. f. The project does not involve working waterfront uses. Page 2 of 4 6. Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks, height, and off-street paxking 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 of materials and colors Distinctive fenestration patterns Building stepbacks; and Distinctive roof forms e. The proposed development provides for appropriate buffers, enhances landscape design and appropriate distances between buildings. a. The redevelopment of the site as a retail plaza will not impede the development of surrounding properties since they are mostly already developed with residential or commercial uses in the "C" zoning district or apartments and homes in the MDR zoning district. b. NA c. The height of the existing building is 1-story (30 feet) and is slightly higher than the 25-foot maximum, this is because of a decorative cupola that is being added to provide architectural interest. It is similar to the heights of the adjacent retail buildings to the east and west. This re-uses provides an FAR well below allowable limits currently permitted in the CG land use category and C zoning district. d. We propose to beautify the front fa�ade by adding a colonnade for potential outdoor seating for the coffee shop. This will visually create some relief and depth to the front elevation. We are also proposing to add a metal mansard roof on three sides of the building to try to match the architectural style of the neighboring building across Tulane road. We also propose to add 3 gabled roof features on the front fa�ade to break up the length and monotony of the existing elevation. We will use a variety of materials on the front fagade such as, 2 types of siding with corner trim and decorative gable detailing. Stucco will be used on the remaining walls with the addition of window banding on all windows of the building. Page 3 of 4 e. The site will be upgraded with signifcant landscape features, drainage treatment facilities, and provides appropriate buffers given the adjoining uses. Much area is being turned into landscape buffers where none exist today, while still providing code required parking. The goal is to preserve the existing buildings since demolition and reconstruction is impractical. Page 4 of 4 Non-residential off-street parking in MDR zone Section 2-304 G 1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from one or more of the following: intensity; other development standards. The redevelopment of the site to a retail plaza is impractical without the continued use of the existing portion of land within the MDR district for parking. The existing building was built in 1973. The land area in question has been part of the overall property and has served as a parking lot for several years. Additional landscaping will be added to the non-residential off- street parking lot within the MDR district and will increase the existing inadequate/non- existent front setback to a 10-foot — 23 foot front (west) setback along Tulane Avenue. The site will be buffered from the adjoining single-family home to the north with a new 6-foot high wood fence to replace the existing chain link fence, and extensive landscapin� will be provided within a 10-foot buffer inside the fence. The 5-foot buffer on the east side of the MDR parking lot is adequate in that it directly abuts a commercial parking lot for the adjoining retail property to the east. Most other development standards per CDC Section 2-304.0 for non-residential off-street parking within the MDR district are met with this proposal. The parcel proposed for parking lot use is contiguous to the parcel on which the non- residential use which will be served by the off-street parking spaces, is located and has a common boundary of at least 25 feet. The access to the off-street parking does involve the use of a local street (Tulane Avenue) however Tulane Avenue has mixed- uses including retail, apartments, and a single-family home. All outdoor lighting in this supplemental parking lot will be automatically switched to turn off at 9:00 PM. All parking spaces will be paved surface parking meeting City of Clearwater parking space standards. 2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project will not materially reduce the fair market value of abutting properties. The land is question has been part of the overall property since 1973 and has served as a small parking lot for the adjacent building. The site serves as a transitional area between the more intense commercial activities along Drew Street to the south west and the single-family house to the north. Surrounding uses include medium-density residential to the north, commercial uses to the west, commercial uses/zoning to the east served by a non-residential parking lot with LMDR zoning the east. The parcel in question has been used as non-residential off-street parking since 1973. The proposal will include improving the parcel with extensive landscaping and providing a buffer that will negate any minimal impact and improve the appearance to abutting properties. 3. The uses within the residential infill project are otherwise permitted in the district. Non-residential off-street parking is a permitted use within the MDR district through a Flexible Development review. 4. The uses within the residential infill project are compatible with adjacent land uses. The parking lot has existed for several years and there have been no issues with adjacent property owners. The use of this area for a parking lot will be an improvement compared to existing conditions. Landscape buffers will be provided where non currently exist. 5. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a residential infill project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. New buffering and landscaping will be provided on the north, east and west sides of this lot. The 47 parking spaces are required to meet code. The non-residential off-street parking is critical to the success of the proposed retail plaza which will provide a new use for a mostly vacant building. The overall site will be upgraded with new landscaping and will be an upgrade to the immediate vicinity. The building is no longer viable as solely office space as evidenced by substantial vacancy and the conversion to a retail plaza is the only realistic option. 