The URL can be used to link to this page

DVA 01-01-01 (2) ,. . , . DV A 01-01-01 301 S GULFVIEW BLVD SEASHELL RESORT I ( \ \ ~... 1! MACFARLANE FERGUSON & McMuLLEN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 400 NORTH TAMF'A STREET. SUITE: 2300 POBOX 1531 (ZIP 33601) TAM~~ FLORIDA 33602 (813)273.4200 FAX (SI3) 273-4396 900 HIGHF'OINT CENTER 106 EAST COLLEGE AVENUE TALLAHASSEE.,FLORIOA 32301 (S50> 681.7381 FAX <850> 681-02BI ~ fP rl ,''i [-' I '"\ 00 ~ r. 6iS <;CllllR!f'~TRE:Ej 'I I ;" I' I i O [, \ 1/ "'.~O e~I".l>I1l,(:ZLf;>la3 5 '\ -~,-- -, Ii [ CLEARWATER FLORIif' 3 rS L (7fr) 1J41.S9f?'f, ~f" (7]1 f.-I." , MAt\ f,. 1 l.tiU, I u IN REPLY REFER TO LJ PLANN,1 ~S .'it [;f'; :'LC;,~,":~~'J f SVCS CiTY OF CLF~f':V)iAfER - Tampa March 20,2001 VIA HAND DELIVERY " The Honorable Brian Aungst, Sf. Mayor-Commissioner, City of Clearwater Clearwater City Hall, 3rd Floor 112 S. Osceola Ave Clearwater, FL 33756 VIA HAND DELIVERY Gerald Figurski, Chairman Clearwater Community Development Board Clearwater City Hall, 3rd Floor 112 S. Osceola Ave Clearwater, FL 33756 \~ VIA HAND DELIVERY Pamela K. Akin, Esq. City of Clearwater City Attorney Clearwater City Hall, 3rd Floor 112 S. Osceola Ave Clearwater, FL 33756 VIA HAND DELIVERY Clerk, City of Clearwater Clearwater City Hall, 2nd Floor 112 S. Osceola Ave Clearwater, FL 33756 VIA HAND DELIVERY Clerk, Community Development Board City of Clearwater 112 S. Osceola Ave Clea~ater, FL 33756 Re: Clearwater Seashell Resort / Decision of Community Development Board (CDB) in Case 'No. FL 01-01-01 and DA 01-01-01/ Notice of Filing Verified Complaint Pursuant to Section 163.3215, Florida Statutes Ladies and Gentlemen: On behalf of Antonios Markopoulos (d/b/a Day's Inn), A.P. Mar, Inc. (d/b/a Port Vue), Kolossos Inn, Inc. (d/b/a Beach Towers), T.M. Megas, L.e.C. (d/b/a Spy Glass) and T.M. Megas, L.e.e. (d/b/a Golden Beach) (collectively referred to as "Markopoulos"), we hereby file a Notice of Filing Verified Complaint, ~163.3215, Florida Statutes and a Verified Complaint, both of which are enclosed herewith. Thank you for your attention to this matter. /:~~~iff~ ~ ~ encl. IN CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA INRE: ~, SEASHELL RESORT LLC / DECISION OF CITY OF CLEARWATER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD ON CASE NUMBERS FL 01-01-01 AND DA 01-01-01 / NOTICE OF FILING VERIFIED COMPLAINT. ~ 163.3215. FLORIDA STATUTES Antonios Markopoulos, (d/b/a Day's Inn), A.P. Mar, Inc. (d/b/a Port Vue), Kolossos Inn, Inc. (d/b/a Beach Towers), T.M. Megas, L.C.e. (d/b/a Spy Glass) and T.M. Megas, L.C.C. (d/b/a Golden Beach) (collectively and individually referred to as "Markopoulos"), by and through their undersigned attorneys, file this Verified Complaint pursuant to Section 163.3215, Florida Statutes. Respectfully submitted, MACFARLANE FERGUSON & McMULLEN Go~qj"J~ Florida Bar No. 518890 Post Qffice Box 1531 . " " . Tampi, 'Florida 33601:1531 (813) 273-4344 Attorneys for Markopoulos I, ' , ~,' 1, ' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of..the above and foregoing has been furnished Via Hand Delivery to : Brian Aungst, Mayor of the City of Clearwater, City Hall, 112 S. Osceola Avenue,Jrd Floor, Clearwater, Florida 33756, Gerald Figurski, Chairman of the CDB Board, City Hall, 112 S. Osceola Avenue, 3rd Floor, Clearwater, Florida 33756, Pamela K. Akin, Esq., Clearwater City Attorney, City Hall, 112 S. Osceola Avenue, 3rd Floor, Clearwater, Florida 33756, Clerk, City of Clearwater, City Hall, 112 S. Osceola Avenue, 2nd Floor, Clearwater, Florida 33756 and Clerk, Community Development Board, City Hall, 112 S. Osceola Avenue, 2nd Floor, Clearwater, Florida 33756 this ~ay of March, 2001. ," IN CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA INRE: SEASHELL RESORT LLC / DECISION OF CITY OF CLEARWATER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD ON CASE NUMBERS FL 01-01-01 AND DA 01-01-01 / VERIFIE.D COMPLAINT Antonios Markopoulos, (d/b/a Day's Inn), A.P. Mar, Inc. (d/b/a Port Vue), Kolossos Inn, Inc. (d/b/a Beach Towers), T:M. Megas, L.C.C. (d/b/a Spy Glass) and T.M. Megas, L.C.C. (d/b/a Golden Beach) (collectively and individually referred to as "Markopoulos"), by and through their undersigned attorneys, file this Verifie~ Complaint pursuant to Section 163.3215, Florida Statutes, because a development order of the Clearwater Community Development Board for a 250 room hotel and 800 space parking garage is inconsistent with the City and County comprehensive plans, and say: INTRODUCTION Clearwater Seashell Resort ("Seashell Resort") filed an application with the City of Clearwater requesting approval of a 150 foot tall, 1 250 room hotel and 800 space parking garage on a 1.6 acre parcel along Clearwater Beach. The proposed project included the elimination of , , Third Street, a public right-of-way to the Beach, and substantial waivers-of setback requirements and height limitations. Seashell Resort's project is forbidden under the City of Clearwater ~ 1"'" ,~,:1: Comprehensive Plan ("Clearwater Comprehensive Plan"), the PineUas County Countywide . , , ~ \' .{, :0 :', I. ' . . >' '_' , , Comprehensive Plan ("Countywide Plan") and the Rules Concerning the Administration of the 1 The plans submitted by Seashell Resort are not to scale; however the plans indicate the building exceeds 150 feet. Countywide Future Land Use Plan, as amended ("Countywide Rules") and the Beach By Design regulations for the reasons set forth in this c<;>mplaint. Seashell Resort's application was presented to the City of Clearwater Community Development Board ("CDB"), pursuant to Section 4-404 of the City of Clearwater Community Development Code ("Code"), and over Markopoulos' and other objections, the CDB approved the application.2 See Transcript ofCDB hearing attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, MotionlRequest for Granting of Party Status attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B and MotionlRequest to Cancel Hearings Based Upon Deficient Notice attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit C. The CDB decision is inconsistent with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan, the Countywide Plan, the Countywide Rules and the Beach By Design regulations. In addition, the CBD decision was based upon numerous fundamental errors, including but not limited to Seashell Resort's failure to present substantial evidence to support approval of the application as well as violations of state and federal due process and equal protection laws. Markopoulos has separately filed an appeal of the CDB decision addressing these objections, as well as others, which is pending as of the date of this Verified Complaint. The CDB also made recommendations (but no decisions) on a draft Development Agreement and on vacating Third Street. Markopoulos reserves the right to bring all appropriate action including but not limited to " \_' 2Markopoulos was granted party status as a substantially affected party and was afforded the opportunity to present testimony and evidence as well as cross examine witnesses pursuant to Section 4-206, Code. See Transcript, pp. 72-73. -2- actions pursuant to ~ 163.3215, Florida Statutes on these matters. Markopoulos also reserves all of its rights pursuant to 42 V.S.C. ~ 1983 et seq. Markopoulos is filing this action in accordance with statutory requirements and Markopoulos expressly does not waive any or all objections contained in or relating to the appeal of the CDB decision, the Development Agreement application or the vacating petition for Third Street, and any other statutory or legal remedies it may have, now or in the future. ACTION PURSUANT TO ~ 163.3215, FLORIDA STATUTES Pursuant to Section 163.3215, Florida Statutes, any aggrieved or adversely affected party may maintain an action for injunctive or other relief against any local government to prevent such local government from taking any action on a development order, inCluding the authorization of an application for a site plan approval, which materially alters the use or density or intensity of use on a particular piece of property that is not consistent with the adopted local comprehensive plan. In accordance with Section 163.3215(4), Florida Statutes, as a condition precedent to institution of an action pursuant to Section 163.3215, Florida Statutes, Markopoulos is filing this Verified Complaint with the City o~Clearwater because the action of the CDB in Case Nos. FL 01-01-01 and DA 01-01-01 in approving the application of Seashell Resort f9r site plan - , , . " . ~': >, ' . , , approval of a Level Two Approval (Flexible Development, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project) is inconsistent with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan, the Countywide Plan, the Countywi~e Rules and the Beach By Design regul~ti<?ns. A developm~nt ~~""" ~ '~ ,t \, ~~' ':'":' I :'f. ,r,.,. :" fo, .,' 1I-~,'," :~, order wa~ issue~ by the C~B on March 9, 2001, seventeen (17) days after the decision was rendered on February 20,2001, and contained information beyond the scope of the decision \", -3- rendered at the CDB hearing, including but not limited to referencing a decision of the City Commission which was rendered subsequent to the date of the CDB hearing. See Development Order attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit D. Markopoulos filed objections to the Development Order which are attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit E. VERIFIED COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS This Verified Complaint is based on the following: 1. A.P. Mar, Inc. (d/b/a Port Vue) and Kolossos Inn, Inc. (d/b/a Beach Towers), which are Florida corporations, and T.M. Megas, L.C. (d/b/a Spy Glass) and T.M. Megas, L.C. (d/b/a! Golden Beach), which are Florida limited companies, together with Antonios Markopoulos (d/b/a Days Inn), individually, are owners of parcels totaling approximately 3.2 acres situated on the north side ofthe subject parcel ("Markopoulos Property"). The Markopoulos Property is zoned Tourist District ("T"). Markopoulos is an aggrieved or adversely affected party in that it is an adjacent property owner to the subject property and it will suffer an adverse effect to its property, including, but not limited to, adverse effects with respect to incompatibility, view, light, access, aesthetics, transportation, value, and safety. 2. City of Clearwater is a municipal corporation within the State of Florida, and granted power to enforce its adopted Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Section 163.3161, et seq., Florida Statutes. 3. The CDB is a quasi-judicial board of the City of Clearwater, Florida, granted power to review and decide applications for so-called Level Two Approvals within the City of Clearwater pursuant to the Code. -4- 4. Seashell Resort has represented that it is the contract purchaser of two parcels totaling approximately 1.1 acres separated by Third Street, and immediately south and adjacent to the Markopoulos Property ("Seashell Resort Property"). Third Street, a 0.5 (m:o.1) acre parcel is not zoned for any development because it is a public right-of-way which provides access to the Gulf of Mexico. The Seashell Resort Property is currently zoned Tourist (T) and is classified as Resort Facilities High (RFH) under the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. The property is also within the Resort Facilities High (RFH) category under the Countywide Plan, which is a subcategory under the Mixed Use plan classification. 5. On or about January 26,2001, Seashell Resort filed an application with the CDB requesting authorization for site plan approval of a Level Two Approval (Flexible Development, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project), requesting approval of a hotel dev;elopment with a number of waivers including an increase in height from thirty-five (35) feet to one hundred fifty (150) feet, an increase in hotel rooms from a maximum of sixty-five (65) rooms to two hundred fifty (250) rooms, a reduction in front (west) setback along South Gulfview Boulevard from ten (10) feet to zero (0) feet, a reduction in front (east) setback along Coronado Drive from ten (10) feet to zero (0) feet, a reduction in side (north) setback from ten (10) feet to zero (0) feet, and a reduction in side (south) setback from ten (10) feet to zero (0) feet . . . ("Application").3 3The application filed by Seashell Resort was incomplete. Specifically, the application proposed to utilize and eliminate Third Street, a public right-of-way not owned or controlled by the applicant, which was excluded from the legal ~~scription fileq with the application. See Section 2-402, Cod~., In addition, the City , . ' q . ,r... , . . , '>- ' , . ." , of Clearw!iter, as the 'owner of Third Street, was required to sign the application but did not do so. See Section 2-402, Code. Accordingly, since the application was not complete, the CBn had no authority to consider it and any action taken on it is ultra vires. Markopou10s reserved its rights at the cnB hearing and proceeded under protest. Markopou10s hereby continues its reservation of rights and is proceeding under -5- 6. The proposed project is inconsistent with and not permitted under the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan for a number of reasons, including the following: a. The proposed project is not allowed under the current land use category on the property, which is Resort Facilities High (RFH). i. Under the RFH land use category the maximum density for hotel rooms is fifty (50) units per acre, or in other words a maximum of sixty-five (65) hotel rooms. Section 3.2.1, Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project has a density of two hundred fifty (250) units per acre, approximately four times the maximum allowable (such density calculation does not include Third Street which has not been vacated). Even ifthe area of Third Street is included in the density calculation, the proposed project would have a room density of one hundred fifty-three (153) units per acre, nearly double the maximum allowable. ii. The Land Use Element establishes an intensity limitation by imposing a maximum Floor Area Ratio (F AR)4 for the RFH land use category of 1.2. Section 3.2.1, Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. The FAR for the proposed project, excluding the parking garage, is approximately 3.6, approximately three times the maximum allowable intensity permitted in the land use category. protest. In addition, the application form states that the request is also for a transfer of development rights. However, no transfer of development rights was actually requested, and none was approved by the CBD. 4Floor Area Ratio is not specifically defined in the Clearwater ~ompre~ensive Plan, but is defmed in both the Countywide Rules and the Code as a "measurement ofthe intensity of building development on a site. A floor area ratio is the relationship between the gross floor area on a site and the gross land area. The FAR is calculated by adding together the gross floor area of all buildings on the site and dividing by the gross floor area." Division 7.2., Countywide Rules and Section 8-102, Code. , " I -6- 111. The Land Use Element establishes a maximum Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR)5 for the RFH land use category of 0.95. Section 3.2.1, Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project has an ISR of 1.0, which exceeds the maximum permissible ISR within the land use category. b. The proposed project is inconsistent with the following adopted goals, objectives and policies of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan: i. Go~ll, Future Land Use Element. The City of Clearwater shall continue to protect natural resources and systems throughout the City and ensure that these resources are successfully integrated into the urban environment through land development regulations, management programs, and coordination with future land use intensities and categories. View, light and air corridors particularly to the beach are considered natural resources of the City. The proposed project is inconsistent with this goal as it proposes to vacate (eliminate), without relocating, Third Street, a public right-of-way, as well as to eliminate internal front, side and rear yard setbacks, thereby eliminating a significant view, light and air corridor to the Gulf of Mexico. ii. Objective 2.2, Future Land Use Element. The City of Clearwater shall continue to support innovative planned development and mixed land use development techniques in order to promote infill development that is consistent al;1d compatible with the surrounding environment. SImpervious Surface Ratio is not specifically defined in the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan but is defined in both the Countywjde, Rules and the Co~e as a "rheasure[ment] of intensity or'hard sUrfaced '", , l~., . '" development on a site. An impefvious surface ratio is the relationship betWeen the total impervious surface area on a site and the gross land area. The ISR is calculated by dividing the square footage of the area of all impervious surfaces on the site by the square footage of the gross land area." Division 7.2, Countywide Rules and Section 8-102, Code. -7. The surrounding environment consists of low rise and mid rise hotels and related lower intensity commercial uses with air, light and view corridors as well as periodic east-west public accessways to the beach. The proposed project consists of a high rise utilizing and covering the entire property from side yard to side yard and totally eliminating a public access way. The proposed project is therefore inconsistent with this objective as the size, bulk and magnitude of the proposed development is not consistent with nor compatible with the surrounding environment. 111. Goal 4., Future Land Use Element. The City of Clearwater shall ensure that all development or redevelopment initiatives meet the safety, environmental, and aesthetic needs of the City through consistent implementation of the Community Development Code. View, light and air corridors to the beach are aesthetic needs ofthe City. The proposed'project is inconsistent with this goal as it proposes to vacate, without relocating, Third Street, a public right-of-way, as well as eliminate internal side yard setbacks to zero (0) feet, thereby eliminating a view, light and air corridor to the Gulf of Mexico. iv. Policy 24.1.7, Recreation and Open Space Element. Preserve beach access ways through development control and preservation of accessible street ends. The proposed project is inconsistent with this policy as it proposes to eliminate (vacate), without relocating, Third Street, a public right-of-way, thereby failing to control or preserve an accessway to the beach and an accessible street end. 7. The proposed project is inconsistent with and not permitted under the Countywide Plan nor the Countywide Rules for a number of reasons, including the following: -8- a. The proposed project is not allowed under the current land use category on the property, which is Resort Facilities High (RFH).6 i. The maximum number of hotel rooms permitted for transient accommodation uses7 is fifty (50) hotel rooms per acre, or in other words a maximum of sixty- five (65) hotel rooms. Section 2.3.3.4.6, Countywide Rules. The proposed project proposes two hundred fifty (250) units per acre, approximately four times the maximum number of hotel rooms permitted (such calcul,ation does not include Third Street which has not been vacated). Even if Third Street is included in the calculation, the proposed project would have one hundred fifty-three (153) hotel rooms per acre, nearly double the maximum permitted. ii. The maximum intensity is controlled by Floor Area Ratio (FAR). 8 The FAR limit for the RFH land use category is 1.2. Section 2.3.3.4.6, Countywide Rules. The FAR calculation for the proposed project, excluding the parking garage, is approximately 3.6, approximately three times the allowable intensity in the land use category. 6 Section 2-801 of the Code provides. that "[i]t is the intent of the T District that development be consistent with the Countywide Future Land Use Plan as required by state law. The development potential of a parcel ofland within the T District shall be determined by the standards found in this Development Code as well as the Countywide Future Land Use Designation of the property. In addition, the proposed project is part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project. Section 2-803 of the Code provides that any use approved for a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project shall be permitted by the underlying Future Land Use Map designation. The proposed Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project is not permitted by the underlying Future Land Use Map designation. .' 7 Transient A9coinmo,dation Use.'is defmed in the CountYMde)iuie's ~s '~[a] fa~liity offetiiig' ,'/ temporary lodging accommodations; such as hotels, motels, inns, resorts ..." Division 7.2, Countywide Rules. 8 Please see footnote 2, supra. -9- iii. The maximum Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR)9 for the RFH land use category of 0.95. Section 2.3.3.4.6, Countywide Rules. The proposed project has an ISR of 1.0, which exceeds the maximum permissible within the land use category. iv. The maximum amount oftraffic impacts permitted in the RFH land use category are three hundred ten (310) trips per day per acre, or in other words, three hundred thirty-one (331) on the 1.1 acre parcel. Section 2.3.3.4.6, Countywide Rules. According to the Traffic Impact Assessment r~port dated January, 2001 and prepared by King Engineering Associates, Inc. on behalf of Seashell Resort, the proposed project will generate a total of 4,550 trips per day, more than thirteen (13) times the maximum permitted under the land use category. Even if the area of Third Street is included in this calculation, the maximum number of trips per day that would be permitted under the land use category is four hundred ninety-six (496), more than nine (9) times the maximum permitted under such land use category. b. The proposed project is inconsistent with the following provisions set forth in the Goals, Objectives and Economic Assumptions of the Countywide Plan. i. Land Use-Goal: The land uses associated with development should be compatible and reasonable in terms of both the land, surrounding uses, and the public interest. The overall pattern and intensity of land uses should be the most efficient configuration possible. The land uses that are not to be associated with development should be protected. . The proposed project is inconsistent with this goal as the size, bulk and magnitude of the proposed development is not compatible nor reasonable in terms of the size of the land, the surrounding uses and the publi~ interest. At the hearing, Mar~~poulos presented exp~rt ~,. <" /'i ~ , , 't ....., 9 Please see footnote 3, supra. -10- testimony that the proposed project, with a proposed height of one hundred fifty (150) feet, the elimination of front, side and rear yard setbacks, and an eighty-five (85) foot high sheer wall located immediately adjacent to the Markopoulos Property line, is not compatible with the existing uses and development within the surrounding area. See the testimony of Ethel Hammer of Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates on pages I 06-115 of the Transcript attached hereto and inc,orporated herein as Exhibit A. Based upon the testimony and other evidence presented at the CDB hearing, the proposed p,roject's intensity of four times the maximum permitted in the zoning district and the land use classificatiob on the property is not compatible with surrounding uses, is not the most efficient configuration possible for the development on the proposed site and does not protect land uses not associated with the development. ii. Land Use-Policies: Land development should highlight and maximize scenic amenities and cultural facilities and provide for public access. The proposed project is inconsistent with this policy as it proposes to eliminate (vacate), without relocating, Third Street, a public right-of-way, as well as eliminate internal front, side and rear yard setbacks, thereby eliminating the scenic amenities including view, light and air-corridors to the Gulf of Mexico as well as a public access to the beach, the most significant amenity in Clearwater. 8. Seashell Resort presented the position that an increase in intensity by four times the maximum permitted in the current zoning district and land use classification was allowable ifthe City establishes a Community Redevelopment District ("CRD") plan category under the " Countywide Plan and the Countywide Rules. This assertion is erroneous and invalid for a number of reasons. -11- a. At the time the CDB decision was rendered on the Application, no CRD designation had been allocated to the subject property nor to the Clearwater Beach area and no such designation has been made as of the date ofthe filing of this Verified Complaint. b. The process for an area to be designated a CRD requires several levels of review, including public hearings and decisions by other governmental bodies. Section 2.3.3.8.4, Countywide Rules. Before an area may be designated a CRD, the subject area must be formally designated as a community r~development area and a special area plan therefor must be approved by the local government. Section 2.3.3.8.4; Countywide Rules. Such plan amendment must then, in accordance with Section 2.3.3.8.4 and Article 5 ofthe Countywide Rules, be presented to the Pinellas Planning Council ("PPC") for a recommendation, and then to the Countywide Planning Authority ("CPA") for review and approval. 10 To date, this process for designating an area including the subject property as a CRD through a plan amendment has not occurred. c. Even if the CRD existed, the CRD plan category standards do not permit the proposed project. The Seashell Property is classified as Resort Facilities High (RFH) under the Countywide Plan. RFH categories are a subcategory ofthe Mixed Use plan classification. Section 2.3.1, Countywide Rules. Mixed Uses are not permitted in CRDs. Section 2.3.3.8.4, Countywide Rules. Accordingly, in order for the Seashell Property to be designated a CRD, the Countywide ,Plan and the Countywide Rules must be amended, in accordance with Article 5 of the Countywide Rules and Chapter 163, Florida Statues, to permit the RFH land use category within the CRD standards. 10 The Countywide Rules also provide a right of appeal to any "substantially affected person." See Division 5.1, Countywide Rules. -12- 9. The Countywide Rules require that all local land development regulations be consistent with the Countywide Plan and the Countywide Rules 11. In other words, unless and until the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners, siting as the CPA, has approved a plan amendment after holding public hearings, such plan amendment has no force and effect and cannot be considered in the context of an application for a development order. Accordingly, the CDB has no power to approve a project that is inconsistent with the Countywide Plan or the Countywide Rules. Clearly, ~he proposed project at four times the maximum allowable intensity is inconsistent with the Countywide Plan arid the Countywide Rules. 10. On February 15,2001, the City of Clearwater adopted an ordinance containing regulations entitled "Beach By Design." The Beach By Design regulations contain development standards and design guidelines for areas of Clearwater Beach to be implemented if and when the, Clearwater Beach area is redesignated as a CRD in accordance with the Countywide Plan. At the time the CBD considered the proposed project, the Clearwater Beach area had not been designated a CRD. Accordingly, it is Markopoulos' position that the Beach By Design regulations have not been incorporated in the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan; however, even assuming arguendo that such regulations are included within the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan, the proposed project is inconsistent with the Beach By Design regulations for the following reasons: a. The proposed project is inconsistent with the requirements in the Beach By Design regulations that the design of buildings shall maintain light, air and view corrid~rs. "" ..' 11 Article 3, Countywide Rules; Division 4.1, Countywide Rules; Sections 4.2.3.2, 4.2.4, 4.2.5, 6.1.1.1,6.1.1.2, and 6.1.1.3, Countywide Rules. -13- Article I, page 2, Beach By Design. The proposed project proposes to vacate, without relocating, Third Street as well as reduce internal side yard setbacks to zero (0) feet, thereby eliminating the air, light, and view corridors in contravention of this requirement. b. The proposed project is inconsistent with the design objectives set forth in Article VII, page 55, as it is not in scale with the character and function of Clearwater Beach and it is incompatible with existing buildings. In addition, the proposed project which seeks an increase in height from thirty-five (35) feet to one hundred fifty (150) feet and a reduction in front, side and rear setbacks from ten (10) feet to zero (0) will contribute to and further the "walling off' of the Gulf of Mexico with "rows" of high rise buildings, in violation of the Beach By Design design objectives. c. The proposed project is inconsistent with Article VII, Section A which provides that resort density shall be limited to forty (40) units per acre, provided, however, that additional density may be added to a resort either by transferred development rights or by way of the provisions of the CRD designation. The proposed project site has acquired no transfer of development rights nor has the site been designated as a CRD through the appropriate governmental procedures. Therefore, the proposed project's density of two hundred fifty (250) hotel rooms per acre (even if assuming arguendo that Third Street, which has not been vacated, is included) is inconsistent with this regulation. d. The proposed project is inconsistent with Article VII, Section B.l which provides ~hat the maximum permissible building height is one hundred (toO) feet, except that , , such height limitation may be increased to one hundred fifty (150) feet if additional density is allocated to the development either by transferred development rights or with bonus hotel units -14- pursuant to the CRD designation. The height ofthe proposed project, which exceeds one hundred fifty (150) feet, violates the cap on the maximum permissible building height. Even assuming arguendo that the building does not exceed one hundred fifty (150) feet in height, no additional density has been allocated to the proposed development by transferred development rights nor through bonus hotel units pursuant to the CRD designation, as no such designation exists on or is permitted on Clearwater Beach. Therefore, the proposed project's height is inconsistent with this regulation. e. The proposed project is inconsistent with Article VII, Section B.2. which provides that the maximum permissible building height of one hundred (100) feet may be increased to one hundred fifty (150) feet only if portions of any structures which exceed one hundred (100) feet are spaced at least one hundred (100) feet apart. The height ofthe proposed project exceeds one hundred fifty (150) feet and thus violates the cap on the maximum permissible building height. Even assuming arguendo that the building does not exceed one hundred fifty (150) feet in height, the portions ofthe proposed building which exceed one hundred (100) feet are not spaced at least one hundred (100) feet apart. Therefore, the proposed project is inconsistent with this regulation. , f. The proposed project is inconsistent with Article VII, Section B.3. which provides that the height of the building may be increased to one hundred fifty (150) feet provided that the floorplate of any portion of a building that exceeds forty-five (45) feet in height is limited to 25,000 square feet between forty-five (45) feet and one hun4red (100) feet, except for parking structures open to the public, and to 10,000 square feet between one hundred (100) feet and one hundred fifty (150) feet. Deviations to this section may be approved provided the mass -15- ," and scale of the design creates a tiered effect and complies with the maximum building envelop allowance above forty-five (45) feet as described in section C.4 of Beach By Design. The proposed project, which exceeds one hundred fifty (150) feet, violates the cap on the maximum permissible building height. Even assuming arguendo that the building does not exceed one hundred fifty (150) feet in height, the square footage ofthe floorplate exceeds that which is pe~itted under Beach By Design and the exception for deviations does not apply (see subparagraph h, below). Therefore, the proposed project is inconsistent with this regulation. g. The proposed project is iflconsistent with Article VII, Section C.3 which provides that at least sixty percent (60%) of any elevation will be covered with windows or architectural decoration. The proposed project provides less than the sixty percent (60%)' requirement on the proposed elevations from the north and south sides. Therefore, the proposed project is inconsistent with this regulation. h. The proposed project is inconsistent with Article VII, Section C.4 which provides that no more than sixty (60) percent ofthe theoretical maximum building envelope located above forty-two (42) feet will be occupied by a building. More than sixty (60) percent of the theoretical maximum building envelope. located above forty-two (42) feet will be occupied by the proposed building. Therefore, the proposed project is inconsistent with this regulation. 11. On February 20,2001, the Board held a public hearing to consider the application for Level Two Approval (flexible development approval as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project) filed by Seashell Resort (Case Nos. FL 01-01-01 and DA 01-01-01). -16- 12. Seashell Resort did not present any competent testimony or evidence concerning the issue of consistency with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan, the Countywide Plan nor the Countywide Rules. 13. In total disregard of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan, the Countywide Plan, and the Countywide Rules, the Board rendered its decision, approving the request, with Board Members Gerald Figurski and Edward Mazur, Jr. abstaining. 14. Section 163.3194(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that all development orders, including an order approving a Level Two Approval by the CDB, must be consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The CDB has no power to modify the Comprehensive Plan. See Sections 163.3194(3) setting forth consistency requirement, Section 163.3164(7) defining "development order," and 163.3164(8) defining "development permit" which includes any "variance, or any other official action of local government having the effect of permitting the development ofland." See also Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County v. Snyder, 627 So.2d 469,473-474 (Fla. 1993). 15. The CDB failed to take into account all applicable provisions ofthe Clearwater Comprehensive Plan, the Countywide Plan, ,and the Countywide Rules and weigh the effect of approval of the Application against such provisions. 16. Division 4.1 of the Countywide Rules provides that "all local government future land use plans and land development regulations shall be consistent with the plan criteria and standards in [the Countywide Plan and the Countywide Rules]."12 Similarly, Section 6.1.1.1 of 12 Section 6.1.1.3 of the Countywide Rules provides that "[a ]ny land development or land use not in accordance with the [Countywide Plan and the Countywide Rules] is subject to enforcement pursuant to -17- the Countywide Rules provides that "[a]lllocal government future land use plans and land development regulations shall be consistent with the [Countywide Plan and the Countywide Rules]." The CDB's authorization ofthe Level Two Approval (flexible development approval as part ofa Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project) in Case Nos. FL 01-01-01 and DA 01-01- 01 is not consistent with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan, the Countywide Plan, nor the Countywide Rules. Division 6. 7 [of the Countywide Plan and the Countywide Rules]." Division 6.7 provides enforcement procedures whereby the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners, acting as the Countywide Planning Authority, has the authority and responsibility to enforce the Countywide Comprehensive Plan, including the Future Land Use Plan and the Rules Concerning the Administration ofthe Countywide Future Land Use Plan, through the appropriate civil action governed by Chapter 164, Florida, Statues, titled "Govemmental Disputes." -18- WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the City of Clearwater: A. Find and declare that the decision in Case Nos. FL 01-01-01 and DA 01-01-01 is not consistent with the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan nor the Countywide Plan; B. Rescind or otherwise take all necessary steps to declare null and void the decision in Case Nos. FL 01-01-01 and DA 01-01-01. C. Deny or otherwise take all necessary steps to deny the application in Case Nos. FL 01-01-01 and DA 01-01-01. Respectfully submitted, MACF ANE FERGUSON & McMULLEN Gordon J. Schiff, Esquire Florida Bar No. 518890 400 North Tampa Street, Suite 2300 Post Office Box 1531 Tampa, Florida 33601 (813) 273-4344 Attorneys for Plaintiff -19- i, I, Anthony Markopoulos, as rp~~Iu\~lf\ + of AP. Mar, Inc, (d/b/a Port Vue), Antonios Markopoulos, (d/b/a Day's Inn), Kolossos Inn, Inc. (d/b/a Beach Towers), T.M. Megas, L.C.C. (d/b/a Spy Glass) and T.M. Megas, L.C.C. (d/b/a Golden Beach), after being duly sworn, state the facts set forth in the above Verified Complaint are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. HARRY S. CLINE Notary Public - State af ROOda My Commission E~ires Arx 9. ~ Commission # CC925773 .20- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the above and foregoing has been furnished Via Hand Delivery to : Brian Aungst, Mayor of the City of Clearwater, City Hall, 112 S. Osceola Avenue, 3rd Floor, Clearwater, Florida 33756, Gerald Figurski, Chairman of the CDB Board, City Hall, 112 S. Osceola Avenue, 3rd Floor, Clearwater, Florida 33756, Pamela K. Akin, Esq., Clearwater City Attorney, City Hall, 112 S. Osceola Avenue, 3rd Floor, Clearwater, Florida 33756, Clerk, City of Clearwater, City Hall, 112 S. Osceola Avenue, 2nd Floor, Clearwater, Florida 33756 and Clerk, Community Development Board, City Hall, 112 S. Osceola Avenue, 2nd Floor, Clearwater, Florida 33756 this~day of March, 2001. Attorney ."-21-.. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING Application for Site Plan Approval Case No.: FL 01-01-01 and DA 01-01-01 DATE: February 20, 2001 TIME: 1:06 p.m. to 5:17 p.m. PLACE: 112 South Osceola Street 3rd Floor Clearwater, Florida 33756 REPORTED BY: Donnell Baumbach, RPR Notary Public State of Florida at Large L COpy LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. Registered Professional Reporters 12600 South Belcher, SUlte 106-F Largo, Florlda 33773 (727) 535-1171 FAX (727) 535-2522 2 1 APPEARANCES: 2 BOARD MEMBERS: 3 Vice-Chair David Mazur Carlen Peterson 4 Alex Plisko David Gildersleeve 5 Shirley Moran William L. Johnson 6 Brenda Moses, Clerk 7 Lisa Fierce, City Staff Reviewer 8 Ralph Stone, City Planning Department Pam Akln, Clty Attorney 9 Cindy Tarripani 10 Blair Culpepper, Esquire and 11 Gordon J. SChlff, Esquire Attorneys for the Opponents 12 Experts: Ethel Hammer 13 Michael McElveen John Nichols 14 Bill Kimpton, Esquire 15 Attorney for the Applicant 16 Richard Gehring, Applicants Representative 17 21 PAGE Cross-Examlnation by Mr. Schlff of Mr. Nichols 76 Cross-Examination by Mr. Schiff of Ms. Fierce 81 Cross-Examlnation by Mr. SChlff of Mr. Stone 85 Cross-Examinatlon by Mr. Schiff of Mr. Gehring 93 Cross-Examlnation by Mr. Gehring of Ms. Hammer 144 Cross-Examinatlon by Mr. Gehring of Mr. McElveen 150 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PRO C E E DIN G S MR. MAZUR: I'd like to call to order the February 20th meeting of the Community Development Board. Would you all please rise for the invocation and remain standing for the pledge of allegiance. (Off the record.) MR. MAZUR: Okay. Before we get started, I would appreciate it if everyone that has either Cell phones or beepers would shut those off. We have a long meeting, and It would be preferable not to have interruptions during the meeting. The chairman is not here right now. I will be vice-chairman for all except item B 1. Hopefully, Mr. Figurski wlll be here by the time that starts. We have to select an interim vice-chairman, I guess. So the flrst ltem before us is a request for continuances and reconslderation, which is FLOO-08-33, address 3006 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. MS. FIERCE: The applicant is not here, but he did submit a letter requestlng that it be continued on to the next meeting date. MR. MAZUR: Is there a motion to that effect? MR. JOHNSON: So moved. MS. PETERSON: I second It. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. MAZUR: Made and seconded. All those in favor, except the public, say aye. (The Board responds aye.) MR. MAZUR: All those opposed? (No response.) MR. MAZUR: Passed unanimously. Okay. I believe we are on B 1. Mr. Stone, is there any special procedure we need to follow, or is there someone to volunteer to handle this agenda? I don't believe I wlll be (inaudible) . MR. STONE: It's my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that regarding clearing the confllct, I would suggest that you entertain a motion from the Board to nominate an alternate chair here in the course of this particular item and to re-occupy the chair. MR. JOHNSON: All rlght. I'd like to make a motion that Mr. Gildersleeve recelve the executlve's chalr. (The Board responds seconded.) MR. M~ZUR: All those in favor of Mr. Glldersleeve say aye. (The Board responds aye.) MR. MAZUR: Those opposed? LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 5 1 2 3 (No response.) MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Mr. Chairman, yes, I can do that. There lS an item, though, that's the number three on our continued items, the Palm Island Southwest case, which, I believe, you could still chair that item. And then I'd like to suggest that given the time it's going to take, perhaps, on the first item, that we move that one, cover that one first if the Board is agreeable. MR. MAZUR: Yes. This is agenda item B 3? MS. PETERSON: The Juhl property. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: The Juhl property. MS. PETERSON: Mr. Chairman, could I ask that they move that machine over. I'm being blinded by the light. MR. MAZUR: Yes. Okay. Well, I guess we need to find out if anyone on agenda item B 1 and 2 have any objection to that. Is there a request by the applicant to do that. MR. STONE: Yes, there was. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yes, there was. MR. MAZUR: In that case I can stay for that one. If there is no objection, then we -- the, first ltem we wlll hear will be an item that's also 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 continued, it is FLOO-11-59-222, Palm Island Southwest. (All who speak before the Board are duly sworn to tell the truth by Ms. Moses.) (Off the record.) MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Case number 01-01-01 and DA 01-01-01 for property located on South Gulfview Boulevard. I understand that we have quite a few folks here who will be speaking to thls lssue today. What I'd like to do, just real quickly, is to run through the procedures that we would normally follow in this partlcular case. First, we'll have a presentation by the planning staff. That will be followed by a presentation from the appllcant. Normally, that presentation lS ten minutes. I think the Chair and the Board lS open to a little bit longer presentation today given the complexity of the project, probably somewhere in the area of fifteen to twenty minutes and, perhaps, the applicants will express that need at that tlme. Following that, they have comments by the publlc supportlng the application, opposlng the appllcation. In thls particular case, too, I believe It'S fair that we allow any opponents of the proJect to have at least an equal time to the proponents of LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the project in terms of their presentation. And wlth that, If that's -- the Board is amenable to that, I'd like to move under that direction. I don't know if the staff has any other comments or the attorneys in that regard. MR. SCHIFF: Mr. Chairman, may I speak to that? MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Yes. MR. SCHIFF: And I apologize. My name is Gordon Schiff. MacFarlane, Ferguson & McMullen. And, just for the record, I should let you know we represent A.P. Mar, Inc., Anthonios Markopoulos, Kolossos Inn, Inc., T.M. Megas, L.C.C., and T.M. Megas, L.C.C. are all of which of -- I think most of you are familiar with is, lS the Markopoulos parcel located adjacent to this appllcation. If I understood your proposal, the opponents would have the same amount of time as the proponents. I just wanted to let you know that if the outset of thlS matter does go forward, that we feel that in order to fully present our case for the Markopoulos (lnaudible) would be at least twenty-five minutes. Otherwise, we won't have an opportunity to fully present our case. The other reason that I rose at this time and I apologlze for coming up, perhaps, out of LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 order -- is that we have a concern -- in fact, an objection to this matter going forward. We believe that this matter has not been noticed properly and, therefore, cannot go forward. We would file with you -- and I mentioned to Ms. Akin before the hearlng that I would raise this at the beginning, and we're requesting that this hearlng be cancelled. And I do have a motlon requesting to cancel the hearing based upon the insufflcient notice. And the basis, in a nutshell, is that the notlce that I was sent for this hearing lnvolved two sites spllt by Third Street. And the Third Street is part of this application. Therefore, you have not had notice of all of the property which is the subject of this application. In fact, the series of applications that are coming before you today. The case law under notice lS very strictly construed. Failure to properly give notlce is not a case of the avoidable act, it's a null-and-void act. And I'd just cite for the record, Daytona Lelsure Corp., v. The Clty of Daytona Beach, whlch is at 539 So.2d 597. GHOOLA v. City Of AUGustine Beach, 588 So.2d 666; and the City of Sanibel v. Buntrock 409 So.2d 1073. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 My point, though, lS that this matter cannot proceed, and I would hope -- we have copies of the motion which are being distributed to you, and we'll flle the one in the record. But we feel that this matter should not go forward. There is no proper notice. If In fact you do go forward, we would protest it going forward and reserve all of our legal rights having no option but to partlclpate. But we believe that without notice being fully and strlctly complied with under the case law, and under your code for that matter, we would suggest to you that this matter can't go forward. One other subobjection is that all property owners, all property owners, for a project must execute the applicatlon, and that ~s clearly set forth in your code. Part of this applicatlon involves city property, and the Clty lS not an applicant. Therefore, you have what is essentially an incomplete appllcation also before you today. So for both of those reasons, and as otherwise stated in our motion, we would request that this matter thls hearlng today be cancelled and that the matter be properly noticed and application be LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S made complete before anything lS brought before you. I appreclate your (inaudible). MS. PETERSON: I'm sorry. I was reading your motion. What was your second -- was that a proper MR. SCHIFF: Well, the property involves, essentially, 1.6 acres. About one acre of that property is the applicant's. The rest of it lS city property, and the city is not an applicant here. The city was not -- did not sign the application, and the city -- and that out of your code which must be strictly construed under the case law nature, your code requires all applicants to sign. That means that this application is incomplete. And then from a notice standpoint, you sent notice to the public. The notice only deals with the private property and not the city's property. So you have a defective notice. And with that, we would request this hearing be cancelled. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Thank you. Ms. Akin, do you want to -- MS. AKIN: Yes, sir. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: respond? MS. AKIN: I have just had an opportunity to look at the motion, and It'S my recommendation that we move forward. If there is a notlce to defect, LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 then they can bring that up before the court and (inaudible) . MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Very well. Then the pleasure of the Board, I presume, that we speak to your -- however you form the motion. MS. FIERCE: Good afternoon. MR. STONE: I Just wanted to make a couple of lntroductory comments to Mr. Chairman and Mr. Board. This is a significant case, and probably the first one is following on the heels of at least your reVlew of the Beach-By-Design plan. And I should apprise Y0U that the City Commission approved the Beach By Design last Thursday nlght as you know, as they know, will now go on to the Pinellas (inaudible) Council and the Board of County Commissloners. But that particular effort and the preceding effort, which was the strategles for revitalization of Clearwater Beach, and then the effort that preceded that was a study by Ann O'Neill, a planning consultant out of Tampa, who looked at the lssue regarding whether the beach quallfied as a State Chapter 163 result in our lssue to define the (inaudible) be performed to prove that it did lead up to the Beach-By-Deslgn document being developed by LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 12 1 2 3 4 S 6 '7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 lS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S Mr. Seaman which means it's been approved by the Board and is on the Clty Commission. This proJect obviously speaks to one of the major components of Beach By Design, and that is the repositioning and the redevelopment of Clearwater Beach. It takes advantage of some new lncentlves that are created in Beach By Design, partlcularly those related to the reconfiguration of South Gulfview, the development of a public sector in terms of what we call the beach walk, whlch you all are famlliar with, and the creation of -- in effect a resort bonus pool belng as to (inaudlble) thls kind of a free quality. We recognlze that, and as lndicated in the staff report, that there are a number of additions that will be requlred to be satisfled in conjunction wlth the approval of the site plan and development agreement. But we wanted to make clear for the record that this does succeed that considerable body of water. And as Lisa will point out in the staff report, there are conslderable goal suggestlons and pollcies and (inaudible) that speak directly to the need for flexibillty and develop the regulations of the need for redevelopment particularly in conJunction wlth LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the beach and downtown, and the need to pay particular attention to the sensitivity of the tourism and timing as far as the future health of the city's economy as a whole. And as you all may -- may know, the (inaudible) Development Council and (inaudible) Bureau has recently determlned that the product that lS available for tourism on all of the Pinellas greater islands is really a deficient one, and thelr number one priority is the replacement and the upgrade of that tourist project. So for all those reasons, we think this particular application as a timing line and (lnaudible). MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Ms. -- also, before you start, there's really two actions here today, and one is the development agreement, then the other is the flexible development approval. Do those require a separate motion? MR. STONE: We would request that you take them separately. Your actlon on the site plan In effect is a final actlon, can be appealed to the state hearing officer. Your action on the development agreement is an advlsory one in your role as a local plannlng agency to the Clty Commission (lnaudlble). Ms. Fierce lS LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 going to address the slte plan issues, and I'll go over development lssues. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Okay. MS. FIERCE: Good afternoon. Lisa Fierce for the planning department. As Ralph has alluded to today, we are going to talk about a major redevelopment project for the beach. The faculty's proposal for a nationally recognlzed resort hotel will assist in redeflnlng the beach as a primary tourist destination, and it also represents the city's vision for the beach and its future. The staff is recommending approval of both the flexible development application and the integral development agreement request. As you look to the screen, you'll see the aerlal view that was lDcluded lD your packet. You'll note that the site includes an assemblage of various parcels affecting on both South Gulfvlew Boulevard, shown here, as well as Coronado Drive. It also includes Third Street. It runs through the slte in that location there. Not only will the existing bUlldings be demolished, but, as we've talked about previously, Third Street will be vacated from South Gulfview to LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Coronado Drlve. And a portion of South Gulfview is to be vacated as well as far as this proposal. And the proposal is to basically turn thlS site of modest hotel bUlldings and there is one single family dwelling on the parcel as well -- lnto a 250 room hotel with a full complement of amenltles including abundant parking. As we discussed at the January CDB meetlng, as Ralph alluded to, the slte is located in the beach walk district of the Beach-By-Design plan. The area is recognized as the prlmary beach-front destination on Clearwater Beach. And the plan recommends that this area be fully redeveloped in terms of road alignments as well as parking and bUllding design. In particular, it recommends the redevelopment of South Gulfvlew into a beach-front promenade. Also as Ralph mention, the proposal includes a 60Q-unlt density pool as a redevelopment incentive for hotel use. And In thlS partlcular application, the proposal includes the use of 183 of those unlts. The pool, agaln, is intended to stimulate the desired catalytic (inaudlble) proJects agaln including this proposal. As shown on the screen, north is actually off LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to the to the left of this plan view. Coronado Avenue is here along the top, and then South Gulfview is over here to the bottom. The proposed Marriott Seashell Resort will lnclude abundant amenities including a health club, a pool, banklng facilities, and various restaurants and hotel uses. The rooms wlll range from standard rooms to luxury suites with kitchenettes, and some rooms will have prlvate lanais. For Coronado, the section includes a drop-off area for visitors as well as -- as guests, and they'll include an entrance and an exit to the parking area shown in this location here. At the north end of the site is a service drive that's fully screened, and it will include all the different service uses including dumpster location and dock. The South Gulfview Boulevard site will have rlght-ln, right-out access as shown here at the southern end of the site. And a pedestrian bridge, excuse me, will be located from the second story of the hotel and parklng garage across South Gulfvlew Boulevard over to the beach. A traffic impact assessment was provlded by the LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 applicant's traffic engineerlng consultant, which is Klng Engineering, and they concluded that the redevelopment of this site as proposed does not expect It to degrade the existing levels of service along the South Gulfview Boulevard which currently has a level surface of D or along Coronado Drive is -- has a level surface of D br the surrounding roadway system. The design of the hotel will include two towers wlth a center stand. The towers will be 100 feet apart, and the ground level will include lobby meeting rooms, agaln restaurants and retail uses. And on top of thls ground level -- I guess we better look at this one -- on top of the ground level floor will be six levels of structured parklng, and then on top of that there wlll be seven levels of hotel rooms. That will take you to fourteen floors, a total of 150 in height. The parklng garage which is lntegral to this overall development proposal will include over 800 parking spaces. Four hundred of those spaces wlll be allocated for publlc use, and the other remainlng spaces will makeup for hotel patrons and guests. In terms of more specific design in archltecture lS the Coronado elevatlon. You'll note LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that with all the elevations that you see, they all have a tiered or layered effect or staggard helghts of roof lines. The formal entrances proposed along the Coronado elevatlon. A less formal more, I guess I've heard the term beachy entrance, lS proposed along the South Gulf Boulevard. It includes a series of different arches and canopies and things like that that are obviously taking advantage of the views over the gulf. The applicant also provlded a view above the north elevation of the building. Again, it little bit less dramatic than the other two elevations, but it does, again, incorporate the tiered or the layered effect. And it does a very it's a good Job of screening otherwise less attractive parking structure in the lower portion of it. With all the elevations, the proposed materials will,be pollshed stone, stucco, include the use of natural colors and a barrel tile roof. The architect is going to present to you in much more detail about all the architects -- all the archltectural. As you recall from Beach By Deslgn, the proposal will lnclude the implementation of the beach walk improvements. Again, the South Gulfview LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Boulevard will be ultimately redesigned. It will include special plantings, the promenade, certain sections of parking areas and, again, the walkway over South Gulfview Boulevard over to the beach. That's it for the pictures. The application is for flexible development approval, and it's part of the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment request. The specific request includes an increase in height from 35 feet to 150 feet, an increase in the number of rooms from 65 to 250 rooms, reduction in the front setbacks along both South Gulfview Boulevard and Coronado as well as a reduction in sites attached to both the north and south elevations from 10 feet to zero feet. The staff is of the belief that the increase in height and a reduction in setbacks is consistent with the intent of the Beach By Design. And the design guidelines, as you may recall, are actually intended to be flexible in their admlnistration. They're not intended to serve as regulatlons that require rellef wlth the exception of those projects that require an increase in building height and those projects that one ~o be spaced less than 100 apart. Again, staff lS recommending approval of both the flexible development requests as well as the LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 20 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 lS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S development agreement. The staff believes that the proposal furthers the city goals and objectlves as outllned in the comprehensive plan, and we've listed those for you in the staff report. And we believe that It complies with the Comprehensive Inflll criteria as well as the general flexibility criteria as well as the Beach-By-Deslgn criteria. The staff is recommending approval with three conditions listed In the staff report, and they include the following: Number one, that the application be effective upon development agreement approval by the City CommisSlon. Number two, that the South Gulfvlew Boulevard and Third Street rlghts-of-way be vacated by the City Commisslon. And, number three, that the front of the line of the building be consistent with conceptual elevations as submitted and/or modified by the Board. And Mr. Stone wlll talk to you about the development agreement in more detail. Also, to let you know, in case Ralph doesn't mention it to YOur we did distribute to you today this flne bound document here. It represents the exhibits that are to be attached to the development agreement. There is actually nothlng new in that document that you haven't already seen, but It really just LAWYERS' CHOICEr INC. 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 consolidates it in an all-in-one bound fashion. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Any questlons of staff? Ralph, do you want to go ahead and cover the development agreement at this time? MR. STONE: Yes, sir. Just to very brlefly summarize the key business points of the development agreement, as Lisa lndicated, the developer is proposing to bring in a 250-room resort facility on Clearwater Beach. They are proposing a minlmum In the development agreement of no less than 750 rooms. We thlnk it will be somewhere in the neighborhood of around 800 to 830, excuse me, parklng spaces. 800 to 830 parklng spaces. 400 of those spaces would be dedlcated to pUblic use. The remainder of the spaces would be dedicated to the prlvate part of the project. They are proposing to provlde 150 percent of thelr prorated cost of the overall cost of the beach walk and South Gulfvlew reconfiguration based on the percent of thelr frontage as opposed to the linear total of the project. So If their frontage happens to be 25 percent of the total project cost, maybe pay that in its entirety. They're also proposing to the front of the LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 cost the same improvements between First Street to the north and south, to the south edge of the Beach Pavilion which lS out on Clearwater Beach. They would do the design and construction with city participation, and would finance those costs up front. And they would be paid back over time or a period of up to 25 years. The consortion step would be limited to the lmplemental increase in their ad valorem taxes and money for implemental increase and thelr utility taxes. The extent which those revenues could be applled would be no more than 50 percent, again a (lnaudible) time period. There is an option for the city to vote to buyout the parking garage as far as the publlc spaces are concerned. Its entirety in the first five years. There's also an option for the city to go out and (inaudible) a competlng garage wlthln a quater of mile during the period prlor to them providlng a debt coverage subJec~ to thelr financing of 125 percent of those costs. So the flnanclng that they will have applied to the entlre parklng garage will have some protection if the Clty wants to build a blgger garage withln a quarter mlle of (inaudible). LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I think that pretty much covers the key buslness (lnaudible). MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Any other questions for the staff? MR. JOHNSON: I do. I have a question. Timetable. Is Coronado to be three lanes, correct? Because that's what I keep hearing. MR. STONE: When South Gulfview is redesigned and moved to the west, the center turn lane will come off of South Gulfview, and It will be moved over to the Coronado (inaudible). MR. JOHNSON: Okay. So instead of Coronado being two lanes, it will become three? MR. STONE: That's correct. MR. JOHNSON: Gulf instead of three wlll become two? MR. STONE: That's correct. MR. JOHNSON: Now, how is it all going to coordinate for traf -- I mean say -- let's say thlS gets approved, okay? If you were building a high-rlse, you got 400 extra parking spaces here. The beach the Gulfview Boulevard, you're going to change It to make it llving -- curvy. Sorry. I didn't know the exact word. You're gOlng to ellmlnate the parking over LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 here, are you going to working on Coronado at the same time as you're gOlng to be worklng on Gulfview and the beach? How lS it all going to -- MR. STONE: Well, clearly, it's going to be a challenge to figure out the tlming of the you know, pertinence up on South Gulfview and Coronado and to accommodated parking on the beach. And we don't know how that's going to work rlght now. As you know we have a conceptual kind of footprint for the reconfiguration of South Gulfview and the beach walk, but we don't have final design. Now that the beach walk project has been approved, one component that we'll go ahead and move forward on is the detailed deslgn of South Gulfvlew and the beach walk. I think once that's concluded, then we will be sitting down with engineers and contractors and property owners out there in trying to flgure out how the timing of those improvements can work best to accommodate the traffic flow and the parking until the project is concluded. And whether that happens in a phased configuratlon or happens on an east/west configuratlon or a combination of these things, it will still have to be flgured out. That wlll be a LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 significant challenge. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Do you have a question? MS. PETERSON: Yeah, I just have a questlon. I'm looking at the development agreement, page 11, section 10. It says the city shall provide the developer with public financing for that Gulfview South Gulfview and beach walk improvements. Is that what you're talking about with the ad valorem tax, that that's how we would provide financlng? MR. STONE: (Nods head.) MS. PETERSON: And that's the (inaudible). MR. STONE: That's correct. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Any other questlons? At this time is the applicant prepared to make a presentation? MR. SCHIFF: Mr. Chairman, again, I have to apply -- you know, for the sake of the record, I have to object going forward. And not knowing whether we're going to have an opportunity to cross-examine the staff, or whether we're going to have party status established at the beginning of thls presentation, which I thlnk lS the next order in your code, that party status In a quasijudicial hearing has to be established. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MS. AKIN: Do you accept them as parties? Do they have -- they are the objectors (inaudible). MR. SCHIFF: For the record, Gordon Schiff. And I apologize for this, but we're followlng your code strictly. It's still under protest. If you're going forward, we have no option but to simply follow-up the process. The next stage is to, I understand, is to establish party status and to -- after advising us on our rights to personally testify anQ,present evidence and cross-examine witnesses, and that would include our opportunity to cross-examine staff based upon their presentation. And the only other thing is, I think, at this point to save tlme -- and I realize you have a long agenda -- we have 20 objections to file WhlCh I wlll flle by letter now for you. The predominant issue here is that you are -- the questions belng asked as we go along. You're asking questions about things that haven't happened yet. No one has vacated a road. On your code, the Clty CommlSSlon has that power, and you're dlscusslng a project over a road that there hasn't been an opportunity to vacate. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: I think we understand. MR. SCHIFF: Well, we have to lodge an LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24- 25 objectlon because it's clear-cut for a poor sltuation gOlng on here. If that was never vacated, we're wasting our time here today. And that's why I feel we have to put this on the record early on because we feel that the process is not in order, and we have to lodge an objection. I wlll at this point submit our letter of objection now for the record. MS. PETERSON: Your action will be contlngent on the subsequent action required by the commisslon, and there are numerous subsequent actlons required including the (inaudible). So here's the site plan approval, and the recommendation wlll be contingent on those things. You are the development agreement and ultimately on the vacating. But on the infill, you were the final decislon. But it is contingent on and that's an understood. MR. SCHIFF: Well, we have to stand by our obJection. MR. KIMPTON: Board members, Mr. Chalrman, good afternoon. I'm very happy to be here. As you can see, there have been some variables in getting this far, and we're jumping over things as quickly as we can. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. GILDERSLEEVE: For the record, could you provide your name and -- MR. KIMPTON: Yep, my name is Bill Kimpton. I'm the attorney for the applicant. I'm also a principal of the applicant. I'm also a resident of Clearwater Beach at 265 Bayside Drlve, and have been for 25 years. As you can see, we're -- we're gettlng by these hurdles. This property for this proJect has been under contract since 1999. It was initially brought to the city as an alternative to Pier 60 plus which was a naked deck with a hotel on top of it right in front of the marina on Clearwater Beach incorporating some of our neighbors' property and also some of the city's property. Once we presented it to the city, they saw It as a very vlable alternatlve and have been pursuing it every since. We did suffer a six-month delay when we went through the downtown redevelopment which, unfortunately, dldn't pass. So there's, you know, a totally different process going on at Clearwater Beach. I think that what's happened here in the passage of Beach By Deslgn has been to brlng one of the blggest things that's ever happened to Clearwater LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to the front burner, and it's your opportunlty to look at that with us. The city is it going forward with a tremendous amount of improvement in hopes of stimulatlng redevelopment on the beach includlng the roundabout and the new 60-million-dollar bridge that is llned up to be completed at the same time this project comes along. I can go on for a long time, but It'S apparent that we're going to have some tlme'constraints here. So at thlS time I would like to introduce Rlchard Gehring who will bring forth the technical. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Mr. Gehring, can you give us also an idea of how much tlme that you feel you need? Can this be done in fifteen, twenty minutes? MR. GEHRING: My goal, Mr. Chair, will be to use approximately fifteen minutes, and some of the time the staff (inaudible). And I did bring Mr. Nichols from NlChols (inaudible) from Cpral Gables today as the architect, and I was looking to assign eight to ten minutes for him to walk through the deslgn so that you would understand the dynamics of the property and the investment. So we could be wlthln a 25-mlnute tlme frame. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: I assume the Board has no LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 objectlon? Contlnue. MR. GEHRING: Okay. I have to push the computer. Good afternoon. Some member may be Joining us, I understand, in the process if Figurski arrives. He's coming in from Dade City or something like that? MR. GILDERSLEEVE: He is coming in, and he's going to be tardy. And then we were probably negligent at the front end of this hearing to let the applicant know, even though this is a continuance, you do have the option to continue it again in the absence of a Board. MR. GEHRING: As long as you have your quorum we'd like to proceed since we're on the schedule. I think it's important because what's exciting lS that for Clearwater Beach it's beginning to happen. And what we thlnk lS important lS that an area that is one of the highest growth curves in our national economy for decades, there has been marginal If (inaudible) investment of any consequence on Clearwater Beach. I think Beach By Deslgn stepped out to try to respond to that, and then we in turn are very happy to be, what's called, catalytic projects. We've been called a lot of things, but catalysm, I think it's LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 indictive of something that's trying to create a new future and we are excited about that. This was our conceptual design as it came forward of a system of two towers and a hidden deck. But the key was that we would bring a Marriott Hotel conference center, parking system, retail and restaurant In a majoring (inaudible) project that creates a new opportunity to revitalize tourism and attract a new quality resort hotel in the Gulfview district and really stimulate redevelopment. Mr. Stone outllned a county-wide process. I think tired and obsolete has been the terms that the county's been using about our tourism. Fabric. Our fabric has been less than responsive to the National trends. As price pOlnts continue to drop on the beach, the challenge is how to bring the beach back. I think we're responding to that wlth an outstandlng -- this is a respond -- quallty design, and we will have the archltect glve you more detail on it. But this is bringlng and returning to the world-class resort image of our path. We're dependent on the Don Cesar character of the classlc Florida beach hotel. It creates a great destinatlon that people remember. Our team commltment lS to be professlonal and LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 capable and dellver a communlty base hoping to create a process. We've been doing that for over 18 months. We're committed to a public/private working relationship only to be exceeded by this, by the quality of the project ltself. We commlt lastly that Clearwater's success in implementing Beach By Design was our success. So we're very happy to be in this partnership, and we say let us begin. We're frank here by the resort experience where what we have is a beach-side experience, this world class. We constantly see our beaches in Pinellas, and particularly Clearwater, getting recognized in national and international rankings as a great destlnation. What we don't have lS equality of sitting on the malnland and the upper portion that responds, produces a sense of place on the beach side that people enjoy being at, stay at, create the price points that re-enforce our economy, create more investment, and that's what this particular project is about, is linking a word-class resort capability to choose our word-class beach. So the klnd of lmages and great destlnatlons are wonderful pool-slde images and locations where LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 people can gather and have a memorable experlence at Clearwater Beach are a key. Earlier in November with the City Commission, we appeared with Mr. Brian Multon who is the vice-president of the hotel development for Marriott. Marriott International presented their VlSlon, their mission, their community character and impact they felt they would have. And they have major resources in the State of Florida particularly in Orlando and now in downtown Tampa with the new waterside which is a key to the link of a beach product to those unique houses. If you've been to any of the Orlando complex or the new downtown complex, then you know the character of what I'm talking about. There's an awful lot of opportunlty on Clearwater Beach. There's numerous dlstrlcts to deflned in Beach By Design, and there was -- and this is presentation -- an outline of WhlCh district we're in, And I think what -- what really the key here is that there's lots of areas that the Clty is ldentlfying as needing stlmulation for change and new re-investment, and that lS the key In a redevelopment enVlronment, LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So we think that there lS many great beach projects, and we'll we applaud the parties who are currently out there making investments, and we applaud our neighbors who are also interested In maklng investments. I think that's the key. There's gOlng to have to be an awful lot of effort, public and prlvate, here to make this happen. We've selected this Gulfvlew locatlon. We need a key catalytic area and stimulus. 250 keys will come into the hotel privately owned and financed. It will be the only Marriott north of Marco Island on the west coast of Florida. 830-car parking garage, 400 spaces public, 400 for the hotel. About 150 of the hotel's spaces are actually going to go into a shared mode with the 400 that are dedicated. The administrative -- the development agreement requires a minimum of 400 (inaudible). We'll have more available. The restaurant retail activity was funded 30,000 square feet of dynamlc trash empowered there with additlonal restaurants and additional meeting facilities. The parking garage will be delivered and completed wlth the new bridge in 2003. Part of our emphasls and timing and moving is, the cOffiffilssion has mandated to us to say can this happen with the new LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 brldge. Now to do that, we've laid out a schedule In our development agreement that tracks the bridge bond with an issue, and the constructlon site to build the bridge to deliver both parking and the hotel on that schedule. Why would they finance the garage with no subsidy and no Clty risk? Free the Clty from other beach projects. Now the people wlll point to this and say oh, there's only 800 spaces. Well, we reduced it from a thousand, made it go in smaller at the city's request. And the city, we anticipate, will be coming forward with either a marina lot or a north pelican lot or a lot to be even in our area when the market justifies it. But this is coming forward with no city expenditure. So the Clty can take its own parking resources and invest them in parking improvements without any obllgatlon. The annual economlC lmpact of the proJect wlll be over a mllllon two, and it will be over 250 to 300 Jobs on slte. Two motels, you know, that I would say most of South Beach -- and I'll be presentlng some of those archs -- what I call a light condition, will be replaced by a stunnlng Marrlott. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 36 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 lS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The beach walk, which is thls new structuring element, an image. If you've been to Fort Lauderdale recently in the last five years, you'll see that they've reprogramed thelr image. Glossovas (phonetic) Avenue and a new beach front. There's a major new investment, major new attraction. Similar to what happened in South Beach Mlami, the quality and character of the investment lS occurring. We think that shall happen. The beach walk will make that happen on Clearwater Beach. Then we have (inaudible) gevelopment agreement which has terms, WhlCh Ralph had covered (inaudlble). I won't dwell on this. The keys before you today are the physlcal facilitles. The outline of issues I've got to present lS that there's an area there today where we're proposing this vision, and thls lS what it looks llke. And if you go into Beach By Design, there's a phrase that I thlnk is approprlate. It says South Gulfview is all but ~n embarrassment. And I think that In a town with almost a five billlon dollar rate of base, they would have to sell this sparkling they'd have to sell thls maJor attraction. The character and quality of wha~ we're currently trying to brlng forth as product in urban scale and in aglng LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 structures, it definitely lS tired and obsolete. So when you go to Clearwater Beach and you can't find a pedestrlan system to walk on, and you can't find a better system to drive and (inaudible) on, and you can't park your car conveniently, and the most major urban design feature is a stalnless steel dumpster, I think there's a challenge there. And I've lived in here -- went to Clearwater High, Class of '65 -- for a long tlme. So I know that the condition can turn around and needs to turn around. So with that, this is our assessment here is that this area is certainly a prime location to deliver and improve and a major catalytic project occur. 24 2S Three key investments are occurring by the city: A bridge, a new gateway, and Gulfview itself. These dlagrams were taken out of the, not current Beach-By-Design study, but the beach vision document WhlCh actually goes back three or four years. So citizen groups have been formlng and definlng the ltems as a key for some time, and we're very happy to step forward and Lry to deliver them. Another stimulator for our project lS what we call the battle alternatlve. And that was trying to make the pier park location perform for a thousand- LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to 120Q-car parklng deck. And in a format even with or wlthout another hotel on it, It created a definltion which we taught was going to be a neighborhood beach. We really got into this project by looking for an alternative to taking parking from that locatlon to a location farther south. It's written ridged llne on that graphic is the existing -- it's a poster of art -- we move down to the yellow area centrally located. It's for beach commercial, saves pier parklng for some future use. Pler parking will be a future expansion. Pier parking will be a future expansion of the park which wlll be a great asset to the overall community. It expands the opportunlty there, creates a prlvate investment, facilitates more than parking. It avoids eminent domain. The other alternative lS prior combination action which is extremely costly. It moves the parking farther away from the roundabout so the traffic doesn't back lnto the roundabout, and It starts South Beach redevelopment. Now, I want to emphasize starts South Beach redevelopment. Because we don't make the investment action happen. With our dollars, we'll hopefully see other people's dollars follow on. 833 space in the LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 deck. There wlll be 60 half grate spaces left In the Gulfvlew corridor. ThlS is the first catalytic projectment. Third Street vacation occurred was unified and actually makes the site -- it's like two football fields to scale. There's 250 milllon keys. This is a quality flag. Retail restaurant base will be there so that the ground floor is not just'a parking facillty. The ground floors are actlvated. All the people activities, the restaurant, the ballroom functions, meeting room are all on the bottom floor. So when you walk by this facillty, you see people in activity and you're invited In. 150 height is utilized, but it's utilized to the Gulfview frontage and cascades down to the beach. Gulfview improvement turnkey. The city has 5 million dollars in their penny fund for beach improvements. They need money on Mandalay. They need money on Coronado. They need money In a lot of places. And they sald to us, if you can't dellver the Gulfvlew improvement and make your own little mini lnternal tlp and return to ourself, that will facilitate the project and that stlmulates redevelopment. Interestlngly, the promenade, WhlCh lS shown here In the red llne, really the Grand Boulevard, is LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 40 what South Beach doesn't have Beach By Deslgn's 35-foot major promenade sidewalk down the current alignment of Gulfvlew. Our abutting property owners to the north, the Markopoulos' properties here In another capacity today, are actively pursulng redevelopment. Actively pursuing redevelopment. To the south of us lS a unique location which is the Legend site, which is on the assemble by the group and the retail restaurant, and they appeared to the commlssion the other evening asklng the question: Can we use Beach By Design? Can we come out 35 feet onto the setback area and expand our restaurant and our retail? And the commission responded yes. Our two neighbors abuttlng that are actlvely pursulng redevelopment. Our design has been sensltive to those lssues. We see the alignment of the roadway and the bikeway system being an evolving deslgn in worklng with the city both to permit and put in place with some communlty participation so the people are comfortable with It. But I want us to talk here a moment and outllne that when we place our property in serVlce, here to the south, this lS the Legend's property. It is 180 feet of Frontage. They have a retail facility and a LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 41 restaurant facllity they would both like to expand. So we see them coming out to the 35-foot frontage and being on the new promenade with thelr retall facilities and restaurants. That's the goal they've set up. Our neighbor to the north has proposed two major redevelopment strategies. We've been in front of the City Commission simultaneously at joint publlC hearings. Those items are shown here. This is project A, which is approximately the entire unification of all their holdings with the vacation of First Street into a major development, it places on our southern boundary a major parking deck. As far as situating it, this is our site shown here in the red in the Marriott Seashell. It would separate this plan will separate the Marriott Seashell from thelr project with a 60 or 70 foot right-of-way for a future realignment first. All these plan elements are subJect to city approval. They're not as far in the process as we are, but this is a plan they informally submitted to the city, and it has the separation of roadway. It has over 700 linear feet of structure at high elevation that is an issue, and It proposes placlng the entlre proJect on the beach taklng away Gulfview. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Now all these issues have to get resolved with the city. Obvlously, there's going to it be a process a process. The project could be as high as five to 600 unlts requiring a DRI. The timing of their proJect, we certalnly hope, wish them the best that they move forward and work with the city. But this subsequently created project B. Project B lS shown here in the cross section. On this property boundary where a dash llne just appeared is our property boundary. Our blue there is our parklng deck, our red's our retall, our pink is the hotel. The checkerboard area is the existlng Spy Glass Hotel and south will be Spy Glass II. So that area would bring a nine-story hotel expanSlon down to our ground (inaudible). And behind it is an eight-story parking deck. So and then on the north portlon of the project gives you a cross walk, and they do a simllar proJect to the north. So what you have here lS in their -- In their second proposal -- they submitted to the City Commission, as I know, on January 16th, and this document was dated January 8th -- they are showlng an elght-story parklng deck on the slte boundary and two versions of Spy Glass I and Spy Glass II. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 They are not uttlizing the opportunlty to come down in the 35 percent bracket area which they could do and move their proposed Spy Glass II so that it would come out closer to the water. All of our VlSlons in our cash plans have been they are intended to -- to demolish the Spy Glass. ThlS is the first plan we saw where we didn't demolish the Spy Glass. So what I'm placing on the record here, there's two abuttlng neighbors both actively pursing redevelopment, both actively pursuing the stimulus of Beach By Design as a tool to be utillzed. The key for that is the new Gulfview concept, and we've got here a potential for the site to sit in a key location, have that parking garage connected to the beach with a major pedestrian crosswalk. And out in the edges of the pavement various zones exist for cafe district, for pedestrian district, for roadway, for bikeway, and, ultimately, for the beach jogging trail. And that's an exciting opportunity to have a real people-oriented place. If any of you are famlliar with four major (inaudlble). It's an auto zone today. It's like standing in a mall parking lot instead of being in a major destlnation resort. So this is the new count for parklng that we see occurring in that new 576 LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC, 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16, 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 spaces would be avallable In the process. There's also a key to this that we're taking on these lmprovements and in the water-front area. And the next graphic shows the what we call phase A, Gulfview improvements, and phase B. The flrst piece lS sort of like from where the conceSSlon stand and double parking width lS all the way to the north to where the city defines Gulfview ends In the design process. MR. JOHNSON: Can you point it on -- on the thing? Oh -- oh, you can't. Never mind. MR. GEHRING: No. MR. JOHNSON: If you can't, no you can't. It's not in the computer. MR. GEHRING: Gulfview north is everythlng where you see that two (inaudlble) parking -- the big parklng Job. MR. JOHNSON: Right. MR. GEHRING: And it would be back to here where the city wants to take It. And, well, in the second phase would be from there south to Adams Mark. MR. JOHNSON: From the pavllion which lS on -- MR. GEHRING: The pavillons is right. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. MR. GEHRING: So what happens in that first LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 phase is the major investment that the big parking plan (lnaudible) comes off. It goes into the deck. It's two 60-foot lots are retained, promenade gets bUllt. There's a crossover from the deck to the beach, and some sort of 88 vertical clrculatlon will be developed there for elevators out on the -- on point. And whenever you come down to grade, there will be a publlc facllity zone for services that are a key. The city is in our developmen~ agreement is mandating that we deliver the portion to the north. The section to the south. The enduring six month after six months of construction, they had the opportunity to put this project to us if they -- If they raise the financing for it, which I believe they will. So, hopefully if It works right, all of Gulfvlew will be implemented at one tlme creating the total image. In our package we also have the design structure for this, and we've had Phil Graham, a landscape architecture from St. Petersburg, do a takeoff on this conceptual design, and we started to define the character of ma~erials and papers and how many trees. And we intended to have thlS landscape at a quality with mature facilities so the day the LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 landscaping opens, It has a strong new image and impact. The design settlng lS required public/private partnership. We are pleased to be the first to propose and respond to Beach By Design to become catalytic. We think we're responSlve to all those elements that are required. I thlnk they're fairly well listed In Y9ur application, so I'm not going to dwell on them. But you have to have at least 200 rooms, and we have more than that. You have to at least (inaudible). We have more than that. You have a full-servlce hotel. You have to be a flag motel, et cetera. So we have all the elements that have been proposed for conference centers, urban hotel facilitles, full service -- and I'll let the architect expand on those as he does his presentation. The resort destination is naturally recognized. We don't think a better flag Marrlott lS a really blg key here. In the 21st Century Design, we've been working with them on a new product they just put on the south -- on Mlaml Beach and then in at Atlanta WhlCh is the model for these proJects. The project is 1.6 acres after vacation. (Inaudible) is in excess of the acre. There is a LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC, 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10-foot vacate of granting the right-of-way on Coronado. The goal of the city lS to make Coronado current 60 feet wide, 80 feet wide. So we're providlng our 10 feet to the 40-foot half sectlon so that, hopefully, some day Coronado could become a four-lane section. And, lastly, there's a mid pOlnt in the beach which makes thls project really a great location for the parking. It's not a naked deck. All the deck is screened. It will not look llke a parking deck. It's financed prlvately. The expanslons can be coordinated, and you could plug in either directlons into abutting properties with (inaudlble). The parking removal will require somewhere between 250 (inaudible). 317 spaces will come off of the frontage, if you do gross counts, and there will be a replacement of some 60 new spaces in what we'll call the eyebrow lots. There are a lot of designing guidelines of, at least lS covered in the remote degree, we've accommodated. And, actually, our origlnal concept plan appears to Beach By Design because we sort of predated the document. Coronado and Gulfvlew promulgates what wlll become great pedestrian locations, and we have a cafe seating zone on the LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S beach side which is in our developing agreement. The private lnvestment proposed and this wlll be, you know, make beach walk occur through a condult bond. The inner beach transit, whlch lS in the plan, we think will be accommodated with thls crosswalk and be a real key to the people if they could park their car and go anywhere on the beach as if it were a future tran north, south translt mode. That would be a key. In the intricate design, we certainly exhausted even though it's just a very lose concept at thls time. I want to turn to the hotel and bring up the architect. This is an outstanding facillty for Pinellas County. We thlnk thlS will be a key for our future tourism impact. Tampa's new Marriott in the Orlando market is outstanding, and the quality image that will spillover to the rest of the beach. Well, we're talking about how much our rate will be. If we can -- what the goal's here, if we can ralse the price point In the average daily rate for a whole beach because the image ~s up, the quallty is up, everyone will benefit. So we see this as a real key. Our abuttlng property owners are going to have more valuable property. But the overall staYlng power -- and then If we can raise it just a little LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 49 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 lS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S bit, even though those properties that don't get redeveloped, wlll have posslbly an increment of value that they can let them re-invest In those propertles and make them a little bit more attractive to the marketplace. All these items here define the proJect. So let me ask John to come up. This is John Nichols. John Nichols is Nichols (inaudible). John Nichols is what I would call a preeminent hotel architect In the nation. Their firm has developed and deslgned over lS0 major hotels. He's done over 20 major Marriotts. If you've been to the downtown waterside motel, then you've been to John's most resent design. It's a 719-room facility. And, you know, he can speak to the quality of it. And with that, we'll turn to the Board, and I'll just assist him. John-- MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Before Mr. Nichols speaks, any questions for Mr. Gehring? MS. MORAN: Yeah, I have one. Could you tell me if your agreement wlth the Marriott has been solidlfled? Because at one time I saw a meeting before the commission where it had not. And, you know, is It going to be a Marrlott? MR. GEHRING: We had -- Mr. Multon appeared LNNYERS' CHOICE, INC. 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 with us. Marriott has -- is in agreement wlth the development group. Marriott is In a management capacity to this operating entity for Marrlott International. Marriott is currently at the phase of we're in of revlewing the plans. John works closely with their staff. He sent all their designs out. So the process is underway. And when you say is it done? It will be done In the methodology of flnal approvals and inking contracts which are in the future. But the commitment of Marriott to Clearwater Beach, If you're going to marry out to thls team and this as proJect site, yes, that has occurred. There is agreement is in place. The complexity of it, I think John told me the that story that the downtown hotel, Marriott Host actually owned it. Marrlott International operated It. And until they were about to open the door, they actually didn't have to make the final management agreement inked because they were still arguing over who paid for what and who got what. So in the complexity of the business relationships, it's an ongOlng process. But the commltment of Marrlott to be here lS afflrmative, and the commitment in the development agreement is that LNNYERS' CHOICE, INC. 51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we must have an international flag. So if for some reason there were any condltions or change, they're only enlistlng of seven or eight major flags that the city would flnd acceptable under this definition. So we're talking Marriott Highlander. The question was asked: Is everything agreed to? And in that meetlng you made it seem, and I had to answer It: Well, of course. It's In process. We need another approved project before we have an approval -- a fully approved agreement. But it is underway and Marriott International is committed to the project. MS. MORAN: Okay. Is the process at a point now where -- where it stlll could not be a Marriott? MR. GEHRING: The design approval, I think when our development partner, Jay, was quoted in the paper as saYlng: They get to (inaudible) door knobs. In that process, there's a whole approval cycle In a business relationship. And I think that each of those were exhausted. They're -- you're not at the final-inked document. At the same tlme we have secured the archltect that Marrlott likes to work with. We are In the process wlth them. So as far as I'm concerned, yes, when you say is there any potential, LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S will the sun rise tomorrow? Will Clearwater -- I mean the process of putting this in place, I think, is a very affirmative step. And the agreements that it takes are literally mammoth in scale. The attorneys are currently worklng on it because there were packets of documents like you have here only four or five times higher that are in process. And whenever they get all those done -- I think they don't enter that task unless they really are committed to the project. They're in it. They're deep in it. They're In design renew, and I think that's an afflrmatlve step. But, yes, we have Marriott. Marriott has authorized to use Marriott. We are In an exclusive relationship to Marriott. We're bound to Marriott's bound to us and we're bound to them. So I think that's pretty binding, but there's still a lot to do. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Any other questions for Mr. Gehrlng? MR. NICHOLS: Good afternoon. John Nichols of Nichols (inaudible) and Architects and based in Coral Gables. I'm very happy to be here. I wlII tell you that Marriott lS very excited about this property you saw on the commitment they made both on the ownership LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and management of the waterside project from downtown Tampa. We have met wlth them numerous times. I mean they are as exclted as they can be about reviewing these plans and getting involved in this. They are very particular, as you know, about mentioning their name on anything until -- so they'd rather not be there. So Richard Dryfuss is part of the process you go through. We have fortunately -- been fortunate to have been lnvolved in many, many, many major hotels, those ocean-front hotels that involve urban properties. This is an exclting property the cause of which you are doing in the city and the beach walk and beach-front plan programs. This building to be designed, we think, takes the spirit of that Beach By Design and incorporates it almost ideally into a project that really runs home all of the posltlve aspects of that, of the street that goes along our particular phase of property. As you get into the site plan itself, the bottom lS Gulfview Drive, Coronado at the top. As Richard had mentioned, we have two seven-story bUlldlngs, Baslcally, (inaudible) buildings that sit LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 on top of a seven-story podlum piece whlch has the park -- city's publlc parking, the private parking, and the ground floor level of retail. We also have, facing the entlre garage running all the way down to Gulfview, we have guest rooms that go all the way down the phase because that's very important to you and us. Just making sure that we activate these with something other than a parking structure. So these are all of the guest rooms. wlll show you In a flndlng that phase four's (inaudlble). And phase four is your new beach walk I and the new Gulfview drive that runs up the front. And the ground floor running all the way across is also retail facillties as much as we can possibly get into that -- that area. Thls lS the ground floor plan. Thls is the new beach walk and Gulfvlew at the bottom. All of the plnk areas are retail areas that go all the away across the top of It. We've used as much frontage as we posslbly can to actlvate the sidewalk WhlCh is the type of facility that you would like to have. Up on Coronado, we do have a drop-off as well as a through drop-off that can come through and approach from either side so that elther the public parklng can come in, enter, go up lnto the facility LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 as well as the parklng faclllties. As staff mentioned, we've also been very careful wlth the serVlce of the facility to go all the way through the property back In so it's totally screened from the road. We're not opening any dumpsters or anything like that onto the road. The truck can pull in underneath our building, back in and drive back out of the property. So it would contain all of that activity on the inside. There are 'meeting spaces. Approximately 4600 square feet of meeting space and a meeting room facility here as well as all of the retail (inaudible) that go through. On the second floor of the facility you start to 'see the garage up here whlch is to be masked by to be retail or (inaudible) that are on the second floor that face Gulfvlew. There is the pedestrian brldge that goes across Gulfview when It does swing in close. These red areas, these are the elevators, the public elevators, baslcally, that can come from anybody parklng in thls garage. A very easy garage to maneuver. (Inaudible) they can see that. They can come down, take the elevators rlght to this pOlnt, go across the bridge, and they're right on the LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 beach. So it's extremely easy to move back and forth. The garage, which you're seeing here, is a typical floor of the parklng garage. Three fans of double-loaded parking ramp in the center so we don't have any exposed ramplng, sloping conditions on the outer wall of the building which we never like to see. The ramp is an lnternal and complete loop system all the way around. So, agaln, it's a very easy drive to maneuver which is lmportant as a publlc garage. And then on the Gulfview slde coming all of the way across the front, and these are from the gulf (inaudible) view, the rooms and suites that activate this entire edge as you go forward. These are the public elevators. They come right to those elevators, go down and go straight to the beach very easily. MR. JOHNSON: So excuse me one second. I see you access those rooms through that other elevator right there. MR. NICHOLS: (Inaudible). MR. JOHNSON: That one rlght there, see? MR. NICHOLS: Okay. MR. JOHNSON: So you're in the ground floor. You have a room -- thlrd floor Gulfvlew. So you wlll LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 go up that elevator to that, and you'll be in at that corrldor there on that third floor, and you won't have access to the parking garage. Just access to the elevator -- MR. NICHOLS: That's exactly correct. Exactly correct. And has their own hotel elevators there. There at the yellow is a corrldor, and the elevators where the publlc elevators open to the garage depot is the internal sectlon. So they never cross back and forth through there. But the good part is you'd come straight to the elevators of the public, go right down to the second floor or ground floor. Elther one can go straight across to the beach. MS. PETERSON: Are the stairs open to the hotel and garage (inaudlble)? MR. NICHOLS: Excuse me? MS. PETERSON: I can't really see. MR. NICHOLS: These stalrs? MS. PETERSON: Are those stalrs? MR. NICHOLS: These are fire stairs. MS. PETERSON: And how do those (inaudible)? MR. NICHOLS: They go straight down to the bottom, and they eXlt stralght to the outslde. Those fire stalrs only. This whole thlng. LAWYERS' CnOICE, INC. 