6. The design of the proposed residential infill project creates a form and function which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. The parking area has been there for several years, upgrades to the parking lot and the overall site are proposed for the new retail plaza. The installation of landscaping (where there is none currently) will enhance the community character. The facade treatments and outdoor seating for the retail plaza will enhance the community character that is lacking along Drew Street. The parking is critical to the overall redevelopment of the site with a retail plaza and this necessitates parking in the MDR district. 7. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height, off-street parking, access or other development standards are justified by the benefits to community character and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. The pavement in the northern, western, and eastern area will be removed and replaced with landscaping to a setback of 10 feet on the north, 10-feet to 23 feet on the west and 5 feet on the east where it abuts another parking lot. The parking has been there for several years. The proposal will include improving the parcel with extensive landscaping and providing a buffer that will negate any minimal impact and improve the appearance to abutting properties. Within the CG land use category the ISR is virfually unchanged, and in the RM lands use category the ISR is decreasing substantially, since this is where most of the landscape buffers are located. Overall, the ISR is being reduced from 87% to 82% for the total site. 1822 DREW STREET RETAIL PLAZA TfZAFFIC ASSESSMENT Redevelopment of this property would provide for a sit-down coffee shop in a portion of an existing office building. The project is considered a"retail plaza" by the City of Clearwater consistent with "C" zoning definitions due to the mixture of uses. Specialty retail centers typically have a lower traffic generation than typical shopping centers due to a mixture of uses (ie: offices) etc. Using average weekday trip generation rates from Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, gtn Edition would be appropriate. Attached are excerpts from ITE Trip Generation, 9th Edition, Land Use Code 826 (Specialty Retail Center). The average trip generation rates are as follows: Specialty Retail Center = 44.32 daily trips/ 1,000 SF 2.71 PM peak hour trips/1,000 SF The trip generation calculation for the proposed retail plaza is shown below: 11,690 SF X 44.32 daily trips /1,000 SF = 518 daily trips 11,690 SF x 2.71 PM peak hour trips/1,000 SF= 32 PM peak hour trips A detailed traffic analysis is not required per Clearwater standards. According to the MPO 2014 Level of Service Report the adjacent segment of Drew Street (Saturn — NE Coachman) operates at LOS D carrying 26,570 vehicles per day AADT with 0.742 v/c ratio. Facility Juris Plan Fac Road LOS Length Signals LOS AADT Volume Physical V:Cap Def Fac Area Type Type Std (mi) Per Mife Meth Capacity Ratio Flag LOS 608 - DOUGLAS AVE: (STEVENSONS CREEK -to- SUNSET POINT RD) CR 06 SMC 4U D .487 4.11 T 4,122 215 1,155 .186 D C 610 - DOUGLAS AVE: (SUNSET POINT RD -to- UNION ST) CR 06 NMC 4U D .505 .00 T 4,122 215 3,572 .060 0 6 611 - DOUGLAS AVE: (UNION ST -to- BELTREES ST) DN 04 SMC 2D D .505 1.98 T 4,122 215 601 .358 0 6 612 - DOUGLAS AVE: (BELTREES ST -to- MAIN ST) DN 04 SMC 2U D .478 2.09 T 4,612 241 559 .431 0 C 613 - DOUGLAS AVE: (MAIN ST-to- SKINNER BLVD) DN 04 NMC 2U D .282 .00 T 4,612 241 1;440 .167 0 B 615 - DOUGLAS RD: (COMMERCE BLVD -to- RACE TRACK RD) OLD 05 SMC 2U D 1.030 .97 T .5,940 310 572 .542 0 B 616 - DR MARTIN LUTHER KING JR ST N: (I-275 -to- GANDY BLVD) CR 11 SA 4D D 2.103 1.43 T 11,801 617 1,7G4 .350 0 8 617 - DR MARTIN LUTHER KING JR ST N: (GANDY BLVD -to- 62ND AVE N) SP 11 SA 4D D 2.310 2.G0 T 18',223 952 1,683 .566 0 C 618 - DR MARTIN LUTHER KING JR ST N: (62ND AVE N-to- 38TH AVE N) SP 11 SA 4D D 1.484 1.35 T 14,950 781 1;764 .443 0 B 619 - DR MARTIN LUTHER KING JR ST N: (9TH AVE N-ta- 22ND AVE N) SP 11 SA 4U D .753 1.33 T 14,684 767 1,676 .458 0 B 620 - DR MARTIN LUTHER KING JR ST N: (9TH AVE N-to- CENTRAL AVE) SP 11 SA 40 D .G90 11.59 T 9,408 894 3,726 .240 0 C 621 - DR MARTIN LUTHER KING JR ST N: (22ND AVE N-to- 38TH AVE N) SP 11 SA 4D D 1.022 2.94 T 13,277 694 1,G83 .412 0 C 622 - DR MARTIN LUTHER KING JR ST S: (CENTRAL AVE -to- STH ST S) SP 11 SA 40 D .656 10.G7 T 11,975 1,138 3,726 .305 0 C 624 - DR MARTIN LUTHER KING JR ST S: (8TH ST S-to- 26TH AVE S) SP 11 SA 4D D 1.157 3.46 T 15,479 809 1,683 .481 0 C 625 - DR MARTIN LUTHER KING JR ST S: (26TH AVE S-to-45TH AVE S) SP 11 NA 4U D 1.309 .00 T 13,848 724 ' 3,572 .203 0 B 62G - DR MARTIN LUTHER KING JR ST S: (45TH AVE S-to- 62ND AVE S) SP 11 SA 4U D 1.020 2.94 T 13,255 693 •�1,599 .433 0 C 627 - DREW ST: (MCMULLEN BOOTH RD -to- US 19) CL 06 SA 4D D 1.283 2.34 T 25,100 1,311 1,683 .779 0 D 628 - DREW 5T: (US 19 -to- NE COACIIMAN RD) CR 06 SA 4D D 1.406 2;13 T 30,070 1,571 1,683 .933 1 � 631 - DREW ST: (FT HARRISON AVE -to- MISSOURI AVE) SR 06 SA 4U D .715 4.20 T 11,279 589 1,776 .332 0 C 632 - DREW ST: (MISSOURI AVE -to- HIGHLAND AVE) SR OG SA 4U D .794 2.52 T 15,800 826 1,776 .465 0 C �633 - DREW ST: (HIGHLAND AVE -to- N SATURN AVE) SR 06 SA 4U D .634 3.15 T 27,000 1,411 1,776 .794 0 D 634 - DREW ST: (N SATURN AVE -to- NE COACHMAN RD) SR 06 SA 4D D .738 4.07 T 26,570 1,388 1,870 .742 0 D 636 - DRUID RD: (US 19 -to- BELCHER RD) CL 06 SMC 2D D 1.090 .92 T 6,155 322 601 .536 0 B 637 - DRUID RD: (BELCHER RD -to- KEENE RD) CL 06 SMC 2U D 1.007 1.99 T 6,155 322 572 .563 0 B 639 - DRUID RD: (KEENE RD -to- HIGHLAND AVE) CL 06 SMC 2U D .774 2.58 T 6,155 322 559 .576 0 C 643 - DUHME RD � 113TH ST: (WELCH CSWY -to- PARK BLVD) CR 09 SA 6D D 2.262 1.77 T 16,588 867 2,646 .328 0 B 644 - DUHME RD � 113TH ST: (PARK BLVD -to- 86TH AVE N) CR 09 SA 6D D .614 1.63 T 20,149 1,053 2,646 .398 0 B 645 - DUHME RD � 113TH ST: (86TH AVE N-to-102ND AVE N) CR 09 SA 4D D 1.016 1.97 T 20,149 1,053 1,764 .597 0 B 647 - DUNEDIN CSWY BLVD: (DRAWBRIDGE -to-ALT US 19) CR 04 SA 4D D .859 1.16 T 10,243 535 1,764 .303 0 B 648 - EAST LAKE RD: (NORTH SPLIT -to- WOODLANDS BLVD) CR 02 SA 6D D .658 1.52 T 54,057 2,824 2,64G 1.067 2 F 649 - EAST LAKE RD: (WOODLANDS BLVD -to- TARPON WOODS BLVD) CR 02 SA 4D D .897 1.11 T 54,057 2,824 1,7G4 1.601 2 F 650 - EAST LAKE RD: (TARPON WOODS BLVD -to- LANSBROOK PKWY) CR 02 SA 4D D 1.830 1.64 T 48,478 2,533 1,764 1.436 2 F 651 - EAST LAKE RD: (LANSBROOK PKWY -to- KEYSTONE RD) CR 02 SA 4D D 2.357 1.27 T 42,618 2,227 1,764 1.262 2 F 652 - EAST LAKE RD: (KEYSTONE RD -to-TRINITY BLVD) CR 02 SA 4D D 1.199 .83 T 29,580 1,546 1,764 .87G 0 C 653 - EAST LAKE RD: (TRINITY BLVD -to- PASCO CO LINE) CR 02 NA 4D D .516 .00 T 29,580 1,54G 3,760 .411 0 B 654 - EAST LAKE RD EAST SERVICE RD: (TAMPA RD -to- NORTH SPLIT) CR 02 SA 4D D .637 3.14 T 25,796 1,348 1,683 .801 0 D 662 - ENTERPRISE RD: (US 19 -to- MCMULLEN BOOTH RD) CL 06 SA 4D D 1.435 2.09 T 10,877 568 1,683 .337 0 C 663 - ENTERPRISE RD: (MCMULLEN BOOTH RD -to- PHILIPPE PKWY) CR 05 SMC 2U D 1.516 ,66 T 7,193 376 572 .657 0 C 668 - FAIRMONT ST: (MLK JR AVE -to- STEVENSONS CREEK) CL 06 NMC 2D D .230 .00 T 4,122 215 1,512 .142 0 B 681 - FOREST LAKES BLVD: (SR 580 -to- TAMPA RD) CR 05 SA 2D D .467 2.14 T 17,029 890 813 1.095 2 F 682 - FOREST LAKES BLVD: (TAMPA RD -to- PINE AVE) CR 05 SA 4D D .807 2.48 T 21,284 1,112 1,683 .661 0 C 683 - FOREST LAKES BLVD: (PINE AVE -to- HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY LINE) CR 05 SA 2D D 1.302 1.54 T 21,284 1,112 832 1.337 2 F 685 - FT HARRISON AVE: (BELLEAIR RD -ta- CHESTNUT ST) CL OG SA 2D D 1.551 4.51 T 17,536 916 747 1.226 2 F 686 - FT HARRISON AVE: (CHESTNUT ST -to- DREW ST) CL 06 SA 2D D .498 8.03 T 16,243 849 747 1.137 2 F Fac Type: "F"=Freeway, "SA"=Signalized Arterial, "SC"=Signalized Collector, "SMC"=Signalized Collecotor (Major), "NA"=Non-Signalized Arlerial, "NC"=Noo-Signalized Collector, "NMC"=Non-Signalized Collector (Major) LOS Meth: "A"=ApCalc, "H"=Conceptual, "T"=Generalized Tables Abbreviations: "Fac"=Facility, "V:Cap"=Volume to Physical Capacity Def Flag: "1"=V/C Ratio>= .9 and LOS=A, LOS=B, LOS=C or L05=D "2"=V/C Ratio >_ .9 and LOS=E or LOS=F •��,�� Tindale-Oliver and Associates Produced using: vTIMAS v1.163 Page • 7 �'='�y; Tampa, Florida , ��c��o�0�� ° �a60 C�c��t�c�� (��) �e��°�� @��a�� `�o°B� �o�� : ��0 ��. ��t� �� a��G� �� : �e��1�� Number of Studies: 4 Average i 000 Sq. Feet GLA: 25 Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting i��u� ��r��rr��u�� r�� , I��$ �� 9� /�� Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 44.32 21.30 - 64.21 15.52 ��$� �A�$ �� s��$@�� - Caufion -19se Car�fta!!y - Srr�al! Sampl� Size N � C W Q "� H a� U � N � a� rn � N a' II F�- 2,100 2,000 1,900 1,800 1,700 1,600 1,500 1,400 1,300 1,200 1,100 1,000 900 800 700 600 500 400 10 -------••---•---- -------------•-----, ------------------,-----X-------•----- , . , . ----------------------------------•----,-••-----•-----••----;-.--------...---•--• ----------------- -�---•-------------, •------•-------'� , -•------••------- ; ; �� ' ' .' ,. ----------------- """' ""' """"' "" "" " � " "' "' " "' """ " ' ""_"""""""� """'_""""'i'�"""'_'_"""_"'�"'_"""""""' ----'-----'--------`•'--" '------ -----,----'--------------',•'--------------. . -•---•�------------�-•-•----• ----------�------------••------�•-•--------••------ --------X-------- --- -------------�-; ------------------; ----------------- •-----------X----- -------------- ; ; ---•----•-------- ------X ------•----, ------------------, ------------------ X Actual Data Points 20 30 X= 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable /trea Fitted Curve Fifted Curve Equaiion: i= 42.78(?C) -� 37.66 40 -----' Average Rate R2 = 0.69 50 Trip Generation, 9th Edition o Institute of Transportation Engineers 7579 r s. ;c-`�-�'r�—?---a ��o�a�� 09 �� (��) ��o°�� /��i�a� '�rrop� C�u��J� v�: � ��0 ��. G�� Gr��s 9��as��0� �rre� Or� a: !�/eekda�, . ��a� G�our ofi Adjac�n� S��ee� `�r��a�, � �-- O�� 9�our I��f�v�er� 4��d 6�p.r�. IVumber of Studies: 5 Average i 000 S.q. Feet GLA: 69 Directional Distribution: 44% entering, 56% exiting �rraQ� c��°��60� �� e ��$ �� [�&� �u�� Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 2.71 2.03 - 5.16 1.83 ��$� (�9��' ��H� �Ojft��'��I� Caufion - Us� Ca�efully- Small Sampl� Size , soo 500 - � � 400 �� W Q. H � U � � 300 ' � � � � � > Q • II 200 ' - F-� 100 0 , , , , ' ' x,, .� �, f 0 100 200 X- 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasabie Area X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve '----- Average Rate Fiited Curve �qc¢a�ion: '�' = 2.�&�()C) + 29.4� 9�Z = 0.98 1580 Trip Generation, 9fh Edition o Instifute of Transportation Engineers 300 STORMWATER NARRATIVE 1822 Drew Street This project consists of one (1) parcel which totals 0.51 acres. The stormwater design will be in compliance with the guidelines set forth from the City of Clearwater and the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWNID). Stormwater runoff from the front parking lot will drain in an easterly direction into DRA 2(Drainage Area 2). The stormwater will exit DRA 2 at the Design Low Water Elevation (DLW) treatment elevation at ST-2 into the underground vault system. The rear parking lot area will eventually outfall to DRA 1(Drainage Area 1) and will also exit by way of a weir located within the pond retaining wall at ST-5 at the DLW into the vault. All of the site will be attenuated within the underground storage vault. The stormwater will exit the vault at control structure OCS-1 at the Design High Water (DHW) elevation. The DHW will meet the City of Clearwater half of the pre-development flow requirement based on the rational method. The storm water system outfalls into the storm water piping system within Tulane Avenue which is directed to Drew Street and then ultimately outfalling into Stevenson Creek. All of the roof drainage will be collected into the underground storage vault system. The subject site stormwater quality and rate of runoff will be improved over the current existing site drainage conditions in which stormwater runoff sheet flows in various directions from the property. The proposed drainage system will collect and convey stormwater runoff to the vault storage area at the rear of the site and eventually discharge into the City of Clearwater stormwater system within Drew Street. All stormwater treatment will take place in DRAs 1& 2, there will be no treatment within the underground storage vault, only attenuation of the peak discharge to the more strict City of Clearwater requirements. � orscw He�cH1s a.a. , ac m NOIE: S1E TO UlIL1ZE DUMPSiER ux LOCAiED ON FOJACENT PROPERTY�px�SC�v[� Ai 222 ttiLANE AVE � � � y,�� RJ - - '�1V 9CNL ��nN lNd� a r��Q� � minr:0.ES f•) (ttv) 2P��l9.�n ADJnCf.NT iE-6iJ� � --' . vTHUC1Uit[ cm[v�Y � sa Ifa•�-ai �f� sie-saso�z.�A � :�si e `��uei�'S id"_�� .� r�o�v �� n_ca�n 41E �.:,.`U, cic-en.is '�m�..sn.is \ � "j e �,,:��i::� 1 RER"F✓ )i(NV � � one�v ec� P.B.11.PY��aJI 1ef • 6 � v,Way a �� 6 uNP�nrRo SINGLC-GAMILY �, eesiucuce .. . .. ....J°' y _^� '. cninF.x if![�F. rFd. ioi. rc.