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. PETERSON: (Inaudible). MR. NICHOLS: As you go on up to the roof of the parking structure, these are the hotel guest rooms that go down both sides. Across the back there is a three-story structure which has a health club that opens out to this pool deck. Very pretty landscaped pool deck. A pool that will drop at it's edge with a little inflnity edge plece that's goes across. And then we set the buildings back from the edge -- a distance of about 25 feet back to the edge of the bUllding across there. There's a terrace that goes all the way across the front, and those terraces are used for the pool/grill facilities (inaudible) across the whole edge of the facillty. These elevators also work -- these publlc elevators work for the hotel where anybody can come out across the pool deck to these elevators, go down, go to the beach back and forth wlthout going through the gust of the hotel. A typical floor plan of the building, the two tall buildings, they are over seven-story buildings on each side of ~he three-story building that goes across. Once you get off the upper floors, there are LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 just two simple rectangular towers so that the light and air goes all the way through the property. Very ,lmportant. We set these bUlldlngs back 20 feet from the outside edges so we can have complete glass without (inaudible) pulling down the outer edges. And then as the building keeps gOlng up, you saw before where it sat out at about this level, we're building each terrace in back away from the ocean. So it does stagger back from (inaudlble). In these cross sections, you can see -- see that stagger? This is the the new beach walk. There is a covered section of it that goes -- or a bridge that goes across, takes people down. And that is -- these are the Gulfview suites. The blue is the corridor, and the garage sits in behind them so that these go all the way across the front. These are the premiere rooms. But, more importantly, from complete oceanside, people are looking at real -- you know, real property that goes up. So It staggers lts way back, comes to the pool deck, it jumps back agaln, and then it steps back twice more as it goes up. So It'S a 150 foot portion of the buildlng. Only ~his one-story piece right here. Then It drops down about 10 feet, keeps dropping at 10 foot LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S lntervals untll It comes down. In the upper (lnaudible) section this lS all the publlc area at the base: The garage piece. The pool deck that sits in between. And they're a graceful way to keep buildlng the (inaudible) parking. When It gets to the architectural character, you can see we've worked very hard at trying to break this bUllding down into step pleces. We want to glve it a very classical residential scale of the hotel or of that -- that style. We're thlnking of, again, the very classical elements of free-cast base, stucco, barrel tile across the upper section and moving it up and down, even stepplng back above the podlum, stepping back the upper section where the health spa is that goes across. And from the Gulfview slde, again, this is the predominate plane that goes across. These buildings are stepped back, and they step back further and further and further to the open court. These are all these rooms that face directly towards the -- toward the ocean. There is the covered beach-walk seC~lon that goes across and the bridge that comes across. All of this is aimed at, really, ~rying to produce a very residentially scaled LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 project. I know this is extremely lmportant to you. Anytime you deal with an 800-car garage, that can be a big facllity. But we've worked very hard to mask it very carefully with good architectural elements and architectural features. So I think I would stop at this point and really open up to questions. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Any questions? MS. MORAN: Yeah, I have one. Could you go back to -- I thlnk it was about your second picture that showed the front of the building on Gulfview. MR. NICHOLS: This is the front of the building that draws (inaudible) the floor plan? MS. MORAN: Yeah, but it was one -- no. It was -- no. It was before that, and it was -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Is It the elevation? MR. NICHOLS: Was that the floor plan? MS. MORAN: Yeah. More -- more -- I think it was more in elevation. MR. NICHOLS: Or the cross-section through? The cross section? MS. MORAN: No, it was larger. MR. NICHOLS: What about that one? MS. MORAN: No. MR. NICHOLS: (Indicating.) LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. MORAN: No. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: We're almost there. MR. GEHRING: ThlS lS the one on the parklng deck with the -- MS. MORAL\T: No. MR. GEHRING: retail. MS. MORAN: No. MR. NICHOLS: It was the parking lot? MS. MORAN: It was the one -- MR. GEHRING: Is that the ground floor? MS. MORAN: It was either right before or rlght after that one. MR. NICHOLS: The ground floor plan? MS. MORAN: Be that one would do it, probably. MR. NICHOLS: Okay. MS. MORAN: Yeah. Okay. One of the things you're asking for is zero setback. MR. NICHOLS: That's correct. MS. MORAN: Can you show me or what -- if you're walking along in front, or driving along in front, what would one see? Because there is no setback. MR. JOHNSON: Is there a zero setback on that north that -- you're asking for zero from the north it says here. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. MO~~: All the way around. MR. JOHNSON: But you've got a driveway there. Isn't that a driveway? MR. NICHOLS: The bUllding, it's over that drlve so that it's an internal drive -- MR. JOHNSON: Oh. MR. NICHOLS: underneath the building so It covers all the surface areas. MR. GEHRING: This is (inaudible). MS. MORAN: No. I thlnk it's this one here where I see trees. MR. NICHOLS: Are you looklng at what it looks llke on the slde versus MS. MORAN: ThlS lS Gulfvlew, right? MR. NICHOLS: This is Gulfvlew rlght there, correct. MS. MORAN: Where the trees -- MR. JOHNSON: Oh, yeah. And that will be the walk MR. NICHOLS: -- trees and carry It all the way back down to both sides. And then Gulfview is the serpentlne-shaped road that runs all the way through thls. There is zero setback at this point, and there is the covered (inaudlble) that comes out that covers part of the beach background program -- the way that LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 works all the way across there -- and then we have dedicated 10 feet MS. MORAN: So where does the building on Gulfview actually begin? MR. NICHOLS: That part right there. MS. MORAN: Rlght there? MR. NICHOLS: Right there. MS. MORAN: Okay. MR. NICHOLS: That's the retail fronts, and It all traces right on to the beach walk. The beach walk is 35 feet wide from those store fronts out to the edge, and there is a provision for covered pleces of that just to cover for people that could sit out there and knock off tables and things that go all the way across. MR. JOHNSON: Says 35 feet. From here to the wall? MR. NICHOLS: Thls room is probably 15-by-30 feet, correct. Just probably just slightly wider than this room, 35 feet. That's just the paving surface. MR. JOHNSON: That's just the paving surface. MR. NICHOLS: Just the pavement on all of the landscaping. Allor this lS extremely broad as it goes all the way across. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. GEHRING: The red is the promenade. MR. NICHOLS: Yeah, you go red is the -- is the promenade. That's the 35 feet. And then all of this is very heavy landscaping. And the roadway, actually, is way out here by the bike bath, the road lS, in addition to the 35 feet. And there was some small areas of parking that were buried into the landscape. This is the part of the Beach-By-Design program. MR. STONE: Also, Mr. Graham -- if I could comment on the zero setback component of the site plan, and this is going way back to when we were consldering the community development code, that there were two distrlcts that we anticipated and a number of circumstances would in fact have zero setbacks. The GEO's group downtown district for tourlsts dlstrlct. So if you look at the tourist district and you looked at all the flexible uses, every single flexible use has the option, perhaps, of gOlng through an infill process of going to zero on all four sides. And there are four standards that address that circumstance. Let me read it to you real quick. The flrst was: Reductlon In the front setback contrlbutes to LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 more active and dynamic s~reet lighting. You know, and second: Reduction of the front setback resulted in approved slte plan through design impairments. See, the reduction in site rear setback does not prevent access to the rear of any building by emergency vehicles and, B, reduction site rear setback resulting in increased site plan, more efficient parking and improved (lnaudible). And the reason that is In every single use is because, just like we have on North Mandalay, this strip along South Gulfview is anticipated to accommodate common-law construction and to brlng that those buildlng fronts out to the pedestrian area so that we have that more accurate street scaling and street lights. So this is not an extraordinary circumstance comprised by us. This is exactly where we anticlpated this partlcular report (inaudible) . MS. MORAN: Well, the reason I ask is because on South Beach we have a new -- some new construction going on of a garage that -- with no setbacks. And It'S ugly. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: That's why MR. STONE: Also preceded thlS code. MS. MO~~: I know. I know. But that's why I LAWYERS' CEOICE, INC, 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was addressing thls because -- and I understand having a setback lS a luxury that we probably can't have anymore on the beach. But I think if it's, quote -- I think you used the term mask, and if it's ascetically present, then I think it's acceptable. MR. NICHOLS: I think that's why we worked so hard. These are all hotel guest rooms and suites. These are balconies. These are (inaudible), and lights come on at night. People in there. People sitting on the balconles overlooking the ocean. And down on the ground floor, that's all retail fronts that open out to the pedestrian beach walk. So the entire thing you see, that's what you see. The garage lS behlnd that. So it's extremely important to give that entire facade a very strong articulatlon and activatlon with real uses all across whlch is what we did. We did not do that on both sides because it's antlclpatlng that there are future developments, as Richard showed you, the property to the north, the property to the south, that almost abuts the east. But you want the continuous activity of this beach walk to continue all the way down to the end. MS. MORAN: Hopefully, It wlll be contagious. MR. NICHOLS: I would thlnk so. If you started LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S off strongly with a kick start like this, it would help It a lot. MS. PETERSON: How wlll cars, or will cars be able to access the hotel from Gulfview? Because they're going to -- you know what? There won't be a drop-off point where they will be able to go off that site? MR. NICHOLS: No. There is -- there is no real drop off. There is a -- the roadway does go through underneath the building. I think there will be a right-hand lane out conditlon both in and out at this edge. And we thought it was lmportant to let this go through just to let people move around this block versus to do It all In one direction. With (lnaudlble) still up, that the city decided that's what they want. MS. PETERSON: But that's my questlon. MR. NICHOLS: But right now we -- MS. PETERSON: Trying to make It into a more pedestrian friendly walkway, and we've got cars stuck across over here. MR. NICHOLS: Correct. MS. PETERSON: That might be a Slte for us to remember. MR. NICHOLS: Part of thls whole drlve In the LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S serpentine nature of it and the traffic-coming device in slowing traffic down and allowing the traffic, really, to come in and come from behind, park in the facility or come out, walk through the beach and never even have to get out here. It was much easier to, you know, get In the garage in this fashion. Plus there are sidewalks that go all the way through underneath here to walk to one side to the other. MS. PETERSON: Will the city -- considering the fact that they're going to be bone arches, we have a sign the city has a slgn issue bringing people on and off of Coronado? MR. NICHOLS: Oh, yeah, absolutely. Very important to any of these garages that are built wlthln a publlc prlvate facillty is a sign that talks about pUblic parklng, and I believe part of the program wlll work with the city and Public Works to make sure that leads (inaudible). MS. PETERSON: My other questlon was, and I can't -- did you say there was going to be an elder cafe or a beach-side cafe or something? MR. NICHOLS: Beach slde. I mean they're right here at ground opening on to the sldewalk. And right on the second floor above this, we have two places LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 70 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 lS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S that could very well be a cafe, lS on the second level opened out to where it would be -- the pedestrian brldge goes across. MS. PETERSON: Does that open up to the part that gets covered? MR. NICHOLS: It's all -- all of the actual restaurant faclllties are under cover. It's under the edge of the building. There is the roof of the -- of the (inaudible) below WhlCh is almost a part of the pedestrian brldge that you could open out onto it and kind of have outdoor tables and chairs. Although, something like that (inaudlble) just as you could on the lower level, whlch is what you want. Now I think you'd want that activity, which is very very nice, that would be underneath the heads of the palm trees that go all the way out to the (inaudible) . MR. GEHRING: (Inaudible) in discussion over (inaudible) the kinds of destinations we'd like to have on Clearwater Beach. And right now, in fact, In the evenings, there lS no actlvltles. So someone holds an event or there's something to be held today, you people walk out and you go what do I do here? So we're actlvely looklng at two to three destinatlon quality food facillties and LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 71 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 lS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S energlzlng nlght things so when the sun sets it's not the end of everything. MS. PETERSON: But why does it have to be Marriott and not just restaurants (inaudible)? MR. GEHRING: Some will. They have their own -- their own, but usually -- now there's a lot of integration of quallty product -- MR. NICHOLS: Marriott would have one of them on the ground, and there would be the other one, excuse me, on the second floor or the ground. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Any other questions of Mr. Nichols or Mr. Gehring? Just from a procedural standpoint, and I know Mr. Schiff wants to cross-examlne these gentlemen other gentlemen. Is it appropriate that the opponents here do a presentation prlor to that or MS. AKIN: ~ mean the rules that are set up say that all presentations are done first and then you have cross-examination. But if you wish to allow cross-examination now instead of after the presentation, that would be up to the Board. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: I'm just trYlng think of what's the most efflclent way to do thlS MR. SCHIFF: Our request would be to do cross-examlnatlon now. And then once our wltness are LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 put on and they have some cross-examination of our witnesses, then it will be approprlate. In each case, I think we should have an opportunlty to present MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Do either of you have a formal presentation? MR. SCHIFF: Yes, we do. And according to my watch, we're almost flfty minutes into the appllcant's presentation. And I think we're going to need equal time, you know, for our presentation. MS. PETERSON: Mr. Chair, we need to make a motion to (inaudible). MR. SCHIFF: (Inaudible) some point to know whether or not there's been on the recognitlon of our party status. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Okay. Prlor motion? MS. PETERSON: Yes, sir. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Is there a motion to that? MS. PETERSON: I will move that we recognize Richard. MS. AKIN: (Inaudlble) Markopoulos (lnaudible). MS. PETERSON: We get the parties (inaudible). MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Second? MR. JOHNSON: I'll second. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: All those in favor of the LNNYERS' CHOICE, INC. 73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 motion? (The Board responds aye.) MS. AKIN: I will point out that you don't typically count time which you ask questions and get responses. That's part of the applicant's presentation time. I don't know that we have identlfied that time. MS. MOSES: Yes. It's been thirty minutes not including questions from MR. GILDERSLEEVE: That's about what I thought it was as well too. MR. GEHRING: I just have one closing schedule element here which I can MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Now, Richard, this is going to add to your time frame. MR. GEHRING: I know. I know. But as I get back up to the screen, if somebody wlll cue me, we are on a schedule of the commission mandating if they want to deliver this with the bridge. We do have a 65-milllon-dollar project, 40 million on the hotel, about 10 restaurant/retall. Fifteen in garage, and then plus -- plus the total improvements. By prioritizing the garage, the whole thlng was on the tax roll WhlCh lS/ I thlnk, lS an afflrmatlve actlon. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So we have a heavy tax roll. A good portion of that goes to the city, and it will also have a tourist development -- TBT. Tourist bed taxes and the utility taxes, and about 300 jobs and three shifts. Mr. Klmpton you met. I'm here as the prime interest on the development planning and program for the project. Mr. Hoover is on construction. Valvista, a group, is a developer out of Tampa. Sarasota is going to bUlld an entity. Brian Multon, International, Marriott International, and the arch on the local operator. Engineerlng is gOlng through King Engineering WhlCh is available today, but we are not going to go into detail. You can ask speclfic questions. Legal flowing from both Kimpton and Burke, White, and Annis Mitchell on that side. And Mr. Trapp (phonetic), the pUblic parking, has been our parking analyst for pUblic parking owns -- or manages and operates the TIA garage at the international airport. We have a lot of experience, and I think the issues here are the quality of the project that can be delivered that activate the waterfronts for both urban and tourism actlvities. And we create some world-class destinations that we think we would llke LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to bring those talents to bear In this particular proJect. The resolution format, In my understanding of It from the city attorneys, is the adoptlon of staff is worklng to complete the development agreement in front of you. The economic terms are probably the only elements that are stlll in some discussion points. The commlssion had a presentation on the first of those. There was a second hearlng on the 15th along the Beach By Design's adoptlon. This is your public hearing on your recommendation, the 20th, and then this final public hearing on March 1st. So with that, we do have a (inaudlble) site plan traffic utlllty expert available on the engineering side If you wish to discuss those points. And we would just like to say thank you, Clearwater. I think this is an outstanding opportunlty, and we want to be in a strong catalytic proJect. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Thank you, Mr. Gehring. At thlS time what the Chair would like to do is to invite Mr. Schiff and his folks if they'd like to cross-examine. We'll do that for a few minutes. I want to just encourage that we have a very business agenda today. If we could be, you know, as sustained LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 and brief as we can. At the end of that period, I would like to have a recess before you actually make a formal presentation. MR. SCHIFF: So if I heard you correctly, we should undertake our cross-examination now. I guess 7 the easiest way to do this is just to call the 8 witnesses who've spoken. 9 Mr. Nicholas (sic) could you come up? 10 CROSS-EXAMINATION 11 BY MR. SCHIFF: 12 13 14 15 16 Q Mr. Nicholas, are you an appraiser? A No, I'm not. Q Are you an economist? A No, I'm not. Q Have you been trained in any market and 17 research skills? 18 19 No. A Q You mentloned in your presentation that this 20 building -- and I may be paraphrasing -- is lnvolving 21 light and alr? 22 23 24 25 MS. MOSES: You need to speak into the mlcrophone, Slr, because it's not getting you on the MR. SCHIFF: We're trying to both use it. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 77 Okay. MS. MOSES: You have a soft voice. If you could speak up -- MR. SCHIFF: Well, I would be glad to speak -- MS. MOSES: -- I would appreciate it. MR. SCHIFF: I'll be glad to speak up. MS. MOSES: Thank you. BY MR. SCHIFF: Q Isn't it a fact that the base of the building is approximately an 85-foot-tall mass from sideline to sideline? A That's correct. I believe (inaudible). Okay. So that -- and then you would raise it Q 14 even higher above the flood level potentlally, maybe, 90 15 feet, 95 feet (lnaudible) 95-foot box sideline to sidellne 16 as the base of the buildlng predominant (inaudlble)? 17 A No, not quite that high. We would meet the 18 minimum flood factor. It's only a few feet above what's 19 out there rlght now. 20 Q So with a 90 -- 85 or 90 foot box sldeline to 21 sideline, there's no llght or alr going through that box 22 is there? 23 24 A Not through that dlrection, correct. Are you aware of the Beach By Design's Q 25 standards? LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 78 1 2 A Yes, I am. Are you aware of -- and I'll show this to you. Q 3 It's on page 2, and its entitled Gulfview/Coronado Hotel 4 Retail and Redevelopment, and we'll ask at the end that 5 Beach By Design we take Judlcial notice that it come 6 into the record as an exhlbit. 7 Would you read the last sentence beginning with 8 the design of buildings, please, for me. 9 A Yeah. The design of bUlldings in this area 10 shall allow greater height while maintaining (lnaudible) 11 at pedestrian level, and maintaining light, air, and view 12 corridors. 13 Q Now you're under oath. Can you tell me, is 14 your building maintaining the existing light, air, and 15 view corridors including Third Street? 16 A Yes, it is, in terms of the guidance from these 17 type of restrictlons. Basically, what we've done is not 18 build a buildlng 250 foot helght that goes all the way up. 19 We've broken that down so the buildlngs are In parallel 20 towers where only the podium piece, whlch is the retail 21 plece that goes across the base which is actually 22 encouraged, and the parking mask goes across the upper 23 level of the seven stories which would contain the various 24 hotel rooms, are broken into tower setback and they open 25 down between. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 79 1 Q Let me ask that again. Is the -- the corridor 2 that currently exists, which is Thlrd Street, is that 3 being malntained? 4 5 A through No, it is not. We do have an opening that goes through from side to side. It goes 6 through from Coronado all the way through to Gulfview. 7 That is the pedestrian sidewalk and where the driveways go 8 through. 9 Q Okay. Isn't it a fact that pedestrians 10 standing on Coronado will not have a view of the beach 11 once this building is built? They will not be able to see 12 through this 85-foot mass sideline to sldellne? 13 A That's partially true. They would be able to 14 see through the open corrldor. It's about a third-foot 15 wide slot that goes all the way through Coronado to 16 Gulfview. 17 Q And you are not planning to replace Third 18 Street, you're just eliminating it. Is that your proposed 19 plan? 20 A Third Street is eliminated. And then the 21 street that goes through underneath, llke I mentloned lS 22 sllghtly to the south of that, goes through Coronado to 23 Gulfview. 24 Q And you also mentioned in your testimony that 25 thlS proposed structure lS residentlal In the scale. Do LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 80 1 you recall that testimony? Right no I'd like to know If 2 you recall, and then I have a questlon. 3 A Yes, I do recall a residentlal. I thlnk that's 4 archltectural character. 5 Q Would you -- well, maybe you need to clarify 6 your testlmony. Is this building residential in scale? 7 8 9 10 11 A It is mid rise residential in scale, yes. Q Okay. What residents in Clearwater do you know that is 85 feet to sideline to sideline? A I can't cite any examples. But the overall project is meant to be broken down into pieces so that It 12 gives it more residential scale, residential scale 13 openings, residential scale windows, barrel tile roofs 14 broken in that fashion. 15 Q Scale to meet the size. Is this the size of a 16 resldentlal structure? I don't want to belabor this 17 point. Is this a residential scale reduction here? 18 A If you look at the Gulfview elevation, it very 19 well could be a residential scale structure. Resldential 20 in mid-rise height of construction. 21 There's an elght-story bUllding that goes 22 across faclng Gulfview, and then a seven-story building 23 excuse me -- seven stories high. I think they're seven 24 story pieces that sit back up on top of It, but the whole 25 side of that building is all a -- is a residentially LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 81 1 designed type of structure in terms of a multl-family 2 residential building. 3 4 5 MR. SCHIFF: I just want -- I just have a few questions for Ms. Fierce, and a few questions then for Mr. Stone. And I'll Just ask from here. 6 CROSS-EXAMINATION 7 BY MR. SCHIFF: 8 Q MS. Flerce, do you -- do you know who wrote the 9 staff report on this matter? 10 11 12 A Q A I do. Who partlcipated In that? It was a comblnation of the plannlng department 13 team and It'S members. 14 15 Q A And who are those, please. I believe origlnally mostly the development 16 review folks had a -- had some part in revlewing it 17 and/or editing it or reading it including myself, 18 Mr. Stone, Ms. Harden, Mr. Gibbons and Ms. Clayton. 19 Q Isn't it a fact there's no market analyst or 20 economlst on the staff who reviewed this application? 21 A I'm not sure of all the qualifications of all 22 the other staff in terms of whether they have -- they have 23 experience in economic development matters. 24 Q Can you look at number two of your staff report 25 on page 8, and, if you would, read the statemen~ number LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 82 1 two, which I belleve is an attempt to state what the code 2 crlterion is. 3 4 A Do you want me to read this to you? Q Read the criterion at the top of that page 5 there. 6 A The development as (inaudible) development as a 7 Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project wlll not 8 materially reduce the fair market value of the abutting 9 properties. 10 Q Okay. So that's the standard that the staff 11 revlewed the appllcation under? 12 A That lS the standard that's required to be 13 revlewed In the code. 14 Q And If that were not the standard, that the 15 staff have not reviewed under the standard under the code? 16 A I think generally we historically always look 17 at what the -- what the value of the property lS as it 18 currently eXlts and how the proposal will improve the 19 value of the property and, therefore, in turn, perhaps, 20 beneflt surroundlng property values. 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q A Are you an appraiser? I am not a licensed appraiser. Are you a market analyst? No. Q Can you name, whlle we're in thls quaslJudlcial LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 83 1 hearing today, any market analyst who looked at this 2 criterla for the City of Clearwater? 3 4 A I can't name any. I'd like you, if you can, to look at sectlon Q 5 2803-C.2 of your code. Do you have that handy? If not, I 6 can provide It to you. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 MS. AKIN: Would you repeat that, please. MR. SCHIFF: Okay. It's 2803-C.2. It's a criterion for infill development number two. MS. FIERCE: Could you tell me whether it's a district we're talking about here? MR. SCHIFF: It's your code division under the Comprehenslve Infill (inaudible). I have an internet 14 version (inaudlble). 15 BY MR. SCHIFF: 16 Q And also when we read the provision when you 17 reviewed this report to us -- when you read that, you 18 reviewed it under a standard of whether it would 19 materially reduce the fair market value of the public 20 properties. 21 Can you tell me where the word materially is in 22 number two of your criterion? 23 24 25 A Q A No, it's not. Is it there? I don't see it in the -- in the code version. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 1 2 Q A 84 So what does the code say? The code says everything I said except for the 3 word material. 4 Q So the code says the development of the parcel 5 and proposed for development as a Comprehensive Infill 6 Redevelopment Project wlll not reduce the fair market 7 value of the abuttlng properties; is that correct? 8 9 A Q That's what I stated. Okay. So that is a burden of the applicant, 10 under your code, is meant to show that the project will 11 not reduce the fair market value of the abutting 12 properties? That's their -- that's their burden isn't it? 13 A The applicants are required to show how they 14 adhere to the standards of the code. 15 Q And they, in fact, have a burden to meet those 16 criterla don't they? 17 18 19 20 21 A Q If you want to interpret it that way. Do you know whether Richard Gehring is a consultant to the city? A I'm unaware. Q Have you met with Richard Gehring during the 22 pendency of this application? 23 24 A On a few occasions, yes. Okay. And, what, did that involve discussing Q 25 the Beach By Deslgn? LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 85 1 A Only insofar as how -- as If his proposal met 2 the requirements in Beach By Design. 3 MR. SCHIFF: Okay. At this pOlnt I have just a 4 few questlons for Mr. Stone. 5 CROSS-EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. SCHIFF: 7 Q Mr. Stone, In order to obtain a variance to 8 site setbacks, is it necessary to meet all of the criteria 9 under the city code both for redevelopments and for the 10 general standards? 11 A I think the criteria is there to understand the 12 impact of the proposal. I'm not -- I don't interpret that 13 every single criteria has to be explicitly met in order to 14 support the applicatlon. I think there's some balance 15 that's applled in that regard. 16 Q If the code were to say that all crlteria had 17 to be met, you would have to follow that wouldn't you? 18 19 20 21 22 A Yes. Q You mentloned that there's an optlon under Beach By Deslgn to go to zero feet setbacks on all sides. Is that guaranteed for all development? A The option really lsn't in Beach By Design. 23 The optlon lS in the community (inaudible). 24 25 Q Okay. Is that guaranteed for all applicatlons? It lS not guaranteed. A LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 1 86 Q Does the applicant have to meet all applicable 2 criteria under the code In order to reduce setbacks in the 3 City of Clearwater? 4 5 A Q We would have to address all of that criteria. And if the code says you have to meet the 6 criteria, then you would follow that code? 7 8 A Q Yes. You also mentioned that you anticipated to 9 accommodate common law construction of projects. You're 10 familiar with this applicatlon aren't you? 11 12 A Yes. Are you familiar with the eight-story parking Q 13 garage that abuts my client's property? 14 15 16 17 A Yes. And it's right to the sideline is it not? Yes. In order to anticipate common-law construction, Q A Q 18 have you anticipated common-law construction with respect 19 to my client's property? 20 21 A I think we have, yes. So if my clients wanted to build a hotel Q 22 adJacent to the property line or adjacent to an 23 85-foot-tall parking garage, would you have anticipated 24 that? 25 A If It comes to accommodate common-law LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 87 1 constructlon. 2 Q That's not my question. My question is: You 3 said you've anticipated common-law construction. This 4 involves -- thls project involves an 85-foot parking 5 garage immediately adJacent to my client's property. 6 Eighty-five -- I mean seven stories of car parking. 7 You anticipate that we wlll have a wall of a 8 hotel in that tourist district lmmedlately adjacent to 9 that 85-foot wall? 10 A There's no way for me to prognostlcate about 11 the option that your client may want to develop on hls 12 property, but it's entirely common in an urban district 13 llke this one just as it would be in the downtown dlstrict 14 to have common-law construction. 15 You have hotels in downtown districts that are 16 built on the lot lines. You have office structures and 17 other klnds of structures that go to the lot lines to the 18 extent that he, you know, has design challenges as a 19 result of that kind of philosophy. They'll just have to 20 be worked around, and they reveling on (inaudlble). 21 Q Where in the City of Clearwater is there an 22 85-foot parking garage adjacent to a common wall of a 23 hotel? 24 25 A Q Off the top of my head, I don't know. Have you anticipated any partlcular development LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 88 1 on my cllent's property? 2 A We have -- we understand the two proposals that 3 he has brought forward. One of which has a very high wall 4 and will be a common-wall construction wlth the current 5 application. 6 Q Is it fair to say that none of those proposals 7 are relevant in thls hearing at this time because no 8 applicatlon lS pending before the City of Clearwater for 9 either or any projects on my client's property? 10 11 A Q No, I don't think it's fair to say. So you thlnk it's fair to consider my client's 12 plans on the Board which haven't been submitted to the 13 City of Clearwater in revlewlng this project? 14 A I'm positive that I wasn't considering your 15 client's plans. He would (inaudible) city manager's 16 office and complained about it. 17 Q So what plans are you considering if my client 18 has no official appllcation before the City of Clearwater? 19 A Ones that he has presented to the Clty 20 Commisslon and asked us to (inaudible). 21 Q Is my client guaranteed approval of those 22 plans? 23 A No, he's not. 24 Q I need to take a step back here because I'm not 25 sure. Is it the policy of the City of Clearwater to LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 89 1 consider applications which have not been (inaudible)? 2 3 4 5 A Q A In what respect? In respect to development of property. To conslder them in what respect? Q To consider them well, you have -- we have 6 here today before this board an application. That 7 application, we've discussed with Ms. Fierce, is revlewed 8 in the context of the criteria of your code. 9 You have a staff report that is to address 10 whether -- you know, address the criteria. And we have 11 you know, the applicant addresses the criteria. We have 12 an opportunity to address the criterla and decislons made. 13 And my question lS: Why in the context of an 14 application, which does not involve my client's property, 15 are you considering an unofficial design that mayor may 16 not be an ultimate design on someone's property with 17 respect to thls application? 18 19 A It would be nieve for us not to do that. of all, it's entlrely common to have that kind of First 20 discussion before we take hls property in an officlal or 21 an unofficial way whether they submit an application or 22 not. 23 Secondly, In this particular lnstance, it's not 24 like there has been no communlcation between your client 25 and the city staff as far as anything like property LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 90 1 submltted to a speclfic development optlon to us including 2 presentations of the City Commisslon and -- well, under 3 the extent of developing architectural plans and 4 elevations for us to consider. 5 So I thlnk it would be almost unprofessional 6 for us not to take those things lnto consideration when 7 somebody right next door is comlng in (inaudlble). 8 Q And which proposal -- you just said someone 9 next door is coming in with a proposal. Which proposal 10 are you assuming my client's coming in with to apply in 11 the City of Clearwater and under what process? 12 13 A Well, he has submitted two options to us so far, and I can't I can't antlcipate what he intends on 14 fOllowing through wlth. 15 Q But none of those have been submitted under an 16 application to the Clty of Clearwater. Those are plans 17 that have been discussed wlth the staff that mayor may 18 not go forward on my client's property, right? 19 A He has not submitted the formal appllcatlon. 20 He has dlscussed with us the alternative of developing -- 21 developing agreements with the city based on what is his 22 alternative. 23 Q And none of those plans or discussions have 24 been memorialized in official applications to the City of 25 Clearwater; is that correct? LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 91 1 2 A Q That's correct. So none of those plans have any official status 3 at this point? They have not been approved have they? 4 A They don't have an official status in terms of 5 being able to pull permlts, but I think they do have 6 official status. And they have been proposed to the Clty, 7 at a City Commission meetlng, in which a public hearing 8 conducted specifically about major development proposals 9 on the beach. 10 There were three. His was one of them. And 11 those are -- I was (inaudible) moving forward and 12 developing agreements then. 13 Q Do those plans restrict my client from applying 14 for something else? 15 16 A Q No. So he could apply tomorrow for an applicatlon 17 within the current zoning or under, perhaps, the 18 Beach-By-Design standards? Or, perhaps, he could propose 19 a hotel with an 85-foot sheer wall right to his property 20 llne couldn't he? 21 A That's correct. 22 Q So that is the current status of hls property 23 isn't it? So -- isn't it? 24 A We have not received a site plan applicatlon 25 for hlS property. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Mr. SChlff, I think -- MR. SCHIFF: Yeah. This is very important as we think this issue -- so you know for the record, we thlnk this whole issue of brlnging in evidence on our client's property is not relevant. And we object to it coming in, and we would ask that it not be considered. And you probably are thlnking the same thing. Our project is not here before you, whatever that project may be, but we have now had testimony before I had an opportunity to object or to cross-examine by both the developers' representative and by staff on a project that has no official status. So, for the record, if you want me just to move on, we'll object to any of that evidence In the record we think is not relevant. We also wanted to make sure that we said in the record, which I thlnk -- I think Mr. Stone has been forthright about, that there is no official status of any development on my cllent's property. So that -- all of that information that I believe lS very irrelevant to this proceeding. You are considering applications under the city code, and we would just stand by the obJectlon and move on at this point that all of that evidence to me is lrrelevant. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 93 1 2 3 4 5 MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Very well. The pOlnt I wish to make, I thought Mr. Stone answered the question probably two or three tlmes, and I would llke us to move forward. MR. SCHIFF: At this point, I would llke to 6 call Mr. Gehring. 7 CROSS-EXAMINATION 8 BY MR. SCHIFF: 9 Q Mr. Gehring, I just wanted to confirm, I thlnk 10 you sald this, but it was not entirely clear to me at 11 least. You -- isn't it a fact that at this point there is 12 no signed agreement with Marriott to build the hotel? 13 14 A Q Marriott in thls relationship is an operator. Okay. There is no signed operating agreement 15 with Marriott as we stand here today? 16 A There is an agreement of -- per the Clty to 17 pursue Marriott's operating relationship. 18 Q So the answer to my questlon is no, there's no 19 operating agreement? 20 A The operating -- the detalls of the operating 21 agreement are in negotiation, discusslon and review. They 22 are reviewing plans, and they have an exclusive 23 relatlonship to the project. That is in agreement form. 24 And there is a multitude of, quote, agreements that must 25 be materialized. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 94 1 Q Mr. Gehring, lsn't it a fact that you're not an 2 appralser, or you are not an economlst and not a market 3 expert? 4 A I'm a community planner and developer with 25 5 years of experience in this market area and have been 6 involved In both planning and dellvering millions and 7 milllons of dollars worth of product and projects of which 8 you have been attorney to in the past. 9 You're famillar wlth those, but I do not 10 function as an appraiser. I do not function as an market 11 analyst professionally, but I do involve myself in 12 analyzing markets for proJects I'm involved with. And I'm 13 not opining here as a market expert. 14 Q Thank you. In your application I'm not sure 15 if this is your language or not -- you stated that parklng 16 will be camouflaged and hldden from the beach goers. 17 Do you consider an 85-foot wall immediately 18 adJacent to my client's property, which is essentially a 19 parking garage, camouflage? 20 A I don't recall using the term camouflage. I 21 said screened. I think we were comparing a naked deck, 22 which was the city's earlier proposal, for exposed parking 23 floors with one for the city cars versus an entirely 24 screened facility. 25 The condltlons of the -- of the property on the LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 95 1 abutting sides which abut your property -- your client's 2 property, have code constralnts, whlch Mr. Nichols can 3 certainly speak to, that rely only on certain materials to 4 be utillzed on the abuttlng edge. So it lS a surface that 5 shows. 6 7 Q A My question This is the now you showed me -- this is the side of -- the north 8 side of the property. This is step back. It has two Jobs 9 at the surface corner. It has two air shafts, and it has 10 a series of glass block at the top. And all the other 11 detailed elements here are basically indentations In the 12 surface. 13 Anticipating whether someone had a two- or 14 three-story structure abutting this, they could -- you 15 know, would create a very posltive facade edge to the 16 abutting site. And I also conslder that we develop this 17 in relevance to your applicant -- your owner's 18 representation that he wish to place even a nine-story 19 buildlng and an eight-story parklng deck agalnst this 20 wall. 21 (Many voices are speaklng at one time.) 22 23 24 25 MR. SCHIFF: Again, It's not relevant to this proceeding at thls time. MR. GEHRING: Flne. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 96 1 BY MR. SCHIFF: 2 Q Are you an advocate for your client? Are you 3 an advocate in thlS proceeding for your client? 4 A Our project team lncludes a number of 5 individuals who are working on the project as Beach in 6 Design and involve the other technical expertlse that I'm 7 a participant In the proJect. 8 Q You signed as your cllent's agent when you 9 applied for this application did you not? 10 11 A Q Yes. Does your client have ownership or control of 12 Third Street? 13 A Third Street wlll be requested to be vacated, 14 and there's been part and parcel over the discussion with 15 Beach By Design since the whole Beach-by-Design plan was 16 submitted and went through numerous public hearings. I 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 believe some eleven or twelve have been held by Beach By Design while recognizing the opening of Third Street as the conditlon of this project. Q So the answer to my question is Thlrd Street is not owned by your client? A Q It's subject to vacatlon. Do you recall in your applicatlon that you sald 24 that the proposed project needs relief from slte setbacks 25 due to the scale of the development? Page 6 of your LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 97 1 application. 2 A In the application we defined the dynamics of a 3 parking garage conflguration requiring the utilizatlon of 4 the site setbacks to go to zero. 5 Q Let me show thlS to you. I'm asklng about some 6 speclflc language (inaudible). Page 6 In the application. 7 Can you read this first paragraph. This is your 8 application, right? 9 A First paragraph. Interested defined by 10 prepared by King Construction with the applicant. The 11 proposed project needs rellef from slte setbacks due to 12 the scale of the development. The need to provide for 13 on-site building circulation and the dedication of 10 foot 14 of right-of-way along the rear property line on Coronado. 15 The promenade elevation, which lS approved by 16 the developer for property for a distance of approximately 17 a thousand feet will serve as a landscape gateway to the 18 community business. In addition, the promenade area will 19 function as a front setback with pedestrian amenltles such 20 as covered walkways, pavement, landscaping, and a sidewalk 21 cafe. 22 Q Thank you. I only asked you to read the flrst 23 sentence, but you're welcome to read on. The flrst 24 sentence, the meeting wlll be from site setback due to the 25 scale of the development. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 1 98 Mr. Gehring, isn't that backwards from a 2 planning standpoint? Isn't It a fact that if a project 3 does not fit on a property, it's simply too large or too 4 huge and you don't ask for a (lnaudible), you scale down 5 the project? 6 A I'll refer to the comments that the client In 7 the record used in dealing with the lntentions of Beach By 8 Design whlch define in their structure an intent for an 9 urban tourist district. And in that framework, if you go 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 to the beach today, you'll find several nonzero setback condltion. In this particular property, the merging of a 250-room hotel, whlch could be done with a parking deck for Just itself at a certain scale, is accommodating the park -- the hotel and the admissible parking program and the retail activation in the street. Those uses coming together for an exciting mixed use project created as a mix use project or scale, and that's what's meant by the size of the proJect. Q Let's go a little further with that. Your client, do they own the property right now? A The property lS under control. Under control. So they don't own it right now? I answered It. Did I say I owned it? I said Q A 25 it's under control. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 1 2 3 Q A Q 99 Is it under contract? It's under control. Okay. And that's what you mean by (inaudible). 4 And the property is 1.08 acres according to the 5 application, right? 6 A The property is slightly more than that. I'll 7 show you this staff report that I have. A little chart I 8 believe. More like 1. -- 1.63 is the aggregate with 9 vacation. The original component is the four parcels 10 which -- 11 12 13 Q A Q Which is your (inaudible). I think it's more like one twenty. Well, from my renewed staff report shows that 14 the total project is proposed on 1.63 acres. 15 16 A Correct. Q It also shows that there lS 1.08 of five lands 17 from the report I was given. Now If that's true, 34 18 percent of your project is coming from public land. 19 Assuming that's true, Mr. Gehring, don't you 20 think you're fitting too large of a project on this one 21 acre track when you're proposing a 250-room hotel more 22 than 150 feet high on sideline to sidellne wlth no view, 23 no air, and no light? 24 A Would you like me to compare this project in 25 con]Unctlon with your applicant's 700-foot-long buildlng LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 100 1 that's 150 feet tall and has no infill penetrations In it 2 at? 3 4 Q A I'd like you to answer my question regarding Yeah. Well, I want to know what your 5 relevant -- your relevant definition of Gulfview 6 Q I would like you to -- to answer the question 7 as to whether or not your project slmply does not fit on 8 this property that is mix used to the property because 9 there is no alr, light, or view, or pedestrian with the 10 public. 11 A Subject site was 280 feet of frontage on 12 Gulfview. 305 feet of frontage on Coronado. 245 feet of 13 depth between block face to block face with the vacation 14 of the 35 feet of Gulfview into the site produces a 1.63 15 acre site which in urban characteristics is developed here 16 an appropriate character and scale to the urban intensity 17 of the tourist district the city has defined in Beach By 18 19 Design. 150 foot height is used only on the Coronado 20 frontage, and there's signlflcant light and air on all the 21 occupiable portions of the structure. As to the parking 22 deck, it is going to lot line to lot line to accommodate 23 auto and vans for both the city and the public. That lS a 24 very acceptable tradeoff in delivering quality house, 25 hotel house, and a quality parklng deck on this site. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 101 1 I do not consider it to be an intensification 2 unlike the character of the commercial quality of 3 Clearwater Beach defined In Beach By Design or, although 4 you wouldn't like thi&, defined in either of your client's 5 current applicatlons which are not formal but lnformal. 6 I did review those. I did study those. I dld 7 try to accommodate those. How you can stand here and ask 8 me whether his eight-story parking deck is abutting our 9 eight-story parklng deck are in conflict with one another 10 whenever they are there to be compatible means that you're 11 ignoring your client's intent. 12 MR. SCHIFF: Again, I'll object for the record 13 on relevance of any mention of projects on my 14 client's property. 15 BY MR. SCHIFF: 16 Q The final questlon, have you been employed by 17 the City of Clearwater at anytlme during your career? 18 19 20 A Q A 21 capacities. 22 Q My entire life. Numerous times. Numerous times you're entire llfe? I've worked wlth the city In a number of Have you been employed by the Clty of 23 Clearwater in any capacity regarding Beach By Design? 24 25 A Q No. Have you been employed by the Clty In any LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 102 1 capacity regarding any of the beach standards? I mean any 2 standards concernlng Clearwater Beach? 3 4 A I've not been involved in Beach By Design. Have you been employed by the city with respect Q 5 to any consulting contracts during the last year? 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A No. MR. SCHIFF: I have no further questions. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Thank you. At this time before we do take a break, does staff wish to cross-examine? (No response.) MR. GILDERSLEEVE: That being the case, we'll take a five to ten mlnute recess. (A break is taken in the proceedings at 3:36 p.m., and at 3:49 p.m. the proceedings continue.) MR. GILDERSLEEVE: I would like to go ahead and reconvene the meetlng. MR. SCHIFF: Mr. Chairman, at this point I understand we would like to present a short legal argument followed by our experts who was brought with us today. Inltlarly, as you know, we've already filed our objection and are standing by that this proceeding should not be gOlng forward. We wanted to reiterate, just for the record, that your board does not have LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 103 1 2 3 the authority to grant a site plan on property which has not been part of an application. We also wanted to note that there is no existlng community redevelopment district. It's our underst~nding that has not been approved at this pOlnt, and this proJect is being reviewed in the context of an assumption that a community redevelopment district would be established to allow for consideration of these projects. So we feel that lS the cart before the horse. It's premature to consider it. I will contact some other community redevelopment district main branch, and you would have then no authorlty to grant this request. We also wanted to note for the record that this application is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and the county-wlde plan. Bellanors (phonetic) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 cannot be issued inconsistent with comprehensive planning, and that will be a vlolation of Chapter 163 Florlda Statutes. So, for the record, we would obJect based upon the consistency with the comprehensive plan. We have a long list of due process concerns today. For example, we were provlded the same packet I thlnk you recelved. There were materials in that LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 104 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 packet which we saw for the first tlme today. They were legal descriptions. They were documents that we saw just hours before thls meetlng. Now, we recognize staff had a big Job, but that's not that's not the problem. The problem is that we're going forward today. There should be sufficient time for the publlC and for my client to review anything that lS presented to this board. And glving us just a few hours on the project of this magnitude, we submit probably It'S our client's due process rights as well as our equal protection rights. So we have a standing objection. We'd like to note for the record also pending materials that have been submitted by the staff are part of the application, which were submltted today, did not provide sufficient notice and an opportunity to be heard through my client. We violated due takes of fundamental fairness. We do appreciate your granting us party status. We greatly appreciate you giving us the opportunity to cross-examine wltnesses. We wanted to note for the record that the applicant, under the city code, has the burden to establish that every slngle criterion must be met by competent substantial LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 105 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 eVldence. And now I wlll submit to you that in many cases what has been brought before you today, the record lS devoid of any evidence and certainly any competent evidence to support the criteria which must be met to grant the approvals requested. So our position is that the applicant has not carried their burden. We also wanted to note that when an applicant is utilizing 55 percent of ltS project from public lands or variances, the project doesn't fit. And that lS almost obvious that a project that must use a public street without relocating that street, a project that must go sideline to sideline, side yard to side yard, and just destroy any view that currently exists today, is simply to big and does not flt. At this point I would like to introduce to you Ethel Hammer of the Englehardt, Hammer and Associates Planning Firm. We have her resume submitted In the record. In the interest of tlme, we will ask her to state that that resume is accurate, and also we offer her as an expert in all planning issues related to the application as well as the criteria of the code. At this tlme Ms. Hammer. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 106 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. HAMMER: Good afternoon. My name is Ethel Hammer. My address is 5444 Bayside Drive, SUlte 122, Tampa. And Mr. Schiff asked me to certify or to acknowledge that my resume is correct, and I will do that at this time. I was asked to look at this project from a planning perspective and to really look at two specific things. One, whether or not the project was consistent, excuse me, with the regulatory framework that is set up to review the project In the city. And, secondly, whether the project had any impacts on my client's property, which is the Markopoulos' property. The first thing I would like to address would be the criteria or the standards for the level one and level two approval conditions, and that's sllde one. The first criteria, and I'm not going to do the~ all. I'm just going to do several of them. The proposed developmental land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, density and character of the adJacent propertles in which it is located. It lS my oplnion that this proJect is not In scale or in character with the adjacent properties. The staff report, in addressing thls partlcular LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 107 4 criteria, didn't really answer the question of evaluating this partlcular language. What they did was to say that it was in compliance with the Beach-By-Design criteria. Well, you have a project in compliance with this crlteria but not necessarlly the appropriate in the scale and the bulk for the particular property in whlch it was belng proposed and being compatible with adJacent properties. I think you have to look at what's existing on the adjacent properties and what's proposed. Certainly we feel it is not compatible with what is existing out there on the beach now. I'd like to ask for bracket number seven. What we have done is take the design, the architectural plans that were submitted and to scale insert them in a common aerial. ThlS shows the bulk and magnitude of the proposed project relative to all of the uses around It on the beach. And the next one would be number eight. We have three slightly different views, and the next one would be number nine. This renderlng clearly shows that it is certainly out of character and certainly out of scale with everythlng else that's out on the beach. 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 108 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Now, as I mentioned earlier, the question really becomes -- you know, you look at what's eXlting and you look at what's proposed. Well, certainly there are no other proposals on the table before you or that have been 9ubmitted to the city. But if the same due consideration were given to the next property owner as is being given to this property owner, we would have the following bracket which I believe is number eleven. So this would be baslcally -- not that we would have an identical project, but that we're just trying to show the bulk of two projects side by side with no light, air, and view corridors being considered on the beach. We feel that this lS setting a negatlve precedent. That it lS, as Mr. Schiff has said, that it is a project that is far too lntense for the size of the parcel that it is on. And we would like to state for the record that we are certainly not opposed to redevelopment out on the beach. We are not opposed to use of the hotel. We thlnk that it lS appropriate and certalnly the use itself is compatible. What is not compatible is the bulk and the scale. Number two -- criteria number two. And that lS slide number elght. One of the things it says lS the LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 109 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 proposed development will not hinder or discourage the approprlate development in the use of adjacent land and buildings for signiflcantly lmpaired value thereof. And Mr. SChlff had brought this out in one of the questions he asked earlier about the light, air, and view corridors belng extremely lmportant to the entire premise of the Beach-By-Design plan. We feel that this project lS not consistent with the statement that is required in Beach By Design. This proJect lS asklng for some pretty lntensive development. It's asking for zero setbacks on all sides. That to me is a wall-to-wall type of development where you have no interface with the public at street level and the beach itself on the east side of the project. It's a small property that, in our opinion, is being too intensely developed. The project also is asking for two portions of it to be higher than 100 feet. One of the things that Beach By Design states that I believe it's sllde number nine -- states that there is a high criterla. Under subparagraph number two, talks about you can't have any intrusions over 100 feet, no more than two of them belng within 500 feet of each other. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Well, this project is asking for two, which are 100 feet apart on the structure. But that in and of ltself is baslcally aSking for all of the allotment that goes to some of the properties immedlately adjacent to it. And if I could show graphic -- I believe it's eleven at this time. This just those shows the relationship of how much of our property Mr. Markopoulos' property would be taken up by the 500-foot radius on which nothing over 100 feet could be permitted. So, certalnly, when it says in criteria number two that the proposed development will not hinder or discourage the development and use of adjacent land, this fact that they are asking for two towers is basically driving the design and to scale and to height on the bulk of Mr. Markopoulos' property. So it certainly does have an effect. Criteria number five, back on slide one, says the proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. Again, my comments previously about the fact that we feel that it is not in character with the surrounding area, there really aren't many LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 developments out in this general locatlon that exhibit this type of intensity. Criteria number six. The deslgn of the proposed development mlnlmizes adverse effects including visual, acoustic, and olfactory, and hours of operation lmpacts on adjacent properties. In the staff report they evaluated everything except visual. Well, we think vlsual, from our perspective, may be one of the most important things in this criteria. Because we believe that because of the lntensity of the project, it is having a visual impact on the adjacent properties. I'd llke to go to slide number two, which lS the flexlbility criteria for Comprehenslve Infill Redevelopment projects. Criteria number one says that the development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use lntensity and development standards. As I stated earlier, we are not in objection or not opposed to the use. What we are opposed to is the intensity of use, and we feel that some deviations from the standards may be necessary but not to the extreme extent that are being proposed here. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 To approve a project that has an impervlous surface ratio of one, which means It's covering the entire property, it has zero setbacks on all sldes, and the height in the form of towers basically overflows or has off-site impacts to what other properties can do, is too lntense of a project. Development on this site could be done with a smaller more reasonable proposal that would not require all of these crlteria to be flexed to this degree. Criteria Number four says the use or mix of uses within the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project are compatlble wlth adJacent land uses. When the applicant submitted his proposal, he said that the project was compatible with adJacent land uses. And he went on to cite that there are restaurants and hotels in the same block. Well, compatibllity is not strlctly a nature of use against use. It is a also a measure of scale and intensity. And, again, we feel that this criteria is not being met. Criteria number five says suitable sites for development or redevelopment of the uses or mix of uses within the Comprehensive Inflll Redevelopment Project are not otherwlse available in the Clty of LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 113 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Clearwater. When the applicant submitted his applicatlon, he stated that thlS was a unique location. We do not agree wlth that. We do not see that this lS anymore unlque than the properties next door to it. And that, obviously, there are other sltes that may be more sUltable for thls intense of a project that don't have to vacate a street; that don't have to weigh all of these criteria; that may be startlng out with a larger piece of land to accommodate something of this intensity. Criteria number seven. The design of the proposed Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project creates a form and function whlch enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. Again, it's my opinion that the design of this proJect lS too intense. That it is not compatible with -- excuse me -- the existing community character. And I think it sets a negative precedent for future developers who come in and are going to be expectlng to receive the same klnd of waivers wlth this project has been -- is requestlng. Number eight. Flexibility with regard to lot LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 114 wldth required setbacks height and off-street parking are Justified by the beneflts to community character and the immediate vlcinlty of their parcel proposed for development and the Clty of Clearwater as a whole. I think appllcation of this goal has to be done, or this criteria has to be in concert with what is reasonable. And we do not think that the request is compatible with the surrounding properties and wlth even projects that mayor may not be proposed. With speciflc regard to some of the standards in the Beach-By-Design document, one of the standards that is required lS addressment of wall coverage and open space. The only way this project meets the criteria is by pounding the pool on the roof which, to me, open space and lot coverage lS a public purpose and that the open space and lot-coverage standard should -- be should be appreciated and be available to view by the public. Certainly, if you go on the roof, does not really meet the intent of open-space standards. Whether or not It actually meets the setbacks, we know they're asking for zero, the appllcation never really sets forth what the exact setbacks are so we have to assume they are zero. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 115 1 2 3 The floor plate in the application -- and they recognize the fact that they do not meet that standard as well. The standard requires no greater than 25,000 square feet above 42 feet. And, of course, they can't meet that because of the parklng garage. Slide number twelve. In summary, this project in our commune is not compatible with adjacent properties either with existing or with future development principally because of the zero setbacks and the height in the towers that are being proposed. We think it negatively impacts the future development potential of adjacent properties for the reason that I've explained because of the two towers, and the fact that within a 500-foot radius we are limit in what we can do. So it's driving our design and height. The proJect lS too intensive for the size of the property on whlch It'S located. It sets a negative precedent for all future development proposals on Clearwater Beach. I guess I would Just leave you with the question: Does this project belong on a 1.6 acre parcel after vacations are completed out on Clearwater Beach? Thank you very much. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 116 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Thank you, Ms. Hammer. Mr. Schlff, in a matter of fairness, I think we're going to try and allow thirty to thirty-five minutes for our presentatlon. Do you think you can work within that? MR. SCHIFF: That's fine. I think we will. We have one more witness to present, and then we have a few items to mention to you. Before we introduce our next witness, I would just note for the record that some of you may want to take a look at, on page 9 of the packet that was submltted today, Exhiblt B I guess It is. On page 9 under number four on that page it talks about no more than 60 percent of the theoretical maximum building envelope located above one story will be occupied for a building. That's a standard for which you're judging this project on today. The applicant's response is, this standard can realistlcally be applied only to levels above the parking deck. I will submlt to you the answer to that standard therefore lS, the applicant is not meeting that standard. There's been no request filed to change that standard. That standard was Just recently adopted. I would suggest to you that that on it's face lS an LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 117 1 2 3 4 5 -6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 admission by the applicant that they cannot meet the standards that he must meet for this project and gives you one additional reason why this project must be denied. At this point -- of course, if you have any questlons for Ms. Hammer, perhaps after my next witness, you can ask elther one. My next witness is Michael McElveen. He's with Urban Economics, Incorporated. Mr. McElveen has a written report which I will submit in the record as well as his resume. And I would also ask him for the sake of time to confirm that his resume lS accurate, and that he prepared the written report. And at this point, Mr. McElveen, could you -- oh, and I offer hlm as an expert on lssues concerning value in the criteria which is before you. MR. McELVEEN: I would -- hello. My name is Michael McElveen. I '-m a state general certifled real estate appraiser in the State of Florlda. I also hold the Member Appraisal Institute designation for the Appraisal Institute of the United States. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: And your address for the record, sir? MR. McELVEEN: It is 18 South Sterling Avenue, Tampa, Florida. And I would also state for the LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 118 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 record that the resume that I submitted is true and correct. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Go ahead. MR. McELVEEN: I was asked to analyze two speclfic points. It's general standard two of the General Applicability Standards and also standard two of the Infill Develop Redevelopment Projects. Now the flrst, the general standards hereto are really part of a two-part test. The proposed development wlll not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land or bUlldings -- that's the first part -- or signlficantly lmpair the value thereof. The two lssues that I was concerned about was helght, and it's effect on development on Mr. Markopoulos' property, and the zero north side yard. We studied -- in looking at height, there's a great many articles that have been written Scully (phonetic) Publications regarding height and developing density. Especlally true for hotels, gulf-front hotels on the beach. They are sold In an (inaudible) in the basis. The more rooms you can get with the market demand, the more valuable the property. Before development occurs out there, everybody has the right to essentially bUlld up to LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 119 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 150 feet. If the building exceeds 150 feet, all of the property owners withln 500 feet, are their rlghts taken away from them? The building envelope, which the Beach-By-Design project does mention as a design crlteria, is therefore reduced. The number of rooms are reduced. The value of the property is lmpalred. It's a pretty much quid-pro-quo relationship. The more rooms that can be developed, the more valuable property at the end is, is also true. Mr. Markopoulos' property is otherwise being taken away and transferred to the adjoining property owner in effect. The second issue regarding the first part of the standard is the zero side yard variance. It's an 84-foot-hlgh sheer concrete block wall. The whole purpose of the side yard is a community right, and the right_actually will beneflt the people closest too It. Air, light, and view. Very common in mid ties, residentlal developments, subdivisions will offset lots so that the people across the street would have to look between yards to get those views. You heard today Mr. NlChols made a very good statement at least talking about towers. Llght and view were very lmportant in the spacing with towers. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 120 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The reduction in the side yard from ten to zero is reduction in alr, llght, and view. It is not only for my -- Mr. Markopoulos' property, but for all the adjoining'property owners. Rest have denied that prOVlSlon of air, light, and view. We've studied the room rates, hotel room rates on the gulf beaches. Those with Gulfview. Those with air, light, and view. Those with diminished alr, light, and view. Those with no air, light, and view. They have a slgnificantly different room rate. They have a signiflcantly lower occupancy rate when you have lower air, light, and view. The dlrect translation of that is significant impairment to discourage development or appropriate development on this property. The second part of the test is significantly lmpaired value. Just llke what we talked about previously. The loss in the number of rooms'that can be developed on a property, which is the appropriate development, or the loss in air, llght, and view whlch decreases the quality of the slte is also an impairment -- signlficant impairment of value. The second portlon of the standard is in the lnflll development standard. Interestlngly, this LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 121 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 standard is a very mlld standard. The development of a parcel that is proposed for development as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project will not reduce the market value of abutting properties. All I ask you to do lS reduce the value. Let me make one clear distinction. I don't think anybody would say building a 65-million-dollar resort would not enhance the values on Clearwater Beach. However, the buildlng of a 65-million-dollar resort on Clearwater Beach wlth appropriate helght and slde yard setbacks would lncrease value even more than without it. That is the key distlnction here and is not addressed. Agaln, we studled -- based on the studles that I performed, the analysls of sales, land sales, accrued sales, rental rates, occupancy rates of properties Mr. Markopoulos wlll suffer with the adjoining property owners will suffer a loss of market value of the adjolning property. The exclusion or transfer of rights is a transfer of value away from the adjoining properties given the hotel's size and loss of air, llght, and view. The other aspect of that I was asked to look at is the applicant -- application that was submitted. It must have clear and -- clear and LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 122 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 convincing criteria to prove their point. It lS the applicant's burden not that of the adjoining property owner. 24 I've revlewed the response to questlon number two in the infill for redevelopment projects, and I agree wholeheartedly with the flrst part of their statement. The value of property depends upon highest and best use. And (inaudible) market factors upon demand. Absolutely. Given the reduction of air, light, and view of a 10-foot-yard setback and the height reductlon that will occur on the adjoining property, the highest and best use of the adJolnlng properties is diminished. Accommodations will have to be made to accommodate for that loss that has been taken away from adjoining property owners. The remainder of the response that I have read here lS, frankly, not germane to answering the question If there has been a loss of value. Granted their argument is a 65-million-dollar hotel will lncur -- lmprove the values. I don't think anybody could dlsagree with that. However, one that had the appropriate side yards with approprlate height, bulk and scale, would 25 lncrease everyone's values even more. That is the LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 123 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lssue. I have no further questlons. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Thank you. Does that conclude your presentatlon? MR. SCHIFF: That concludes our experts. I have just a brief statement to make. At this point I would just like you to take a look at a few exhiblts. We have slides of -- I'm sorry -- graphics one through six which I think demonstrate our cllent's property and the proposed property. The first slide is showing you the proposed property. Our client's property is outllned In green. If we can go to the next slide. Once, again, a closer look at the applicant's property separated by Third Street and our client's property. The next slide. This is looking from the other side. And I think what's been shown by some of our experts., this slide is looklng to the west. If you picture what exists today and picture and consider the issue of Vlew, light in the public's view, you're going to see a dramatic change where the two parcels are hlghlighted in the yellow and Third street is, as proposed by the applicant, is eliminated. Our client's property, again, lS to the right on this picture. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 124 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The next slide. This is just one more view of the appllcant's property as well as our client's property. It also shows the property further to the south of our cllent's property. I thlnk that the lmportance of this slide is it demonstrates that there's certainly -- there's more than two lots proposed by the applicant where Beach By Design can be implemented. And, in fact, Beach By Design recognizes that as a much larger area. So I submit to you, there's nothlng unique about taking two lots and eliminating a -- an existing public street to -- with regard to their project. I think our experts have demonstrated to you that the criteria -- and there's two sets of crlterla that are before you today. Number ten criterla under the infill -- infill flexibllity standards that must be met, and there are also six criterla under the general crlteria of the code which must be met. This is not a subJective cholce. All this criteria must be met. Your code states -- the code also states that the applicant has the burden of establishing by substantlal competent evidence that all these criterla have been met. So if you see one criteria not being met, they LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 125 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 haven't met their burden, and you have no choice but to deny this application. I think what we have gOlng on here is what I would term a tower play. This project lS simply too intense. There's nothing wrong with towers. There's nothing wrong with towers as recognized in Beach By Design. What's happening here is you have too many towers on too small a site eliminatlng a street. And, forgive me, but it's simply cramming in too big a project on too small a site. The crlteria, as we submit, have not been met by the applicant, and we think that our testimony makes it a very bad criteria and cannot be met in this particular project. I would also, for the record, would like to submit that you had, what I would consider, a simllar request which concerned the Rockway (phonetic) house -- and I'll submlt the minutes to that proceedlng to you -- where another property owner trled to ellminate site setbacks came before thlS board. And we found that there were not -- at least this board dld not vote to approve that request resulting in a denial of that request based upon It was too intense. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 126 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So I submlt that for the record, and I belleve that stands as a precedent in the context of this application. The reverse side of that may be more important for the -- I think they put the thank-you Clearwater sign up at ~he end of their presentation that the applicants did. Well, picture that if you grant this, you must treat -- under the Unlted States Constitution and the Florida Constitution slmllar -- similar property owners must be treated in a similar fashion. If you're going to tell someone that we will give you a road, we wlll give you 55 percent more space than you have to build on, and we are going to allow you to build sideline to sideline, then the next person that comes in you're going to have to treat the same way. Otherwise, you'll be violating their rights. We submlt to you that's not a good precedent to set in this context. And I would also submit to you that this proJect -- while, agaln, we don't object to the use -- lS simply too intense. With that, I would just llke to note for the record, we ask that you take judicial notice of the City of Clearwater Comprehenslve Plan, the county-wide plan, the community development code, the code of ordinances in LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 127 Beach-By-Design standards. We also have submitted a number of Exhibits lnto the record. I have a notebook of the exhibits that were presented to you on the screen which we will also submit that wlll, I hope, assist you in your determination. With that, I'm available to answer any questions, and -- is that is all the exhibits? And we appreciate your time very much. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Thank you, Mr. Schiff. Does the Board have any questions of either Mr. Schiff or Ms. Hammer or -- MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Schiff, I have a questlon for you. MR. SCHIFF: Yes. MR. JOHNSON: We've had eleven public hearings on this thing, and this lS not the first tlme I've heard Mr. Kimpton's presentation. Where have you been? I mean this is -- I mean -- let me finish. I've heard his presentatlon four times In a publlc hearing. I have never once heard your client say, hey, it's too intense. I don't like that. It's too high. What about me? All of the sudden, at last second here, here you are. I mean I think the Clty has gone for months LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 128 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 wlth them worklng on this project. And all of the sudden, here you are at last second saying hey, they're gettlng -- I'm not -- I'm not going as fast as they are. I want mine. Don't give them there's. MR. SCHIFF: Well, we're here. Flrst of all, the answer -- MR. JOHNSON: Hasn't there been eleven publlc hearlngs? Hasn't your client -- MR. SCHIFF: No, sir, there hasn't. MR. JOHNSON: presented his case? MR. SCHIFF: This is the first public hearing. MR. JOHNSON: Well, I've been to 'em, Beach By Design. MR. SCHIFF: Let me tell you where we are in the process. You are at your first public hearing on thls request. You have the criteria which are to be considered. This the first public hearing. There may have been other hearings In the city on Beach By Design. There may be hearings in the future of the Clty. But the answer to your question lS no, there have not been eleven publlc hearings on this request. ThlS is the initial public hearing. This board -- and the code is set up pretty clearly. This board makes some recommendations and makes some decisions. The flrst tlme we've been LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 129 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 asked to make a decislon on thls proJect lS today. MR. JOHNSON: True. MR. SCHIFF: And that is where we are today. Now, our client has met with the city. But our positlon is, is those meetings are irrelevant in the context of what you are hearlng today. Now I respect the fact that proJects like thls get a lot of press. They have a lot of meetings of Clty commlssions or local governments. But where you are today in the process is the actual public hearlng, the actual quasijudicial hearing where my client has every right to object or to support depending upon whether or not they like the project. But this is the first hearing. I appreciate your comment. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Any other questions? I do have one question for Mr. McElveen. MR. McELVEEN: Yes, sir. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: In your opinion, your testimony stated that because of the scale and size of the (lnaudlble) development would have a negative impact on some abutting properties. At what point and what kind of development would result in a posltive fashion on the property? What would have to be done to thls (inaudible)? LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. McELVEEN: Maybe my focus is a llttle blt more narrow. From a legal standpoint, If they implied that they didn't have the side the 10-foot side yard variance and reduced the height of this project, there wouldn't be an issue. Then his property would be impacted less, let's put It that way, a standard where It currently lS proposed. I think that's the most appropriate answer. It would be less of an impact. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Is the Don Cesar out of character in St. Pete Beach? Does that have a negative impact on the (inaudible) property? MR. McELVEEN: No. It -- no. No. No. No. We're not saying it's a negative impact. It is a negative impact if the Don was to side yard to side yard which it is not and right to -- up to the adjoinlng adJacent property llne, then It would have a negative impact on the abuttlng property owners. However, by moving it in and protectlng the air, light, and Vlew, it has a much lower lmpact. And It's that marginal difference is what we're concerned about. It's that marginal lmpact on value. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: At this time does staff wish to cross-examine? MR. STONE: I have a couple of questlons of LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 131 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ms. Hammer. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Before we do that (inaudlble) . MS. PETERSON: Actually, qUlte similar to what you just asked. Considering the towers, let's assume for arguendo that we allow this project to go ahead with the tower, and then Markopoulos came in and wanted a tower spaced 100 feet apart, people to the south of 500 feet wouldn't have a right. So are you saying Markopoulos would, therefore, have conslderation for those people to not put a tower that high, or is that what he should do? MS. HAMMER: There is opportunity on his property, because hls property is three and-a-half acres, to create some distance if there were only one tower' on the subject property because the standard is 500 feet. So there lS opportunity to create some distance. MS. PETERSON: (Inaudible). At some point there's going to be someone who cannot put a tower up? MS. HAMMER: Right. MS. PETERSON: It's going to happen. MS. HAMMER: If there's a lot of small properties In a row, that's correct. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 132 MS. PETERSON: Exactly. It's going to happen? MS. HAMMER: That's correct. MS. PETERSON: Thank you. MR. McELVEEN: Well, on -- at that same issue, there's market demand. I mean Beach By Design claims to some extent says there should be a certain fixed number of towers. So not every property owner has the right to the first four or six, I belleve, have a rlght to have a tower up so -- whlch is a limitation on the market which it would probably depend. It's not going to demand a market for ten towers out there. The inadequately spacing them is fine. So the fifth (inaudible) of market demand only for towers. The fifth person that's under that impact, because there's going to be a demand for that right anyway. You've got to have demand for it to have value. MS. PETERSON: Now we're getting back to what Mr. Johnson said. Me first. Whoever gets there first get the price. MR. McELVEEN: Well, it's not really first. It's the first four people (inaudible). MR. SCHIFF: Again, just to sum up, I thought I -- and that's a very good questlon. Is It a question of who gets there first, or is it a question LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 133 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of design? And the whole pOlnt of Beach By Design was not to treat proJects on an indivldual basls. It is to treat projects on an overall basis by dlstrlct. And one of the problems with thls proJect lS It didn't consider -- that's the whole point of Ms. Hammer's testimony -- it didn't consider the compatibility, perhaps, wlth the existing, what's out there today. Or, maybe, more importantly, it didn't consider the compatlbillty with what should be out there tomorrow. And that's -- MS. PETERSON: Well, again, you were quizzing Mr. Stone so harshly about posslbly considering your property to the north. So you've got a dichotomy going here. I mean or (lnaudible). MR. SCHIFF: We don't have a dichotomy going, but -- and I apologize if it was harsh. It was not intended to be harsh. MS. PETERSON: Well, I understand. I just meant (inaudible). MR. SCHIFF: But the point there -- the point there lS Just a separate point. What would be unfair to my cllent is to assume any particular proJect. I think it's reasonable that you should assume that my cllent should have an opportunlty to avail itself of Beach-By-Design standards. But just LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 134 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 because someone lS flrst, you should not hurt my client. That's why we're here today. Our cllent is getting hurt by thls particular design, and it's our position, the reason for that is, is that this particular design is too lntense. It they scaled it down or moved it off our client's sideline or redeslgned it, which we are, of course, are not here to design the project, then they could reduce those adverse impacts. But what's happening today is you are not implementing Beach By Design. You are focusing on a single project without considering what is going to occur around it. That's why we think It'S defectlve or deficlent In the application. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Mr. Stone? MR. STONE: Ms. Hammer, it's my understanding your offlce is in Tampa, correct? MS. HAMMER: That's correct. MR. STONE: And you all have the opportunity to do work on both sldes of the bay, I assume, for both pinellas and Hillsborough County in the bay area? MS. HAMMER: That's correct. MR. STONE: How would you characterize the general economic climate in this region In the past decade? LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 135 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. HAMMER: By definition of reglon, you're speaking now of the Tampa Bay area? MR. STONE: Pinellas, Hlllsborough. MR. HAMMER: I think it's been very good. MR. STONE: Are you familiar with the Clearwater Beach area between -- especially the commercial area (inaudible) and Clearwater Pass? MR. HAMMER: In general, yes. MR. STONE: Are you famlliar wlth general property values In the case of redevelopment and renovation on Clearwater Beach? MS. HAMMER: No, that's not my area of expertise. I'm not an appraiser. MR. STONE: Well, you had the opportunity to author or admlnister a redevelopment plan or speclal aerial plan? MS. HAMMER: No, I don't believe so. MR. STONE: One of the comments I have made in the (inaudible) or so public hearings that I would like for you to address yes or no in terms of your perspective, is I had said that In the decade of '90 when we've had the hottest (inaudible) in the history of this country and lowest interest rates since World War II, no~hing of substance has occurred on Clearwater Beach. Would you agree with that? LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 136 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. HAMMER: I would agree that there's been no new maJor developments out there. That's correct. MR. STONE: Are you familiar with the planning flrm of Anna Morton? MS. HAMMER: Certainly. MR. STONE: Are you famlllar that she did a (inaudible) conception report for Clearwater Beach? MS. HAMMER: I learned that today earlier in the scene. MR. STONE: Are you familiar with the findings of that report? MS. HAMMER: No, I'm not. MR. STONE: Would it surprlse you to know that the conclusion of that report was that Clearwater Beach in the area that I was talking about met the state criteria for the definltion of (inaudible). MS. HAMMER: I've worked on projects that have met that criteria before, and I'm not questloning that that lS a true situation. MR. STONE: This case -- havlng practiced In this area and having extensive experience that I know that you have, when you have that kind of a clrcumstance. you have that kind of finding, you have that kind of economlC cllmate, what frequently lS the solution to that kind of lack of (inaudible)? LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 137 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. HAMMER: A new project. Now let me just say agaln for the record, we are not opposed to the project per se, the concept of a new hotel. All we are suggesting is that we thlnk that the project as designed is not appropriate for this location. MR. STONE: I understand. Would a response to that kind of conditlon be some type of plan that, hopefully, would have the effect of changing those conditions? Like a redevelopment plan? MS. HAMMER: Yes and no. MR. STONE: If you have an area that has had a finding of belng (inaudible) you have an area that's an economlC condition of no human investment In this type of economic climate MS. HAMMER: Uh-huh. MR. STONE: -- the normal planning response to that, I suggest to you, would be some type of special aerial plan or special technlque to change that condltion. MS. HAMMER: That is true. MR. STONE: Do you agree with that? MS. HAMMER: Yes. MR. STONE: So you're familiar that we have Charlle (inaudible) speclal aerial plan? MS. HAMMER: Correct. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 138 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. STONE: And you had an opportunity to review the plan? MS. HAMMER: I have. MR. STONE: And you understand that the plan breaks the beach down into geographic areas? MS. HAMMER: Yes. MR. STONE: Are you familiar with how he treats the various scale and character of development in each one of the geographic areas? MS. HAMMER: Yes. MR. STONE: And how would you characterize if he has defined the scale of development In the Gulfview corrldor as opposed to say the marina residentlal district? MS. HAMMER: Well, certainly, this is an area that is being proposed for more intensive scale development. But he also states that it's supposed to be in scale and character with the surrounding community and, most importantly, preserve the light, alr, and view. MR. STONE: He has, in this particular distrlct, defined some incentives as are normally found in this type of planning document, redevelopment plan to lncent -- or move the climate or change the climate as opposed to the publlc sector LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 139 3 and prlvate sector particularly In the case of thls (lnaudlble) report. Have you had the opportunlty to review the concept of the unlt (inaudible)? 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MS. HAMMER: Yes. MR. STONE: So you're familiar wlth the criteria that he has laid out to engage in that option? MS. HAMMER: I believe there's ten criteria. MR. STONE: Okay. So looking at it from a specific site perspective, do you know what the minimum site size can be as prescribed for the use of pool that lS (inaudible)? MS. HAMMER: It was either -- I don't remember It -- an acre, an acre and-a-half. Maybe it's an acre and-a-half. I don't have that in front of me. MR. STONE: It says the slte must have a minimum land area of at least one acre. 25 MS. HAMMER: Okay. MR. STONE: And this partlcular slte including the right-of-way has a site Slze of what? MS. HAMMER: Includlng the right-of-way? MR. STONE: Yes. MS. HAMMER: 1.63. MR. STONE: So you would agree that it exceeds the minimum size that he's prescrlbed (lnaudible)? LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 140 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. HAMMER: Correct. MR. STONE: In terms of (inaudlble), are you familiar with the criterla that he's established for the use of the new pool? MS. HAMMER: Yes. MR. STONE: And that is? MS. HAMMER: I don't remember where it is In the document. MR. STONE: Let me read one of the crlteria to you. MS. HAMMER: Could you read from the page MR. STONE: Paraphrase district itself -- (Many voices are speaking at one time.) MS. HAMMER: I have the document with me. MR. STONE: It's on page 45. MS. HAMMER: Okay. Great. MR. STONE: Lower -- I mean the left-hand column on your bottom. MS. HAMMER: Okay. MR. STONE: Which says that the use of this pool in this particular area as contrasted between the other areas, I'll paraphrase, allows structures up to 100 to 150 feet. MS. HAMMER: Correct. MR. STONE: It establlshes in effect that the LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 141 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 mlnimal amount of size of one acre, and allowance of (inaudible) 150 feet? MS. HAMMER: Correct. I mean obvlously, It's permissible or we wouldn't be here tOday. MR. STONE: Have you had an opportunity to look at the progress plans? MS. HAMMER: Yes. MR. STONE: And you're famillar with the policles in the plan that address the circumstances that we have and in a bUllt-out community like this that create (inaudible) and policies for areas that are considered (inaudible) community development? MS. HAMMER: Correct. MR. STONE: Would you mind reading for me Gulfview of Objective 2.1 in the POllCY and 2.1.1? MS. HAMMER: The goals and policy? UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: Just three. MS. HAMMER: Oh, the three? MR. STONE: Yes, just those three. MS. HAMMER: All rlght. The first one that Mr. 0Stone is asking me to read is a goal stating the City of Clearwater shall utilize innovative and flexlble planning and engineering practices and urban design standards in order to project historlc resources, ensure nelghborhood preservation, LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 142 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 redevelop lighted areas, and encourage infill development. And under that we have Objective 2.1. The redevelopment of llghted areas shall be a high priority and promoted through the implementatlon of redevelopment plans and projects and continue an emphasis on property maintenance standards. And then under that, we have policy 2.1.1. Renewal of the beach tourist distrlct shall be encouraged through the use of design guidelines, innovated shared parking solutions, possible land acqulsition, transportatlon lmprovements, and establlshment of a communlty redevelopment area or areas. MR. STONE: Would you agree that the normal context of the appllcation of the specific development regulations that had to stack up through zoning code, to a special area plan, to a comprehenslve plan normally result In a set of regulations that are, in a sense, customized. They're not the kinds of regulations that you would normally apply to a healthy environment. Otherwlse, you wouldn't need to do that? MS. HAMMER: Correct. MR. STONE: That's all I have. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 143 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. HAMMER: Just in response to all of this, I don't see where any of these policies or goals are in conflict with anything that I've said. The comprehenslve plan is to be looked at as a total document. So you have to look up all of the policies in the concert when you review any particular proposal. And I think what we found this project to be inconsistent with were the policy lS dealing with compatibility with surroundlng properties. Thank you. MR. SCHIFF: I won't ask for any time to - - MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Thank you. MR. SCHIFF: with respect to MS. Hammer. I think she spoke fine. But I would like to note for the record, we previously noted that there is no community redevelopment district that exists today on Clearwater Beach. So I would object to the relevancy of those, just for the record, since you need a -- you know, while It'S a worthy goal, it may be somethlng that eventually comes to pass. As we sit here today, it does not exist. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Thank you. At this time does the applicant wish to cross-examine? Then we're gOlng to open this to the public as it is a public LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 1 2 144 hearing. MR. GEHRING: Just a few questions. I would 3 like to know if Ethel Hammer could come back up for a 4 moment. 5 CROSS-EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. GEHRING: 7 Q Ethel, as a practicing planner, have you 8 prepared any plans under the city's new code structure as 9 adopted most recently in the last two years? 10 11 12 13 A For the City of Clearwater speciflcally? (Nods head.) No. Have you prepared any plans or guide in the Q A Q 14 development done under Beach By Deslgn? 15 16 A No, I have not. Could you clarify, and it's found on -- is Q 17 there a balance? You're addressing specifically mass and 18 scale. There is a joint set of beneficiarles occurring 19 here. 20 Do you belleve that a 250-room hotel, WhlCh is 21 a goal of the city to achieve with a quality flag and a 22 public parking (inaudible) available to the public are 23 both public (inaudible)? 24 A Again, I'll state for the record that we have 25 no problem with the concept of the hotel. We have no LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 145 1 problem wlth the concept of the parklng garage. We know 2 it's needed. Our concern is with the speclfics of the 3 design. 4 Q Could you expound on -- lS there -- I don't 5 know how to practically ask this. 6 You showed In your graphic analysis a 7 comparison. I presented in my graphic analysis my 8 representation of what your cllent has proposed publicly 9 in the public record for hls project, not necessarily 10 officially submltted as a project. And that was 11 considered to be inappropriate and obJected to. And you 12 showed a hypothetlcal conditlon of putting two of our 13 buildings slde by side. 14 Can you expand on why that lS an inappropriate 15 representation? 16 A I only did that -- and I said this was not 17 meant to suggest that anybody could build two buildings' 18 slde by side that were identical. It was just an attempt 19 to show the -- just a positlon of two projects of the same 20 scale, bulk, and intensity lmmediately adjacent to each 21 other with both projects having zero setback. 22 Q You also oplne to the open space elements. Do 23 you believe that the removal of 317 cars of parking and 24 the realignment of Gulfview Boulevard and the creation of 25 a landscape amenity on the property frontage, which will LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 146 1 occur as part of this proJect, and under the development 2 agreement the proJect, is a qualitative improvement to 3 conditions of light, air, and view? 4 A That is off your property boundary. And the 5 criteria In the code don't speak to off-site improvements. 6 The code speaks to what is within the boundaries of the 7 project and can be evaluated. 8 Q If this development agreement encumbers us to 9 deliver that amenity creating an expanded site boundary 10 really over the entlre beach front removing an 11 auto-intensive zone and making it a pedestrlan frlendly 12 zone, while It may not be on our controlled properties, is 13 part of the, quote, the project. 14 15 16 17 18 19 MR. SCHIFF: I'm going to object to that. That's not a question. That is argument on behalf of counselor whatever -- MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Excuse me one minute. MR. SCHIFF: -- it's (inaudible). MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Mr. Gehring, why don't you 20 rephrase It. 21 BY MR. GEHRING: 22 Q Is there a balanclng of beneflt between the 23 character of the design of the proJect on it's property 24 and the associated publlc amenities provlded in Beach By 25 Deslgn? LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 147 1 A I think that the intent of thlngs like open 2 space and impervlous service ratios are meant to be within 3 a project. And what the developer agrees to do off slte 4 is, in essence, some kind of mitigation for his project 5 and doesn't speak to the intensity of design on his own 6 slte. 7 What Mr. Gehring is speaking to is, of course, 8 mltigatlon for his project that lS being done out in the 9 public right-of-way. And I don't think that goes to the 10 heart of providing open space withln a given project. 