� a ADJACF.NT . .. .. . . .� • • _. � STkIICTU"tC I .!-R..,z r..e. �� d � � ��,,� -. -- �—,_ww.�� /� i ` ' �tT � �� I �, Ilp� •� � � :' �. . �I '� F�� I I 4 CII � `� ' ... �� "�:��,�-� � � �' � � . �. � o ��' I � li . �' _ � �. I� I,� �- / ♦. , I,I _ �� G�� I��I�� /��A� , .' . � ��ol � .I�� !!f :� ■ ■ � CSIf� - � -i� �Arra: . � -r/✓�.iiii.iin � �� . l�l� ` � ` m �,�� /i-'- -- ��S'�-.�—_ a'_ — Yax;rb� �="�—y,�.�-'e:.�--^,i"._ti,_—_.��-.ii g � ' .a i G •�' .. c�,' .. rsov�NUxcoFSECnavi] ---_""--_'"_�:__ - •• ' _ '�_,.. a �--------- ....`�--ee��N:� - � ��_s.H-o:`:,�i^, •%t�cY.:�a v_ ',e'�,�fl cme �% 5 � I,�� Gulf Coast Consultingi inc� `r"'`COF°". � — � r.��o�.aonm��co�.mn�s 1S22DREW,LLC w "' 10]MOORGSTRCP! � � rwwccroN, w assao � T[L:(6�9149]-96J0 � � �m�a� no�ncc�+* SiRUCTtIRF. \ CMaIV rdl ' `siAXE l rtxcE (m) — c v�aq cE�ot • ♦ x � SYMBOLLEGEND IiJ � Copl "ow Prevan(or `� =aeaot @ = Decorotive Lig�t 'noga ManM1Ole � s Gos Xa r t � m Grea a Trap � - Huy A ocAor G = Lighlpo a = IAOilboa m vo.,e, eo. m = so�ao.y ua�na� 6 Spol Eavol'on 'Rm = uel'pM1One Bar � � w',IY Volver - Wele� � = II TREELEGEND a.. � F PNE i�ti � OAK W' � PALFI � UNKNOWN (UNLESS NOIED) CRO55 SECTION A-A DPA1 R —ii � —_ 0. �S�A CROSS SECTION B-9 OM 2 �qj�'.v;=�:=.p.._c'- ��w �— arcr'-; Fi e'---�`c, u.r.,. (•) �me: TMcac sHnu aE No oexcrs iH sicx. ' iRIAN0.E5 OYER iHE CINS ALCEPTA9LE YERIICAL HEIG� GxnDE'ANOTEpCni�EET nBOVE GpOppECHES DREW STREET — —' —' .aA____'e' ,ssamruuca-�,.rncwiz __�t°+ „___' ,' _""�°—"'_ . 5 !% ClJPN_n (Y.C[l.AV II iszz Dr�w sTr�ET PI2�LIMINARY SITE PLAN � i �.. i ..�,. N ,q°q[Fqy�i .._a ..�rd. T 11 W � E NOTETO CONTRACTORS: fo 0 10 �0 aD � po oE nox`sxeu'xor N. :eeexrpseaN E ix EaavP ioxs aav omeam �.r cusia.�ew: OAiUM110iE EIEVGi ON OFfiA 610>qA5 PII&15HEU BYi E C rv0i CLEnPWPiER ENC NE P NC DEPPRiMENi, xonrxnuExCnxv[ �cuon�wt�ee�x�voeeF �n�ozs�iswee T�oxnlGEOOEfICVENiicuoRluM POGEPtt nvPF4P5i08E it� ROpDiONE�E i+nie W P,coaMVwrvPqx[� xuMOF LEGEN� --"—"'—"—"'— "—'--- EXISTING BOl1NDARY STAKED SILT FENCE —um—�:r.�—uM.— EXISTINC WATER MAIN —°"'—'"°—""— E%ISTING SANITARY PIPE O EXISTING SANITARY MANHOLE —•"—•• EXISTMC OVER HEA� WIRES —cv r.ns—,u r.ns— EXISTING GAS LINE —x—x—x—x— EXISTINC FENCE ° ° EXISTINC WIRE FENCE ---`----0.---`----`-- EXISTINC BURIED ELECTRIC 7 EXISTING STORM HANHOLE EXISTING STORM PIPE �� SHEET FI.OW DIRECTION —3 HARD SURFAGE FLOW DIRECTION � AREA TO BE MILLE� & RESURFACED � C3 �R�" T R��k Tvl�� a�Y ° �learwater U Planning & Development Department Comprehensive Landscaping Application IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT COMPLETE AND CORRECT INFORMATION. ANY MISLEADING, DECEPTIVE, INCOMPLETE OR INCORRECT INFORMATION MAY INVALIDATE YOUR APPLICATION. ALL APPLICATIONS ARE TO BE FILLED OUT COMPLETELY AND CORRECTLY, AND SUBMITTED IN PERSON (NO FAX OR DELIVERIES) TO THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY NOON ON THE SCHEDULED DEADLINE DATE. A TOTAL OF 11 COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS (1 ORIGINAL AND 10 COPIES) AS REQUIRED WITHIN ARE TO BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE. SUBSEQUENT SUBMITTAL fOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, IF NECESSARY, WILL REQUIRE 15 COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS (1 ORIGINAL AND 14 COPIES). PLANS AND APPLICATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE COLLATED, STAPLED AND FOLDED INTO SETS. THE APPLICANT, BY FILING THIS APPLICATION, AGREES TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. PROPERTY OWNER (PER DEED): 1822 Drew LLC (Attn Peter Marks) MAILING ADDRESS: 107 Moore Street Princeton, NJ 08540 PHONE NUMBER: (609) 497-9640 EMAIL: AGENT OR REPRESENTATIVE: Mr. Robert Pergolizzi AICP/PTP Gulfcoast Consulting, Inc. MAILING ADDRESS: 13825 ICOT Blvd. Suite 605 Clearwater, FL 33760 PHONE NUMBER: 727-524-1818 EMAI�: pergo@gulfcoastconsultinginc.com ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1822 Drew Street DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: 12/29/15/00000/330/0300 & 12/19/15/00000/330/0400 Specifically identify the request (include all requested code flexibility; e.g., reduction in required number of parking spaces, height setbacks, lof size, lot width, specific use, etc.J: STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS �/ I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all Sworn to and subscribed before me this _ "/ �� day of representations made in this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and authorize d/S' . to me and/or by City representatives to visit and photograph the � _, who is personally known has property described in this application. produced as identification. ' / i �� / �1 � /? • Signature of properfy oV�Fier or representative Notary pul�, (f My commission expires: M(,��( � f,�Q � Pianning & Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 3375 , �- - • ax: 7-562-4865 •�rr�e , Page 1 of 2 ;°io�:.... �.:4�;, JACQU�d1A1�#kNERA `*� •€ MY CaMMISSION #FF121863 '`:�'\, `'o°,: -'�r•��:e?;>• EXPIRES May 71, 2018 (ao7) 3se-o�53 FlnrfdallotaryService.com ° �lear�vater � U Planning & Development Department Comp�ehensive Landscaping Application Flexibilitv Criteria PROVIDE COMPLETE RESPONSES TO EACH OF THE FIVE (5) FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA EXPLAINING HOW, IN DETAIL, THE CRITERION IS BEING COMPLIED WITH PER THIS COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPING PROPOSAL. 1. Architectural Theme: a. The landscaping in a Comprehensive Landscaping program shall be designed as a part of the architectural theme of the principal buildings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for the development. OR b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscaping program shall be demonstrabiy more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for development under the minimum landscape standards. The comprehensive landscape plan will enhance the visual quality of the viewer's experience as well as incorporate a partial native plant palette that is compatible and blend with the surrounding context. 2. Lighting. Any lighting proposed as a part of a Comprehensive Landscaping program is automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is closed. The lighting will be programmed to turn off when the businesses are ciosed. 