11 Q Are you familiar with the DRI process and 12 threshold for a motel? 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 MR. SCHIFF: I'm going to object on relevancy, but he can go forward with this. But it's totally not relevant to this project unless he intends to put on witnesses that his project is a DRI. Otherwise, I'm gOlng to continue the exam retention. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Mr. Gehring, why don't you go ahead and ask the question -- MR. GEHRING: Ask the question. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: And I will determine from -- 22 BY MR. GEHRING: 23 Q The scale of -- I'm transferrlng the record to 24 scale of project to be threshold for DRI. 25 A Yes, I'm famlllar wlth that. Agaln, quite a LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 2 3 4 7 148 1 few years. Q A That number is? 350 rooms. 350 rooms. Are you aware that both proposals Q 5 that have been promulgated publicly by your cllent exceed 6 the DRI threshold? A I don't see the relevance of that. My client's 8 property is three and-a-half acres. It lS more than twice 9 as large as this property. 10 So if he's proposing more than 350, you're 11 proposing 250 on something that is less than half the 12 size. 13 Q Correct. For the record then, are -- if that 14 were to occur in a private property of -- at three 15 and-a-half acres or 518 acres or (inaudible) for property 16 at three and-a-half acres at 600, It would be relatively 17 on a high end 171 units per acre versus 142 on the low 18 end. 19 If our proJect next door lS 156 -- 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SCHIFF: Again, I have to object. This is testimony. We're in a cross-examination stage. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Mr. Schiff, let me recognize -- Mr. Schiff -- MR. SCHIFF: Can I just have a standing obJection? And I won't keep getting back up. But LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 149 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that is testimony of the advocate for the appllcant, and that's not what cross-examination is. If he has questions for my witnesses, have at It, but that's not questlons MR. GEHRING: It's to the point, Mr. Chairman. If you wish to come up and argue compatibility and you put projects and plans into public record that have certain levels of denslty and intensity, I'm trying to declare the boundaries of incompatibillty that Ms. Hammer's opining to when between one forty-two and one seventy-one, our density at one fifty-six would be on 1. -- 1.6 acres is certainly in the range of what they have proposed. So I'm trying to determine where we are incompatible. MS. HAMMER: We have proposed nothing in the official records. And what my client eventually ends up coming forward with as an official application is yet to be determined. MR. GEHRING: That's the pOlnt of clarification. I'm trYlng to define what is lntensity glven what I've experienced in numerous public hearings that I've watched. We have all been co-applicants in front of this commission. We just happened to have filed an application. End of questioning. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 9 10 150 1 2 3 4 The -- I'd like to ask the economist one questions, please. MR. McELVEEN: Just as a clariflcatlon, I'm not economist. I'm a real estate appraiser. 5 CROSS-EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. GEHRING: 7 Q Real estate appralser. Flne. Are you educated 8 in the disciplines of planning? A Q No, I am not. I (inaudlble). Are you educated In any latest control 11 mechanisms, conditions of setback, and the character of 12 development? 13 A I am as far as It relates to my profession as a 14 real estate appraiser, that a proper police tower lS a 15 function of value, yes, I am. Other than that, I can rely 16 on Ms. Hammer for her expertise. 17 Q Then your ability to be spoke to on the 18 condltlons of the side yard setback being reduced to zero 19 having an lmpact, can you quantify that relative impact to 20 the magnitude of the benefit of the 65-million-dollar 21 project occurrlng so we have some balance between the 22 (inaudible) and benefit? 23 A My whole point is that there is no question a 24 65-milllon-dollar project is a benefit. It would be even 25 more benefit If they could bUlld their proposed project LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 151 1 within the guidelines of the Clearwater code. And we 2 wouldn't even be here if they were to do that. 3 Their insistence on belng able to bUlld a zero 4 lot line, taklng air, light, and view away from my 5 cllent's property, market evidence is clear that a 6 reduction of air, light, and Vlew is a reduction in value. 7 Q If we remove -- speaking to your setback 8 theory, if we remove parklng spaces in auto-related zones 9 In front of the subject area and enhance that into a fully 10 landscaped zone and distrlct with pedestrlan circulation 11 and facilltate the city's goals on that behalf, and we 12 provide a parking resource on our site, is there a 13 corresponding beneflt to the surrounding property value in 14 that price? 15 A Absolutely. I think it's a benefit to the 16 community. Any development would be. Again, going back 17 to my original statement, If they can bUlld thelr project 18 retaining the 10-foot site setback and height limltatlon 19 of 100 feet, there would be a greater communlty benefit 20 and beneflt to the abutting property. That's the whole 21 issue. 22 It's the marginal loss in value. Your whole 23 argument of parking and so (lnaudible) being of value is 24 directly what you're talking about here in reduction of 25 the (inaudlble) propertles 10~foot slte or alr, light, and LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 152 1 Vlew. 2 Q If I had the photographs, I would show you my 3 abuttlng -- our abuttlng 10-foot property flnding. But 4 there are tentative setbacks which are basically used for 5 storage and materials and dumpsters. 6 And if you can tell me why -- what economic 7 benefit as being received from those other pieces of 8 property -- and I'm lecturing here and I'm not 9 questloning. 10 The only other question is, is there a 11 corresponding value that you can place that's occurring 12 13 because of If this proJect were approved? You seem to you opine to the fact that it's -- 14 of course, It would have positive value. Do you know the 15 magnitude of value of (inaudible)? 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A No. That's not part of the assignment because that's not part of the criteria in the city code for lnfill redevelopment. I can give an opinion in dollar amount, number. It's the criteria of the code is a relationship with decreased value. MR. GEHRING: I only have one other question, but I don't know whether it's appropriate to the planner or -- the attorney can't answer questions, correct? MR. SCHIFF: I'll be glad to. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 153 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. GEHRING: The sUbject property in question, and I'll -- whoever can field thlS question, answer it. Anyone knows that this is the abutting parcel. Do you know how long your -- your representing party has owned that property? MR. McELVEEN: I can speak to only portions of it. They've accumulated this property, some -- since the early 1980s. Some they bought Just recently. There's.been a varied mlX of assemblage, I believe, of four different properties. MR. SCHIFF: I can speak to that. You asked and I will. There has been assembllng over time. My client owns all of the abutting propertles to the north. They do have expectations to develop those at some pOlnt under the Beach-By-Design criteria, and we're here today because this proposed project does not -- adversely affects both it's existing and proposed development (inaudible). MR. GEHRING: Thank you. Gordon, do you know the closing date on the acquisition of that park (inaudible)? MR. SCHIFF: I know It's a matter of publlc record. We'll be glad to submit those to you -- deeds to you. MR. GEHRING: Okay. Well, I would -- I would LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 154 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 state -- and you may correct me if I'm not appropriate -- that I believe It closed in March of last year, 2000. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Mr. Gehring? MR. SCHIFF: There's no relevancy to this anyway. MR. GEHRING: Okay. Relevancy of It plus my question. I belleve the property was closed on March. Our partlcular proJect has been -- our first development agreement draft was prepared in March of last year with the City Commission. There was public exposure, full advertising and artlcles on our proJect with scale, and our concept plan was in the publlc record before this party closed on that property. So I'm stating for the record, he had substantlve knowledge prior to acquisition of the scale of character and intensity of our project. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: At thls point, Mr. Schiff MR. SCHIFF: I would like to put another objection In the record. This was cross-examinatlon. I move to strlke all the testimony of Mr. Gehring. Whatever the deed showed In the public record we'll be glad to give thlS board, and you can see when my client purchased property. But we would LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 155 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 object to relevancy and testimony by the advocate for the applicant. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Thank you. At thls time we're gOlng to open the public hearing for those who may be in favor of the application. If anyone has not been sworn in and you are gOlng to testify, If you could rise at thls time and be sworn in. Is anyone In that category? Well, why don't you come ahead. Are you a proponent or opponent? MS. GARRIS: I've just got a few question to ask you. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Why don't we go ahead and swear Ms. Garris in. (Ms. Garris is duly sworn to tell the truth by Ms. Moses.) MR. GILDERSLEEVE: What I would like to do at this junctlon, though -- if you are in support of the appllcatlon and wish to speak, please come forward. And if you would state your name and address for the record. MR. BIGSTAFF: Bob Bigstaff (phonetlc). 1007 East Dume Road. I'm in favor of the reductions. But going back a little ways, this could actually -- actually be the best thlng that happened. Because LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 156 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 about five years ago when Michael (lnaudlble) came in here, he was the one that started the redevelopment plan. Sald to myself, that makes senses. As we come into develop, now we can make it to go ahead and be -- get along with the properties as develop (inaudible). Initlal development, you bullnose It down and you stack it up. The county made a mistake. I don't see where I made the mistake. I have been talking with him just as a citizen, and talked with hlm on the property and asked questions. And I believe that the one that is here today should go up just the way it is, but there was one big mistake made. The county kept looking at the plan. If he had taken me down by Pier 60 and coming south on Pier 60 up to the Adams Mark and theoretically made a presentation sketch of what he would like to see, give people an ldea of how he's thinking, he could have got wlth the Days-Inn people, he could have got with the other group. He could have got with the faxes as they came in, and the dlfferent ones that came in. He would have had something that he could have given someone like myself and other people In the Clty a VlSlon of what LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 157 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 he'd llke to see. I can see that this s~rip of property right now from Days Inn on up to and includlng thls one here, there's no reason why that doesn't go together except that we have some different trends of thought when it comes to redevelopment or sometlmes planning. We overlook ~ome of the things that are right in front of us. We overlook some of the individuals that don't have a background in real estate or in developments or anything llke that. They may be engineers of a different type. We never would have got the opportunity -- I would have never have got the opportunity to speak to this board from the staff. I have arguments with them now and then, but I agree wlth where they're headed. And anytime everybody agrees on something, something's going to go sour somewhere. There's got to be someone that -- but as long as you do it on a constructed basls. I can envislon what these gentleman here have put up, and I can see what Days Inn has got. And I, in my vision, can see what it can look like and all of the things that our consultants talk to us about. But as long as we look on a constructive way, and as long as we don't look discouraged, nothing has been LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 158 i 2 3 stopped here. I think what's happened is we've come to a meeting -- I don't know how we reached it, but we've come to it. Now the group can get together and make that section the beginning of our redevelopment that started five years ago. I'm in favor of it, but it's not as itself a loner because it is too small for this piece of land that it's on. But if there was another piece that went wlth it, all around It, there's no reason for anyone to stop it short. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Thank you. MR. BIGSTAFF: Thank you. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Yes, ma'am. MS. GWALLA: Good afternoon. My name is Hillary Gwalla (phonetlc). My husband and I llve at 110 Vaughn Drive WhlCh lS withln the 500 feet of where this property lS going to go up. We are in favor of definitely of improvement on the beach. And I think what's been presented to us for thls Marrlott is quality and certainly will be a very strong lmprovement out there on the beach. I do have a couple of concerns that I would llke you all to address with this program. And that is, yes, we need a garage. We also need a better way LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 159 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ~ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to get people on and off and in and out of that garage. I live the first house lnslde. The -- there's days I can't get out of Devon. There's days I can't get into Devon. This afternoon in order to get to this meetlng, I had to go to Sand Key and come through Belleair because there was a truck in the (inaudible). And, so, therefore, it was all backed up over there. Now, you know, that's funny, I know. But It isn't funny when you're trying to go somewhere. All right. I also know that my husband and I raised seven children here. We would take them to the beach. And when the thunderbooms came, a lot of people tried to leave at the same time, and that hasn't changed and never will change. But I'm glad to hear that there's a group that wants to do a quality hotel like this one is. I'd like to encourage you all in your place that there's got to be traffic addressed as far as how's it going to get on and how's it going to get off. It's wonderful to bUlld a garage. It's wonderful to build a hotel. That island can hold only holds so much, and there's time that I really belleve It'S gOlng to sink. But my husband was born LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 161 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mr. Stone talks about Mr. Seaman like he, you know, created the unlverse. And that he has -- the fact that he has said here's the criterla, but it's all right for us to ignore it. I mean they're Mr. Seaman's crlterla, and he ought to be the one who says and everything else has got to follow. But that's beslde the point. The pOlnt I want to make with you is, this is a copy of the -- a page of the Charter, Clearwater Charter. And it says, no right-of-way or easement which terminates at or provides access to the water's edge of a body of fresh or salt water maybe vacated for private benefit. Nothing contalned In this section shall present an easement for utility purposes, and it goes on. Now, years ago, the Clearwater Beach hotel wanted to vacate the street between its hotel and ltS annex. And they clalm, the attorney -- the city attorney, they said -- all it said was, no rlght-of-way or easement which termlnates at the body of water. And they said oh, well, it terminates at the beach. So it doesn't really terminate. So the people of Clearwater at the next opportunity put lnto the referendum this additional or easement which terminates at a body of water. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 160 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 out there so I guess It'S not gonna. But, anyway, I appreclate what y'all are doing, and I have to commend you after having to sit through this meeting today, commend you hlghly. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Thank you. MS. GWALLA: Thank you. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Is there anyone else wishing to speak in favor of the application? (No response.) MR. GILDERSLEEVE: There being none, those in opposition (lnaudible). MS. GARRIS: I will come under that category. Would you pass that. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Ms. Garris, would you give us your name and address for the record? MS. GARRIS: Yes, sir. My name is Ann Garris. I live at 38 Acacia Street, God help me. Beyond the parking, beyond which I have (inaudible). I have I have listened from the very beginnlng to the efforts to put together this proJect. And I think it's good to have a nice new project on Clearwater Beach. I totally agree with the argument that it is way too high and way to wide, and there's thlS little problem that I thlnk you all need to consider. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 162 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I submit to you that both First Street and Flfth Street or Third S~reet or whatever streets that they are wanting to vacate for this purpose, it lS agalnst the Charter. And I ask you to table this matter until someone has found out from someone with due respect to our city attorney -- I -- who is hired by a City Commission, I would like for this group to take the responsibility for tabling this matter until such tlme as you have a definitive legal answer as to whether the people of Clearwater have a right to have this access continued. And in case -- and this is out of respect for the people. Because if this Charter says you can't do it, then they need to go back to the drawing board. And the sooner they do it the better. I submlt to you, sir, that at last Thursday's meeting we were told by Mr. Stone that there were still documents to do with this site plan that had not yet been presented. So as of today, this lS the first real public hearing about this project because nobody knew exactly what it was going to be until the report was in. So this business of eleven hearings on it, I'm sorry, they were talking about something other than what you are looking at today. Thank you. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 163 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak in opposition? MR. ROSSEN: My name lS Edgar Kenneth Rossen. I don't know If I'm In Opposltlon or in favor of this proJect, but I would like to give you some insight into the background of it. I'm the previous owner of the Spy Glass Motel and the Golden Beach Motel. I was also an owner of the (inaudible) Motel (inaudible) which has been, incidentally, redeveloped. It's now Red Roof Inn. MR. JOHNSON: And it looks very good. MR. ROSSEN: I think so too. But let me mention first the (inaudible) development. I think Mr. Stone has indicated that it's not an lmportant development. It's not a major development. But maybe it isn't, but it's a nice development. That development sits on an acre and-a-half of land. The units allocated to the development when I owned it were 72 unlts. The Red Roof Inn that sits there now is 72 units. A request was made by the buyer of the property of all units, and he was told this could not be accommodated. Setbacks had to be honored, off-street parking had to be honored WhlCh he did. And he carrled It off and he has a nice looking development. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 164 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Certalnly better than what was there for the last 25 years (inaudible). Ten years ago I got a plan to redevelop (inaudible) and was told it could not be done. Now we have a code and now we have a Beach By Design where these developments can be done. Mr. -- or the new development belng proposed had an opportunity to purchase the Spy Glass and the Golden from me a little over a year ago. They had several people who are looking at purchaslng the property lncluding Mr. Markopoulos, and it included two or three others who had come in to look at the redevelopment in Clearwater Beach. Other purchases who re-evaluated at that time, Mr. Markopoulos was the only one who could close rapldly on the property. At my age of seventy-two, I was anxious to retire and sell the property, put it for sale, but unable to be (inaudible) until the present time. Now we have the opportunity for a complete redevelopment of Gulfvlew Boulevard from Pier 60 to Adams Mark. I don't see a plan for the whole area. I see a redevelopment laying out of the street. I see a boardwalk gOlng In, and I see an idea. But there's certain other factors that enter lnto the LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 165 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 private part of redevelopment. As I understand it, the city's made available 600 units of denslty pool to be allocated to redevelopment projects. They've offered to vacate the streets and so forth. I'm in favor of Mr. -- of the new proJect going in. However, I agree with the -- with the statements that have been made here today. But for the size of the property, this is entirely too massive of a structure. It will eat up approximately 200 unlts wlth a density pool. You're going to have other requests coming forth over the next years for density to redevelop other spots both along Gulfview and also around Clearwater Beach, and the units won't be there. It seems to me an idea here that could be fruitful to everyone would be that Mr. Seaman, Mr. Stone, Mr. Markopoulos, the new project you're considering today, perhaps Legend's next door going the other way could all sit down and take a look at the whole area and come up with a mutually agreeable way of redeveloping that stretch of property. Then you would have a real implementation of Clearwater Beach By Design and be able to further encourage LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 166 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 other areas of the beach to be redeveloped. I hope I'm making sense. I'm not against the redevelopment of Clearwater Beach. I'm not against thls proJect, but I do agree it lS too massive for the small area that it occuples. And that it's utilizing too many of the incentives that the city's going to have to offer for redevelopment of the beach. Thank you. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Thank you, Slr. Is there anyone else wishlng to speak in opposition? (No response.) MR. GILDERSLEEVE: There being none, it's appropriate at this point in the hearing, if there's any opposing (inaudible). MR. STONE: If I said anything, I think I'd be tired. Just, you know, you all know where we have been as far as development of the plan. This, obviously, is a component of what we hope to have seen over time, and It'S happened very fast, and we obviously hope it succeeds. In terms of it's context regarding the current development regulations, they anticipate (lnaudible). They anticipated zero lot line development particularly in this corridor along the beach. And in, for example, the Mandalay retail distrlct, the LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 167 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 notion of zero lot line development should be expected. We expected it. We expected it, you know, in effect if you followed the development code before there was a Beach By Design. So the lssues of the design component of it, we have reviewed. We feel like that there is a lot there. We think it's done in a sensitive manner. Like the archltectural, we feel like it meets the design guidelines, and that wlll add value to the beach and adds a lot of public parking that will come off the dry sand. And in total, both consistent with development regulations Beach By Design (lnaudible). MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Thank you. And any closing remarks? You have three minutes. The applicants can have more. MR GEHRING: Thank you for your patience. You've done a marvelous job. The area I think, as Ralph hlghlighted, does have a plighted position which we think we're responding to aggressively work closer wlth the city to come up with something that even though the economy has not responded to Clearwater Beach, we can do what we call the fair deal plan. And the falr deal lS to come up with a balance LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 between development program and public benefit in the guise of what the Clty could accommodate and create with the package they're puttlng together In Beach By Design. The cltizens request for the plan, Beach By Design, we went to all those public hearlngs. We sat through all those discussions. Our project was put on the table and used as a model in those discussions. We have -- we think we got a fairly good response from that. The Clty wanted a proJect to accommodate parking and a major flag. They were looking forward to building that deck and getting the Marrlott flag which will give us, what you call, a world-class attraction power here. And as to, ultimately, what you've gone through, I will (inaudible) from the standpolnt that we have conslstently been available to discuss and to reVlew and to have all these meetlngs, and there is a -- there is, quote, another agenda. I can't (inaudible). I understand it. It just is. And it relates not the GN Sands (phonetic) or the abuttlng (inaudible) sand as it relates to how a successful proposal in the northern parcel. They need to go do that. They need to do It on LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 169 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 thelr own. They need to go through the process. We can't make it happen. And we'd ask you to let us move forward, and we are ready to proceed. And we're working with the city on a patent to go through BCC with this, through the board of county commissioners. The city wants to deliver (inaudible) with the parklng, with a new bridge. We need to get that brldge -- we need to get going so we can be underway. We also have other substantive issues, control lines and other major tiny issues that are critical. So we appreciate your attention and your patience. Thank you very much. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Thank you. And prior to closlng the hearing, I just do want to say, this has been a -- this is an important issue, a vitally important lssue. Certainly a very passionate issue. And I Just want to thank everybody for thelr cooperativeness in this process today. It's been long. I don't know that we've had a four-hour process in quite awhile, but we do appreciate It. At thls tlme the public hearing is closed, and we'll open It for the board for discussions. MS. MORAN: Are you able to offer an opinion now on the Clearwater Charter? MS. AKIN: Yes. I understand the issue that LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 170 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ms. Garris is raising. That is really not an issue for thls board. That will come before the commlSSlon when they make the decislon on vacating. I will state that I do not believe that the (inaudible) vlolates the (inaudible). And, of course, there will be more dlscussion about that. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Any other questions? Comments? (No response.) There being none, the Chalr will entertain a motion, and we'll be voting on two items. The first being the publlc (inaudible). MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair, based upon the staff report and testimony at this public hearing, I move approval of the appllcant for the flexible redevelopment as shown -- as recommended by the city staff. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Is there a second? MS. PETERSON: Second. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Been moved and seconded. All those in favor? (The Board responds aye.) MR. GILDERSLEEVE: All those opposed? (No response.) MS. FIERCE: Can I ask a questlon? Are you LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 171 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 imposlng the condition as stated in the staff report? GILDERSLEEVE: Yes. MS. FIERCE: Okay. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: The second item before us is actually the development agreement and the Chair would like to make motion. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, based upon the staff report and testimony at this public hearing, I move approval of the development agreement as submitted. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Is there a second? MS. PETERSON: Second. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: All those in favor of the motion? (The Board responds aye.) MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Opposed? (No response.) MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Motion passed. Thank you very much. We'll take just about a two-minute recess so we can get our real Chair back up here. (The proceedlngs are concluded at 5:17 p.m.) LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 172 1 2 3 STATE OF FLORIDA 4 COUNTY OF PINELLAS CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 5 6 I, Donnell Baumbach, Registered Professional 7 Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did 8 stenographically report the Community Development Board 9 Meeting, and that the transcrlpt is a true and complete 10 record of my stenographic notes. 11 12 I further certify that I am not a relative, employee, 13 attorney, or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a 14 relative or employee of any of the partles' attorney or 15 counsel connected with the action, nor am I financially 16 interested In the action. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Dated this d&f:j day , 2001. DONNELL BAUMBACH, RPR 25 LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. Community Development Board _ of the City of Clearwater In re: AI-Nayem International, Ine. & Kandiah P. Thavabalasingam Case Nos. FL 01-01-01 DA 01-01-01 MOTIONIREQUEST FOR GRANTING OF PARTY STATUS A.P" Mar, Ine. (d/b/a Port Vue), Antonios Markopoulos, (d/b/a Day's Inn), Kolossos Inn, Ine. (d/b/a Beach Towers), T.M. Megas, L.C.C. (d/b/a Spy Glass) and T.M. Megas, L.C.C. (d/b/a Golden Beach) (collectively referred to as the "Owners"), by and through their undersigned attorneys, hereby request the Community Development Board (Board) to grant party status to each of the Ownl~rs. As grounds for this request, the Owners state as follows: 1. Pursuant to Section 4-206.D.3. of the Community Development Code (Code), party status shall be grimted by the Board if the person requesting such status demonstrates that he is a substantially affected person. 2. Section 8-102 of the Community Development Code (Code) defines "substantial~y affected person" as "any person or entity which will suffer to a greater degree than the general public an adverse effi~ct to a legally recognized interest protected or furthered by this development code or comprehensive plan." 3. Owners are record title owners of the approximately 3 acres adjacent to the subject property containing the proposed project and accordingly, will suffer to a greater degree than the general public an adverse effect to a legally recognized interest by an approval of the S\lbject application. 4. Therefore, Owners are substantially affected persons in this matter. WHEREFORE Owners respectfully requests that the Board grant party status to each of the Owners. " I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by hand deliverytoAI-Nayem International, Ine. & Kandiah P. Thavabalasingam do Richard Gehring, this 20th day of February, 2001. iJ Gordon J. Schiff, Esquire FLBar# 518890 Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen Post Office Box 1531 400 North Tampa Street, Suite 2300 . Tampa, Florida 33601-1531 (813) 273-4200 c " Verified by: tonios Markopoulos, (d/b/a Day's Inn), Kolossos Inn, Inc. (d/b/a .C.C. (d/b/a Spy Glass) and T.M. Megas, L.C.C. (d/b/a Golden ( " I G:\DAT f>.\REALAND\GORDON _ S\MARKOPOULOs.HSC\DocuMENTS\PARTY STATUS MOTION.WPD , 1\1 Community Development Board City of Clearwater In re: AI-Nayem International, Inc. & Kandiah P. Thavabalasingam Case Nos. FL 01-01-01 DA 01-01-01 , MOTION/REQUEST TO CANCEL HEARINGS BASED UPON DEFICIENT NOTICE A.lP. Mar, Inc. (d/b/a Port Vue), Antonios Markopoulos, (d/b/a Day's Inn), Kolossos Inn, Inc. (d/b/a Beach Towers), T.M. Megas, L.C.C. (d/b/a Spy Glass) and T.M. Megas, L.C.C. (d/b/a Gollden Beach) (collectively referred to as the "Owners"), by and through their undersigned attorneys, hereby request the Community Development Board (Board) to cancel the hearing in the referenced matter based upon the following: 1. Notice of public hearings is a mandatory and jurisdictional prerequisite. 2. The subject hearings have been improperly and deficiently noticed because the project concerns land not included in the application and not included in the notice and advertisement for the hearings. 3. The applicant and the City have not complied with all notice requirements under the code, including but not limited to, not including land which is part of the project area. 4. Owners and other property owners will be prejudiced by the failure to strictly comply with all notice requirements, including but not limited to having insufficient time to prepare and fully participate in the hearings. 5. If the Board goes forward with the hearings, its actions will be void. 6. Owners expressly do not waive their objections to the notice by appearing at the hearing and participating in the event this motion is not granted. WHEREFORE Owners respectfully requests that the Board cancel the hearings based upon deficient notice. ,', . , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by hand deliverytoAI-Nayem International, Inc. & Kandiah P. Thavabalasingam do Richard Gehring, this 20th day of February, 2001. Gordon J. Schiff, Esquire FL Bar # 518890 Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen Post Office Box 1531 400 North Tampa Street, Suite 2300. Tampa, Florida 33601-1531 (813) 273-4200 \ Verified by: AP. Mar, Inc. (d/b/a Port Vue, Anto . os Markopoulos, (d/b/a Day's Inn), Kolossos Inn, Inc. (d/b/a Beach Towers), T.M. Megas L.C. . (d/b/a Spy Glass) and T.M. Megas, L.C.C. (d/b/a Golden Beach) By:-L Anthon G:\DAT A\REALAND\GORDON _ S\MARKoPoULOs.HSC\DOCUMIlNTs\NOTICE MOTlON.WPD . ~ 03/09/2001 10:53 7275524575 PLAN PAGE 02 " I CITY OF CLEARWATER to"..G ~GE PUNNING DEVELOPMEN'l' R1M!Nr HOUSING DMSION NEIGHBORHOOD S~/IaShard Gehri Mr. Ric, ng C/o Clearwater Seashell Resort LLC 748 Bro1adway Streett #202 DunediJl. FL 34689 PlANNING DEPARTMENT POST OmCE Box 4748, CLEARWATER, FJ..O~ 33758-4748 MUNICIPM. SERVICES BUIlDING, 100 Sotll'H M\'RTLE AVENUE, CtliRWATER, FLOJaOA 33756 TEU!PHONE (121) 562-4567 FAX (J21) 562.4576 March 9. 2001 .~ RE: Development Order regarding cases FL 01-01-01 and DA 01-01-01 at 301 South Gulfview Boulevard Dear Mr. Gehring: This letter constitutes a Development Order pursuant to Section 4-206 D.7 of the Commtllnity Development Code. On February 20, 200 I, the Community Development Board reviewed the Flexible Development and Development Agreement applications for a 250-room full-service hotel with 800-space parking garage. The following specific requestl~ were included: 1. An increase in height from 3S feet to 150 feet, increase from 65 rooms to 250 roomst reduction in front (west) setback along South Gulfview Boulevard from 10 feet to zero feet, reduction in front (east) setback along Coronado Drive from 10 feet to zero feet~ reduction in side (north) setback from 10 feet to zero feet, and reduction in side (south) setback from 10 feet to zero feet, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project; , 2. Review of, and recommendation to the City CommissIon on, a request to vacate Third Street right-of-way from South Gulfview Boulevard to Coronado Drive; 3. Review of, and recommendation to the City Commission on, a request to vacate the eastern 35 feet of South Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way (beginning approximately 130 feet north of the centerline of Third Street and ending approximately 150 feet soulh of the centerline of Third Street, totaling approximately 250 linear feet of South Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way); and 4. Review of, and recommendation to the City Commission on, a development agrc:ement between Clearwater Seashell Resort L.L.C. and the City of Clearwater. BRIAN) AUNC;ST, MAYOR.cOMMlSSIONllk ).8 JOHNSON, VICE MAYOR-COMMISSIONIiR ED HMT, COMMISSJONl'R * BoB CWK, ColdldlSSJO/'llOR F. DAV1D HEMfJUCK, CoMMISSIONER "EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND APl'lRMATIV'E ACTION EMl'r..o~" 03/09/2001 10:53 7275524575 PLAN PAGE 03 DevelO})ment Order FL 01-01-01IDA 01-01-01 March 9, 2001 - Page 2 Based (J,n the application and the staff recommendation, the Board found that the proposal is in compliance with the standards and criteria for Flexible Development approval. the maximum development potential standards and all other applicable standards of the Community Development Code. The Community Development Board approved the Flexiblc~ Development application with three conditions: 1. That the application be effective upon development agreement approval by City Commission; 2. That the South Gulfview Boulevard and Third Street rights-of-way be vacated by City Commission; and 3. That the final design of building be consistent with conceptual elevations submitted and10r modified by the Community Development Board. The Community Development Board also recommended approval of the Development Agreement to the City Commission which was subsequently approved on March 1. 2001. Pursuant to Section 4-407, an application for a building permit shall be made within one year of Flexible Development approval (February 20, 2002) and all required certificates of occupancy shall be obtained within one year of the date of issuance of the building pennit. Time frames do not change with successive owners. The Community Development Board may grant an extension of time for a period not to exceed one year and only within the original period of validity. Please remember that a building pennit and impact fees will be required prior to the construction of the project. Should you have any questions, please contact Lisa L. Fierce, DevelolPment Review Manager at 727.562.4561. V?;~~ Gerald Figurski. Chairman Comn1\mity Development Board s..IPlmutl", Dflpal"tmentlC D BIFI.EX\/n"acti~ or Flnfshed AppllcattorulGf4/fYfew S 301 Marriott Hotel. Approl'ed1Marrtotl Hotel , l>tn>elap1nBllt ordfJr.doc MACFARLANE FERGUSON & McMULLEN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 900 HIGH POINT CI:NTER lOG EAST COLLE.GE ~'VENUE TALLAHASSEE. FLORIDA 32301 (8150) 681-7381 FI'>X (8150) 681-0281 400 NORTH TAMPA STREET: SUITE 2300 P.O. BOX 1531 (ZIP 33601) TAMPA. FLORIDA 33602 (813) 273-4200 FI'>X (813) 273-4396 625 COURT STREET P. O. BOX 1669 (ZIP 33757) CLEARWATER. FLORIDA 33756 (727) 441-8966 FAX (727) 442-8470 IN REPLY REFER TO Tampa March 12, 2001 VIA FACSIMILE and VIA HAN][) DELIVERY Clerk, City of Clearwater Clearwater City Hall, 2d Floor 112 S. Oscl~ola Ave. Clearwater" FL 33756 Re: Administrative Appeal of Decision of Community Development Board (CDB) in Case No. FL 01-01-01 and DA 01-01-01/ Clearwater Seashell Resort Notice of Filing Supplemental Evidence/Exhibit Dear Honorable Clerk: On behalf of AP. Mar, Inc. (d/b/a Port Vue), Antonios Markopoulos (d/b/a Day's Inn), Kolossos Inn, Inc. (d/b/a Beach Towers), T.M. Megas, L.C.C. (d/b/a Spy Glass) and T.M. Megas, L.C.C. (d/b/a Golden Beach) (collectively referred to as "Markopoulos"), we are filing a copy of the Development Order issued by the CDB on Case Nos. FL 01-01-01 and DA 01.-01-01 which is dated Mar(;h 9, 2001 and which we received via facsimile on March 9, 2001. Please file this Development Order as part of the record and as an exhibit in the appeal proceeding. In addition, we submit the following objections to the Development Order: 1. We object to the Development Order as it contains information beyond the scope of the decision rendered at the CDB hearing on February 20,2001, including but not limited to referencing a decision of the City Commission which was rendered subsequent to the date of the CDB hearing. 2. We objecUo the Development Order reciting findings because no findings were made. Clerk, City of Clearwater March 12, 2001 Page 2 Markopoulos reserves the right to supplement or modify the evidence and/or exhibits, including but not limited to rebuttal evidence and/or rebuttal exhibits. Thank you for your attention to this matter. ~L J~ ~dO~J. ScIDff ~ mll!@I!~@ encl. IMP. I J iX: cc: Pam.ela K. Akin, Esq., City Attorney (via facsimile; via hand delivery) Planning Department (via facsimile; via hand delivery) crrv AlTORNEv RECEiV'ED MAR 1 3 2001 CITY CLERK DEPARTMENT roJ ~ @" ~ 0 W ~ rffi lJU MAR 1 3 2001 WJ .. p NING & DEVELOPMENT SVCS CITY OF CLEARWAlER . 03/09/2001 10:53 7275524575 ----- ------ -- PLAN t"'f4~c. t:J.l. , , ------- PIIMing & ()l~veIopment SeNlees Adminlvtratlon '00 So. Myl'tIlt Ave., ~ Floor Cleltwater. f:l. ~Hl CITY OF CLEARWATER Fax ~~ &hlPF Fu; r:2)~. Z-12 . ~q (0 P-s-; Us~- {.(. 6eA<~ (Including this page) ~ ~l:iLoJ From: ........ Date: ~ 1)~~. Of11Lt.f fif\1L~~ C lhgenI' 0 For R.vtew 0 "-- ComIneftt 0"-- R.pty CC: A S' ~IJ-~ . MeMa9re: ~d WPj . ~ wttlLG 1:;0 ~ It OCO 1Y\ e3/e9/~0el 10:53 7275624576 PLAN PAGE 02 toNG ~GE PlANNING. DEVELOPMENT Rsvmw HOUSING DMSION NEJGH90~It~~ Gehring Clo Clearwater Seashell Resort LLC 748 BroEtdway Streett #202 Dunedin, FL 34689 CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING.oEPAR1'MEN't POST OmCE Box 4748, CwRwAT!ll, F~ 337584748 MUNIClPM. SERVICES BUIlDING, 100 Sot1l'H M\'RTLE AVENU!, CtlAAWATER, FLOM>A 33756 TEU!PHONE (121) 562-4567 PAX rT21) 562-4576 March 9,2001 RE: Development Order regarding cases FL 01-01-01 and DA 01-01-01 at 301 South Ciulfvicw Boulevard Dear Mr. Gehring: This letter constitutes a Development Order pursuant to Section 4-206 0.7 of the Conunw:1ity Development Code. On February 20, 2001. the Community Development Board rc:viewed the Flexible Development and Development Agreement applications for a 2S0-rclOm full-service hotel with 800-space parking garage. The following specific requests were inoluded: 1. An increase in height from 35 feet to 150 feett increase from 65 rooms to 250 rooms, reduction in front (west) setback along South Gulfview Boulevard from 10 feet to zero feet, reduction in front (east) setback along Coronado Drive from 10 feet to zero feett reduction in side (north) setback from 10 feet to zero feet, and reduction in side (south) setback from 10 feet to zero feet, as part of a Comprehensive Jnfill Red,~velopment Project; 2. Review of, and recommendation to the City Commission on, a request to vacate Third Street right-of-way from South Gulfview Boulevard to Coronado Drive; 3. Review of, and recommendation to the City Commission on, a request to vacate the eastlml 35 feet of South Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way (beginning approximately 130 feet north of the centerline of Third Street and ending approximately ISO feet south of the centerline of Third Street, totaling approximately 250 linear feet of South Gul:fview Boulevard right-of-way); and 4. Review of, and recommendation to the City Commission on. a development agre:ement between Clearwater Seashell Resort L.L.C. and the City of Clearwater. BIUAN J AUN<iST. MAYORoCoMMlSSlONtlk '.8. JOHNSON. VICE MAVOR-COMMlSSIONIiR ED HMt, CoIdMlSSIQNl!R * 80& Cwu:.. CoIolMI$$.IOmR P. DAVlO HEMfI\JCX. CoMldlSSlotlEll "EQUAL EMpLOYMENT AND APr1RMAnvE Ar:;nON EMl'l..OYU" ,. ~3/e9/2B01 10:53 7275524575 PLAN PAGE 03 ; . Dcvelot,ment Order FL Ol.Ol-01IDA Ol-Ol..Ql March S., 2001 - Page 2 Based (lln the application and the staff recommendation, the Board found that the proposal is in compliance with the standards and criteria for Flexible Development approval, the maximum development potential standards and aU other applicable standards of the Comnitmity Development Code. The Community Development Board approved the Flexiblc~ Development application with three conditions: 1. That the application be effective upon development agreement approval by City Cotl1D1ission; 2. That the South Gulfvicw Boulevard and Third Street rights-of-way be vacated by City Cotl1D1ission; and 3. Tha.t the final design of building be consistent with conceptual elevations submitted and/or modified by the Community Development Board. The Cc,mmunity Development Board also recommended approval of the Development Agreement to the City Commission which was subsequently approved on March It 2001. Pursuallt to Section 4-407, an application for a building permit shall be made within one year of' Flexible Development approval (February 20, 2002) and all required certificates of occupancy shall be obtained within one year of the date of issuance of the building pennit. Time frames do not change with successive owners. The Commwlity Development Board may grant an extension of time for a period not to exceed one year and onlly within the original period of validity. Please remember that a building pennit and impact fees will be required prior to the constr\Jlet1on of the project. Should you have any questions, please contact Lisa L. Fierce, Develo1pment Review Manager at 727.562.4561. v~~~ Gerald Figurski. Chairman Community Development Board R 1"'""' , , ..,- , (.... D ~ ~:: v t: u 'V t:. MAR 1 3 2001 CITY CLERK DEPARTMENT S:\Pliuutlrrr ~mtlC D BIFUXllFlFlodive or Flnfshnf APP/(cl2fwtUIGw/flfew S 301 Marriott Hottl. ApprowdlMttr'rlott HottI lJewWpmmt ordfIT'.doc MACFARLANE FERGUSON & MCMULLEN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELpRS AT LAW 900 HIGH POINT CENTER 106 EAST COLLEGE AVENUE TALLAHASSEe:. FLCIRIO.... 32301 (850) 681.7381 F'AX (laSO) e81-02BI 400 NORTH TAMPA STREET. SUITE: 2300 POBOX 1531 (ZIP 33601) TAMPA. FLORIDA 33602 (813)273-4200 FAX (BI3) 273.4396 625 COURT STREET POBOX 1669 (ZIP 33757) CLEARWATER. FLORIDA 33756 (727) 441-8966 FAX (727) 442-8470 IN REPLY REFER TO. Tampa March 5,2001 VIA HAND DELIVERY Clerk, City of Clearwater Clearwater City Hall, 2d Floor 112 S. Oseeola Ave. Clearwater, FL 33756 Re: Administrative Appeal of Decision of Community Development Board (CDB) in Case No. FL 01-01-01 and DA 01-01-011 Clearwater Seashell Resort Notice of Filing Copy of Exhibits Dear Honorable Clerk: On behalf of A.P. Mar, Inc. (d/b/a Port Vue), Antonios Markopoulos (d/b/a Day's Inn), Kolossos Inn, Inc. (d/b/a Beach Towers), T.M. Megas, L.C.C. (d/b/a Spy Glass) and T.M. Megas, L.C.C. (d/b/a Golden Beach) (collectively referred to as "Markopoulos"), we are filing for your convenience a copy of the physical exhibits for the referenced appeal filed March 1,2001. Markopoulos reserves the right to supplement or modify these exhibits, including but not limited to rebuttal exhibits. Thank: you for your attention to this matter. rj~ j J1t Gordon J. Schiff 1 m ~..:. (;,j I ,; \l ~:rl C~ ffi' ~ n r-ll..irll - I l- \ 'f"} _ _... I i I\f~:;~& ~ I _-_.....:...-1_ ~~-,-~-, -tl"" \fr')~ t':lU~k, 'd ',I, "U' , '.' ' ,,:"... \ , '[ .. '\I"'idlll1l.....,. 4' '~',~.\'::R I CITV ltl" vLi::MI h J,-, - encl. cc: Planning Department \ [ ATTACHMENTS 1. Motion/Request to Cancel Hearings Based upon Deficient Notice (filed February 20, 2001) 2. Letter dated February 20,2001 from Gordon 1. Schiff, Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen, to Gerald Figurski, Chair, Community Development Board 3. Motion/Request for Granting of Party Status (filed February 20,2001) 4. Application for Site Plan Approval in Case Nos. FL 01-01-01 and DA 01-01-01 5. Draft Development Agreement between Clearwater Seashell Resort and City of Clearwater 6. Draft Development Agreement Exhibit List 7. Transcript of February 20,2001 Community Development Board public hearing on Case Nos. FL 01-01-01 and DA 01-01-01 8. Curriculum Vitae of Ethel Hammer, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Incorporated 9. Curriculum Vitae of Michael McElveen, MAl, Urban Economics Incorporated 10. Letter dated February 20,2001 from Michael McElveen, Urban Economics Incorporated to Gordon 1. Schiff, Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen 11. Graphics prepared by Trial Exhibits Incorporated 12. Minutes from 12/12/00 Community Development Board public hearing on Case No. FL 00-07-29, 7 Rockaway Street: Charalampos & Sevasti Alexiou (Kirk Construction) 13. Notice of Community Development Board Public Hearings, published in The Tampa Tribune on February 3, 2001 14. Notice of Community Development Board Public Hearings, mailed to surrounding property owners 15. Report prepared by Ethel Hammer, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, entitled "Clearwater Seashell Resort Planning Analysis" Please note that in our Initial Appeal Brief filed March 1, 2001, we also requested that judicial notice be taken of the following regulations: 1. City of Clearwater Community Development Code 2. City of Clearwater Comprehensive Plan 3. Beach By Design Regulations 4. Countywide Future Land Use Plan and Rules Concerning Administration of the Countywide Future Land Use Plan 5. City of Clearwater Code of Ordinances 6. City of Clearwater Charter 7. Chapter 163, Florida Statutes As stated in the Initial Appeal Brief, we reserve the right to modify and'supplement the exhibits, including but not limited to rebuttal evidence. ~ J Community Development Board City of Clearwater In re: AI-Nayem International, Inc. & Kandiah P. Thavabalasingam Case Nos. FL 01-01-01 DA 01-01-01 MOTION/REQUEST TO CANCEL HEARINGS BASED UPON DEFICIENT NOTICE A.P. Mar, Inc. (d/b/a Port Vue), Antonios Markopoulos, (d/b/a Day's Inn), Kolossos Inn, Inc~. (d/b/a Beach Towers), T.M. Megas, L.C.C. (d/b/a Spy Glass) and T.M. Megas, L.C.C. (d/b/a Golden Beach) (collectively referred to as the "Owners"), by and through their undersigned attorneys, hereby request the Community Development Board (Board) to cancel the hearing in the referenced matter based upon the following: 1. Notice of public hearings is a mandatory and jurisdictional prerequisite. 2. The subject hearings have been improperly and deficiently noticed because the project concems land not included in the application and not included in the notice and advertisement for the hearings. 3. The applicant and the City have not complied with all notice requirements under the code, including but not limited to, not including land which is part of the project area. 4. Owners and other property owners will be prejudiced by the failure to strictly comply with all notlce requirements, including but not limited to having insufficient time to prepare and fully participate in the hearings. 5. If the Board goes forward with the hearings, its actions will be void. 6. Owners expressly do not waive their objections to the notice by appearing at the hearing and participating in the event this motion is not granted. \VHEREFORE Owners respectfully requests that the Board cancel the hearings based upon deficient notice. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by hand delivery to AI-Nay em International, Inc. & Kandiah P. Thavabalasingam do Richard Gehring, this 20th day of February, 2001. Gordon 1. Schiff, Esquire FL Bar # 518890 Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen Post Office Box 1531 400 North Tampa Street, Suite 2300 Tampa, Florida 33601-1531 (813) 273-4200 Verifiedl by: AP. Mar, Inc. (d/b/a Port Vue, Anto . os Markopoulos, (d/b/a Day's Inn), Kolossos Inn, Inc. (d/b/a Beach Towers), T.M. Megas L.C. . (d/b/a Spy Glass) and T.M. Megas, L.C.C. (d/b/a Golden Beach) /J By: -Jf ~, Anthon G \DAT AIREALAND\GORDON _ S\MARKoPOULOs.HSC\DOCUMENTs\NOTlCE MOTION.WPD '1 ..... Community Development Board of the City of Clearwater In re: AI-Nayem International, Inc. & Kandiah P. Thavabalasingam Case Nos. FL 01-01-01 DA 01-01-01 MOTION/REQUEST FOR GRANTING OF PARTY STATUS A.P. Mar, Inc. (d/b/a Port Vue), Antonios Markopoulos, (d/b/a Day's Inn), Kolossos Inn, Inc. (d/b/a Beach Towers), T.M. Megas, L.e.e. (d/b/a Spy Glass) and T.M. Megas, L.e.e. (d/b/a Golden Beach) (collectively referred to as the "Owners"), by and through their undersigned attorneys, hereby request the Community Development Board (Board) to grant party status to each of the Owners. As grounds for this request, the Owners state as follows: X. Pursuant to Section 4-206.D.3. of the Community Development Code (Code), party status shall be granted by the Board if the person requesting such status demonstrates that he is a substantially affected person. 2. Section 8-102 of the Community Development Code (Code) defines "substantially affected person" as "any person or entity which will suffer to a greater degree than the general public an adverse effect to a legally recognized interest protected or furthered by this development code or comprehensive plan." 3. Owners are record title owners of the approximately 3 acres adjacent to the subject property containing the proposed project and accordingly, will suffer to a greater degree than the general public an adverse effect to a legally recognized interest by an approval of the subject application. 4. Therefore, Owners are substantially affected persons in this matter. WHEREFORE Owners respectfully requests that the Board grant party status to each of the Owners. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by hand delivery to AI-Nayem International, Inc. & Kandiah P. Thavabalasingam c/o Richard Gehring, this 20th day of February, 2001. iJ Gordon J. Schiff, Esquire FL Bar # 518890 Macfarlane Ferguson & McMullen Post Office Box 1531 400 North Tampa Street, Suite 2300 Tampa, Florida 33601-1531 (813) 273-4200 Verified by: AP. Mar, Inc. (d/b/a Port v't),1 ntonios Markopoulos, (d/b/a Day's Inn), Kolossos Inn, Inc. (d/b/a Beach Towers T.M. Me s, 'TI~c.c. (d/b/a Spy Glass) and T.M. Megas, L.C.c. (d/b/a Golden / Beach) ;j By:J .Anthony ar opoulos G:\DAT A\REALAND\GORDON _ SIMARKOPOULos.HSC\DOCUMENTS\P ARTY STATUS MOTION.WPD .. MACFARLANE FERGUSON & McMuLLEN ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 900 HIGH POINT CENTER 400 NORTH TAMPA STREE1: SUITE Z300 POBOX 1531 (ZIP 33601) TAMPA, FLORIDA 33602 (813) 273-4200 FAX (813) 273-4396 G25 COURT STREET POBOX .669 <ZIP 33757) CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 (727) 441-8966 FAX (72:7) 442-8470 106 EAST COLL.EGE AVENUE: TALLAHASSEE. FLORIDA 32301 (850) 681-7381 FAX (850) 681-0281 IN REPLY REFER TO Tampa February 20,2001 VIA HAND DELIVERY Gerald Figurski, Chair Community Development Board Clearwater City Hall, 3rd Floor 112 S. Osceola Ave. Clearwater, FL 33756 Re: Case Nos. FL 01-01-01 and DA 01-01-01 AI-Nayem International Inc. and Kandiah P. Thavabalasingam Development Agreement between Clearwater Seashell Resort LLC and the City of Clearwater Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of AP. Mar, Inc. (d/b/a Port Vue), Antonios Markopoulos (d/b/a Day's Inn), Kolossos Inn, Inc. (d/b/a Beach Towers), T.M. Megas, L.C.C. (d/b/a Spy Glass) and T.M. Megas, L C C. (d/b/a Golden Beach), we hereby file our objection to the referenced proposed Development Agreement which is scheduled for consideration by the Community Development Board (Board) at today':; public hearing. As owners of the adjacent 3 acres (m 0.1.) to the north of the subject property, our clients are substantially affected parties and submit the following objections. 1. Since a complete proposed Development Agreement was not available to the public as of February 14,2001, and to our knowledge is still not available, we object to the Board going forward with this matter as we have not had sufficient time to review, respond, prepare for and participate in the hearing. 2. The City cannot enter into an agreement to approve projects that are not consistent with the current zoning on the property. The proposed project is not consistent with current zoning as set forth in the Community Development Code (Code). 3. The City cannot enter into an agreement to approve projects that are not consistent WIth and do not further the goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed \ .. Gerald Figurski, Chair February 20,2001 Page 2 project is not consistent with and does not further the goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. We object to the Development Agreement on the basis that the Development Agreement concerns land not owned or controlled by the applicant. 5. The proposed Development Agreement violates Section 163.3227, Florida Statutes, by failing to includle a legal description of the land subject to the Agreement and the names of its legal and equitable owner, by failing to include the duration of the Agreement, and by failing to describe all local development permits that have been approved or need to be approved for the development of the Land. 6. We object to Section 3.01 of the proposed Development Agreement on the basis that the City cannot enter into an agreement which commits the City to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Such action is contract planning and is unlawful. 7. We object to Section 5.04.1 regarding vacation of rights of ways. The City cannot enter into an agreement which commits the City to adopt an ordinance vacating an existing right of way. To do so would violate state and federal procedural due process and equal protection laws as well as statutory and Code requirements. 8. We object to Section 5.04.5 regarding the authority for cafe seating. The City cannot enter into an agreement which commits the City to adopt regulations regarding the use of a portion of public right of way that has not been vacated. To do so would violate state and federal procedural due process and equal protection laws as well as statutory and Code requirements. 9. We object to Section 5.04.7 regarding concessions. The City cannot enter into an agreement which commits the City to adopt regulations regarding the use of a portion of public right of way that has not been vacated. To do so would violate state and federal procedural due process and equal protection laws as well as statutory and Code requirements. Furthermore, we object because the City should consider all options including requests for proposals (RFP) in awarding concession operations contracts. 10. We object to Section 5.04.11 regarding the timely completion of the proposed improvements on the basis that the City cannot agree to permit development on land that has not been zoned for such development. 11. We object to Section 5.04.12 regarding additional public parking. The City cannot agree to restrict the use of adjacent property by agreeing to withhold construction of additional public ~ Gerald Figurski, Chair February 20, 2001 Page 3 parking within a quarter-mile radius of the proposed development. Such action is a violation of state and federal procedural due process and equal protection laws. 12. We object to Section 5.05.1 regarding the development of the resort hotel and the parking garage project. The City cannot enter into an agreement which provides for the developer's agreement to develop a project that is not consistent with the current zoning on the property nor with the Comprehensive Plan. 13. We object to Section 5.05.5 regarding the costs of South Gulfview and Beach Walk improvements. The developer and the City cannot enter into an agreement which affects and attempts to bind others who are not parties to the agreement. Such action is a violation of state and federal due process and equal protection laws. 14. We object to Section 5.05.9 with regard to the construction of the South Gulfview and Beach 'Walk improvements in that the City should consider all options, including RFPs, in awarding a project. 15. We object to Section 10.02 in that the City cannot covenant that it will approve a development that is not consistent with the current zoning on the property. Such action is a violation of state and federal procedural due process and equal protection laws as well as statutory and Code requirements. 16. We object to Section 10.02.4 in that the City cannot agree that it will not rezone property from a z.oning district which has not been approved. 17. We object to the proposed Development Agreement on the basis that the proposed project is not compatible with the surrounding area and community. The project as contemplated in the proposed Development Agreement will negatively impact the existing uses of the surrounding area as well as the future intended uses. 18. We object to the proposed Development Agreement on the basis that the proposed project does not meet the general standards for approval set forth in section 3-913 of the Code. Specifically, the proposed development fails to ensure, including but not limited to, the following criteria: The scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of the proposed development is not in harmony with the adjacent properties. the design and magnitude of the proposed development is intrusive to the use and enjoyment of our clients' property " Gerald Figurski, Chair February 20,2001 Page 4 the proposed development will have a substantially adverse effect on our clients' property from that which would be permitted under the current zoning district The proposed development will hinder and discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings and will significantly impair the value thereof. the design of the proposed development, including the 85 foot high wall and zero setback on the north property line, will have negative impacts on the use and enjoyment of our clients' property and will have adverse impacts on the future redevelopment of our clients' property The proposed development is not consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. the proposed project will be significantly greater in density and intensity than the surrounding area and will lead to disharmony within the surrounding area The design of the proposed development will not minimize adverse effects on the adjacent properties. the design and magnitude of the proposed development will significantly impair the use and enjoyment of our clients' property now and in the future the proposed development will have a substantially adverse effect on our clients' property from that which would be permitted under the current zoning district 19. We object to the proposed Development Agreement on the basis that the proposed development does not meet the criteria for comprehensive infill redevelopment projects as l Gerald Figurski, Chair February 20,2001 Page 5 set forth in section 2-803.C. of the Code. Specifically, the proposed development fails to comply with, including but not limited to, the following: The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use intensity and development standard. the degree to which the standards are being waived is extreme the design of the proposed development is unreasonable and will usurp the development options on adjacent properties. development on the subject property would be practical, and possible, with smaller, and more reasonable deviations from the development standards The development of the parcel proposed for development as a comprehensive infill redevelopment project will not reduce the fair market value of abutting properties. the design and bulk of the proposed development will have a significant adverse effect on the existing and future use of the abutting properties and will reduce the fair market value of such abutting properties Suitable sites for development or redevelopment of the uses or mix of uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are not otherwise available in the City of Clearwater. there are other sites that may be more suitable, based upon their size, and the ability to develop a project without vacating a public street The design of the proposed comprehensive infill redevelopment project creates a form and function which enhances the community character ofthe immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. the design of the project will not enhance the community character, due to the combination of all the waivers that are being requested the proposed development sets a negative precedent, in that it provides absolutely no green space, no setbacks, and eliminates the light, air and view corridors for the public along the project frontage; this is not a good statement for future projects along the beach frontage , Gerald Figurski, Chair February 20,2001 Page 6 Flexibility with regard to lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking 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 degree to which the setbacks and the height have been flexed on this parcel would not be viewed as "benefits to the community character and the immediate vicinity" 20. We object to the proposed Development Agreement on the basis that the proposed development is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan nor with Beach By Design. Specifically, the proposed development is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan nor with Beach by Design, including but not limited to, the following reasons: the proposed development will not maintain the view, air and light corridors the proposed development is not consistent and compatible with the surrounding area Based upon the foregoing we respectfully request that the Board recommend that the proposed Development Agreement be denied. We reserve the right to supplement our objections to the proposed Development Agreement, including without limitation any objection to amendments, modifications and/or additions to the proposed Development Agreement. flZb7;J4I Gordon J. Schiff cc' Members of Community Development Board Clerk, Community Development Board 'to j , ,~ .r! J. t 1'. / CITY OF CLE)...R"\ill ATER APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL PLANNlNG & DEVELOPl\1ENT SERVICES ADMlNISTRATION MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYR'ILE AVENUE. 2M nOOR PHONE (727)-562-4567 FAX. (727) 562-4576 . This form must be submitted for all appncatlons for residential uses, accessory uses, nonresidential uses, fences Signs, vested rights, development agreements, seawalls, docks, marinas and other marine structures and home occupations. ' APPLICANT. PROPERTY OWNER, AND AGENT INFORMATION: APPUCANT NAME: . Clearwater Seashell Resort L.L.C. MAlUNG ADDR~SS PHONE NUMBER PROPERTY OWNERS AGENT NAME MAlUNG ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER 734-1966 748 Broadway #202 Dunedin. FL 34689 FAX NUMBER : 733-8634 Al-Nayem IntI. Inc. ~ aU owners) . Kandiah P. Thavabalasingam Jim Egnew I Richard Gehring 748 Broadway #202 734-1966 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION: 229/301 S. Gulfview Boulevard Lots 57. 58. 59. 104. South 20' of Lot 56. South 20' of Lot 103. Lot 105. Lot 106 and N 1/2 of Lo~ 107 Lloyd-White-Skinner Subdivision STREET ADDRESS: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PARCEL NUMBER: Dunedin. FL 34689 .' FAX NUMBER : 733':'8634 . PROPOSED USE AND SIZE: 250 hotel units. 833 z space parking garage SIZE OF SITE: (number of dweRlng units, hotel rooms or square footage of nonresidential use) 1.63 Acres DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Approve flexible development. transfer of site plan an rig t-o -way vacat~on to ~mp emen DOES THIS APPLICATIoN INVOLVE THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS? YES ~ NO _ an Signature of pr rights. STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLAS Swojll to and subscribed before me this I,:J. rff day of v.4 AllIA ~ f ,: A.D., ts- A~ I to me and/or by . I who is personally known has produced N / A as i ification. s>yJYo~'f., Dons J Bowling . .; My CommIsSIon CC987865 Expires February 12 2005 FOR PLANNING OFFICE USE ONLY: LAND USE DISTRICT OF PARCEL: ZONING: ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF ADJACENT PARCELS: NORTH: FUTURE DESIGNATION: EAST: WEST. SOUTH: FUTU'RE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION OF ADJACENT PARCELS: NORTH: . s: application forms/development re\7iewlbaslc appficatlon.doc SOUTH: EAST: WEST. .' 7 /" ~ AFFIDA VIT TO AUTHORIZE AGENT PLANNlNG 8: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADMlNlSTRATlON MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 soum MYRTI.E A VENUEt 211II FLOOR PHONE (727)-562-4567 FAX rn,1) 562-4576 \ '"-- STATE OF FLCIRIDA COUNTY OF FlINEl:J.AS AL-NAYEM IN11L INCORPORATED (Name off aU ptll~' 0WJI8r$) 1. That (I am(we are) the owner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property: ACCRass ORGENERAlLCCATION: bti. 'i 6 .Crut +vt e.w BIll cL 2. That this Froperty constitutes the property for whiCh a request for a: p t-t~ ~\' \0.(\ Ct9f>rova..l I C. \PAraOd.-t-ev S e~h~~ R~ort- . (Nature or req\ll~sl) . . 3. That the undersigned (has/have) appointed and (does/do) appoint WILLIAM J: KIMPTON as (hIt:J1heir) Illent(a) 10 Illlcute llt'Iy petition" or olher documents necess.rt to ./feci such petillon: 4. That tt'iis clffidavit has been executed to iF"'duce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act on the abcJve described property; 5 That Jlwe), the underSigned author'ty, hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. . - YEM INT1L INCORPORATED Bv ~\- :) ~ . STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PiNEl-LAS SIGNeO..fFl}O~1N Cw.nerLh " . \ Sworn to and subscnlled before me this 12th da y of uony Hoon l; ose, Vlce Presldent January ,A.D., X~ ?OOl to me andfor by Dong Hoon Chop. VP f who is persorlally known has produced as Identification. SIGNEO (Property ClY/ner) \\\\\\\\11111/11111 ~,\" ,,\~e L. L:lW/'OIIIII/, ~ ~'O-.., ....... ~ ~ ~ ..~~\\SSION~~.. ~ -.....: . ~\~' ......,--to. - ~ .. ',J> ~~ 10, <'a ~'.. ~ ::-~ ~~.. - .:c . oJ< -*: ...... : ~$o~ iCC790214 .: S -="~. . ~ ~~... ~ 80ilded\\'I'l~~"'...~~ ~ ;'t-A.~Fam.lnsll~..~<(,,~~ ~"11;U8l ic. 81 ~,~ ~ \~~., IIIIJ//;II\\\\\\\ " ,IGNED (PICperty oY.nei) ~IC;NED (Propert)1 OYInet) 7? I' AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHORIZE AGENT' . PLANNING 8: DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADMlNISTRA TION MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUII...OlNG, 100 SOU'IH MYRTI..E AVENUE, 2tJl FLOOR PHONE ('n.7)-562-4S67 PAX. (127) 562-'576' .. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PINI::1..W KANDIAH~ PONNTHUBAT THAVARaLASIN~ (Ham- at'f all property ~mBr1) 1. That (I arriwe are) the owner(s) an~ record title holder(s) of the following described property: ACCRESS OR GI~NeML LOCA TlON: . .. :?J Q.( 6 . Cru /.(.1/ t U1j Bl v cL 2. That this prclperty constitutes the property for which a re~uest for a: S~.te- ~a('\ Cl{2..f>rov()Jl I rlPnrwo...-ter Se~sheU Besor-c (Nalure of r.qtJest:1 . . 3. That the uncjersigned (hasA1a-Ye-) ai'polnted and (doesldo) appoint WILLIAM J: KIMPTON as (hlsAhelr) ;egerll(a) ta exGCUle ;any peUliOl'$ or CUler doCUments n~ry to affec.t auoh petllon; 4. That this affidavit has been executed to induce the City of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act en the above described property; 5. That (1!we), the undersigned authority, hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. "/. :?r;;l~~~ SIGNED (PrD~rty 0'M~r) SIGNED (Property Owner) STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINEL-LAS Swom to and subscribed before me this 12th da y of Jan~arv . A.D., X!X2001~ to me and/or by Kandlah P;. Thavabalasingam I who is personally known J:tns produsGCj . . ~ntifi\"atlon. ;IGNEO (Property OYmer) \\\\\\\\1111/1111/ dd ~~\\ ,\~e L Law/, 11111.... ~.:::: ''0.'1 ....... 0;, ;Y, . ~ ..).. .. " .......-: ~'" ..~\,,,\SSION,C-,.. ~ -....: . c~' 1 """'..0 . .., . _ .. G ~v'" 0,21' ij,.. -:: _ .~......~ Vqpr~.. ': _ . (/'I. ;*: ~... :* ~ ~~. ICC790Z14 f [2. ~ ~ e..o_ . 0-":: ~~.. ~ovonded\\>I'I\lO"...$'~ 1-: rA..~F~m-lnSll~.'f.:<('.;';" 'l/I,,?'Sr I";';;~;'t. ~\'~' >IGNED (property OI.'I'Ier) '01 01i11 18:48 FAX 727 791 9733 KBWJI REALE STATE JAN 11 '01 .r, , \"\ .:,.'; :::. . .....:~:.:..::.:~~~~~i7~.~. ~ . .;-;:~~~:..'. ,.". .~\..... .. ....' j-{f; INST # 98-062522 3 1998 2:30PM MAR , '. ~.. . . . . 1 I i PINELLAS OFF.REC.BK 150UNTY FLA. 009 PG 1766 / ....""reel II)' . re\.lInI 10' Stephen G. Watts, Esquire MEYER & WATTS 611 Druid Road East, tl07 C'le.s.:rwater, Florida 34616 a,qenel\V J\doO lsaS . . . Parcel (Folio) Number: 07/29/15/05928/000/0160 07/29/15/05928/000/0170 07/29/15/05928/000/0180 07/29/15/05928/000/0100 07/29/15/05928/000/0150 07/29/15/05928/000/0120 07/29/15/05928/000/0040 07/29/15/05928/000/0080 D7/29/15/05923/000/0140 07/29/15/05928/000/0010 . U 1tBCO~ 107/29/15/05928/000/0020 . 1UlC /u ')0 107/29/15/05928/000/0030 . tllS ~ 1-,u ~"'/ 07/29/15/05928/000/0050 . r<-' . l2'C'T 07/29/1S/0S92B/000/006a . G 7 ~ --:. ~ ~ ':1. t) ~ I FEES 07129/15/05928/000/0070 Ooc:ulMnU'Y Till p~ L ", oSu ., : MTP 07129/15/05928/000/0090 . IMallQlbl.Ta Pel. I flC - (, 07 /29/15/0592B/000/0110 ~,l... F. De 1111'01, ~__""J County '~v 0' 07/29/15/05928/000/0130 a L?n~ :~:;;,ii~;:6 Granteel.) ....f' ',f.; ;:..... ~ THIS WARRANTY DEED, Made the }~ day of september, 1997, by BEACH PLJ\CE HOTEL, INC., herolnaftor callod the Grantor, to KANDIAH PONNTHURAI THAVABALASINGAH, whose post office address is 301 S. Gulfview Boulevard, Clearwater Beach, Florida 33767, hereinafter called the Grantee. :=-.:: :.:.:;,: ~ ..a:~. .. ...... . r "..:::.: :::": -... ..... .. ."'.1'1. ":. ;:-~ .. .. ---.. -. .. : : "., j . . :".".. ..:y.. j .. .... .. -. . 1_. ." ".. . .... ............ .. / -=' .' "! : ,. ., WITNESSETH, That the Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of $10.00 and other valuable considerations. receipt whereof ~s hereby acknowledged, here~y grants, bargains, sells, aliens, remises, releases, conveys and confirms unto the Grantee all that certain land, situate in Pinel1as County, state of Florida, viz: UNITS 1 THROUGH lB, THE BEACH PLACE MOTEL, A CONDOMMINIUM according to the plat thereof recorded in Condominium Plat Book 65, PAGE 13 THROUGH 17, inClusive, and being further described in that certain Declaration of Condominium recorded in Official Record Book 5425'jPage 1761 of the Public Records of Plnellas County" Florida, together with an undivided interest or share in the comm~n ~lements appurtenant thereto. subject to that certain IOClrtgage between K.tol. Role\Jsld, a 1llarded 1llan to Zena Corpocation dated Sept. 12, 1991 and recocded Sept. 13, 1991 in O.R. ~ 7678, '>/" Page 1864,. Public Recocd:3 of pinella:s County, Florida, the rpe.sent:;" pdnciple," bal.ance belng $750,000.00. .. \ "".~' ~ .. . I I -j 1.. .~___ , r ~ --...-..-' ,. 14I 007 05:40PM .' I I j , I r ~ . ". ~. [ t 1 : I i .....1 I I I I 1 . 01 011'11 18: 4S FAX 727 791 9733 KBWH REALESTATE I4J 008 JAN 11 '131 05:'40PM .... '., ..,.. 4~"'''I':'''S'~'~'~Ji_?!I' .... ".~:""':"\l~~~~~~~~'i.t:~~~~;~~:7;:\i~.:; , ...... '.. ~..-:~. ..t..~"~..}..,~.....~,, '~~... '~1 ~~~"t.4~-S ~l: ~ ,.'"~~: ...;'~_.' ~ ; .... I". ..-..:.': :. ':'.;:~;:f!.::'~:\;,~i.~~;~I.[~t.~" '3\ ~1... C.ffi)W;;\.>;&'.f~;:~fi~'~~~7:tf~"'~;.1~1:::~(~~:'::!\"f:'\/~"1 '... .... "'<11_- l.'il ~~...... -~......-.........w.. ..................,.........-...........,....~...~....\....r..I.t'..(:....'....... .~..(~ Best Copy, . PINELLAS COUNTY FLA. '. . .', Available OFF.REC,BK 10009 PG 1767 . ,r .J. Together, with All the tenements, hereditaments and appu4tenances the~~~o belonging or in anYWise Appertaining. To Have and to Hold, the same in fee simple forever. And the Grantor hereby covenants with said Grantee that the Grantor is lAWfully seized of said land in fee simple; that the Grantor hau good right and lawful Authority to sell and convey said land, and hereby warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against .the -l.aw-ful cld.lDs,'of ~ll persons. whomsoever; and. that said land is free of all enc~rances, except taxes accruing subsequent to December 31, 1996. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Gr~ntor has signed and sealed these presents the day and year first above written. Signed, se~led and delivered in the presence of: ~~a4~ Witness Signature. BEACH , INC. . I I I I :1 i I BY: K . . XI ~ /C//!. ~)etWsk/ Printed nAme 7/9 ~~ ;;r5'k/ poat Offi Address /.... . ~/~...<JeU/~ r-L- J3/fO/ W 51gna~r9 -':::::::;C",'1 .. -,'t ~ r- .. ""-. Ill. '-.. J .' Printed name STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PIHELLAS / ~foreqoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /~ day of September, 1997, by X.M. ROLEW5KI, as President of BEACH PLACE MOTEL, INC., who is either personally known to me or who produced the following form of identification: lid ,otary Public My commission expires: ',' -. ....,"""':: ,......'" .......-.....-.. ",.. "',.a . , l>lthUJf c.. NAil:' o o. Mr ComdI [Jp. 712112lXl1 ; "'.?IC Ilo-Iled \ly~ 1M . He. cx:6&361 B . II"......., _ II oe. to. Printed .notary name . .! .. - .' ~~:J"~rrwT' .. ... , ~ ' e-' \... . . ,h !~;~ r$7:. t. t..~v' : 1e': .. ;..-:-\. ., ,-'t-' \ ...~,. '. ::~~.. ?,. ;.;',..:.' . 11 ~ " -(; :'. . :'.~.~ . :.\ ~":~~r: .Jo'," '. .... :;;.f.';: . '. '. ...~.. .r-. II, .. .. .:.. ;/;~ .:. ':\ ',it ~ I' " ;i 1 " .' ." ~ J .. " .:; " . ~ -, ': l_~_ _ , ~. .; . ,.' ~ ~~ l , { f .. ! I .t ~ . ,: (. , ~: 1-.--( " I- t \ I " t . 'I '. '01 01/11 ~8:49 FAX 727 791 9733 I KBWH REALE STATE 14I 010 JAN 11 '01 05:40PM .' ..' BEACH PLACE MOTEL* Lots 58 and 59, of THE LLOYD-WI:ilTE SKINNERSUBDMSION. as recorded -. . in Plat Book 13, Pages 12 and 13, of the 'PUblic Records of Pin ell as County, Florida. ~ . ~: * Note: The above property is currently subject to a condominium plat indicating that the referenced. property is platted as motel condominium units. The condominium plat will be terminated as of closing, and the above stated legal description will remain the legal description of the ,prClperty. . , . '01 011'11 1~ H FAX 727 791 9733 KBWH REALE STATE Sesftcopy A \lailable :... ":- ::..... ~ . ........~.~.... .. .~..~... t~~!;.jrl~ .r::~~:-- ,,,,;..,~.,:-- ::x,.:! .,.. ~.......;. ~.e :-k~~:t',:: '~...I;,,'-f' ;..;,'t-''- '" ~!,\l~\:>; 't~1~"''\~' ~~.:'i~~(~ ;A~~~' ~~ :.~~,};~ '~~'(:{"!k ;-r,; 'Srf..:;:'t ~ j.::i~,::I.:. I'~.~~:~l:-~:' ......\.~..-\i.:..,.. :.~~~~I '.~...- "; .r:r ':';" .; ~\::::-~... : .. ". I" .. ..: ...~-:.: : .. . . : ~ .. t i . S = .~ ~ ~ ~t o:z::I< ~ 0 m ~ I ~ ~\~ 5 L :.<:,," to -c I[ Z 'II: < ~ ~l J- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ t ~ .. ~~)O i. 3: ~ ~ to '" ~ }; ~~ ...... ... ~ .~ :::> l:u a:. .,' ,:.' , '/ JAN 11 '01 } Gel \ g 4 21 PR 'Ui II 111270196 72 000 I. 19 79 . liD 7.00 GD1%Idti II! pinellas lal 3-307.80 , 3 litrrby Qlrrlt!y. That on thi, IV h day of ^U~ust I&:! ..t. Iltk~~ s before me penonally tlppenred DONG nOON CHO~_ ' ana P;>\UL VOTITJGARIS , Pre:ride1l;t ond l\.SS - t Secretary rupecttvdv 01 GLl\SS. HOUSE OF CLF.AR~il\.TEP... INC. _ . a M'1'()1'tItio'! under the law:r of the State of Florida , to me known. to be tM per:ro71.l de..!:ribed m. and who e:cecu.ted the lore[Qin[ conveyance to .....i..NAYEH INT'L INCORPORATED 1 . .' . and .tl7leralZy ac1..'71owledted the e.recu.tlon th.ereof t:J be their free ect and deed a. luch 'ofll.ceT:, for the'1Ut:.7 and pu.rpo.'~ therein. m.en.tioned,' OM thot they atfuM thereto the ofll.eial,eal o/.taid ~orpC!:.!l.tio..r:.!..and the ,aid butTILm.ent U tM act and deed 01 .ald corporation. .' :.-:... ..,,"'\.ll oJ. K ....,. WltlUlI' my ,iinature. q.Jjd..~.lQl.H4(ll!"':.. C ty of Cl-=II~A~er in the Cou.nttJ o~ ~ P.fp,e~~~'~OT^1l' ....:~;~n.B .' { Plorida, th8 d.aE! and ;j':o(lr Za~t (Jlor~oV:1. " ~..~....:- .,.: . l" . -:.: . , .: r . . . ... ':~~:~~~y..... f.. .j.....,. __ . -, . . ';'. t ;.4, 1* U . . r.' , < ; , '. ~. <" .... ,.' 0(, ~Ul7 < 10 . .. teriJ, I'\AUC \1~11 0I1t0t~.$:r .::;',::-.1J/1 Commb.lo F..rplr!::._ :jj' ~~~ "", (O"'~"1SI00II""U' ~.'t4.1. u:/i\I.::-. .' . ' jM iY/.!. ' ~,...ttI=r.\1o.l~'u~-" : :~1;~ "<. .' . .::.. I . :. . \'0~-::' . . .' r\~ ~ ' .' >. ,." . . . _':__,""':.:.l}'1.~\*~>r',".c~~'~..A>""'''''' ...""t.>>.:::<.:.... ,n., ~ .. .._~. .......4:".;:I(f~- ... . . it!.. . ,.. . . . .:0: 79178841 ~ 'U.."'A.._.__... ".. --.. . 1IiU -....-- __4__ --- ~g lJtwtnlun:~930"'( 918 /~,/~ dOTJo! J\uqust PI:)...... \llt l\.onDA w..-, 0.-.. ,..... . c-p, . .'1. D. 19 79 ,Made ',lil l,ltiillr - .'.Oel ~. ....--_..._~_.................,..-_. ........::::::i ::;--....: J:;::::,r.:! ~;::::. =:~:.:' .t ~~r:::. == ~~i.~~ \ ~~ ; _~litt1t%ttl1 GLASS HOeSE OF CiEAm~~TER, ~~~~'i~~flion a::i8tinJ u.nder the law, of Ui.e Sla.U of 1uz.vi1l1 iU prin.dpaJ. p1.a.a of bruUJelI i.1I. thc Cou.n.ty of State of Florida pa.rtv of Uu fl:r'.t part, tur.d. AL-N1t.YEM INTtL INCORPORATED, a Florida corporQtion, whose mailing address is 229 Gulf view Boulevard, Clearwater Beach, FL 3351 of the County of Pinellas etnd. suit.. of Florida pa.rty of Uu .econ4 part. -, . EiIitnrnnrtb thiit-Ure ,aid pa.rty Dr t.M fl.rd fX2J"'t- fo,. eLM m. ~1tIideru.tion of th.4 ,urn. 0/ TEN boLLll.RS J\ND O'rHE:R "^LUA~.LE CON~1'DERA'I.'ION5-----DO'tlliTl ' toQ tt in. htuuL pa.id. 'by tM ,a.id pa.rl1l of th~ ,eeOM pn.rl., tM rcCCtpt WMrefJf u h.erwV cu:Jcn.owZed.tt.d., 1uu trttn.ted., barta.ined. turd. .nld. to the ,aUi party of th~ ,econd. pari. forever, e/uJ foUowiAt tU-6eribed Lan.d, ,ilM.t.e, lyin4 and "int i.1I. tM COlUltll of Pinellas , BtaU of Florid.a., to wit: .' . 1-. . South 20 feet of Lot 56, all of:Lot 57, South 20 f~et of Lot lO:!, all of Lot 104. and' Lot: '105 of LLOYD-WlIITE- SKINNER SUBDIVISION, accordinq to ~he plat thereof as recorded in Plat ~k 13, page 12, Public Records of Pin~llas County, Florida. INC. , Florida pinellas , c.n.d Lot 106 and the Northerly 1/2 of Lot 107' of LLOYo-t-ntITF.- SKINNER SUBDIVISION, according to Plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 13, Page 12, Public necor~s of Pinellas County, rlorida (CONTINUED ON nr.VERSE SIDf-) .An.a th.r. ,rr.id party 'If th4 flnl pa.rt tlnel lterrl1;j fu.lJ.y lIKU'Ttz.n.t the title to !aitlland a.nd. will dt.ft.n.d tM ,amt. ata.ind the la.llJfu.l. C~lIlo! 01 tr.lL penOI'll Itlhom.8oel1er. ' 3111 JUIiturnn 1U1lt'rrl1f. thtJ .nlrl T'nrtu of t.1Uf flr.t part ho, CIliUM thtJ,41'rutsn t, to I,e .lz!n~tll" It. Iln7ntJ bV ILl 1'redde"t and.it' corporate.upl to b~ c.Jll.:ud. c.ttutcld butt. ' : the day and year above wrltt/J7l.. (Corp07'tJt8 .d.e~:J:'~~- JL/~-el. ~ By AUL VOULGARlS~ss~stg~~rctary DONG ~n . So l\wrr~ l1rrdrntr: , . 'I'. . ~ i ..':',~.~A;...:. j '::~f( ~l-:- ;~t.r.' .....",:J.: " . ~ . I .. I I x c. KBWH ~STATE IdJ 004 05:40PM \ \ \ JRN 11 101 tl.ll.l:l 93 0 HGl .: 01 0.lIl.l.!-8: 46 FAX 727 791 9733 . .. ..-.. .. .. 'Best. Copy Available Ui9 according to Plat puLlic ~ecord8 of , . Lot 1, nloCK 1\ of C01.UMBIA SU'tlLl!V'tS10N' NO.2, thereof as recorded in Plat'B~q~2l, page 79, pinel1as County, Florida. \ . . . '- ......' J."J~ r " "'.-:: .......... . ." "-- subject to easements and restrictions of record. ,'ni. Conveyance i. subject to .that certain ""ctgage in favor cf .... OF CLEARWA<&" reeOrded ,,"71 in 0.'. ,SS7, p.ge "S. public record. of .inella. coonty. Florid', with a priociP" bal.nce of .S"..,.7., wbicb tbe Grantee berein .pecifical'y ....... .nd .gree. to pay. _. con-"""" i. .ubjeet.to.that certain ""rt,.ga in f.vor of . ","""S "., __, .... K1L'" 3. K"""""" reco"""d S'lS!OS :. o. R. ,1<'. pa,e 11" ...igned 11/1S/11 1. 0.'. 'f". p.,e ",., public records of Finellas County. Floird', wi" a principal balanCe of Sl'7..""" which the Grantee herein .peeff'OOll' as.,~s and agrees to pay. VJII 0>; .. ;:;-=;::-"....... -;._.. ... .--..- ..~ ..J' J.~l r. .,... ..: ,",,"),-.,- ~_v.f.l,!~~...(f:.!:.Y. '. '. ..'~r:':;'::' ",. ~LI'l.l'!. I'I.'/..'.l;t.t' :::' :..-'- -" -- . =:: ~l..'="~'..l,,.t. 9 0 . ... ~ .~~~ ,DCll I'll ;?::.:~::. O. C J M ._ . ---... .'~ .n .'u L_ . . . . .. ....l~ .. .-- : -:. .. ,-:. :~h :---- --"" ,".:".~'---'" ,..,... ~ I.,.~"" '..", \ r.~ .,IW.~r:,/.=\'::: ... ~0;;; FLORi'Of. \ SU~~'~':\i ~ ... r~;"1 t't.~'\ \ . .~19 48 '20\ r " .::.:--..1 L oJ ~,~.,'~, l: ' ! ~.; _'" ... _ L-----. .~ - .:a ~;~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~t5~~~~;~~:~k: ;): :,. " : . ' , ::: ~.!.-:z uctl~'" '>::':.~'~-; 90 O. 00 I - i: . ..... .. ~ : ,'.)( .' ~ -...... ..~. .' r'I ~.-_.' '.-' .:t: ~ ".'.~ .~tt\"'~ .-:-.:..~::..---.... .... ';. . ,.::' 9 0 C,l1l! - .--- .... .O" .. :....:. ... "'~ '" ~o ... ,." ... ~:=, 1"::.~ -:- ' nO":llt...\~ t:"rr. ~~ {ilrf.t;nitvClIUl . '. = - ., . ~ ~ f! ;; Oc.lI\'U ':.:'-:.,;,.:'j S Q 7. & ~ _: ;r.....~.:: .. .. o. ----. ...--- _" ~.: .1. ~~" .~ ~% o S. ~ "" :..3 :l o c '" , j!:; o ~ B ~ ~ ~ o t; l o r< , ~ r ~ <.) ..... = o .._--~~ :.. -- .--...- \ \ t ',.. \ '::'( , ~'''~~~' :-:;~~~~ ~:~ ~"f"1~ ':~i'i-~"'i . :':~~;.~~ .,..;..~\.~ ..t~~~ ;;;~~ i~~ ".:~~. ",".,-~ ~t,!;;~ 'v~~ .~I~~ :~h~ .~ri~ .:~~ ~L7. '~1;;~.~:;' ;~~ ~:-r.~;c.-:... :_..r~ :{tJ ~:~~ ~...;,.!-~~~{;.. ";] ~\'~:' .....;:"..'jM.. :::r,~ t~j.: .~.~ k!! ."'~~ 'I~~' r'~::;~ .: ~ "I ~:~: t~ ":~ 4.~ ~ ~ -.. .- :. ./ ,:.;Y~" " \ . , CLEARWATER BEACH SEASHELL RESORT City of Clearwater Land Development Code, Section 2-803 C Comprehensive Inlill Redevelopment Projects Compliance with Criteria Exiisting Site Conditions The properties are developed with The Glass House Motel at 229 South Gulfview Boulevard, The Beach Place Motel at 301 South Gulfview Boulevard, and a single family house and out buildings at 300 Coronado Drive abutting the Beach Place Motel and operated under a common ownership. The proposed project assembles these parcels into a single development site, which incorporates the vacated Third Street right-of-way. Under the terms of the proposed development agreement, Gulfview Boulevard is proposed to be rebuilt to the west; this parcel seeks rights to use the eastern 1/2 of the vacated Gulfview Boulevard right-of- way. Surrounding land uses are: Gulfview Boulevard to the west, a single family unit and the Spyglass Motel to the north, Legends Steakhouse to the south and Coronado Drive to the east. Across Gulfview Boulevard, there is a public parking lot abutting the Gulf of Mexico. I The existing buildings consist of two motels which contain 66 hotel units. The existing properties contain several structures, all of which were built between 1941 and 1956. Most of the value in these properties is in the land. The present assessed value of the properties is $2,690,500. Land values are $1,910,000. The value of the existing structures is $780,500. The value of the new structure will be approximately $65,000,000. Redevelopment is proposed for these obsolete structures. The proposed use is a 250-unit full service hotel with banquet, restaurant and retail and an 800-space parking garage which will serve both hotel users and the general public. In order to accomplish the proposed development, the applicants propose to implement the Gulf Walk improvement outlined in Beach b" Design. This improvement will extend for approximately 1,000 feet, beginni:lg at the exit to the existing Pier 60 parking lot and extending southward. The G~llfWalk will provide landscaping, pedestrian and bicycle routes and a limited a;;'\Olmt of surface public parking, as well as a relocated travelway for vehicles. ~-js travelway will be built in a curvilinear design and will include "traffic c: " ming" features, Public parking will be replaced in the parking garage to be built. s part of the hotel. The public will access the beach by a pedestrian overpass. ., \ADMIN\2001\PROJECTS\1502-002 OOO\REPORTS\SE' ~ ;.CP CLEARWATER BEACH SEASHELL RESORT City of Clearwater Land Development Code, Section 2-803 C Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects Compliance with Criteria " Th(~ following responses provide justification for this Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, consistent with the City of Clearwater Land Development Code. 1. Thlt development or redevelopment of the parcel prQpased for development is _ _ otherwise impractical without deviations from the use, intensity and development standards. ~~7 , . I l~ ~.-..~ \so J ?- So"" _t; ~~ ~JL- ck...s'r / ~b~ ~<ff- s~ \?~9r .,l-q <:=; Vv-r Q~ \;)Jf ~ The proposed Seashell Resort will maintain the character of Clearwater Beach as a tourist destination and does not deviate from the permitted uses in the Tourist zoning district. As presented in Beach by Design, redevelopment of existing developed properties in Clearwater Beach is not economically feasible at the prevailing density of 40 units per acre. Beach by Design states that, "In order to justify the cost of demolishing income producing improvements (no matter how modest), new resort development would require a significant in~rease in density above 40 hotel units per acre". Standards for land intensity and development standards do not recognize the economics of redevelopment and the need to establish an appropriate scale of operations to support a full-service hotel with retail, banquet, restaurant and entertainment uses. The levels of amenities offered at this facility will reflect back to the luxury hotels which were built in Florida's golden age oftourist development. The principal difference between this property and older "grand hotels" is that the Seashell Resort will provide the room sizes, automobile accommodations and construction standards which will be consistent with present day development. It is not possible to provide this level of amenity, attraction and public benefit without deviation from the intensity standards contained in the Tourist zoning district. According to Beach by Design, "The economics of destination resorts are such that, except in very exotic locations they require a certain critical mass of rooms in order to support the high cost of quality improvements and amenities. Industry sources indicate that 200 to 250 rooms is a practical minimum for the number of rooms which are required to create a successful, highly-amenitized destination resort" . 2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a comprehensive infill redevelopment project will not reduce the fair market value of abutting properties. 2 G.\ADMIN\2001\PROJEcrS\IS02-002000\REPORTS\SEA-IN.CP ~~ b1~JJ5\)1 ~ ) 35 ~ 50 w } VV' ~~ \......... ;}- S'~ w~\A.. 50 - I VV \., "f tfV' '\'~~ I 0\-- ~ l\ 'Sil'.}- ~ \.\~ Ov- ~nl 'V.c\.,......sL ) CLEARWATER BEACH SEASHELL RESORT City of Clearwater Land Development Code, Section 2-803 C Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects Compliance with Criteria The value of property depends on the highest and best use, improvements on the site and the market factors of supply and demand. The value of abutting properties to the north and south will not be compromised, and will likely be enhanced, by_dev.e1opment .of_the SeashelLResort. . P-atrons of all nearby development will have access to covered parking spaces in the on-site garage. In addition, a substantial public benefit will be created by the relocation of Gulfview Boulevard, the creation of a pedestrian promenade on the existing Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way, and the retention of surface parking in the vicinity of existing businesses. Lush landscaping will replace asphalt paving in the front of nearby businesses. Pedestrian access will be enhanced. Clearwater Beach will have a supply of250 new hotel rooms, which will bring patrons to nearby restaurants and businesses. Existing motels will benefit from overflow patrons of conventions and meetings, and will also be able to offer covered parking in the public garage. The value of abutting properties is presently depressed by the current level of under-investment on the Seashell Resort site. According to property appraiser values, the land for the subject parcel is worth nearly twice the value of the improvements. The buildings on the site are about 50 years old. The new structure will add approximately $65,000,000 in building improvements. 3. The uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are otherwise permitted in the City of Clearwater. The uses on the site will be hotel (with accessory restaurant), meeting, lounge and retail use. The public parking space is an existing established use on Clearwater Beach. By relocating public parking into a covered garage, patrons will benefit from less heat build-up in parked vehicles, protection from salt and rain, and safe access to the beach via a pedestrian overpass which traverses the motor way, promenade and bike path. 4. The uses or mix of uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are compatible with adjacent land uses. The uses on the site are highly compatible with the adjacent land uses. There is a 3 G \ADMIN\200 l\PROJECTS\1 502-002 OOO\REPORTS\SEA-IN.CP CLEARWATER BEACH SEASHELL RESORT City of Clearwater Land Development Code, Section 2-803 C Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects Compliance with Criteria restaurant located to the south of the proposed site. There is an existing tourist property located to the north of the proposed site. Presently the site is developed with hotel units in several obsolete structures. This property renewal will set a new standard of elegance for development on the southern beach front. 5. Suitable sites for development or redevelopment of the uses or mix of uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are not otherwise available in the City of Clearwater. The developers of the Seashell Resort are the early visionaries who are willing to enter a partnership with the City to create both public and private benefits on Clearwater Beach. Other property owners may come forward with alternative development proposals. However, the Seashell Resort development has a unique location, in a strategic site within the area with redevelopment potential. Because it is located in the midst of the existing hotel district, it has potential spin-off benefits to other surrounding properties. It is located on the South Beach, which experiences the highest degree of visibility for beach-goers and the traveling public. Approval of the development agreement, which carries the commitment to rebuild Gulfview Boulevard, creates a significant public benefit which will provide an enhanced community recreation resource for decades to come. 6. The development of the parcel proposedfor development as a comprehensive infill redevelopment project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposedfor development. There will be a significant improvement to the function and appearance of both the public and private realm. According to Beach by Design, "A key element of Beach by Design is the transformation of South Gulfview into a local access street as a part of a great resort street/place". The public beach front will be transformed into a world-class beach experience. The developers will dedicate an additional 1 0 feet along the rear (Coronado Drive) property line to facilitate improvements for vehicles and pedestrians. With the creation of a beach front promenade, nearby businesses will be able to establish a pleasing interface with pedestrians, and to install outdoor dining, music and art. 4 G:\ADMIN\2001\PROJECTS\I502-002.000\REPORTS\SEA-IN CP CLEARWATER BEACH SEASHELL RESORT City of Clearwater Land Development Code, Section 2-803 C Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects Compliance with Criteria Landscaping proposed for the Gulfview relocation project is extensive. Over 50 specimen Majool Date Palms are proposed, along with 250 Sabal Palms. Paver tile or brick will be used for promenades, to replace the existing cracked concrete surfaces. 7. The design of the proposed comprehensive. infill redevelopment project creates a form andfunction which enhances,the community character of the immediate vicinity of the proposedfor development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. The design of the proposed Seashell Resort and surrounding property improvements will create a form and function which enhances and redefmes the community character of the immediate vicinity. The design of the hotel and parking structure features massing which steps back as elevation increases, creating elegant spires along the skyline. The second level is proposed to feature an arched pedestrian bridge from the parking structure to the beach. This will create a feature which will be recognized by motorists as well as pedestrians, and will provide a functional landmark for visitors and guests. By integrating the'public parking within the hotel structure, the community will gain a covered parking area which is compact and functional. At the same time, one of the objections to a parking garage - namely, that it will be a visual intrusion - will be overcome. The front elevation of the parking levels will contain guest rooms with balconies which overlook the Gulf of Mexico. The fayade will appear as a full hotel floor. Parking will be "camouflaged" behind the building elevation, and will be hidden from beach goers. The design of public improvements is extensively specified in Beach by Design. A great deal of expertise and public input has gone into the development of this design. It represents a detailed analysis of use, existing conditions and community needs. 8. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking 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. Flexibility in regard to setbacks and height is required to make this project 5 G \ADMIN\200 I\PROJECTS\1 502-002,OOO\REPORTS\SEA-IN CP CLEARWATER BEACH SEASHELL RESORT City of Clearwater Land Development Code, Section 2-803 C Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects Compliance with Criteria possible. The creation of the public parking benefit could not be accomplished without the six levels of internal parking. This in turn necessitates a relaxation of height standards. In addition, the design of the structure, with massing reduced as height increases, makes the increased building height a memorable asset of the design and creates pleasing proportions. By contrast,_the appearance.ofbuildings_u_ _._ _,_ .u... _v such as 440 West, which maintain the same proportions for their entire elevation, create a feeling of heaviness and have a roofline which is does not contribute to the cityscape. The proposed project needs relief from side setbacks due to the scale of the development, the need to provide for on-site building circulation, and the dedication of 10 feet of right of way along the rear property line. The promenade elevation, which will be improved by the developer for property for a distance of approximately 1,000 feet, will serve as a landscaped gateway to the community's businesses. In addition, this promenade area will function as a front setback with pedestrian amenities, such as a covered walkway, pavers, landscaping and a sidewalk cafe. 9. Adequate off-street parking in the immediate vicinity according to the shared parking formula in Division 14 of Article 3 will be available to avoid on-street parking in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. A combination of uses is proposed to serve the needs of tourists and day visitors. The hotel will include a multi-use parking garage with parking which exceeds the required hotel spaces by over 200%. The provision of adequate off-street parking is a hallmark feature of this development, and will create a significant community benefit. The amount of parking on-site will exceed the needs of the uses within the hotel. The shared parking formula documented in Division 14 of Article 3 provides a formula to be applied when multiple users within the same development share parking, with different users entering at different hours of the day. Although this formula is not strictly applicable to a hotel with adequate guest spaces as well as a significant number of public parking spaces, some of the parking occupancy characteristics are relevant for consideration in approval of the Seashell Resort. Beach users will largely be daytime patrons, while restaurant patrons will 6 G \ADMIN\200 I \PROJEcrS\1 502-002 OOO\REPORTS\sEA.IN CP . -.J:s.. vv~ \. \,~ r r:;, j)/' ~ \>-.(:l.....\ '? CLEARWATER BEACH SEASHELL RESORT City of Clearwater Land Development Code, Section 2-803 C Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects Compliance with Criteria principally be evening users. Entertainment uses will encompass both the recreational beach-goer and the evening bar and dining patrons. There is expected to be little conflict between the family going to the beach during the day and evening users who want to come for a sunset walk, a beverage and dinner on the beach. 10. The design of all buildings complies with the Tourist District design guidelines in Division 5 of Article 3. The design of the proposed Seashell Resort complies with the following design guidelines outlined in Beach by Design: II B. Height (2) portions of any structure which exceeds one hundredfeet (100') are spaced at least one hundredfifty feet (150') apart. The Seashell Resort will have two towers exceeding 100 feet in height. The bases of these towers are separated by 110 feet. (3)(a) between forty-two feet (42') and one hundredfiftyfeet (150') the floorplate will be no greater than 25,000 square feet: This design constraint cannot be accommodated in the subject parcel due to the establishment of parking on levels 2 through 7 of the structure. I j ~ .1 ! Between one hundred feet (100 J and one hundred jifty feet (I 50 J the jloorplate will be no greater than 10,000 square feet. The proposed height will have varying floor plates above the seventh level. The floor plate which will occur on levels 11 through 14 will have a floor area of approximately 9,000 square feet. II C. Design, Scale and Mass of Buildings 7 G'\ADMIN\2001\PROJEcrS\lS02-002 OOO\REPORTS\SEA-IN CP CLEARWATER BEACH SEASHELL RESORT City of Clearwater Land Development Code, Section 2-803 C Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects Compliance with Criteria (I) Buildings with a footprint of greater than 5,000 square feet or a single dimension of greater than one hundred (100) square feet will be constructed so that no more than two (2) of the three (3) building dimensions in the vertical or horizontal planes are equal in length. For this purpose, equal in length means1hatthe two- . ..._ _ . . lengths vary by less thanforty-percent (40%) of the shorter of the two (2) lengths. The horizontal plane measurements relate to the footprint of the building. The front elevation of the Seashell Resort has a base level facade of approximately 280 feet by 88 feet and meets this design criterion. Above the 88-foot level, the facade is broken into two towers located approximately 109 feet apart. A typical base elevation is established for levels one through seven which features guest rooms on levels three through seven. On the Coronado elevation, the towers are not sep~ated until the 11 th floor level is reached. Above the seventh (garage) level, the building mass is set back from the building edge and landscaping is instituted. (2) No plane of a building may continue uninterruptedfor greater than one hundred linear feet (l00? For the purpose of this standard, interrupted means an offset of greater than five feet (5? Offsets are provided on the Gulfview Boulevard and Coronado Drive elevations to exceed this standard. (3) At least sixty-percent (60%) of any elevation will be covered with windows or architectural decoration. For the purpose of this standard, an elevation is that portion of a building that is visible from a particular point outside the parcel proposed for development. The proposed design will comply with this requirement in the following manner: the Gulfview Boulevard elevation will consist 8' G \ADMIN\2001\PROJECTSI1502-002 OOO\REPORTS\SEA-IN CP CLEARWATER BEACH SEASHELL RESORT City of Clearwater Land Development Code, Section 2-803 C Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects Compliance with Criteria entirely of common areas or guest rooms with balconies. The Coronado Drive elevation will consist of openings to the parking garage on levels two through seven which will have an architectural treatment. On the north and south property eleyations, there will be large windQwsin guest rooms.abo.v-e the seventh floor. (4) No more than sixty-percent (60%) of the theoretical maximum building envelope located above one story will be occupied by a building. For the purpose of this standard, theoretical maximum building volume is the maximum permitted building vol~me that could be theoretically occupied by a building and occupied by a building includes any portion of the maximum possible building envelope that is not visible from a public street. This standard can realistically be applied only to levels above the parking deck. For those levels, the maximum calculated floor area ratio (per floor) is 42%. Therefore, it appears that the hotel portion of the building will comply with this standard, (5) The height and mass of buildings will be correlated to (1) the dimensional aspects of the parcel proposed for development and (2) adjacent public spaces such as streets and parks. The height and mass of the Seashell Resort have been designed to respond to the proportions of the site. The resort will be an integral part of the adjacent public spaces, through establishment of the promenade abutting the building and construction of an elevated pedestrian walkway to connect the hotel garage to the beach. (6) Buildings may be designedfor a vertical or horizontal mix of permitted uses. The Seashell Resort will provide a variety of uses for both hotel guests and the general public. 