3. Community Character. The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater. Our design will contribute to meet the City of Clearwater's design standards. The landscape solution wiil be incorporated into the existing landscape, in order to facilitate the rehabilitation of the building and adapt it to a new use while preservinq the structure and providinq enouqh parkinq to satisfy the code requirements. 4. Property Values. The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscaping program will have a beneficial impact on the value of the property in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. Our landscape design will not only provide an aesthetically pleasing palette for a site that currently includes no landscaping, but will convert as much land on the site to practical landscaping as possible. This plan will improve the overall look of the site and will have a beneficial impact on the surroundinq properties. 5. Special Area or Scenic Corridor Plan. The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program is consistent with any special area or scenic corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in which the parcel proposed for development is located. N/A Planning 8� Development Department, 100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756, Tel: 727-562-4567; Fax: 727-562-4865 Page 2 of 2 Revised 01/12 W.O. 4557 �y� r` I W�L P�➢FR M' SEC11q! 1 jI J RI 1 � I I I � IH I� �� I� � I I I '� � Q I d' I •- I O a� �oz �� '" ¢o 0 o� �I�o � �w� � Z} .3 IwF- �i+�� Y � BOUNDARY & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY 4`' `y � p e�.r P J • c P6�taERPGE> � �' aa 1 :w�'a .. . . � r O� ff Y� • � r J a �L .� i ..�a, P P � �°� J A � I+°' ],`• pREW M IGHiS ' P.B.11, C.101 e A p^ A � � , P p �� 1 STPUTCENT CIURE „ E ��„ � AOJACENT Fre�saes SiRULTURE �� ew+a� : �F Y Y I.l.[F.T Rf5(FVAIIqV [ME �y 'i d pe. C I OPEW HEIE 0 5 �P P.B. 11. R .tol °�°' I �+��+� � g � � w.,s �,�, „ I /aR�`9,e "` — � s fJ � ! Po.m, r,a..0 . — ,w,>,.hrc� § ' ' y�-- om.,:�w � {`D_ — — — — -� — souni �wc acsccnav v — — — — — —•�'Oti; } �Su �&� •w'I✓I � �' . r—r_ ' , ' e` — �� f ! . • . J N U ^'E �SI N9.9T , n. ` lrmiu`/� B. 1 La �q� ,� ,, $ y F f � . Y., t�, �4i�i ✓a ,J'S '� y^° &dm P Aa�df u � - eveve�eev�� :�� ve' q_a��+ €� �a 'TdO�� ?+` ? . A v,�,. ..� .� �...��_ 1 STOFY IAASONRY sLrtU�p FE cm� �� ;P'Pn �9 \ �4y m.�. y �We�f I UNPLATiEO I • P7i �w� >r ��`• -. ,. �sn�� GE] 4 SECTION 1 Z, TWP. 29 S., RGE. 15 E. PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA LEGEND M90LLEGEND 4£cALOESCRI rv� �:w s •••.•� •� ENOFiH1W EEfOFTHE50UiH300FEETOFTHENEST1a88] FTHEE NEWES�T�SNp50U�MA�stveoF � � ,NNELU3cOVMTFLOFIOA �� asCUTH,PUIOE � �� 0• FEEtOFiHEEI�b'�1/ioFTHENE5�1130F�E5011MNE5t1HOF p .�� tSE.�sT.PINELLASCOUtm,FLORIM �Pp��µpµcE � ; 'i : �E�ie�a5ec. :osl �' � •rp�Mt �c+e� TMi�s4' �� NY.ao9' J Y.J' J� sen �E�ENO W °"t 'tl' ` y�ji d�=*��rvuaa�ane� _ —c- •.�. - s rmF:� , —r �. . fr... 4 � r. Fl,v i/I• `- _ — Y ,i.—�-r-.�.�—, a.ev..+ .�, �+ � * - +' a �REW STREET e • ^��^� �� _ –� _ � GEODATA SERVICES INC. °� —, «� ! --- --- ------ s i/ mxxex orsErna"v iz 7gzZ DREW ST. SUITE B CLEARWATER, Fi. 33765 PHONE: (727) 447-1763 ___ � LB J466 . DRAWING INDEX SHEET TITLE C1 COVER SHEET C2 E%ISTING CONDTIONS/DEMOlIT10N PLAN C3 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN LEGAL DESCRII'TION THE NORTH 150 FEET OF TNE SOUTH 200 FEET OF THE WEST 148.92 FEET OF THE EAST 1/2 0F THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 29 50UTH, RANGE 15 EAST, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN� THE NORTH 700 FEET OF THE SOl1TH 300 FEET OF THE WEST 149.92 FEEf OF THE EAST i/2 OF THE WEST ll2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/G OF THE SOUTHWEST 7/4 OF SECTION 72, TOWNSHIP 29 SOUTH, RANGE 15 EAST, PMELLAS COUNTV, FLORIOA. 1822 DREW STREET PRELIMINARY SITE PLANS SECTION 12 TOWNSHIP 29 S, RANGE 15 E PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA .__�___,_� �....._..._....,.._, , 0[jECOLIf�ry b�bW. eyiir..� . �� PREPARED FOR: 1822 DREW, LLC 107 MOORE STREET PRINCETON, NJ 08540 TEL: (609) 497-9640 PRfI.IFfi I11RFfTORY OwNER/DEVELOPER: 1822 �REW, LLC � Gulf Coast Consulting� InC.. 10] MOORE STREET PRINCETON, uJ D8540 �. Land Develo g TEL (G09) 99J-9690 Q Ow �� I ptnentConsultin �� ENC�NEL+RL�C TMNSPORT,\TION PLAN�7KC PERMITTINC CINL ENGINEER: GULF COAST CONSIIIPIJC, INC 136251COTHLVD.,S�7('IL`60$ 13635 ICOT BOULEVARO SUIIE, 6�5 CLEARY/nTER, FL ]3J60 Clen��vnler, Plorida 33760 Plionc: (72])52J-IRIS �ux: (]2])52V-6090 www. gulfc oastconsultiu�inc. c om SITE DATA TABL� SiIE MOnE55: 1822 DREW SmFEi c�E�xwniEx, i� ume Y12 DNEV/ BIq�T DAIb F��APT S4 �1S i1EYEE0 �AiE� MflL 0. �OLS y• I •" '------------------------------------------^ N ,ss' �I � � .w�ar ii � �. �"� � qp �. SWCIE-i'AMILY 9��1 .. ._"..___ i �� *. � .` . , . � �p ESIOLNCE r nlnEfl iREE �a IV"4 mk � �. •� ' � _,, e� .e. im. rc. �a , SYM60LlEGEND ' ' � �i t T• ' , .,, AD�ACENT pB°� � Bockllor Preventw w l�} E SiHUCTUR[ NOTETO CONTMCTORS: . � • �'.1, �.N�.MC� � � ' � i '�`_�;u'� .... � ••'� '•• ".�yY . m = Caele Box ' � ✓� y° 'd� ENSnxc ovEnxEnU wu+ES/ � - CmlenNe i '� ' � �, �nun ro�;m ec xnoc.rtq s..+m s�ir;�cc irvr� �_ o•^^o�� u ni `"woac � 'n�`-•-•-•-'-"` . � �°�"�nuhµeax"�°�'osa � . ... .�erow. reo..E o� E .� � DPEW HEICHlS i � �e • . .. .. __'____________'..._____ '_____ 1xECaxmoCioxieuWin[oron � � � Oroinogs Nen�ela y[ary1NFF%ISiENCF.pOUtWXtE� P.O. 11. PC. 101 ; I � � �� - M Hydmnl 5 �, ` � Goe Vdve /' AOJACNHT � C�eose TroD p 10 l� <0 STrzuC RE � Cuy Anohor � tl = iontlicvp rsn�Io ''� � - Mmieo,� ! � N .��•'�— � . vo«e, ao. � m _ so��w�y u ucv .�w' � � 3"y �. en i i �m e i:mon �•e .m• �nswev sx ons..ueexonfieou+o vrxmnraorHOUnon, me `� X - ueu�iy Poie � ��'�*n < ry � � j�� -¢-aF ��J~ y^�e - W�ter Valv�r �ulMrtisNLLllFIpOTftIEDDIIf6Y0UFY0111pN. � p E: � "�-�� . µ�ll lrti0N4NNLN0iWVBEINYeE0.NtEWR0.RUindlEi0RO1NERUi¢rtYCUEiOAIFRt. PDJACENT � Yh xCOK wEi� EOWMDBY i > i �,� �V SiRUCT1111E � >� m n a*` vwFS o eE n[ rtv N. V q—��. `° 16 r w ♦ �n a P_" r nuN.IW�dI 1 �� J •' � � I � °� d :ll� � "'� ',� � ,+iP � TREE LEGEND iI'. " ........................t...... ... .....�........... .....x�ii... F xoi[ r� ?y, ..s,•• za+wc:c��`� scune�"�i�a�o 5P .� a�g uawnr¢xa � , . a' J. s. ;I� o ` • •`� � • + 1� ��\c PiNE oA x,w[ c�nx�v[aiic.uo�iuMfue�iuvo e� Faumvni[atxcm[[nwao[vnannE roe � i v� p! x / on�! � yf c F. ,u.