9 G'\ADMIN\2001\PROJECTS\I502-002.000\REPORTS\SEA-IN CP CLEARWATER BEACH SEASHELL RESORT City of Clearwater Land Development Code, Section 2-803 C Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects Compliance with Criteria D. Setbacks and Stepbacks 1. Right-of-ways The area between the building and the right-of-way (edge of pavement as ~xisting and planne4) should be sufficiently- wide to create a pedestrian-friendly environment. The distances from structures to the edge of the right-of-way should be:' (1) fifteen feet (15') along arterials; and (2) twelve feet (12') along local streets Setbacks from rights-of-way for Seashell Resort will be integrated with plans for the abutting streets. Where Gulfview Boulevard is proposed to be relocated, the building will adjoin the pedestrian promenade. Along Coronado Drive, an additional 1 0' of right-of- way will be deeded to the City. The applicant will reset the sidewalk as part of the building construction in an appropriate location to provide an attractive environment and a functional drop-off area for arriving guests. The minimum sidewalk width will be 10'. 3. Stepbacks For buildings over three stories (42 feet) in height, portions above 42 feet should be set back at least one foot for every two feet of additional height. ... Architectural details that create a "human scale" may be substituted for side and rear stepbacks. Step backs in facade elevations begin above the parking levels. These stepbacks, along with architectural details, comply with this design guideline. E. Lot Coverage and Open Space At least twenty-five percent (25%) of each parcel proposedfor 10 G'\ADMIN\2001\PROJEcrS\I502-002 OOO\REPORTS\SEA-IN CP " . ~v-V'~ ,yJ- I ~ 10 CLEARWATER BEACH SEASHELL RESORT City of Clearwater Land Development Code, Section 2-803 C Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects Compliance with Criteria development should be maintained as open landscape or qualifying hardscape. Open landscape or qualifying hardscape means "landscaped areas, plazas and other areas covered with pavers or other decorative treatments, but does not include off-street parking areas or roadways. The Seashell Resort will have a pool deck plaza of approximately 21,000 square feet. This is 28% of the site area. Hardscape areas at the ground level will provide for an attractive and functional interface with surrounding properties. Jr. Stree~LevelJracades (1) at least sixty percent (60%) of the street level facades of buildings used for nonresidential purposes which abut a public street will be transparent. Street level facades at the Seashell Resort are designed to exceed this standard with windows along the extent of both Gulfview Boulevard and Coronado Drive elevations. (3) Building entrances should be aesthetically inviting and easily identified. Building entrances are proposed to have canopies, walkway coverings and other features to make an attractive addition to the streetscape. G. Parking Areas . .. Entrances to parking areas should be clearly marked in order to avoid confusion. When a parking garage abuts a public road or other public place, it will be designed such that the function of the building is not readily apparent except at points of access or egress. The entrances to the Seashell Resort parking garage will be clearly marked. The parking garage is hidden from view on the rights of way in 11 G \ADMIN\200 I\PROJEcrS\1 502-002 OOO\REPORTS\SEA-IN CP CLEARWATER BEACH SEASHELL RESORT City of Clearwater Land Development Code, Section 2-803 C Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects Compliance with Criteria the following manner: Coronado Drive, architectural screening; Gulfview Boulevard, guest rooms located in front of parking area. H Signage ~ A complete signage program will be submitted for approval at a later date. 1. Sidewalks Sidewalks along arterials and retail streets should be at least ten feet (10' in width. All sidewalks along arterials and retail streets will be landscaped with palm trees spaced to a maximum of thirty-five feet (35' on centers, with "clear grey" of not less than eightfeet (8'. Portions of required sidewalks may be improvedfor non-pedestrian purposes including outdoor dining and landscape material, provided that: movement of pedestrians is not obstructed; and non-pedestrian improvements and uses are located on the street side of the sidewalk Distinctive paving patterns should be used to separate permanent sidewalk cafe improvements from the pedestrian space on the sidewalk Sidewalk widths and landscaping along Coronado Drive are provided consistent with these guidelines. Along the Gulfview Boulevard elevation the pedestrian promenade which will be created by the relocation of the street will comply with these guidelines. The balance of these guidelines (J-M) address issues which will be determined later in the construction process (for example, materials and colors), or are not relevant to the proposed project (fountains). Allocation of resort units from the "pool" proposed to be created in Beach by Design is contingent on meeting 14 criteria. The proposed project meets all of these criteria; specifically: 1. A minimum of 200 hotel rooms 12 G \ADMIN\2001\PROJEcrS\I502-002 OOO\REPORTS\SEA-IN CP .' "~'I '\, " CLEARWATER BEACH SEASHELL RESORT City of Clearwater Land Development Code, Section 2-803 C Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects Compliance with Criteria 2. A full range of amenities 3. Access to hotel rooms through lobbies and corridors 4. A national marketing affiliation 5. Trip generation management enforceable by covenant, (airport and resort ~huttle service) 6. Mandatory hurricane evacuation when warnings are posted 7. Maximum of 10% of rooms to have kitchen facilities 8. Exceptional architectural design 9. Frontage on Gulf of Mexico 10. Minimum size of 1 icre 11. Property currently has obsolete structures 12. Development density to be increased by transfer, height restricted to 150 feet 13. Create demonstrable benefits to the City 14. Participation in Clearwater Beach assessment program (when established). 13 G \ADMIN\200 I \PROJEcrS\ 1 502-002 OOO\REPORTSISEA-IN CP Flexibility Criteria Compliance Clearwater Seashell Resort LC General Standards A. COitlditions to insure that: 1. The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density and character of adjacent properties in which it is located. The proposed development is the beginning of a planned renewal of Clearwater Beach Beach bv Design establishes new directions in pedestrian circulation, landscaping, traffic movement, land use and recreation amenities. The Seashell Resort is the vital first imp'lementation step in this r:.e..cliaJelopment process. Among the directions of Beach bv Design is the creation of a new prototype for development on the barrier island The character of the existing development in this vicinity of Clearwater Beach is anticipated to be changed and upgraded by these improvements. Increased harmony with pedestrian usage, increased landscaping and improved amenities for beach users will be the result. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. The proposed development will encourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings. The surplus public parking which is available in the 833-space internal garage will be available for patrons of surrounding businesses and for recreation use. The redesigned beach promenade will improve the street frontage and make retail opportunities more attractive. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. All properties will retain access to the beach promenade and to the enhanced auto and pedestrian zone. Emergency vehicles and public services will continue to be provided 4. The proposed development is designed to minimi7.e traffic congestion. Traffic congestion is examined in great detail in Beach bv Design. The proposed development implements that plan and encourages non-vehicular circulation. Essentially the same amount of traffic capacity is retained under the new plan. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The proposed development establishes an improved community character and renews the major beach tourist area which has not had significant investment in over 30 years. This project is supportive of county-wide efforts to renew our tourist facilities and resorts.. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. The design of the development will not have a negative effect on adjacent properties. All refuse, parking and other potentially adverse elements are screened within the structural envelope. Flexibility Criteria, Tourist Zoning District K. Overnight Accommodations 2. Height: The increased height results m an improved site plan and/or improved design and appearance. The increased height will enable the establishment of a distinctive profile on Clearwater Beach The increased height is mitigated by a reduction in building mass as the height increases, which creates a graceful appearance and an elegance in design. Views afforded from the upper level rooms will be a high quality addition to the community's inventory of tourist accommodations. 4. Setbacks: a. The reduction in front setback contributes to a more active and dynamic street life. Street life will be facilitated by pedestrian activity at both the Gulfview and Coronado street edges. Retail and restaurant opportunities will be offered at the street level. In addition, a second level pedestrian zone is created along the gulf side of the hotel which will allow for additional shops or restaurants. Cafe seating will be offered along the Gulf side promenade. b. The reduction in front setback results in an improved site plan or improved design and appearance. The reduction in setbacks provides an opportunity to create a sophisticated resort image at the street level. Canopies will be provided over the gulf side and Coronado street entrances. A motor court entrance will be provided internal to the site. c. The reducti.on in side and rear setbacks does not prevent access to the rear of any . building by emergency vehicles, The reduction in setbacks does not prevent access to the rear of any building by emergency vehicles to a greater extent than does the existing development. d. The reduction in side and rear setbacks results in an improved site pl~ more efficient parking or improved design and appearance. The reduction in side and rear setbacks enables the entire site to be used for hotel and parking purposes. Public parking will encompass approximately 70% (583 of833 spaces) of the internal garage. Parking, circulation and access are greatly enhanced by the reduction in setbacks. e. The reduction in side and rear setbacks does not redHee-the amount of landscaped area otherwise required. Landscapingfor this unique p,!oject will be accommodated in three components. Implementation of the Beach bv Design plan will be accomplished from the northern boundary ofth.e Pier 60 parking lot to a terminus south of this site. This landscape and circulation program calls for establishment of an entirely new accessway and landscape environment in an area which is presently devoted to an asphalt parking lot. Extensive use of specimen and landscape trees will be accomplished in this area. This program will include a pedestrian overpass to the beach. The second landscape component is the area immediately adjacent to the building facades. On the gulf side, a promenade will be established in the right-of-way of the existing Gulfview Boulevard This promenade will incorporate pavers, street trees, lighting and other amenities to integrate activity with the buildingfacade and enhance the pedestrian experience. Adjacent to the Coronado Drive entrance, street trees will be provided consistent with recommendations of Beach bv Design. The third landscape component will occur on the pool deck This will provide internallandscapingfor hotel guests and building users. The pool deck will have inset tree wells and landscape planters. .' .,' (t~ ~ '"" TRAFFIC IMP ACT ASSESSMENT FOR CLEARWATER SEASHELL RESORT LC PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA ~ .' d~ Prepared For: ~ '( Clearwater Seashell Resort LC .. .t'"f N- .' II Prepared By: /'::": . mg i l.h, orial Highway rial Center, Su ite 300 orida 33634 January 2001 Project # 1502-002-000 c'., e ~: ~ L ~ [ . F t~. r-' ~ f-: ~t cn. r" I I I " I TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION II. EXISTING CONDITIONS A. Roadway and Traffic Characteristics B. Traffic Volumes C. Capacity Analysis _ ill. FUTURE CONDITIONS A. Traffic Generation B. Trip Distribution and Traffic Assignment c. Capacity Assessment IV. CONCLUSIONS LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Table 2. Trip Generation Analysis Two-way Link Level of Service LIST 0]8' FIGURES Figure 1, Figure 2" Project Location Map Future Traffic (2002) APPENDICES Appendix A Appendix B FDOT Generalized Level of Service Tables Art-Tab and HCS software anaylsis worksheets Page 1 1 1 3 3 3 5 5 8 5 7 2 6 r., t . I f.'. I. INTRODUCTION ~~ ," "OJ: ~ ~ King Engineering Associates, Inc., has prepared an assessment of the existing and future traffic circulation patterns for the proposed Clearwater Seashell Resort LC. The proposed project will consist of250 hotel rooms and an 833 space parking garage located on Clearwater Beach adjacent to Coronado Drive and Gulfview Boulevard. The project location can be found in Figure 1. r- 4 p;:: t: r L r~ ~ (,., ,-, The purpose of this traffic impact analysis is to describe the impact that the proposed development will have on the surrounding roadway network, and intersections affected by project traffic. ll. EXISTING CONDITIONS A. Roadway and Traffic Characteristics There are currently 66 hotel units located within the site of the proposed project. The two existing streets that will provide ingress and egress to the proposed developments are Coronado Drive and Gulfview Boulevard. Coronado Drive is a two-lane collector roadway that traverses in a north/south direction from Gulfview Boulevard to Hamden Drive. Gulfview Blvd. is also a two-lane collector running in a general north/south direction along the western side of the island. The two streets run parallel to each other in the immediate vicinity of the project. ~~ ,~~ ~~ " Gulfview Boulevard is proposed to be rebuilt as a scenic drive with pedestrian amenities as part of this project. This redevelopment will include the relocation of existing beach front parking directly in front of the project. Public parking needs that will be affected by this development have been included in the new development plan. B. Traffic Volumes Annual average daily traffic (AADT), volumes for Coronado Drive and Gulfview Blvd. were provided by the Traffic Operations Division of the City of Clearwater as 11,236 and 14,410 respectively. The volume for Coronado Drive was for the year 1998, and was grown at a rate of 2% per year to calculate present day level of service. Peak hour totals were calculated by applying the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) "K factor" of 0.091 to the AADT. Coronado drive V\l\iV>I'.I<. ~C:NV"^^""",^",..v~,^",V,^"",^".I'.u....",,... << ....""''''''u"....r''''''''-(..JVJVJ''^"'^'.l'......"^''''''''.r'^^'."..^U 'Q:';<<"~"::'^^'''^^^ fi!in d =t--~ C \BOB\PINELLAS\SEASHEL.RES I r~ / . 1 . f' ! ' r I'~' ,p ;~: N ~1 f~~ " .''1,- - I, one Pt , ''-: '- ~ N. T. S. r L fj (:~L - t~. r~ ~ !:" -,~, WA :i ....:.~- _... <' ~... ,~~ .:~!~,,;.w ,~. :~= . _ l-. . .. ~ < ! '. .I FIGURE 1 LOCATION MAP ~ ic.R g 4921 IIEIIORIAl HIGHWAY ONE IIEMORIAl CENTER, SUITE 300 TAlAPA, F1..0R10A 33634 PHONE B13. SBO . 8861 f!>:J. B13 . 680 . 6662 SEASHELL RESORT HOTEL l' l . f [ L [ !- has an e:xisting peak hour volume of 1,064, while Gulfview Blvd. has a volume of 1,311 vehicles in the same period. c. Capacity Analysis According to the FDOT's 1998 Level of Service Handbook generalized tables, Coronado Drive is currently operating at Level of Service (LOS) "C" and Gulfview Boulevard is currently operating at LOS "D". A "D" indicates an acceptable level of service. Copies of the generalized level of service tables are contained in Appendix A. III. FUTURE CONDITIONS I 1;'" ,.' \\\' ! f" ~ [ L, i 1 I This section of the report contains trip generation, trip distribution and traffic assignment information. A. Traffic Generation The proposed development will include the following: 250 Hotel Rooms 833 Parking Spaces (garage) ITE L U Codes 330 Trip generation for the proposed project was developed using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition. The Clearwater Seashell Resort is anticipated to exhibit characteristics of a resort hotel, (i.e., a tourist destination). It will contain meeting rooms, a ballroom, restaurants and retail services. The Institute Of Transportation Engineer Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition describes a Resort Hotel (Land Use 330), as similar to hotels (land use 310), in that they provide sleeping accommodations, restaurants, cocktail lounges, retail shops and guest services. The primary difference is that resort hotels cater to the tourist and vacation business, often providing a variety of recreational facilities, rather than convention and meeting business. The Clearwater Seashell Resort anticipates providing business and convention services in addition to being a deluxe resort destination. Since ITE 6th Edition does not provide a daily rate for Resort Hotels, LV Code 310 (Hotel)was used to determine daily traffic. rn.............. <<.oocr>>.....,...."VJ'>...,..........."J'.v\IVVV' .:;: .....> ^'^^""'^^^^"^.,.~...'^"": ... """"""'" ~~g C.\BOB\PINELLAS\SEASHEL.RES 3 r. l. [' r r: Due to the resort nature of this project, traffic will be spread-out throughout the day, and peaking characteristics will follow the adjacent street traffic. This means the A.M. peak hours will be between 7:00 and 9:00 A.M., and the P.M. peak period will be between 4:00 and 6:00 P.M. This results in a lower number of trips in the peak periods than would be displayed by a typical business hotel. f" l.. As no ITE code exists for a parking garage, trip generation for the onsite parking facility was developed using local data provided by the City of Clearwater. For the month of July 2000, 31,255 vehicles: were recorded as exiting the "Pier 60" parking facility near the study area. The facility has 218 available parking spaces and records their use through vehicle exit tolls. P'l' ~~t: In order to convert this total into usable data, the 31,255 "exits" were broken down into a daily average totaling 1,008. Using the FDOT "K factor" this was then converted into a peak hour total of92. Assuming 218 parking spaces, the total converts to 4.6 vehicle trips per space on a daily basis and 0.422 trips per space on an hourly basis. I [~ r ! L The City of Clearwater has observed that as the majority of these parking spaces are used by beach patrons, the peak hours of use do not conform to most other types of land use. The length of stay of each vehicle was estimated at 2 - 2.5 hours and most traffic leaves the existing parking lot between 2:00 and 3:30. This means the affect of beach parking traffic on peak hour volumes does not generally impact the (4:00 - 6:00) PM peak hour of the surrounding land uses. In order to remain conservative, this study assumes a "worst case scenario" and makes no adjustments for this difference in peak hours of use. Parking figures are calculated as impacting the most during the traditional PM peak between 4:00 and 6:00. In order to account for a natural growth rate in traffic along Coronado Drive and Gulfview Blvd., existing (year 2000) roadway totals were "grown" at a rate of 2% per year to achieve an accurate future level of background traffic. This growth had to consider, however, the removal of the 350 public parking spots from the beach front area (pier 60). As they would no longer be generating traffic, they could no longer be considered in area background volumes. Using the generation rate supplied by the City of Clearwater and the number of spaces in the lot, a total of: 1,610 (daily) and 148 (peak hour) was subtracted from Coronado and Gulfview (50-50 breakdown) background traffic. This resulted in a peak hour total of 1,030 and 1,287 for Coronado and Gulfview respectively. ~ -^^".l'^".I'.N"""".r.I'>.v>. ~ ~ U'JV.l'.l':r.. .l'J<.'^....l'...",..l''^''''''''''~ .IV.......'^"""'....rJY..'""."............."""" .l''''~ ;U"ind ~__e C \BOB\PlNELLAS\SEASHEL,RES 4 \. [. r [' f?~ I ~ r~~; L f~ l r' r ~ [" '~~ L ! , Of the 833 parking spaces that will be built, 250 of them will be reserved for hotel guests at a rate of one per room. This lowers the number of public spaces "generating" traffic in the area to 583. When the generation rate obtained from the "Pier 60" facility is applied to these spaces, a daily total of 2,682 and a peak hour total of 246 is determined. Generation totals for the entire project are illustrated in Table 1. Table 1 TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS r TYPE OF USE NUMBER OF - DAILY TRIPS -PM-PEAK-HOUR ROOMS/SPACES GENERATED TRIPS GENERATED Hotel Rooms 250 1,868 75 Parking Spaces 583 2,682 246 Totals 4,550 321 B. :rrip Distribution and Traffic Assignment To gain ingress and egress to the project, traffic is anticipated to be split between Coronado Drive and Gulfview Boulevard at a rate of 40 to 60%. Access to each roadway will be through a driveway located on the south side of the site that accesses both Coronado and Gulfview. The existing intersection of Coronado Drive and 3rd Street will be closed on the northside of Coronado Drive, and form a T-intersection. There will be a hotel service driveway along the north side of the development but as this will experience minimal traffic, it has not been included in this study. Considering the current level of development and roadway usage surrounding the project, it was assumed that traffic along both Coronado and Gulfview will be oriented 75% toward the north and 25% toward the south. The 321 PM peak hour vehicles generated by the project were distributed according to the percentage "ins and outs" provided in the rTE Trip Generation Manual for resort hotels. This resulted in a total of 183 (57%) vehicles leaving the development during the PM peak and 13:8 (43%) entering during the same period. Figure 2 provides a complete illustration of projected future traffic movements. IC>V'~:;.:..:..:.:.:""'''''''"-'"'''''^'''-''''''~ ~ : :: : : ~ '^""'^""""""" .l'.AJUV"'JO.n.JA.V'J J'.l'J ~/....~ :c: "'..^"'^^""'-'J'.I'.r.v.H\.'"...IV..""".l'U.l'.l':::::::..l'.u..."",,"^' Rind =-~~ C \BOB\PINELLAS\SEASHEL.RES 5 r- ; , ," fU r C~ ~i~ r ~' '.:: 0, f:,' f; t' r~ ~ L h~ rJ~; LEGEND N \. XX = PROJECT TRAFFIC (XX) = BACKGROUND TRAFFIC I ". N. T. S. I I . L I 0 SERVICE DRIVEWAY ct: ~ W -1 > => 0::: 0 0 m to PROJECT 0 3: 0 . w <( G: SITE z 0 -1 ct: => 0 <-' ----. ----. () It) N lON NI"- elO '<tt:- ., ~ .J ., L82 55j ,28 18, if" r- ,1* NN , N 1"1 '-" FIGURE 2 SEASHELL RESORT HOTEL ~ iC'AM g 4921 UEUORIAl HICHWAY FUTURE TRAFFIC (YEAR 2002) ONE MEUORIAl CENTER, SUITE JOO T,wPA, FlORIOA 33634 PHONE 813.880.8881 FAX 813.880' 8882 '. C. Capacity Assessment -- ,,'j ~~\~i ~ti, ,). The redevelopment of this section of Clearwater Beach into a luxury resort and public parking structure is not expected to cause degradation to the existing level of service along either Coronado, Gulfview or the surrounding roadway system. , . The peak hour level of service for both study area streets was determined through the addition of background traffic and project traffic. Using the FDOT Generalized Level of Service Tables, Coronado Drive maintains a LOS "C", while Gulfview Blvd. falls to an LOS "E". Additional capacity analysis was prepared for Gulfview Blvd. using the FDOT 1998 LOS spreadsheet ART T1U3. When Gulfview Blvd. was analyzed with the "Art-Tab 3.0 arterial level of service program,. it was found to display an LOS "D". With this, both routes remain within an acceptable level of service (LOS D) as shown in Table 2. ~ . " " , " i~ '.. ['~ ~.~' r' ~ t'" The Highway Capacity Software (HCS) program, version 3.2 was used to determine the projected LOS of both project site driveway access points. Using the 2002 peak hour background volumes for Coronado Drive and Gulfview Blvd. as well as traffic generated by the project, turning movement volumes were determined according to the distributions pattern discussed above. Background traffic was assumed to not be entering/exiting either driveway and peak hour project traffic was distributed as is show in Figure 2. The results of the intersection capacity analysis revealed that the driveway accessing Gulfview will operate at a LOS "C" in year 2002 and the driveway accessing Coronado will operate at LOS "D". These are within the acceptable level of service standards for these intersections. ~'T '}ii y~ ! ~~; Table 2 Two-way Link Level of Service I 1, 1 Segment Class Existing Volumes 2002 Traffic Volumes - Peak Hour Daily Hourly LOS Background Project Total LOS Coronado Dr. 1 11,690 1,064 C 1,030 128 1,158 C Gulfvlew 2 14,410 1,311 D 1,287 193 1,480 D .IV""",""",,- ~ :.J'.l\I\.""v.r.l'JJ''''''^'''.l'.'......'''"~ ~,."......~.....~ ~~g C'\BOB\PINELLAS\SEASHEL RES 7 C'. 1..- f r .- IV. CONCLUSIONS ~c.. \\")' \\h t!f, The proposed project, Clearwater Seashell Resort LC, will consist of 250 hotel rooms and an 833 space public parking structure. The redevelopment of this area of Clearwater Beach is not anticipated to cause a degradation to the existing roadways and intersections. !' ~ Flr' f . r~ r.... " " r r L. L. r;;- :$ ~,' PM>.'Oo.~';:X;.oo.,x:lCC : ::: ::c~ '^' ~-""^"" ::::l:;C ~A <<..: Kin d =--~ C \BOB\PINELLAS\SEASHEL RES 8 L. . \ ,J\. \~~ i ~ 1*' ~ ~ r~'- "-> r~ ~ L L., APPENDIX A FDOT GENERALIZED LEVEL OF SERVICE TABLES ~\i'k ;~~ '\I" r r- 1998 L~:vel 0; Service Handbcc,L: Flonda. Department of TransportaClon Table 5-4 ~~ ~,.., '" :~ ,(? ~-'::;:~':~'~f'-/;, ,.'~': .~' .i;~::~;:;":: GEN!=8AUZ;EDAII!II!UA,L~.V'.E:BA.~EJ;TAI~'fV.OLUMESiFO~.Ft:qRIDA'S:. ..., :.',:.'.". .;, .:. '-.: .....:. 'I' ~. ~.~:::~ ~....: ~t. . ::~ ~:. ;'f~~""i.:.:~::;.:.~;~ ~:~~.:~~:~ t': ~. ~.. ,.:. '::':.': ~;:;;.~: .~.:. :.:.~' .' ....'., :,..' . .... :,,",~..!~. ':~. . '.: ".:.,~: 7~:':{ ~ .~'...' . ..~:: ~~;. 'j ;,:.:~: ~~:. . ...:':. .::.~: I _' ;.". . -_,,'. "', -..'- -"',"'" ,.... . ", .,....., URBANIZED. AREAS . '",,~ .. ,.. '. ....., ,.....'., . ., .... ,I ~ . .", ........,.,. '.', ..!..-..:..--.:..::....._--:. '. ~ ------.....:- '. .... ...~ . ,.', ......- ,....,' -'..' '-J STJal; TWo-WA'lIRTERIA.S FREEWAYS lNIIlEIRI'laI fUlIIII ~ nal gnlllzecl Group 1 IotlhIn _011 _ .....5OCI.OOQ _Iooqlll arpoulng"'lNAllNIoa allho _dlll___ Lan..,' Lev eI 01 Serllce Dlvldld A 8 C D E Lev eI 01 Serv Ice 2 Undlvkled 8,900 13,900 18,900 24,800 33, 100 I Lan.. A 8 C D E 401v1dod 21,500 35,800 50,100 60,100 71,800 4 21,200 34,300 51,500 66,200 81,700 8Dlvldlld 32.200 53. 700 75.200 90.200 107400 8 32, 600 52,700 79,000 101.800 125.400 8 <<,500 71.800 107.800 138,800 171.100 10 55,600 89,800 134,700 ~ 173,200 213,800 NTEm.PlEIl R.CIo'/ 12 65 200 105400 15"'1l1O 203 200 250 900 Class I C>Q.llOIlI1J11~__;>er_1 Group 2 ___ ondnollnGlaD II Lan.., -- - - leY II 01 s.v Ice __ . - -- -- -r . - Lev eI 01 Sarv Ice Dlvld,1CI It" B C D- E- Lan.. A 8 C D E 2 UndIv I3d NlA 10,800 15,600 18,600 18,600 4 20,900 32,800 49,200 62. 600 74,500 4Dlvlli1ld NlA 23,500 33.200 35,000 35,000 8 32,100 50,400 75,600 98,200 114,500 8Dlvld1ld NlA 35,800 048.,900 S2,S00 52,500 8 43,800 88,800 103,200 131,300 158,300 8 Divided NlA 45.300 81.400 84.400 84.400 10 54,700 88,000 129.000 184,200 195,400 12 84.100 100.800 151.200 192, 400 229. 100 Clasall lLOO 10 4.SI___-............. .I NON-sTAre ROIOWAlS Lanelll Level 01 Service w.JaI CITY.ca.MY ROUlWAYS DIvided If" 8" C D E 2UndlYlded N/A NlA 9,900 14,900 18,200 Lev el of Serv Ice 4 Olv kled N/A NlA 22,900 32,500 34,300 Lane. Jr 8" C D E 8 Divkled NlA N/A 35.500 48,900 51,700 2 UndIY Ided N/A NlA 8,600 14,600 18,000 8Dlvkled N/A N/A <<.700 60.100 83,400 4 DIv Ided NlA NlA 19,800 31,700 33, 900 8 Dlv Ided N/A N/A 30.800 47.800 51 000 Class IU =:..-=-'t:c;-::=a;::.-:-~"'lNnpClIlII1'" anER SlGHAU2ED PCJN1NAYS (slgnaJlzsd int8l'Sectloll analysIS) Lann' leYel of Service Lanes Jr 8" C D E DIvided It" 8" C 0 E 2 Undlv Ided I NlA NlA 4,800 10.900 11,900 I 2 UndN Ided NlA NlA 3,300 12, 100 15,800 4 Divided NlA NlA 11.600 23.800 25.400 4 DIv'~ N/A NlA 7.800 27,800 33,600 8 Divided NlA NlA 12.100 43,300 so.SOO 801vl~ N/A N/A 15.300 54.200 62.100 IOJUSlMENiS llIVlIleDIUNllMIlED Class IV ...... "'"" 4.!0 IlgnoliDd_.... ....._ _"'lI1In pUlaay cll, _ lI"*c_plIldnQ __ __Old poo:a) buI__lll___5llO..OOOI Left l\&rn AdJustment Lan.. Median Bays Factor. Lan.'" leY II of Serv Ice 2 Olvlded Yes ~% DIvided It" 8" C D E 2 Undlv Ided No 40% 2 U ndi',lded N/A N1A 3,700 13,800 15,300 Multi Undlv Idecl Yes -5% 4 Divided NlA N1A 8.900 29.900 32,600 Mull UndIv Idecl No -25% 8 Divided N/A N1A 14.000 45.500 49,000 8 Divided N/A N/A 17.500 56,200 60.100 ONE-WAY lI"*-plIldnQ __ .......IndI_ polConI} the Florida Depal1ll\ent of Transportation On.Way AdJustment Soul'ee: Systems Plannong Otllce Lan.. e__ Factors 805 Suwannee Street . MliI Stallon 19 """"'fIIIIl ..... Tallahassee. FlorIda 32:39&-0450 2 4 - -40% 3 8 -40% hltITJI-.dot.stala.fLusJplannong 4 8 -40% 5 8 .25% . The table does not constKute a standanl and should be used only lor general planning applcallons. the computer models from whlcl11hls table Is derived shoukl be used for more specHIc p1aMing appllcallons. The table and deriving computlJ( models should not be used lor cOlrtdot or Int8tSBCtlon design. whenr more refined lechniques exlsl Values showllll8 annual average daily volumes (based on Kl00 tactors. not peak-to-daJly rallos) lor levels of service. and &Ie blLSed on lhe 1997 Update 10 \he HlgI1we.y CapaCIty Manual and Florida trafllc. roadway. and signall2allon data. The lable's input value assumptions and level ,~ service criten. appear on the following page. .. Cannot be actueved. ,.. Volumes are comparable because In1I1lSBCllon capactles have been reached. September 1998 ~p: '. \'A:' ~~~ ~t~ . r ~ r~ f' - ". !n~ t.;..., .' " ~;; t:" ~ I:' . 91 ~ 1998 Leve'l of Service Handbook Florida Department of Transportation 0,). Table 5-7 STm: TWQ-WfJ:f IfllERlA/..S FREEWA'YS UNlNTERRJPlEl RON UnsignaJlzed = U::=':.""~=ctlond I_ng 10 llrpeaalng wttIin 6 miles oIl11e Lanes! Lave! of Service Divided A B C D E l.eYe! of Servlte 2 UndiVllled [ 810 1,270 1,720 2,260 3,010 Lanes A B C D E 4 Div ided 1,950 3,260 4,560 5,470 6,510 4 1,900 3,000 4,500 5,800 7,200 6 Divided 2,930 4.890 6840 8.210 9,770 6 2,900 4,600 7,000 8,900 11,000 8 3,900 6,300 9,500 12,200 15,100 10 4,900 7,900 11,900 15,200 18,800 INTERRUPTED RON 12 5700 9300 1 900 17900 100 Class I ~oo 10 1.911llg1allzedl__ pll'm1lal Group 2 _n_ed...lllclnoIInGlaloll1 Lanes! Lave! of Service l.eYeI of Service Divided A" a c D'" E- Lanes A B C D E , U-"T NlA 1,000 1,450 1,550 1,550 4 1,900 3,000 4,500 5.800 6,900 4 Divided N/A 2, 190 3,080 3,260 3,260 6 3,000 4,600 7,000 8,900 10.500 - , 6 Div Ided N/A 3,330 4,640 4,890 4,890 " 8 4,000 6,300 9.500 12, 100 14,400 8 Div Ided N/A 4,210 5.710 5.990 5.990 10 5.000 7,900 11,900 15, 100 18,000 12 5900 9300 1 900 17700 21 100 Class II (2.llO Ia ~.50 Ilplzed Intllloc1lOlll per_I NON-sTJa'E ROADWA'IS Lanes! Lave! of Service w.Jal alYlCOJN'TY RClAIlWA YS Dlvtded AU B" C D E 'U-"T N/A NtA 920 1,390 1,500 4 Divided N/A NtA 2,130 3,020 3, 190 Lanes 6 Div ided N/A NtA 3.300 4.550 4,810 2 Undiv Kled 8 Divided N/A N/A 4160 5590 5900 4 Divided 6 Div ided ~ Clas s III r.:~lh~~III~c~".:l=,~~:,=~~1oIlhIn pdmarycl1y OllER SIGNAU2EO ROMlWAYS (slgnafi2ed Intersection analysis) Lanes! Lev at of Service Lanes ~ B" C D Divided A" B" C D E 2 Undivided I NJ} Nt} 430 990 'U__ [ N/A NtA 310 1,110 1,450 4 Divided Nt} NI} 1,060 2.170 4 DlYlded N/A N/A 720 2,560 3,090 6 Dlv idee! N/A NtA 1,120 3,980 4,650 8 Divided N/A N/A 1 410 4,990 5.710 E 1,090 2.310 ADJUSlMENlS DIVIDEDrUIOIVDED Class IV t::"nosu.:ndl~:ct~~~'=~~f:~~ erd wflhln pdmary clly cenlnll Lanes( Lavel of Service DIvided AU B" C D E , U__ [ N/A NJA 340 1,270 1,410 4 Div Idad N/A N/A 820 2,750 2,990 60ivided N/A N/A 1,290 4,190 4,510 B Divided N/A N/A 1,610 5.170 5.530 Lanes 2 2 MUll MUll Median Dlvldecl Undiv Ided Undlv Ided Undlv Ided (aliII' CGmIIpClIIdIng __ volume IndIclllld peo:enI) Left 1\Jrn Idlustment Bays Factors Yes +5% No -20% Yes -5% No -25% ONE-WAY (aU..._pondIng -.way volume lnclcaild ~onl) Source: The Aonda Department of Transportation S)'stems Plammg Office 605 Suwannee Street - MIll StatIOn 19 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-<>450 One-Way Idjustment Lanes ~:t:.. Factors 2 4 -40% 3 6 . 40'1'. 4 B -40% http://wNN.dot.state.fl.usIp1anrung 5 B -25% . The table dOE'S not constftute a standard and should be used only tor general planning applications. The computer models from \IhIch thiS table IS denved should be useel for mora specific planning applications. The table and deriving computer models shoukl not be used for comdor Dr intersection desIgn, 'oIotlere more refined tllchnlques alOSt. Values shown are two-way hourly maximum volumes fO/' levels of servee, and am based on the 1997 Update to the Highway Capacity Manuat and Flonda traffiC, roadway, and Signalization data To conven to annual average daily traffic volumes. these vOlumes must be divided by an appropnate K100 factor (not peak-to<laliy ratiO), The table's Input value assumptions and level of service critena appear on the follo.....lng page. .. Cannot be achieved. ... Voltmes are comparable because Intersection capacilles have been reached, September 1998 (iJ - ~_a7~1~~{S'.ll : . 0.- ~ . &teriaii4~Y~I.QlisEf.;vlc~ -Yiil!Jrne:=T-ables. - aased~~~ha~ter ff;-otthe _-1~:9I~.8.i9h.~~y~capjiit5'~anu~~Upda!e._ . :i~~~<;~~d~epa~,1~1,1~~Ptat~..._:; j,,1 \l1 " - --~_-.. - -Jr.r - -_-- - -- --~.~.........,...- -==.---rr---- ------- -~;;. '.:~~~~=-~2~':~~: .~ii:; 'i.~t=,. >;lJ:. .. --"- '""- -- - - - - . ___ I - -- -'..~~-2:: ,-~-~""'~;:..;.. . -...;.~.i; .~- "~ I~P~d~:;ii~~flf';1 N/A 480 810 880 880 N/A 1,060 1,670 1,760 1,760 N/A 1,650 2,520 2,640 2,640 - N/A 2,240 3,370 3,520 3,520 ~.z- ~' ~ -r=.- .-= ., ~Y: tlill LNr~ :.-~. .-, ~ .f~ '~A' - ;:-~i - ".; ~~- ,..::-=. 'n- ~ - - - - - ,__.,,--f:;.: :: _ ~ ~-;~ ~ ~~'": .....~...;~~=: .;: ~_ ~:_::. -" ='- _.: . _:.T- .~EAK~.tlOUfrl-~QUUMI;i(~9'taiDlRE6I10NS) . ~~7~:~~ ~;; ~~~~ng~1-e: ~~f:f!~~i~~~tf~:-~~{~~e~)~~-' c ~ -- . '": - ~ 7,f~I;FLC;GI1~BAQ:TERISTIG~~. : :. ..... ~ = ;~'::'=--.,.=~.. ~ _ -:. _~"':;'L,~ ~ :. ~ E;;;j:~~KFactor: 0:~;1~' -,~. h ~~Ar.~Facto2 0.568 . __ . - -. - ~r ~act?r: 0.95 AdE-Sa _ 30w Rate 1850 Yo "ums10n1l~~~(~ve La!Je 12 ~-..,"Z. - -.-.=.:='- ~-. -:- -.. ..,:..:::;.. ~ ~nge- ~o.Q~:;' 0;2CJ) Ro.~:' 1.00) ~O:7;.:Q ~ 1.00) ~(t409 - 2000) 10:-=100) ~evel of; Serv~g~. __ B;' 850 1,870 2,900 3,940 _ - LANES:- 2 4:-. 6- -. h 8: - e~::= 1,550 3,090 4,640 6,190 -A N/A N/A N/A N/A C 1,420 2,950 4,440 5,940 . E- 1,550 3,090 4,640 6,190 .;'-: ~_ ~:_ ..::.-:.~- .. _, =.z:~: RQAQWA ~tItARAc-T.eRls"e~~ ":0-- _ _ _on _ :::_ JI :~~;-?-:-- -;-~~~ . --~ _'.=1;-;[; - _'~:i AYERA~~ AN~UAEj;J~~~ERA.F~I.~~{MOJ) i - (Incibdes v~liiclesjin. exCluSiv8-1ciiriaanes) - - .. -'" - - -----. ~-- - - i ~lnterS~~ioris~J:?~r;iffire~~: ~ _ -:. ---. - -.- - ~ . - - . -- U~aniz~~, T@h~ti9ninglUrb!ln, . .:;'or Bufiif~ea T.yPe::" : '.?'M;'rial Class Fr!e F , (mphf .'total..)tengtjj; __'_ -. I(mi) _ -.7 . ~~~~hs(YlN) _l:.eftNm~i~a' s:- - IN U 2 45 1 N y (UfT, oc'R). (1ii,3, ~r=4)- (4p,-40;.orJ5) _ . le!~!'of-ServiG~ -A ~ -. B . C N/A 9,300 15,600 N/A 20,500 32,400 N/A 31,900 48,800 N/A 43,300 65,200 .: : - : Q;NES. . , . ., -,-.:- ~ . : ." 4 - 6-:~ 8 _:e'E- 17,000 34,000 51,000 68,000 D'~ 17 ,000 34,000 51,000 68,000 k.-( ~\~ " , ... .::........ .-. -- - - '~"""".- ~.:#- ~ ~. S'iGNjL~TIO~-;~HARACt~J~ISTlCS.< ~.- :- ._~- - -"'::==.:~~;.'- :}=.;" :- :.:No.Sjgna~~d Interi~Q6-s 2 -:- Arri~al Type,Pe~k:Q!f 3 1.:ype Sigpal S5'ster.:n- S Sy-steni~Cy,~.t~ngth(sec)' 90 Wei hted l'firui:Mvmt IC 0.44 _ - ~.:: _~<::-__-::~' ~ ~_-r,..-t:;:-.~_~~~~ N/A means the-Ievel:of.sefvice:is'not:-achiew.able : '. . Peak Hour ~eak QlrElctlon Tl1rP'~1JhlRlght V/c"Ratlo7for the' - Full Hour Level of Service B' -C. 0.55 0.92 0.60 0.95 0.63 0.96 0.64 0.96 LANES 1 2 3 4 A N/A N/A N/A N/A E 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 D 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 Note tf@ intersl3ction capacity is reached atlaS 'D'. Const~nt vplulI1es across the remaining LOS ranges indicate that these levels are not-achievable. Higher volumes result in an 'F'. f~ - HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL [Intersection: Coronado and Marriott Analyst: King -2002 Project No.: 1502-002-000 Date: 1/24/01 ['East/West Stn:et: Driveway "North/South Street: Coronado Intersection Orientation: NS SUMMARY D-way ~ t;l; N! .110 Major Street: Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Approach Movement 1 L Volumes and Northbound 2 T Adjustments Southbound 5 T 6 R 3 R 4 L Volume 13 LHourly F)9w Rc3.t_e, HFR 13 FPercent Heavy Vehicles 2 Median Type Undivided [' RT Channelized? Lanes '1;.:- . , Conf~gurat~on . .Upstream Signal? i"$<: l~inor Street: Approach Movement 271 772 42 812 44 t.:- Volume r~~OUrlY Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Percent Grade (%) Median Storage 1 1W1ared Approach: Exists? l~ Storage RT Channelized? [' Lanes ~::,Configuration 7 L 0 1 1 0 LT TR No No Westbound Eastbound 8 9 10 11 12 T R L T R 55 18 57 18 2 ": 2 o o No o o LR 1", ~~~~ .l'fl '::Approach Movement Lane Config Delay, NB 1 LT Queue Length, and Level of SB Westbound 478 9 Service Eastbound 10 11 LR 12 v (vph) C (m) (vph) v/c 95% queue length Control Delay LOS Approach Delay Approach LOS 13 784 0.02 0.00 9.7 A 75 245 0.31 1. 26 26.0 D 26.0 D HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 TWO-WAY STOP Intersection: Gulf View and Analyst: King -2002 Project No. : 1502-002-000 Date: 1/24/01 East/West Street: Driveway North/South St:reet: Gulf View Intersection Orientation: NS CONTROL SUMMARY Marriott D-way ~ Study period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Approach Movement 1 L Volumes and Adjustments Northbound 2 3 T R Major Street: Volume I Hourly Flow Rate, HFR Percent Heavy Vehicles Median Type Undivided RT Channelized? Lanes t Configuration Upstream Signal? 1 0 TR Southbound 4 5 6 L T R 62 965 65 1015 2 0 1 LT No Eastbound 10 11 12 L T R 322 21 338 22 No .' ~ , Minor Street: Approach Movement Westbound 789 L T R Volume Hourly Flow Rate, HFR - Percent Heavy Vehicles _ Percent Grade (%) Median Storage Jt Flared Approach: 28 29 2 82 86 2 o o 1 Exists? Storage No - RT Channelized? Lanes , Configuration -', o o LR ~~ :~ Approach Movement Lane Config Delay, NB 1 - Queue SB 4 LT Length, and Level of Westbound 789 LR Service Eastbound 10 11 12 v (vph) C (m) (vph) v/c I 95% queue length Control Delay I LOS . Approach Delay Approach LOS 65 1199 0.05 0.03 8.2 A 115 318 0.36 1. 63 22.6 C 22.6 C HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 3.2 \1' ~l_b G ( Clearwater City COmmiSSio:\~rkseSSion Item # Agenda Cover Memorandum \ Final Agenda Item # 'l'1 Meeting Date Feb 15,2001 SUBJECT/RECOMMENDA TION: Hold public hearing on development agreement between the Clearwater Seashell Resort L.L.c. and the City of Clearwater and direct staff to bring' forward a resolution approving the plan at the March 1,2001 Commission meeting. o and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. SUMMARY: · The subject site is 1.63 acres in area and is located on either side of 3rd Street between South Gulfview Boulevard and Coronado Drive. It is located within an area identified for a catalytic project by Beach by Design and is a priority candidate for redevelopment on Clearwater Beach. · The applicant is proposing to construct a 250 room resort hotel 150' feet in height. The proposal also includes 35,000-50,000 square feet ofretaillrestaurant space and an 833 :t space garage. · The proposal requires use of 184 hotel rooms from the density pool created in Beach by Design and the vacation of 3rd Street and South Gulfview. · The applicant is proposing to begin construction as soon as practical upon approval of the development agreement and commits to the following: o Construction of improvements and participation in the financing of S. Gulfview Boulevard to create Beach Walk generally between I SI Street and the South Beach Pavilion; o Dedication often (10) feet for use as public right-of-way abutting Coronado Drive; and ReViewed by: Jl! Onglnatlng Department: Costs: CommiSSion Action: Legal ""Planning and 'Development. " 0 Approved .h , Budget t'-I/A Gina L Clayton Total 0 Approved With " Conditions PurchaSing 't'-I/A User Department: ' ...-:.~, 0 Den led RIsk Mgmt t-..I/A ,. ". ; Curren! Fiscal Year 0 Continued to ' ' IS ~J/A Funding Source: ACM N/A 0 Capital Improvement Other N/A , Advertised: 0 Operallng Dale: ,1 0 ,,' '^:., . " " Attachments; ~, ' ~ , 'U:h;" Other 'Paper. ". , Development Agreement Submitted by: 0 Not ReqUired Appropnatlon Code -, " , , ,- "m . " <~ '~<'.;: -:'" Affected Partres ' . ',' " 0 Notified CIl)' Manager 0 Not ReqUired 0 None o Pnnted on recycled paper I " I' I Ii o A vail ability of 400 parking spaces in the private garage will be made available for public use, " The proposal is in compliance wIth the standards for development agreements and is consistent with Beach by Design, . The Community Development Board will review the proposed application for flexible development approval at a meeting on January 31, 2001 and make a recommendation to the Commission. Staff will report the recommendation at the CIty Commission meeting, I '" . The City Commission is to review the development agreement, the recommendations of the Community Development Board and Community Development Coordinator and public testimony, and approve, approve with modifications or deny the proposed agreement. ., DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PROPERTY INTHE CITY OF CLEARWATER between THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, and CLEARWATER SEASHELL RESORT, LC Dated as of ,2001 \ i \ I I i \ARTICLE 1. I \ , T ABLE OF CONTENTS DEFINITIONS...................",..".,.,............ ,..........." ,...,.,.. ...,.......,..,.... ,........ ,............,....... ...2 Definitions.....".....,.............. ,.....,....,...........'... ...................,.......................... ...........2 Use of Words and Phrases................................................. ............ ...... .... .......... ....4 Florida Statutes........,................, .................................,.,...,. ............... ....... ........' .....4 Section 1.01 Section 1.02 Section 1.03 I ARTICLE 2. PUBLIC PURPOSE, PROPOSAL, PROJECT SCHEDULE AND' MUTUAL UNDERTAKINGS... ..... .............."................ ........................ ..........4 Section 2.01 Section 2.02 Section 2.03 Section 2.04 I .AJRTICLE 3. \ I I \ I 'I i I ARTICLE 4. Finding of Public Benefit and Purpose ......,..,................,.........................................4 Purpose of Agreement...... .................. .................................. ....... ......... ............ ......4 Scope of Project.......... .........................,..... ....... '........... ........... ...... ........... ,..... ........4 Cooperation of the Parties,......., ........................................ .......... ........................,..6 REG ULA TORY PROCESS,..,..,.........................,.,.,... ,........... ............................. ................ 6 Section 3.01 Section 3.02 Section 3.03 Section 3.04 Land Development Reg ulations ..'..............' ............... ............. ........,.......... ..... ........ 6 Development Approvals and Permits.................,.,.....,..,...,........ ...............' ..... .......' 7 Concurrency........,....,........ .................,..." ,.......................... ......... ,............... ........... 8 Not a Development Order or Permlt......... ...................,...... ....... ..... ............ ........ .....8 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ... ................,......... ..,........................... ............,.................8 Section 4,01 Preparation of Plans and Specifications .................................................................8 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT,. ,.,..... ,.... .... .., ,.. ,.",.. ... ..,.,.. ......... ..... '... ,. .... .,.". ,.,.......... ........... 9 ARTICLE 5. I I I I i II , , I, , I ARiT'ICLE 6. I I I Section 5.01 Section 5.02 Section 5.03 Section 5.04 Section 5,05 Ownership of Project Site ..'.................,..................... .................,................ ........... 9 Project Site...,...........,..,. ......,.. '................ '......"........... .... '..... ....................... ....,..,..,9 City Option to Purchase .............................,.......... ..........................,............ ...... ..... 9 City's Obligations.........,.....,........................,...,......................... ...... .............,. .......10 Obligations of Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC...........,.........................................12 PROJ ECT FINANCiNG,........ .......................... ............... ..................... ,..., ...................... ...16 Section 6.01 Section 6.02 Section 6.03 Notice of Project Financing to City........................................................................16 Copy of Default Notice to City........,...............................,..................,..,................16 City Option to Pay Mortgage Debt or Purchase Project........,......................,........17 ART' CLE 7. CONSTRUCTION.....................,...,................................... ................. .........................'.. ...18 i I \ Dev~lopment Agreement DRAFT dated 21712001 Page 1 \ Section 7.01 Site Work .............,..........,..,........................................ ..,........,..,..........,..,............18 SE~ction 7.02 Radon Disclosure.... ..,.................... .................,......... .............. '.... ,........................ 18 S(~ction 7.03 Construction .... ..... '..... .........,.................................,...,.........,.....,.......,. .........,...,...20 SI3ction 7.04 Construction Completion Certificate. .......".,.......,........................ ....,............... ........., ,20 S,ection 7.05 City not In Privity ...................................................................................................21 Section 7.06 Construction Staging Area. ...... .....,.... ,....... ................. ......... ,......................... .......21 ARTICLE 8. INDEMNIFiCATION............................, ............................... ......... ....... ............. .....,... .... .....21 Section 8.01 Section 8,02 Indemnification by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC ..............................................21 Indemnification by the City,.....,....... ....,... '............... ,............. ....... ......, .......;.. ...... ..22 Section 8.03 Limitation of Indemnification 23 ARTICLE 9. REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES AND COVENANTS OF CLEARWATER SEASHELL RESORT, LC ........................................ ,.................23 Section 9.01 Section 9.02 Representations and Warranties......,........................ ,.....................,........,.......... .23 Covenants .................. ................, .................. ...... ............... ................ ............,. ....25 ARTICLE 10. REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES AND COVENANTS OF THE CITy.... ...................... ....... .....,...... '..,. '......... ....... ........... ................... ...... .............. ....27 Section 10.01 Representations and Warranties ..............,...........,.... .......................... .......... ......,27 Section 10.02 Covenants................... ......,....... ........ ......,., ............... '.. ............ ....,. ........ .......,.... ...28 ARTICLE 11. CONDITION S PRECEDENT.. ,..............,...... ................ ........,..... ............,..... ....... .............. ...29 Section 11,01 Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC Acquiring Project Site,............,...........................29 Section 11.02 Construction of Project..............................................................,...........................29 Section 11,03 Responsibilities of the Parties for Conditions Precedent ...........,..........................30 ARTICLE 12. DEFAULT ; TERMINATION ......... ....... ...... '.......... ................ ............. .................... ........... 30 Section 12.01 Project Default by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC .............................. ............,..30 Section 12.02 Default by the City..... ..... ........,.....,..,............ .............. ........ ................ ,..................32 Section 12.03 Obligations, Rights and Remedies Cumulative ........,.........,..,....,....................,.....33 Section 12.04 Non-Action on Failure to Observe Provisions of thiS Agreement..,........,...,... ............,.........,...................,........................................... 34 Section 12.05 Termination ...........,... ............ ...,........,......,....... ....... ........ ........................... ........ '.. 34 Section 12. 06 Termination Certificate... ................,.......... ........................, ................... ................ 35 ARTIGLE 13. RIGHT TO CONTEST ......,............................,......:........................ ............,.....,................36 Development Agreement DRAFT dated 2/7/2001 Page 2 Section 13.01 Right to Contest ...................., .................... ,....,.......................,... ........ ...............'.. 36 Section 13.02 Conditions....... ,...............,.......... ,....................................... ........ ........................... 36 ARBITRATION.................................,..... ......................., ......... ......... ..... ..............,..... ,..... 37 ~RTICLE 14. \ \ \ I, , , I \ , I I I Section 14.01 Section 14.02 Section 14.03 Section 14.04 Section 14.05 Section 14.06 Section 14.07 Section 14.08 Section 14.09 Section 14.10 Agreement to Arbitrate......,. ...... .............',..... ............. ........... ............ ................ ....37 Appointment of Arbitrators........,.....................,............... ........... ........................... 37 General Procedures.........................,....,..................."........................................., 38 Majority Rule ........... ........ ............ ..................... ............. ....... ....... ...... ....................38 Replacement of Arbitrator....................................,........ ........................................ 38 Decision of Arbitrators".................................................."..,.................................. 39 Expense of Arbitration.............,...,......,......,.........,..................,.............................. 39 Accelerated Arbitration....,.........,.........,..,....................,.....................,.....,............. 39 Applicable Law.......... .................,...... ................... ..... ,.. ........ ................. ............... .40 Arbitration Proceedings and Records ......... .... ,.........,.......... ....... .......... ............. ...40 ArCLE 15. UNAVOIDABLE D ELA Y........................... .............. .......... .............. ........ ...... ........ ...........40 I Section 15.01 Un avoid able Delay.............,..................,............................................................. ..40 \ ARTICLE 16. \ RESTRICTIONS ON USE.......... ...... ..............,............... .............. .......... ............ ........ ......41 Section 16.01 Project.................................. .........,.............................. ..... .................................... 