�'u: B� J�if Vr fy wrN �� `a �' F � OAK M�o]a1�s�0.le�iroxua[oo[iqv[xiwuwi�u N ♦ � v J � . ' _L � { � � . n� ('sii�"5xw'Miv�� ,,,y�� R� pALIA svBJECiVHOGEattnPPF�nsioaElNRWOxo /� �rr""" � CYM4NFGFMEM�CENLY.ROOU MXCEMiEAUV,GiLOWWIrtTPnNELHlO.eER �i� . �l FpsnNG io B[ PFUOVED ��i � IOBN. EfiECLNFOaiENAV11.]oo5M5 } UNKNOWN (UNLE55 NUTED) AOJALENT �m i�. ° � BA� cwrtnF�[ sues ro A[uux�(rn) . LEGEND SiPUC1URE U, a' ( :� N -� -- � —'�—� — � — '- EXISTINC BOIINDARY UNPLATTED lj w y_ °avn . oR°� cis �LE'^'I� `p� 1 sioar �n,.vc w�� nar `' '°"�Q r.waAr STAKED SILT FENCE •�- ;o` -� V. MASONRY o' � I�•p� pd/y Qe69./6 ��l� + � J � ST�UCN iE i /f�64J< RW fL�6�901 /Ew685) I Ql.�°�� il5" ) .'¢'I^�* ��6 I I�- w� •` n.pnwi E�6J91(N'/!C) ��`'v�` a � � y 51' a i � 5 1E=6190 (N' RCVJ 9"� 4v sccnox o�acEHT wn�unvr P�£t-tutzs TO BE REMDVEO Oft OEMOLISHE[ Mc !° �' W 51RUCTUftE e�p W/£=6G.tl5 �p�{ � = 5 F-6J B E1C-6'Gd5 �� a•c�e �.� I� W a.ro�wt E i5 t a ncuOVF m e[ n[xo �. �� I w' '� �� 1 �tx-ss.zs �'�°sa�s —aµ—��—��— EXISTING WATER MAIN ��reso�a —,A-�=��- � � �N .� �,.... e o —�.�—�,—�w_ .. . _ . � � �n"_ � //qg� � a=na.r� EXISTING SANITARY PIPE DREVI HEIC�,'•S �,�i� " i, ' ,^Y \ ��>� � E%ISTNG SANITARY MANHOLE P.B, tt. Pti7.�J1 .. � � `sru� �� + Eo Ri x .. � aIm) ��' '* .�� g EXISTINC OVER HEAD WIRES � �p�N, `�Y' ' J .a N A `D � � —x.ns—fx cnz— " e �y. � E%ISTING GAS UNE '� !` uA .fl'm�� vm— e" �� ••a `u , -'...,z� ..se _ , d �c.— .. o, ,�r �°� ' w', ` —" —" —' —` — _"_'..-..—"__-•__._�.'_'-"_ �.r _,—.; o+ ' • -. .,_ "' '_ ' ' _ '_____ "" __p_""�: ""'"'_"'"'""'""_ E%ISTING FENCE i� sr r'' Nvs n� � s"'�, ��v' ,a n y.�� n �.—.._._—.._.'_'-'", c w ax �w.Y_,.� _ _ '.m�:�:.�'_ °�r—�-� .�----• .. . . . . ¢.��m � . n =%vcf:�p : ai•�:�} � � -,..rt"��-• _,pi_' -c"'A'..^.. �E� 6f� u � . ' �M EXISTINC WIRE FENCE xciwx ar enmxc �vna ro uo i�o ,y I,'_ _` _' T� __ N+ � ^— �=F! =~� �_ s i �q ---R----.----.----•-- EXISTING BURIE� ELECTRIC Nr esisixc�E _..sy. , � [ws �_ --r. �_ —� —. I 1 � •' — —'^M��„� �� — — —_ �-f- - �,w� `�; DREW STREET � EXISTING STORM HANHOLE �.ta�/ t� � ��p �_�T'a �"� �. ..'� �� . . . .� � . �.� � "'_"___""__'"'_' _„�t_' .' u.' . t.nY'.•^ p ==�mm=m.�m*v--a E%ISTING STORM PIPE SO4'INl1NF6�5£G1IQYIT \r-yyn--.. _ A...__�1�� •SWIIIUN£Q"�d�%IIPV11 �� .. �.'. .^n.�i'm<'uNF,r �, .�...�.'�fBNV� S — �_ — — ___ _._—___—___ ____.___ •.��C � 'wR';' .^R E, o;�+� m ee ` �s i/< mmerr er sceniri ir — °" uc'vanr�ica�µi°".cn� wow�x fm1 GnlfCoastConsnitiog,loc. rnevna¢uroa sxeeroeuamriax: in�a o....i�n�„��i co��mm� 1822 DREW, LLC 0�� ,,�� .��,M�M�p�.. 1822 DREW STREET �,�..�.� '_°°° „ CZ 10) MOORC SIRLLT PRINCCfON,N108540 EXISTING CONDITIONS/DEMOLITION PLAN p�.V�R a�u r.cNnls, T[L:(609)09]-9G0 . tt:nn. . . . . v nn .em. _ �_...__....._._.,.... OS/31/IS � , '' �_ AsNNt pREW NE�IGHiS B. . G. tOt OlE SITE i0 UTN2E DUMPSIER w� LOCAIED ON ADJACENT PROPERIV � Bun AT 230 TuLANE AVEUUE ��P� DJACENT SiRUCN2E EX�SqxC SeMf fH �S.go' SEHi �Srw iue� e �Q mm.w f'1 (m)" Qyy EL�6 j DJACENT lE=6AH 4�sas�9�� TqIICNRC � sxaio•rli � my� _ vo�z.-� aes 5 iE 6iJe'B [ H-s569 yoµ � � �� r� 9; � tz-cs» � :I "c�cs'a091� �� ,,,•j rtP Et�64.�> �.a e % � @ � _ � � +`"' ¢A �c'o. ' OREW IfE��"v�' + �,y P0. Ii. PtY UI p1jp� • `r,a, i�� UNPLA1lE� SMCLE-FAIAtLY �p ItESiULNCE � iE�TMEH 1Rf£ � • ,d • , � r.e. im. ra >a ,•�cy ADJACENT ' .�.•'.yC ' .a .� � ♦ � 5'IAUCNRC I faxu�(rnl cM� � �e' - A�JACENT g STRUCT�FE O. O. ' 9@ O.�" .,� ,p I i' .�7�, 2:r �^ •�^ °.�• 9 9 i U 8� i � ��' � I� � � ' 1 �.v+�►. ' ,�' �, � ' _ - . �`�� I' , ,T \ 1'i�3._ _ S � 1 : • 5 �,� � � , I ��/,�� 3 m 1��1� � S '. I � _� � �I . � I I� F ,' il I I,. II . • I � ■ li i 3 � I � I' ! .i �� _ 1 I\ � I�a • a, �'��1{ .. '' � �%//I/l✓✓J' ' '%/.I11//J/!a� � -'UI%A' JO I�$ � �'� � �i � ��. � ��' v� � � ��I � ��oll . .� �� . .. �I y t' �.� �� . � ./��.VI� . � ��' —.� ��`� �_ ,.�� mi�_FS(•)-�n.�m�J�� s x�iex `=� � �, e' DREW STREETp� � � �� — � � .. —_______ � '-^ r.nr�.,.ninx � � � T;'y'+'�,�.--,�,r^_—x, ^ �i. � , -.. _�:�" � .., • ..� !� mn, cw�c c�secimv ,s ----°------' , � �. � - r'-'',{' "'—�`'`----• -----+ °;.:uc=�z __,,t'------- �s•� � ��. � ^ Gulf Coas[ Consnlling, Inc. reer oescavrion: ��— i =�ao��a�N��,�°�rc.� iszaD�w,r.LC 1822DREWSTREET .` �'� �...`°.'��, n.n,N� c.r M �o�wooaesrnccr PRINCGfON,N106540 PRELIIvIINARY SITE PLAN m..wtrsn�u.�vis ral'm�w+ave TGLI609)J9)-9fi90 SYMBOLLEGEND � = Backllow Pnrenlor la Bov � v CBnUfline � � Cleonoul N = Decoroliw �ignll o - o�o�ooy. a �` . co. vm a�� o p- c..o.. uop 6. - x�m� p o� G = u�qntaa. � � PoWber�9oR 0 � Sonitory Monnoiv � Siqn ��., = Spal Elewlion % � U14ty PeleBOK � ° �°�" �o.J ,� _ , 0 _ w��' TREE LEGEND ��`= PINE � OAK �tJ PALM h�Jd IINKNOWN (UNlE55 NOiEO) \hi` � ao. E, _ , /, CROSS SECTION A-A oani E � ao E� ,. i CROSS SECTION &B oaa z s i/a ctwxm u'srcna�z N I q�"�4x". .��ry.��T; � � 'i� B[ ' w � E NOTETOCONTRF nuRrtc�ia �AK rt'NCR LouD� frt W a �� 0 10 20 60 � iN,wERiC.cNVE�FIICNMTUMi 1E�HFV011� F0.E�IYNATEPENCIHEERNCDEF�HME LEGEND ---�--�� —�--�o--- EXISTING BOUNDARY --o 0 o STAKE� SILT FENCE —_.�+—�w—o.,.— E%ISPNC WATEfi MAIN —'•" —"" —'"" — E%ISTING SANITARY PIPE OO EXISTING SANITARY MANH�LE —°^—°' EXISTING OVER HEAU WIRES —tx cns—n c.s— EXISTINC GAS LINE —"—`—'—*— E%ISTING PENCE � o � -0 EXISTING WIRE FENCE -"°-""'--`----°'- E%ISTINC BURIED ELECTRIC 'w^) EXISTING STORM HANHOLE � - � � � �� EXISiiNG STORM PIPE �i SHEET FLOW DIRECTION � HARD SURFACE FLOW DIRECTION � AREA T� BE MILLEO dc RESURFACED C3 v :G�CH—"--- —_"—\ . PLANT MATERIAL SCHEDULE m � urcwxwf io<nonnon:: cuVS �E a«MnVEt00%IRRIGATroN[OVEMGE y��,� �ALLUHpSCAPEBE055HALLIITILIZFLOWVOILLNF CFPR1wAVlMY50CCICEMPl15 oRIVIRRiWT1011. ONOOGIVUSFPE[NSSEaCfUS SIIV£0.BUrtOHY.000 . . z'CO1 xr>twEnncanrauxn cao.oimoouw+nn sro. CODECOMPLIANCY nurnwunu OM FoLLE5Ta11KKlx . . W. o mu�uu�<�¢nn<[MUi.�.nrv.i¢�a �NLO.efK1AWIWWS wMLY4VS5v[a . v<PU. w a+masxnc�muu�nu %.. sc wuPeu�mo iwrts svumxn amew . e ocnuu 5 TR�K�i�FLOSPFAAWMI�S.VNtlEWTED V JANNxE IO�tiDSPo.� YS K hBNwuuYIYFWI�x. Se1NANNWANBUxNUM )ul.,3b'M.xfe5v0.,FlILL ,�, VEHICULAR USE AREA \ 1 f E.I 3v�u' `/ scu r— �� BOOTH DESIGNGROUP SIItfCOnSTfAI�SULTIN4 � � � W � H N � W � � W w Z Q Q 3 J a F- u ne.pw,.icnu�wow CONSTRUCTION��OC. NEF(INFOMUTIO SCALEOt =30-P �,o � LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT PLAN L-1.00 00 ArborAnchor Tenston Buckle Vmfx STMWx e'EpOF51N/J1qrtPAt�tfl TO AWMNt BU.CINL itR1NF WeNWrtFE VEPoCO NdESS s�eorbca�e��eeGUying ATG iR/yTGM1MM4''s".' 5rbolb�a" Tree G�ry�ng ATG-!ce ans nr.'��ei�� m,M1 1PFESTaCING �A + I ♦ 6�'j : A.fL+ I:�i T � 1 ��'� : i ��J��,�.�t � � ��d�� 1� / � \. �v,�.�� . 1 �� '� IAS�PEQJIPoN�G NPoFTttIMUMNN Ta e�oE� iss[ ��S�exE�PNOYCUxED ronn�SUSC.vc0.PiT,u�`x"irtcr��im� icin z v� �w�w�neia"a�os�•m,•,,l iixn. a� i loixui io aenEn'."E � J �,��,�. ��=n�,�, �„J �,�E�,�. s�tinm.'v'uce t ARBOR BRACE TREE PLANTING DEfAIL �z, SABAL PALM PLANTING DEfAIL � KEFRCN YWff E(rJ41TEN IWIiING �� w�MIV.CHLO1�Ymnl`nWAYfPOMBNt➢IxG �eu 1 \ y I ULLtlNGWKLT4FOGFOFPUM sai �a-.� i..narns�..nexausreu; ewe � rin�urnaura [ocEav F �uxEio �iM � nEU —911tlztlYi:;�- ' '.J09=11�I1a w,�. EW . . ,�nio� � �o�. � � �o��.::, . a.: �=�«�,o�� —uu Illl�n:'=��,,..�:�:_m1�411 mrtsaaenanu sxwaNarocaa.wow�aseni�xr era�oFa�weioiocEOiiwrtM e0�� mp111=191tl=11R1=11m�PN1=11 INftOWSV�nMllfLTOSIHECUME�fOGE xwIB50xuc�pWN�M Ebh0.5MN�KfM�LM d��I��UU0i5NPBEUSqL 4TH s SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER LAYOUT DETAIL n SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL �o-, � ., GENERALLANDSCAPE NOTES t. A��rieryitenGerds� �o be FlorlGa Yt a Oe4e� puetlry, instelled co Mqhest Mulch to Ue VINE BARI( MIRCH 3. Mu�clishallbeinstnlleE m a minlmum af l'tlilckln allplanllnq arees. J. Sad to Oe 95R weetl free: BAHId 500 atl b belvlelled wltli[Ig�tJWnts,rdleE eM fertlllzeEY e[ tlme o� 'sFe�ll�be sotl ^M wiNSma�lcM1i^4rturf�u'�Iessls�pec�blfcnllY'IebeleG oNe'�wise. iDecifled groundcoe�fe)eccUmlts 1�ail0eproNaeE wlclr�oe w oq�er 4. All tl`me"lans [aN airy EIS[ ePentlesY�eporteE Im�m�etllately to tl �e ar to LandxcsP �rcliltect. 5. Allmeterlelx mus[ be es xpetlfleE on NeleMxe plen. If malerlels i,�no,ao�o�.ae,ero.ve=inuom�.,m�vwn4oe,.««an n� ,�m�.ae n«niu�i mu o�ov:. m.i:ii.im� �amaa o�l ev m. �,�m�.a. co�vac�or eroo ean¢io�ai ms�. 6. No suOStIN[lans n Uan f eM NIM wlll be mede eI [Ime of Llatling, o v�omm m. ec� �m �m. �van,w�:. �� uµieefoiner�xix�esary < be p NdeE by N InsulllnqCOnVxtor peclflcellYZU[edlnthe aPKllintloiu. 9. No mnvattor lden[I(lutlon siqns sM1etl be pe�mlttd on Ne pro�ttt v. oi a:�o� m �y m� aW munon:us me. m�K�m �a iam:wva n�nm«i, �iiJj B31.5699. m. conua°wi:wN.me�amwces m�suw,:. mem:ienmc mxnem��w�,inP io,.�u�e��miMnu,e�em. n. wi��ine��r;�wh<��s:«�e�cm�a mrcanna�oaei �oi:rruauo� ` iz. rn. ��o-.no.:nan c: ��ro�:roia eo a.o�nae:rorm wnrer ro�wno� vr�re�non pa�: e�a e�p oopnn�e pnsw�uon:ue mnorr connd: io meer. iKn.,s: erim��.uo� zmmm �i. � ro�.o-��m� xltes wM1ere mwe than one aoe of land Ic disturbed. FERTILIZATION SHRUBSANOTREES Albbees aiE zM1�uLS ihefl be fef�lllad wl[h'Amtlfo�m I0.'0.5 plentlfig b aeflllln¢. Tapiels stwp be platt� unlfamly arou�M theiaot mess et p[� IYia[ Is Letwaen [M mlddle aM Do[bm of Na root mess. noruc<noN pnre: 1 Gollon tan: 1- 31 gram [eblel 3 GaUon can: 3� 31 gram [ablels 5 Gellon can: l� 1� gram [aElels Galbn cen: 4- Z� qnm tableb Treez: l� tt grem tebleu eech 12' o! nllper Felms: ]-3lqrambblets caouNOCOV� aatss uiTe�o��w�o.< ::n�u�«ewerertni�nno�w�mro:m�o�r .e .e remu�e� e. ce, ma��re«��er..vKin�.uo�.. �� BOOTH DESIGNGROUP ISIIETnIyiG 18110REW,LIC W W � w � � � _ W W J �QW I"' U R..aw„��: «,«�oo� CONSTRUCTION'DOCS. ixE[l�axwip SUIE N/A � LANDSC�^� DETAILS I LD-1uA..,nw „;„ ,� ��.�� . � s r.�, a ,,. .W,..W....� .w........ ,. .a. W..:� �.� -'�.:'�.. �;.=.m��:�:: . w��e'..0 �...�.e4..e x ...w..i .uu w.+ .�....� s.w wewh...a r.n+M1 w iw�w iwww ar � �w �. �N� :':�a �oC«:: ""'L°' �':4:: u��s.�.�ia.�' ��u., rn.� . a .i.e r..n�ua >x rr. w u o�mwn t:��w •�� nx � r .a.e.... w�ee s.a s,�e..�M. . �K: G � ��.M.W.... �:�.�.,,.�.. �...�, � . �. �.w..�... ,� ,..-.p .,�.,,.,.°"L':i..,�.�� .w..� , .�.., �..w......wn"'.7"�..”, ....... ....�..v..... ��r.. �a ......� . �.�, M..., .... �.. � w. <.. r...�. � w.� ��. o...t � w.� i». •. ,�. ••�•• .�s, w�n a w.. ��..a n w..� Mw n � - �n � ..,, o�o M.�.a. h �.:. �S� ',,.,lw �i e'w .:..".".,%1�.::......w . �. kl.. i,o .. .... .i .�. �..,..�...��..�.�� w,..... N..�,.�.., � ^ .u�.N n.� �wti.°�i�::. ...,w...r.w...d,r.rr,.au.. �smwwMa A �°wS::.. �:�.....,.......w....�,..�. C' �, N` � 1;° .v'�.. u... en. v.u.. n.u.0 mm.�a. a,�� °�M� . ::�c:; ,.., „_ _,... _, ..�....,... _.._... ".,`�,"'S.. .b,....., •MM ,...mM ., �..��.....�,... .. . . .�. �., r r M.",�. �»,'�.•,:� �� , ��.�� ,�..��..� �:w..' «. .� , w �.�,.,..�...�.,� �.,. ti�, . uw.�, ,� ., �.�.-�? :w.. ... �.. .......,� ��"G°'^ . ,. ..�w,u.,.�u�:P�Mn.,w«..MV. ' v .rui� : . ��...� �:"iM'a.,".��. �.:"' .:.d,A .. P"a." ...,., � pT.'"" � �- a ..e:,'�,°`� w: �R, w .:.;>"�. ... �. .a, ..,. �.,w .`4'"°'.�.....�.� �n , . � �.�.'.'S : �� . W... �. � ., n •. .. . s:�w °`"w..... ,. �::5".M'.°� �'�� : .a"a".R"�° .... � �. � '"�R:"'�.. m.�M....� ,d .. w.. `„ �o�S: :,°""� . � � . « u. e...� p _ . . . 7 " :'�. ° , .' ��± ' �'. � . .� � .'m... .. a.n .,..�.i M. .e.r..u.�r..w..nwwue.�:.�w�ri.ww....u..mi.. °�q.u.m. n .�..; :�: ^� ^-� s�. E ,.5..�.....v.,...,..U...w.n.,,.a.wm..,.......w. tid "- +�°"9.'H . . .,� ....,.., .� u..�.+.., �+. � �V _ _ � �.:°a°G"'M°. � Y.�"'a...'"wC:°31:. ''�"'�'o,.`.°�u. � '�"'09 w�ul µ�m: �� 3 �"M":d ... �:�: ��°`.w:. t o', �` t:., _ `° G,"^m^. �.. �. �.�., .�.. � 4"`.;: ��.M•°°a.,."a:ur�°�v" �,.�..�,. �;;�� _ :.�;�,�:�:.��.-n �, ,._. . w v�ti.�` . �. . b �••• pna •iu.M.w.n.. w..w smxnr.�•r .w ��M1yr.� rw� I�iBn`�ix`�'�ie�I u e°�� (.w'Mmv+�i iii� Mu'nwa`. �a � . w.,..�..�. ;rr.��:��, M..... _,��..... �a:° ;. . ,.. .a., w��:�.. ::t,� ^�t:° �n�.. �'°.�:•:.�. .. � M., au.. .� ....� w� o. � r . u..> .,�...� .......- ' ..0.4:°:°..,�.> ' .. . � �.. �.�.d.. a..p: �:L�..�..��.. .�":C:,'"�.o- i �.mti �,., a m�.'"9,.'7,w:a°i�'Co w .N..w.a .. ,. . �,..�;� � . �..�...w w...... ..�. .�.�� v ..m..� . �..� ...�.. �..o�, �...... �w.W....'°.'"G e..., mW.w,w�.....wr,.�.. w:"9.`m � o�.�.w....�.npp1..'"w � x: w�:. ,"`"",,,,�. � .�. � �s � �'�S��x * .:.�:%:L:ro �^� ... �.. ��. ,..... �.�... o. A. � �. ........ ::J. �t�: ...., . . � :.G'L°"W",&„"°: �. . . v .... ,o.'�4m°" .k.,� a... a........ ,,..�..... {�,,�.a�,,:w :°� e'.: iaa `"' "ni: .s:�" ...c�� µ,:;:`. w,.�:••,�::�:.,�.w.,�.,,.,.. ..�..u.. �. n �.a. M.uM .. w �.i .�+• . �� M ,. ..� �.�,a ...., �. �. �. ........ a � w a.e W �..�.� ..., ;'o"r.' ._....�,�.�._,..>.�.,..�.. :t;�'— . �.y' :°9,'�. m.. � ..,.. �,u.�N.� w.,� Na aw'";^�� .�.ww, ."°°i ,". e:�: ° w�:��:1 = ,_.. :��;�;...�„ � . -W �� w �.M. ,a. up(iw �mf a ""��' :M w :� ; ;, ..m.�.�, ,_ a..�.., u iu aq t�`w�� e .u. r.n°�iey �.) i. i �/a Ue un � w«� �ui'i�"ien w rnMe+ e� :+;.::� ..:`G w .."°°.'� .�w . u .. „ ".' C' . , .: b:: .W.,•�"«:ti... .f:`� �y �'.°�S°'..a:`?n - :A'1�°"..""...�':,f:' .M,.. ..... �m .,�. w.i i'� � .s.,�..�.....�.,�..°e.. . .�e��: M�,� t;m^:" �N".q°'°=.� v�...�. ....,.�, �^�T�,�.e,,n�.� .,.�..�M..��w »:�.��.,,.«�.,... ,_.. . a.� � .ti �°:" �..�a o....,. ...,..,.. m M _«.,.�..an,„..�..a�....MM......, ,.... � . ^°.x.M� _�.,.,...W a ' "• � �w w.�,� "�':� °:.� r e ,.,,.n�a.,..n ..ua�u�r�:ri�i.�,waK.,Ma ,,. �,'.�,�.�� ..�,�..�.,:��.;r.,,u. :�ra "��>�' ,.... & M m..� �'.�'... . �. a. ^°�w:• : ,... �n. ..n .a n�Mib� �r...,..u. r �..m�.. .nn e�e T. � u• �.w : d.r• n.w..verx� 4 nw w n."e i�.ieun� u� � neFa� aM. ° •� °M" wi.. nw :�n��a w u. �. m.�.,..�, .am .� . w,�. �. ��'��'^�..�.,... M. w.,�«'ri:'" �u.°p n" .�.�.......w....«..n..,�a w.. B D G �� BOOTH OESIONGROU P :ULF COnST COt+�FlmIy1G cZ � W w Za Q J � � � �— u n v.�..�a�: �aema i CONSTRURION'�OCS. SCRIEON/A � � LANDSCAPE SPECIFICATIONS LD-2 a c...y. �..w w nr ery ..�.uw.a ..u.nu.. w�.9wi.� .ow... m. . .a aw..x �n . _ m�. nr..�...w nM'�+n wnir .rc%w .o• .aoM x u. u..� w. c.x�.n.. nn .a .nx.F mnr m v�e�rv �w m�.w ...we'Me i. w c.,wa v� s�'.�u� ��w .naum r.. pau. w weras �n� wu� �pn w w•b wam� wry�ai mn r w . . m...... ,._.,.. ..w..d.w.,.. m. �«.�..�> ...� ..�,.� .« u. ,...::� a..w.., Z�� ..� .� .. u�. ��. ...� ,.,. r m ..,�..a :.�i: �dv .a.,.... N�... .wN.... Vuq+Rmi n w.� .m�. �.r .ues uu�r �mnrcun� •n m w M. a w�w�n h w waM1 emyen. A. emwnr q�� i • e� �w�m w e n� w u waam « n. .v sw.. n.w. ..<u .. ww..•�w�e rM'wywnMw�� r�+•.uewi•iu n w... �w.n.... m ia �M�a� rw uw mw.�.u....e .„ e°�^°w r µ.n . o....m n a+• wt ee✓r..�•a n.zi. em .w�. 1�1 r.it .wn .m.i x.�i a.,T..� w :ivM.un n nuxp .a..� u�:°� i:� n�•• r m. m. w...0 uw.N .0 w�.. ..u., ronw > q..u..� n •. m.�m. vw. e. ..e .... . . � ..xl....•n.�. . ..n.... . i m. r. n .. . w n••n ••nme n Orwn �. ie n.w ..1 �. i. m w.w.a �.w. M.i �..� a�.........u. p� u. u nm r.J s. v e. ,k+ � xn.u. eo rR . vw. ..`w w+.. �� bqy vtlrn ry m�ua�: ,9m w eop a�Milpxe 1n �eMrq M�»un N Iw vsi eo�rmu �IP ... �.. ." "m. °. .,.�...,. .........�... w.....,. �...�u ��.�.�..... w,.......M�.. � �v. ..�� : � .,.�._r.., .�...._...._.. �, a ...... mi.fo:°� ... . awi.a. �.:..ii�..aa. �M W.I.V�M.1 . u• W�iu.�a�.• M��. n��n .ae�v _ �'(p.W na) i. u1Bl�ui un� (�I i� .e 1��1 �. ��rou, c�w -. 01 �+r .M-�� w . pp � ° e�/M a w�Wiw uw a�.nu��°v w� w e'i'Y� i:e' i ei�wi h i`�ia'ne um . -... .�.,. ,�. �.o ..� ...... .... �. �......,.. �.mEm u .. �,.,�.... �. �.. a.,. �. G .� . � .. . ... «vs ...._..... �M .a.. ^a�n '� v[ neco �� ..0 .enM� mf um .nu xvxMU wnu wmn u nu am � �n v nM � wate • a'�iarma�ww • ee�wn �.x �ron� �e w br� w �, xun. r,ww tw•�. a•w>.� p �n. rn a....+a �+h. �. .� � ..W :...... urwc.... � �. m .�...,. ... �.. u......,......� n...�r. �,a... .�...,.� . un.,:,.�7.:.��.w.ti"b"°°.ww.b..........u.�w .....m_�v.>. o..�. w�a.� M. �..� M�w.. �,.._d..., w..o...�.�.,. a.�,d�w .� �.Mw . ....�.°��'c.w «w�, .�.,, . ..... ,M. _ ...,.. ��, u.��.�..,,, .�. ,�.�.. �, >, . : ,....m....� u. ��,.�, ��. ��. mw e� �w.e w euarc. �..e..i..N.w%d .�Wi ... �a .emr :.M�i.�m� n nw �n ea uw xn «r�u tn. m.m.�., anu .i w� .a.w.a �. �.r x pp ,`�::��" • r� ••ay,. er�ia'.a�e m ua•Nn.,�.hW .w .w a.mm •n. .� �.. .w ..es� .w �a u.. ..w .m e,n. ssn.o.mv �. rm. w ..•rMa . s n u��'� _ _ • w ru�w. R�w�am�srn�w�War�ueawY�WF��am.u�i��u�1MU�w�� x�i� .�n`"�.:e.`a`M�.... � .,Mx:e`n.a iw.e:�a.mw..e...iu.u�.s.....e.�u... «��.w�..� .v.,,�^ .� .. e . ..x� u�. �� e �..� m n....... ...r� . na n w�w�e pww v a•�Y�4.ro MM ... n.� �ru �� .ua. e� r�mmiu w. �. w ..�. n.n .a ....v.. w u. a�x ron w w wm mnv w.. fw. w..�a w...a we . w...v� �. .�a. w u �.n�r. m....w u..�n.�n w�M .e� M ��..�mw��+°s na nr� n me �' �wr�m nw�nw.�ew.� �«nW M+� we�i�nu�ew h . . . rm.s .r.f.i.r. . .wul x �e .nai. vee�. sw. re�sa wn N�w n e.st xw� r�e��am u. oan w�IrnWe �n� Y wr-q �ww msi� m.H�.a ....p �x.M w nx ::�'� ��"�,. � . ..�.�°�. . w �_�...�., . �..m.... �.,n u. o....�. r. m�".T�:� w,. ...,. ,W,.`"v:�"" . . .... �.�,. ...,.,.�...,. `�r'q.w w m��..W�.n..aMw�.n •..w.wM1..e ..u...�h.w .. .. uw... .. aw.n�: I�0en• � ueµruMe'i�i mn�.vw .rv w enr�p m. <.m�ivew. e na��iwnevµrn .i aw n . � wMI � aWa a B D G �� BOOTH �ESIGNGROUP iliM wi+vv o� 'ULF COAST CONS F1T�11G Ll..� W � N � W � 0 w w Z Q � � � � � R�eg�vur�elnww�r� CONSTRUCTION DOCS. � SGLEON/A �� IRRIGATION SPECIFICATIONS LD-3 �� SGHEMATIG PLAN G � AI.I 3/16• - ��-0• klflr end klar archltecta ina se.�a ,e �. aew.�er. n ss>n � � � � � � �� LL �~ N W 3 r � ry K � r w � � v Q9 B � � � (`W � o, � P�. m a oP o� ooi�. 44-IS o�an : �� I ��.� 3/16' • I'-0' .�.. � . �� .�� .� � � '�.��.. �� .. �. .�� ' �. .•� `: .. . . ... ... . ... _..:. . . �.. .:::. . ' . ; .:. . : ..., .. -:.. �. '�..-:. •.... '. ' S :,-'. . .. .:'.... � WEST ELEVATION AI.I 3/Ib' = I'-0' 0 ...uio� � 0 � � � � klar and kler �IL P0.,'FIWa MPl -_ -- �Y architecta Inc vena to n aww.ro:. n ss�e� re mrl 9N hYPI :X MOORE 51LV£R 00.15 Z � �-- � } � Z � �~ N W 3 F � � K � — U �pq�� 01L � ��I' ` 9 � � rp. m na ❑e �I O con.r..�iie� s.t � wneco w svcw �mw (nv) � NORTH ELEVATION AI9 3/Ib' = I'-0' Yi1maVY1nY1 1iTP1 L0.Q4 9EI1 MOD!@ -SRVER BELLS � EAST ELEVATION a3 3/I6' = I'-0' klar and klar archltects ina aassa �. ,a n rxv.veror. n as�m � � � � � � ��d � YlC_ ~ N � y— W �— p� Q � Vd � � U ��p tl� � � � � � pA. m o ❑r ❑c oe�.� 49-19 � ��d Ni �� r �� _� � � � � � � ,-� iii !� _ . -. �'� �..� . ,, �• ��.�� . �-, , qljl'� a' � I�I� n; � � � i -:, — T.!.. �.�,�.C��: k..`I�I� C ��'`•.� r� ; �i� � �:�� . � �� x y p�V"" �y �.�/�iy� ' IIl S' rt` �� • � . � y�•.. ,- �. �N �� I��-�� ,',� �"��'`�C.�Pf l ``� .� l • l� r ,��. i f � .. .�at4: t.'. :M': `��, +� r '� 4 tt . ,.�� , �'�� _ ��.`,=t��, 9`�. 1r�� -s � �i �;"j :.�. ...'i I � . � ..._...� _ _ � � � �:�-�.�:,�rv.. .�. , �� _ _,.'� �'�., �� t �a��:,-.�.. _ �� u � ��V� , � ' ,,� ° ��` k:+�� - � � ,��: �...� �� , ,, '�°" � ` � '"'� � �� k 4� � �*��/ I 1 � ��^,,,,,,�,• y{'� � �j�� Y � / � � � .� '��J�1 � u�. �i�! ! �* ,� �. ��' . ` � .,�+� <r` �� " �„ �k! � �'� �s +��i � � � � �plt« a�J f.7� ��4 ,� � l..i A . �� ° ��J�': Il �,::_�. � � � �� .;•,e� —�- �a il.�:}, _� � :� - = ��«�:�; ��,�,�:.:t :�,�_ . _ '..wy� `.'�i � •T 4 i;_✓I ��5.�' �'� s � �!'y� =,s i y�:. �''`�;i "✓ q't r� �� N � �� ,�, , '�".-�_ �� Y � � ,��, �:��' , �t,,Gt '',� ,�-: �n � ��. :. ..�`� _-�� _ _ : �s ,£ �°- �a�:�,�: �1� ` " � �' �� - � ^i � .= C, �,�i1.; �Il� � �I�i:. ; 3' � � � i�l �� F, -- . �'��==�? :� � =�� _ —" — �, ,� �� -.: . _. . a�_.. �...'I , it�a� i�� n� � �r__ �" 1:'� � �� r �� , . _ � _ . _ � _ . - - --- , , . � _ . , . .. , r . , � � � �� s , . , , ° � � • � , ' t , ! ; i >' ' �~`�.,� r °� ' . , , , �. : � . � , . ,' : -'�,.--�i , ' � ``-`'_ . , . ; s � , a � , . . a � � � � � � � � � x . _ ._. _...... . _ ...._. ._.__. ___. .__._. ...._. ___. _._--....--- r- __.___. .v.�_..-_- ._.___._ ___...__ ___.__._____..___._-_ ...___........ _..__ _._..._... .. ..__.. ---