41 \ ARIT'ICLE 17. , \ i , , , , , , FIRE OR OTHER CASUALTY; CONDEMNATION .........................................................42 Section 17.01 Section 17,02 Section 17.03 Section 17.04 Section 17.05 Loss or Damage to Project........,.................................................... ...................... 4 2 Partial Loss or Damage to Project ..............,.........................................................42 Project I nsurance Proceeds........,........................,....................................... ......... 4 2 Notice of Loss or Damage to Project ....................................,...............................43 Condemnation of Project or Project Site; Application of Proceeds ....... ............ .................... .............. .............. ......... ....... ....... .......... ..43 , , ART'ICLE 18. MISCELLANEOUS .... .....................,.................,....................... ,.............................. ...... ..43 Section 18.01 Section 18.02 i \ Section 18.03 \ Section 18.04 I 'I Section 18.05 I I Section 18.06 \ Section 18,07 oe,.Jpment Agreement I ORAFT\ dated 21712001 Assignments........ .................. .............,.. ....... ..............,... ....................... ............. ..43 Successors and Assigns.....,.,.......................,................... .......".... ...................... .44 Notices,..........,.........................,.....,.,................................. ........................... ...... ..44 Applicable Law and Construction...., ......................,...., ............................. .......... ..45 Venue; Submission to Jurisdiction.......... ................ .................. ....... ................. ....45 Estoppel Certificates........ ............................ ................ .................... ,....... ............ .46 Complete Agreement; Amendments ....... ............. ..... ..... ...........,...... ....,.......... ......46 Page 3 Section 18.08 SE!ction 18.09 Section 18.10 Section 18 11 Section 18.12 Section 18.13 Section 18,14 Sf:!ction 18.15 SI:!ction 18.16 Section 18.17 Section 18.18 Section 18.19 Development Agreement DRAFT dated 2/7/2001 Captions.."......,......,......................,...,...,......,....,......"........,.. ,...............................46 Holidays .........'.. ... ............... ..... .....,..,.................".,.....,..., .............,....................47 Exhibits ..... .............. ..................,......."..........,........................ ........,..,............. ,..... 47 No Brokers....,.......... ......................... ,..................... ....,.....,...............,...................47 Not an Agent of City.. '... ..... ,..,..... ............ .......,............................ ................... .......47 Memorandum of Development Agreement ................ ..... ......,..... .............. ............4 7 Public Purpose.............. ....,'........,.....,............,................,..,............................,..... .47 No General Obligation... .......................................,.,.... ........................... ..............47 Technical Amendments; Survey Corrections ....... ...... '........ ......,..... ......................48 Term; Expiration; Certificate....... .................... ...... .......,... ........ ..........'...., ............ ..48 Approvals Not Unreasonably WIthheld ........... ,.... ..... .................., ........... .......... ....48 Effective Date........, ....,... '....,.. ............ ...... .............. ........., .............. ........, .......,.... ..48 Page 4 EXHIBITS Legal Des:riptlon of Controlled Property.................. .....,........................... ,......... ....................... .................. A Project Site,......."..............,..... ........... ...,....."......,......,..... '.....". .........,.........,.......".........................,............ 8 Project DE~scription ..........,..................."............... .. ......................,............................... ,.. ........".... ....'.......... C List of Required Permits & Approvals.....,.,....,.............................." ....'............... ..,.. ..,....'...... ..........,. ........... D South Gulfview and Beach Walk and Garage Access Improvements.........,..................,.............................. E Right-of-VVay Resolution............................................., '.................. ,...,......... ...... ....., ,... ....,.... ........... ....... ..... F Cafe Seating..,..............................................,..",..,.............."... .....,.............,.... ............ ................................ G Covenant of Unified Use .... .................... ..,.... ......,."....,............... ...'................ ................~............ ................. H Memorandum of Agreement for Development and DIsposItion of Property ....................................................1 Project Development Schedule............,........,.......................,...., ........., '....... ................... ............... ............... J <" Development Agreement DRAFT dated 2/7/2001 Page 1 I I ! 'I i \ ! ThIs Agreement for Development of Property (the "Agreement") is made as of thiS _ day of \ ,2001, by and between THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, a Flonda municipal borporation (the "City"), and Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC, a Florida limited liability company. \ \ WITNESSETH: \ WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has embarked on a community revitalization effort; I WHEREAS, one of the major elements of thIS revitalization effort is a preliminary design for the r~vitalizatlon of Clearwater Beach entitled Beach by Design; I \ , '\ WHEREAS, Beach by DeSign identifies a need for additional public parking on Clearwater Beach; 1 , \ WHEREAS, Beach by Design calls for the removal and replacement of surface parking spaces located to\ the west of South Gulfview to the south of Pier 60 Park; I I, . 'I WHEREAS, the City has adopted Beach by DeSign to support the City's Comprehensive Plan; I WHEREAS, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC has proposed to develop a mixed use project on certain property frohting on South Gulfview and has proposed to include at least seven hundred and fifty (750) parking spaces of which aneast four hundred (400) spaces shall be open to the public; \ \ I WHEREAS, it is necessary that the City ,take certain actions in order to make it possible for Clearwater Se~shell Resort, LC to develop the Project Site in accordance with the goals and objectives of Beach by I Design; " ! 'i WHEREAS, the City has conducted such hearings as are required by and in accordance with Chapter 1631'i3220 8t seQ. Fla. Stat. and applicable law; , 1 \ WHEREAS, the City has determined that as of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the proposed dev~lopment IS consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations; , WHEREAS, at a duly called public meeting on , the City Commission apprbved this Agreement, and authorized and directed its execution by the appropriate officials of the City; and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC has approved thiS Agreement and has auth6rized certain indIviduals to execute this Agreement on its behalf. I: NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, the parti~s hereby agree as follows: , I ARTltLE 1. DEFINITIONS. I , I 1.01. \ Definitions. The terms defined in this Article 1 shall have the following meanings except as herein DevelJpment Agreement DRAFT dated 21712001 Page 1 otherwise expressly provided: 1, "Agreement" means this Agreement for Development of Property in~luding any Exhibits and any amendments thereto. 2. "Beach by Design" or "Plan" means the strategic redevelopment plan for Clearwater Beach dated 2001. 3. "City" means the City of Clearwater, Florida, a Florida municipal corporation. 4. "City Commission" means the governing body of the City. 5. "Commencement Date" means the date on which Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC commences or causes a Contractor to conunence construction (see Section 7,02(a)). 6. "Completion Date" means the date on which the last certificate of Occupancy required for tbe Project is issued. 7. "Construction Completion" means the date a Construction Completion Certificate is issued (see Section 7.03(6)). 8. '.Controlled Property" means those properties within the Project Site which are subject to a purchase contract in favor of Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC or an affiliate or nominee on the Effective Date of this Agreement (see Section 5.01) which are more particularly described in the legal description set out in Exhibit A to this Agreement. 9. "Developer" means, for the purposes of this Agreement, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC and its successors and assigns as provided in Article 18. 10. "'Effective Date" means the date of approval and execution of this Agreement. 11. "Exhibits" means those agreements, diagrams, drawings, specifications, instruments, forms of instruments, and other documents attached hereto and designated as exhibits to, and incorporated in and made a part of, this Agreement. 12: "Garage Access Improvements" shall mean the pedestrian overpass, arcade and elevated sidewalk along the western facade of the Project which are proposed in conjunction with the development of at least four hundred (400) parking spaces as a part of the Project which are to be available to the general public. 13. "Meeting Space" means any floor area which can be used in conjunction with conference or meeting activities. Development Agreement DRAFT dated 2/7/2001 Page 2 116, i I I I , 11[, \ I I Ii 18. 19. I i I i 20. ! 21. 22. 23. Ii , \ 4. "Net Cost of South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements" shall mean the total cost of the Improvements, net of: a) any impact fee credits credited against the cost 'of the improvements, and b) Clearwater Seashell Resort LC's pro rata share of the South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements. 5. "Permits" means all land development approvals and consents required to be granted, awarded, issued, or given by any governmental authority in order for construction of the Project, or any part thereof, to commence, continue or be completed. "Plans and Specifications" means, as to each part of the Project to be developed, the site plan for the Project to be developed, filed with the City as required by the Land Development Regulations for the purpose of review and approval. "project" means, collectively, the concept of development for a resort hotel proposed by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC as described in Section 2.0~ of this Agreement and the preliminary plans which are attached hereto as Exhibit C. "Project Site" means the land area generally bounded by the western right-of-way of Coronado Street, on the north by the southern boundary of the Spyglass property, on the south by the northern bouh'dary of the Legends property, and on the west by the centerline of South -Gulfview, which is more particularly described and depicted on Exhibit B (see Section 5.02). South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements" shall mean the proposed realignment of South Gulfview and the construction of a thirty-five (35) foot wide promenade. a fifteen (5) foot bicvcle/skating path. a fifteen (15) beachfront pedestrian path. at least sixty (60) surface parking spaces and associated landscaping from the northern edge of the right of way of First Street to a line which represents an extension of the southern wall of the South Beach Pavilion eastward to the eastern boundary of the existing riQht of way of South Gulfview. "Termination Date" means th~ date a termination certificate is issued pursuant to Article 12. "Termination for Cause" means a termination which results from an uncured, material breach of the Agreement. "Unavoidable Delay" means a delay as described in Article 15 hereof. "Vacation of Rights of \Vay" means the abandonment of the right of way of Third Street between the right of way of Coronado and the centerline ofthe existing right of way of South Gulfview and the eastern half of the existing right of way of South Develppment Agreement DRAFi dated 217/2001 \ \ Page 3 Gulfview within the Project Site by the City in favor of Clearn'ater Seashell Resort, LC, in order that the goals and objectives of the Plan may be better accomplished. 1.02. Use of Words and Phrases. Words of the masculine gender shall be deemed and construed to include correlative words of the feminine and neuter genders, Unless the context shall otherwise indicate, the singular shall include the plural as well as the singular number, and the word "person" shall include corporations and associations, limited liability corporations and partnerships, including public bodies, CIS well as natural persons, "Herein," "hereby," "hereunder," "hereof," "hereinbefore," "hereinafter" and other equivalent words refer to this Agreement and not solely to the particular portion thereof in which any such word is used. 1.03. Florida Statutes. All references herein to Florida Statutes are to Florida Statutes (1999), as amended from time to time. ARTICLE 2. PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT. 2.01. Finding of Public Purpose and Benefit. The proposed Project, specifically including the acquisition of the Controlled Property by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC and the design, construction, completion and operation of the Project, and each part thereof, is hereby found by the parties hereto: (1) to be consistent with and in furtherance of the objectives-of the Comprehensive Plan, (2) to conform to the provisions of Florida law, (3) to be in the best interests of the citizens of the City, (4) to further the purposes and objectives of the City, (5) to further the public interest on Clearwater Beach, and (6) to implement the Beach by Design for South Gulfview, including the removal of parking from the dry sand beach, implementation of the South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements and providing a pedestrian walkway bridge from the garage to the beach, sidewalks and South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements, 2.02. Purpose of Agreement. The purpose of this Agreement is to further the implementation of Beach by Design by providing for the development of the Project Site and the construction of certain public improvements, all to enhance the quality of life, increase employment and improve the aesthetic and useful enjoyment of Clearwater Beach and the City, all in accordance with and in furtherance of the Plan and as authorized by and in accordance with the provisions of Florida law, 2.03. Scope of the Project. 1. The Project shall include public parking, private parking, resort hot~1 and retail uses and shall be developed in substantial conformity to the preliminary Development Agreement DRAFT dated 2f7f20D1 Page 4 plans of development which are attached as Exhibit C. Upon obtaining all required approvals including designation of the Project Site as a "Community Redevelopment District," pursuant to the Pinellas County Planning Council's Rules which authorizes an increase in hotel unit density pursuant to the provisions of Beach by Design, the intensity of permitted use on the Project Site shall be: Public parking - at least 400 spaces Private parking - at least 350 spaces Hotel - 250 units includinq 20,000 square feet of meetinq facilities Retail- not more than 50,000 square feet of floor area If the change described in Section 3.01 (2) is not approved and a Community Redev~lopment District hotel density bonus is not established, the City and Developer will work in good faith to create an economically viable alternative development. 2, Nothing shall preclude the Developer from creating and developing all or portions of the project elements using any ownership format includinq individual ownership formats permitted under Florida Statutes. 3, Up to twenty-five percent (25%) of, the hotel units may be suites with kitchens, including all typical kitchen equipment and amenities. 4. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, no occupancy in excess of thirty (30) days per stay shall be permitted for the hotel units. 5, As a condition of the hotel units, the Developer shall comply with each of the standards established in Beach by Design, including: a. The resort shall provide a full range of on and off site amenities for the guests of the resort such as a full service restaurant, room service, valet parking, exercise facilities, pool, meeting areas and access to boating, fishing and golf. Off site amenities will be provided throuqh conClerqe services b. The resort shall be operated as a Marriott Resort or'other comparable national or international "flag" or other comparable marketing affiliation or program which will ensure support for the repositioning of , I \ I I I I Develppment Agreement DRAFr dated 2/7/2001 \ Page 5 Clearwater Beach as a resort destination. c. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the resort hotel component of the project, the Developer shall record a covenant and restriction on the use and operation of the resort which is enforceable by the City obligating the Developer to develop, implement and operate at all times when the resort hotel is open, a trip generation management program which shall include the provision of non-private automobile access to and from the resort which shall include at least an airport shuttle and resort-provided transportation to off-site amenities and attractions. d, Prior to the issuance of a building permit authorizing the construction of the resort hotel units, the Developer shall record a covenant and restriction on the use and operation of the resort which is enforceable by the City that obligates the Developer to close and vacate all persons (except for emergency personal required to secure and protect the facilities) from the resort hotel within twelve (12) hours after the posting of a hurricane watch which includes Clearwater Beach. 2.04. Cooperation of the Parties. The City and Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC recognize that the successful development of the Project and each component thereof is dependent upon the continued cooperation of the City and Clearwater Seashell R:esort, LC, and each agrees that it shall act in a reasonable manner hereunder, provide the other party with complete and updated information from time to time, ~ith n~spect to the conditions such party is responsible for satisfying hereunder and make its good faith reasonable efforts to ensure that such cooperation is continuous, the purposes of this Agreement are carried out to the full extent contemplated hereby and the Project is designed, constructed, completed and operated as provided herein, ARTICLE 3. REGULATORY PROCESS. 3.01. Land Development Regulations, 1. Land Use Desiqnatlon The Project Site is deSignated Tourist Distnct in the City's Land Development Regulations. 2, Amendments to Comprehensive Plan & Land Development Requlations, The City agrees to amend the Comprehensive Plan as may be required to carry out the Project as described In Section 2.0M.1l and seek deSignation of the Beach as a Community Redevelopment Distnct pursuant to Pinellas County Development Agreement DRAFi dated 2nJ2001 Page 6 I i \ \ r.02 i \ I \ , , i \ I \ \ I I I, , i , , \ I \ 1\ , \8 Planning Council Rules; and, In the event thIs designation IS obtained, the City will approve the Project Site with two hundred and fifty (250) hotel units permitted, in accordance with applicable law. Development Approvals and Permits. Applications for Development Approval. Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall prepare and submit to the appropriate governmental authorities, including the City, applications for approval of all plans and specifications necessary for the Project, and shall bear all costs of preparing such applications, applying for and obtaining such (jermits, including payment of any and all applicable application, inspection, .~~egUlatOry and impact fees or charges, subiect to the provisions of Section 5.05(5). .....,~ e City shall expedite review of all applications, including foundation permits, to , e extent possible. A list of all permits and approvals required for this Agreement is attached as Exhibit D, The failure of this Agreement to address a particular permit, condition, or term of restriction shall not relieve Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC of the necessity of complying with the law governing said permitting requirements, conditions, terms or restrictions. 1. 2. Schedule. A Project Development Schedule is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit J that details tasks through the entire project, starting with the foundation permit and installation of pilings. Such schedule will enable Seashell to document a continuous construction project to the State of Florida, City Cooperation and Assistance. The City shall cooperate with Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC in obtaining all necessary Permits required for the construction, completion and opening for business of the Project. If requested by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC and authorized by law, the City will join in any application for any Permit, or, altel11atively, recommend to and urge any governm~ntal authority to which application for any Permits has been made that such Building PermIt or Permits be issued or approved. 4. City Authority Preserved. The City's duties, obligations, or responsibilities under any section of this Agreement, specifically including, but not limited to, this Section 3.02, shall not affect the City's right, duty, obligation, authonty and power to act in its governmental or regulatory capacity in accordance with applicable laws, ordinances, codes or other buildmg regulations. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, any required permitting, licensing or other regulatory approvals by the City shall be subject to the established procedures and requirements of the City with respect to review and permitting of a project of a similar or comparable nature, size and scope. In no event shall the City, due to any provision of this Agreement, be obligated to take any action concerning regulatory approvals except \ I , '\ I \ \ Develqpment Agreement DRAl dated 21712001 \ I I Page 7 (S\ / '5.)1 t/7 through Its established processes and In accordance with applicable provisions of law, Application and Impact Fees. The City shall use its best efforts to secure or provide any lawfully available waivers of application and impact fees under existing laws and regulations which are applicable to the Project for the benefit of Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC. In the event that the City is unable to secure or provide waiver of any impact fees, the City shall use its best efforts within the limits of the applicable law to allocate impact fees collected from Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC to public improvements which are described in Exhibit E to this Agreement. 3.03. Concurrency. 1. Concurrency Required, The parties hereto recognize and acknowledge that Florida law (specifically, Part II, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, collectively the "Growth Management Act") imposes restrictions on development if adequate public improvements are not available concurrently with that development to absorb and handle the demand on public services caused by development. The City has created and implemented a system for monitoring the effects of development on public services within the City, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC recognizes and acknowledges it must satisfy the concurrency requirements of Florida law and the City's regulations as applied to this Project. 2, Reservati on of Capacity. The City hereby agrees and acknowledges that as of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the Project satisfies the concurrency requirements of Florida law. The CIty agrees to reserve the required capacity to serve the Project for Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC and to maintain such capacity for a period of three (3) years from the Effective Date of this Agreement and that such period shall be automatically extended for an additional three (3) years if Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC commences construction within the initial three (3) year period, The City recognizes and acknowledges that Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC will rely upon such reservation in proceeding with the Project. 3. Required Public Facilities, In addition to the obligations of the City and Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC set out in Miele 5 of this Agreement, the Water Utilities Department ofthe City will provide potable water service and sanitary sewer service to the Site. ARTICLE 4. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. Development Agreement DRAFT dated 2f7f2001 Page 8 \4.01. Plans and Specifications. I , , 1 \ I I I \ \ I \ i \ I : 2. Responsibilitv for Preparation of Plans and Specifications. Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall be solely responsible for and shall pay the cost of preparing, submitting and obtaining approval of the Plans and Specifications. 3. Use of Qualified Professionals. Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall retain qualified professionals to prepare the Plans and Specifications and shall cause such professionals to prepare the Plans and Specifications. 4. Approval of Plans and Specifications. The City agrees to diligently proceed with and complete its review of the Plans and Specifications, and respond to the Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC as soon as reasonably possible after receipt thereof and advise Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC in 'writing of the City's comments and objections, if any, thereto. The City shall notify Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC in writing within fifteen (15) days ofreceipt that the Plans and Specifications have or have not been approved, and in the case of disapproval, the specific reason(s) for such disapproval. If the Plans and Specifications submitted to the City by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC substantially comply with this Agreement and further the purposes of the Plan, the City shall approve the Plans and Specifications as submitted. , I \ i I ~RTICLE 5. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT. \ 5.\101. Ownership of Project Site. Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC is the contract purchaser of : certain parcels of land within the Project Site which is more particularly described in Exhibit I .. \ B to this Agreement ("Controlled Property"). I I 5.92. Project Site. The Project Site consists of those properties located in an area which is bounded I by the western right-of-way of Coronado Street, on the north by the southern boundary of the Spyglass property, on the south by the northern boundary ofthe Legends property, and on the west by the centerline of west Gulfview as more particularly described in Exhibit B. 5.Q3. City's Option to Purchase. At any time within five (5) years ofthe issuance of the certificate , of occupancy for the parkmg facility, the City shall have the option to purchase the parking spaces which are to be available to the public from Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC, in the form of a condominium ownership, at the fair market value of the spaces at the time the City exercises its option, The fair market value of the parking spaces shall be determined by appraisal of the property pursuant to agreed upon appraisal instructions. The appraisals shall be conducted by two (2) appraisers retained by the City, One ofthe appraisers shall be selected from a list of qualified appraisers submitted to the City by the Developer. In the event that the two (2) appraisals are within twenty percent (20%) of each other, the fair market value shall be the average of the two (2) appraisals. In the event that the appraisals differ by more than I I I , I I I ! I I I I Development Agreement I DRAFT dated 2/7/2001 \ I : Page 9 twenty percent (20%), the two appraisers shall select a third appraiser from the City's master lIst of qualIfied appraisers mcluding the list submitted by the Developer and the third appraiser shall select among the two (2) appraisals which in the opinion of the third appraiser most accurately represents the fair market value of the parking spaces. 5.04. City's Obligations. 1. Vacation of RiQ"hts-of- Wav, The Developer shall apply for and the City Commission shall consider the adoption of an ordinance vacating the right-of-way of 3rd Street between Coronado A venue and the centerline of the existing right-of- way of South Gulfview Drive and the eastern half of the existing right-of-way of South Gulfview Drive immediately to the west of the Project Site as shown on Exhibit F. 2., Road and Sidewalk Improvements, The City shall take all actions necessary to allow for the realignment of South Gulfview Drive between 1 $I Street and the Adams Mark Resort and the implementation of the South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements. as shown on Exhibit E. 2;. Parkinq Garaqe. In the event that the City exercises its option to purchase public parking spaces as provided in Section 5,03 of this Agreement, not less than one-half of the first two levels of the qaraqe shall contain the public spaces and the spaces to be conveyed shall be located in discrete areas as close as reasonablv possible to the point or points of access which are closest to the beach. 4. Permits. The City will cooperate and coordinate with Clearwater Seashell Resort, L.C, with regard to all permit applications, mcluding those to state agencies, and will facilitate or expedite, to the greatest extent possible, the permIt approval process, 5, Authoritv for Cafe Seating. The City shall adopt a regulation authorizing the use of portielns of the west thirty-five (35) feet of the South Gulfview Drive nght-of-way existing on the Effective Date of this Agreement for outdoor cafe seating and associated activities in accordance with the terms of Exhibit G, provided that such activities shall not interfere with the use of the west half of the thirty-five (35) feet of the existing right of way of South Gulfview for pedestrian and vehicular movement which shall be traffic calmed to manage speed in accordance with the provisions of Beach by Design, including the mtra-beach transit system proposed in Beach by Design, 6, Garaqe Access Improvement Approval. The City shall grant Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC the authority to construct the Garaqe Access Development Agreement DRAFT dated 2/7/2001 Page 10 Improvements and associated pedestrian facilities extending from the Project Site across the realigned Gulfview Drive to public land, as shown on Exhibit E. 7. Concessions. The City shall grant the Developer authority to operate concessions on land to the west of the existing centerline of South Gulfview Dnve, subject to any eXisting franchise or concession rights and compliance with all requirements of the City Code. and subiect to a lonq term manaqement aqreement to be approved bv the City. Such concessions may include a facility open to the public which provide towels, lockers, minimal beach sundries, chairs, and other beach gear required to operate a first-class beach hotel. Such facilities may be built into the beach landing portion of the pedestrian overpass. 8. Removal of Parkinq. In conjunction with the Project, the City agrees to the removal of the off-street parking spaces which are located on the beach between the concession building between 3rd and 5th and the Pier 60 lot (approximately 317 spaces). The new design for the realignment of South Gulfview Drive and the South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements, as described in Exhibit E, includes two (2) parking areas of thirty (30) parking spaces each on the east side of the road. 9, Approval of Final Plans and Specifications for the South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements. The Developer is obligated to prepare Final Plans and Specifications for the South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements. At least thirty (30) days prior to submitting the Final Plans and Specifications for the South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements to the City, the Developer shall submit a complete draft of such plans to the City for review and comment. The City shall promptly review such plans and provide comments and recommended modifications to the Developer within fifteen (15) days. The Developer shall incorporate the City's comments and recommended changes in the Final Plans for the South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements and the City shall review and approve the plans and specifications within thirty (30) days after submission of the Final Plans and Specifications for the South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements. 10. Public Financinq of Public Improvements. The City shall provide the Developer with public financing for the net cost of the South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements which are described herein, provided that such debt will serviced by special revenues generated by the Project. The amount of the financing shall depend on the final design of the South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements and the availability of credits against impact fees I I 1 \ 'I Dev~lopment Agreement DRJ'f dated 21712001 I \ Page11 . ;t' ';l~ " '\ .(, / t. .t . ,'/ 1J Jj lr/ / I (J / C~ ~ , ' t{ \ \1 for the South Gulfvlew and Beach Walk, The cost of the South Gulfvlew and Beach Walk Improvements shall be net of any credits against impact fees and the Developer's fair share of the South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements in the event that the City implements a fair share obligation for a/l properties which are directly benefitted by the South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements. The City agrees to make the following sources of revenue available for debt service of any public financing for the South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements: a. Net operating income from any new parking spaces created as a part of the Beach Walk Project; and b. Up to fifty percent (50%) of the net increase in municipal ad valorem taxes and utility taxes generated by the Seashell Resort. 11. Timelv Completion. The City recognizes the public importance of the timely / completion of the proposed improvements, and time is deemed to be of the 'I I essence. The City considers this Agreement as overall authority for the ( developer to proceed to permit, and agrees to implement a fast-track review, j , permitting, and inspection program for this project. 1 Additional Public Parkinq. The City agrees to defer the construction to any additional public parking within a radius of a quarter-mile until Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall have achieved a stabilized annual net operating income which is equal to one hundred and twenty-five percent (125%) of the annual debt service, In the event that it is determined to construct additional parking spaces prior to the end of the deferral period, the City agrees to lease, on an annual basis, the minimum number of parking spaces required to meet Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC's debt service coverage standard (one hundred and twenty-five percent (125%) of the annual debt service) at an annual rate of $1,875,00 per space, 12, 5.05. Obligations of Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC. (/' (/, C ' '~ v l" .' ,. :: I 1. Resort Hotel and Parking: GaraQe Proiect Clearwater Seashell Resort, L.c. shall build and operate a two hundred and fifty (250) room resort hotel to be operated as a Marriott resort or other comparable international hotel/resort management company together with a parking garage containing at least eIght hundred (800) parking spaces. In the event that the Developer determines to operate the resort hotel under a different "hotel/resort" name, the Developer shall obtain the City's approval, which shall not be unreasonably WIthheld providing that the reputation and qualifications are comparable to the Marriott organization. The parking spaces shall Development Agreement DRAFT dated 217/2001 Page 12 be substantially in the form and dImensions as depicted in Exhibit 2. Responsibilitv for On-Site Costs. Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall be responsible for all on-sIte costs relative to the development of the Project, including the parking spaces which are required to be open t'o the public. 3. Parking, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC agrees to make at least four hundred (400) parking spaces within the Project available to the general public within the parking garage. Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC may charge the public for use of the parking spaces which are available to the general public on terms and rates which are market- based and commensurate with terms and rates which are in effect for comparable beachfront, covered parking structures in Florida resort areas. 4. South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements. Clearwater Seashell Resort LC shall be responsible for the design and construction of the South Gulf'view and Beach Walk Improvements and the Garage Access Improvements. 5. Cost of South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements, The Developer shall be responsible for funding the total cost of the South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements and Garage Access Improvements, subject only to the following: a. In the event that impact fee credits are available to the Clearwater Seashell Resort LC. such credits shall be credited to Clearwater Seashell Resort LC aqainst the cost of the South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements, b, Clearwater Seashell Resort LC shall be responsible for a pro rata share of the cost of the South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements which shall be equal to the total cost of the Improvements multiplied by a fraction in which the front footaqe of the Proiect Site is the numerator and the total frontaqe alonq South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements is the denominator, \ SPR = FpROJ/FsGBW , , , , I I , , , , I I I I I , I i \ c. I I I Development Agreement D~n dated 2/7/2001 i I I I , I I I SPR = EPROJ = FSGBW Pro Rata Share Frontaqe of Proiect Site = Total Frontaqe alonq South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements In the event that any property which fronts on the South Gulfview and Page 13 ) ) / ! I .. r J'" ~ j ,r ;<_ '-"./' ~'-t/' r:r.. "1; Jl ~ ,~ .;.... i J }.... . . 'r ; . "/ I \ ," .'\ \ r, \ I, \ I~: I V 'J f/ -, -'fl. , U nw { , , l' 1/, . ) ' '."i I 'I Beach Walk Improvements is proposed for redevelopment usinq the pool of additional resort units established pursuant to Beach bv Desiqn, t rata share shall be equal to the total cost of the Improvements multiPlied bv a fraction in which the front footaqe of the Project Site is the numerato SPR = (F PRoiF SGBwlKlQSGBW2 SPR = EPROJ = ESGBW CSGBW Pro Rata Share Frontaqe of Proiect Site = Total Frontaqe alonq South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements = Net Cost of South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements The ora rata share paid bv any such other developer shall be promptlv applied to the outstandinq principal on any indebtedness incurred to fund the South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements, c/. In the event that any property which fronts on the South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements is proposed for redevelopment usinq the east half of the existinq South Gulfview riqht of way pursuant to Beach bv Desiqn, but not includinq additional resort units from the pool of units established pursuant to Beach bv Design, the developer of such property shall be required to pay a pro rata share of the cost of the South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements as a condition of development approval. The pro rata share shall be equal to the twenty-five percent (25%) of the total cost of the South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements multiplied bv a fraction in which the front footaqe of the development site is the numerator and the total frontaqe alonq the South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements is the denominator, SPR = (FpROJ/FsGBW) x (.25)(CsGBwl SPR = EPROJ = ESGBW CSGBW Pro Rata Share Frontaqe of Project Site = Total Frontaqe alonq South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements = Net Cost of South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements The ora rata share paid bv any such other developer shall be promotlv applied to the outstandinq Principal on any indebtedness Development Agreement DRAFT dated 2f7f2001 Page 14 incurred to fund the South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements. e, The net operatlnq income from the sixty (60) suriace parkinq spaces which are constructed as a part of the South Gulfview and Beach Walk Imqr of time not to exceed twenty-five (25) years. f, Up tc? fifty percent (50%) of the net increase in municipal ad valorem and utility taxes above the ad valorem and utility taxes qenerated by the improvements existinq on the Proiect Site on the effective date of this Development Aqreement shall be available to repay any indebtedness incurred to pay for the Net Cost of the South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements and the Garaqe Access Improvements, for a period of time not to exceed twenty-five (25) years, 6. Financinq of Improvements, a. In the event that the public 'financinq provided for in Paraqraph 10 of Section 5,04 of this Development Aqreement is. for any reason. unavailable to fund any portion of or all of the Net Cost of the South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements and the Garaqe Access Improvements, Clearwater Seashell Resort LC shall provide the financinq required to fund the total cost of the improvements, b. In the event that public financinq is available for a portion of the Net Cost of the South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements and the Garaqe Access Improvements, Clearwater Seashell Resort LC shall be entitled. for a period of not more than twenty-five (25) years. an annual payment equal to the difference between fifty percent (50%) of the additional incremental ad valorem and utility tax qenerated by the Proiect and the amount required to service the public debt. 7. Other Improvements, The City shall have an option to require the Developer to include the portions of South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements described in Exhibit E on a "turn key" basis, provided that the City pays all costs of such share of the South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements, including reasonable developer's fees. The City's option period shall be for a term of six (6) months from the execution of this Agreement. If the City declines to exercise its option and its six (6) months option period expires, then, upon written notice to the City withm thirty (30) days after the expiration of the option, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC may elect to fund and construct these improvements, and then include the cost of the additional improvements 1 i Development Agreement D~FT dated 2/7/2001 I ! i i 1 Page 15 ( -? ,..-,' \ \~. ,/ 1 '1, 12. In the South Gulfvlew and Beach Walk Improvements financing. 8. Covenant of Unified Use. Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC hereby agrees to execute the covenant of unified use and development for the Controlled Property providing that the Controlled Property shall be developed as a single project and operated and used as a unified mixed use project, which is attached as Exhibit H; provided however, that nothing shall preclude Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC from sellinq all or a portion of the Controlled Property in a condominium form of ownership. 9. Quality and Value. Clearwater Seashell Resort, L.C. shall design and construct the South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements described in Exhibit E as a high quality product in keeping with Beach by Design and the Seashell/Marriot design, subject only to a final budget which the Parties agree is approximately three million five hundred dollars ($3,500,000,00) for the South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements not including the additional improvements to the south of the beach concession building. 1 D. Proiect Obliqations, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC agrees to carry out the redevelopment of the Project Site by completing the purchase of all of the Controlled Property, preparing project plans and specifications, obtaining approvals by governmental authorities necessary for development of the Project, constructing various private improvements on the Project Site and operating the Project as a unified and integrated project. Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall take all actions necessary to maintain control of the Project Site, until a certificate of occupancy is issued by the City. Dedication of Riqht-of-Way. Prior to the issuance of a building permit authorizing the construction of the resort hotel units, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall dedicate ten (10) feet along the entire western boundary of the Project Site, Including any land previously included within the right of way of Third Street to the City as additional right of way for Coronado Avenue. Construction and Performance Completion Bond. Prior to commencing construction of the South Gulfvlew and Beach Walk Improvements, the Developer shall provide the City with security in a form acceptable to the City guaranteeing the completion of the South Gulfview and Beach Walk Improvements. ARTICL.E 6. PROJECT FINANCING. Development Agreement DRAFT dated 2f7/2001 Page 16 " 6.01. Notice of Project Financing to City. As soon as Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall have obtained any financing for any portion of the Project, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall provide the City with a sworn statement identifying the Project Lender(s) and documenting the type of financing that the Project Lender(s) has issued in favor of Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC for the Project. 6.02. Copy of Default Notice to City, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC covenants and agrees that any Project Construction Financing documents shall include provisions which provide that in the event any Project Financing shall become due and payable by maturity or acceleration, the Project Lender shall give written notice thereof to the City by certified mail, return receipt requested. Such notice from the Project Lender to the City shall state the basis of the default by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC and shall include copies of any pleadings in any proceeding instituted by the Project Lender(s) incident thereto. - 6.03. City Option to Pay Mortgage Debt or Purchase Project. 1. , I Assiqnment of Mortoaoe. Any mortgage instrument pertaining to any portion of the Project Site in effect prior to issuance of the Construction Completion Certificate for such portion of the Project Site shall provide that following a failure of Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC to repay any Project Financing which shall become due and payable by maturity or acceleration, the City is entitled, upon giving reasonable written notice to Clearwater Seashell Resort, Le, the Project Lender(s) and any other holder of such a mortgage, to an assignment of the mortgage securing the Construction Financing by paying to the Project Lender an amount of money not to exceed a sum equal to the amount of money advanced by the Project Lender(s) to Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC with respect to the Project Site, together with unpaid accrued interest on such amount, prepayment penalties, and all other accrued charges of the Project Lender(s) (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees incurred as a result of a default by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC under the Project Construction Financing). 2. Entitlement to Conveyance. If prior to the issuance of a Construction Completion Certificate, the ownership of any part of the Project located thereon has vested In a Project Lender(s) or any other person by foreclosure or any other action in lieu thereof, the City shall be entitled, at its election exercisable within sixty (60) days after the Project Lender(s) or other person obtains or receives title to the Project Site or part of the Project Site by notice to such Project Lender(s) or other person, to a conveyance of the Project Site or that part of the Project for which o,wnership has vested in the Project Construction Lender or other person to the City upon payment to the Development Agreement DRAFT dated 2/7/2001 Page 17 Project Lender(s) or other person of an amount not greater than the sum of (i) the larger of the money advanced by the Project Lender(s) or other person to Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC with respect to that Parcel and due and oWing at the time of the foreclosure or any other action in lieu thereof or the amount paid at foreclosure, less all appropriate credits, including those resulting from collection and application of rentals and other income received dunng foreclosure proceedings; (ii) all reasonable expenses of the Project Lender(s) or other person incurred in connection with the foreclosure of the Parcel or part of the Project; (iii) the expense, if any, incurred by the Project Lender(s) or other person in and as a direct result of the subsequent management of the Project; (IV) any prepayment penalties and (v) an amount equivalent to the interest that would have accrued on the aggregate of such amount had all such amounts become part of the money advanced by the Project Lender (s) or other person to Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC with respect to the Project Site and such money advanced had continued to be due and owing; and less income resulting from the management of the Project subsequent to the termination of foreclosure proceedings or the date that the Project Lender(s) or other person obtained title to the Project Site by deed In lieu of foreclosure, whichever is the earlier. ARTICLE 7. CONSTRUCTION OF SOUTH GULFVIEW AND BEACH WALK IMPROVEMENTS AND GARAGE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS. 7.01. Site Work. Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall be responsible for all site investigation, environmental testing, demolition and site clearing. 7.02. Radon Disclosure, As required by Section 88.285, Florida Statutes, the following notice is hereby given to Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC as the prospective purchaser of the Controlled Properties which may have buildings located on them, and Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC acknowledges receipt of such notice: "Radon Gas": Radon is a naturally occurring radioactive gas that, when it has accumulated In a building in sufficient quantities, may present health risk to persons who are exposed to it over time, Levels of radon that exceed Federal and State Guidelines have been found in buildings in FlOrida. Additional Information regarding radon and radon testing may, be obtained from your county public health unit." 7.03. Construction Development Agreement DRAFT dated 2/7/2001 Page 18 1 . Commencement Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall construct the Project substantially in accordance wIth the Plans and Specifications therefor. Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall commence construction within six (6) months after the effective date of this Agreement, unless the City shall have failed to gain approval of a Community Redevelopment District, of which the Project Site is a part, as provided for in Section 3.01 of this Agreement ("Commencement Date"), or as soon thereafter as possible after the authority for the Community Redevelopment District becomes effective and shall thereafter diligently pursue completion of the Project. a, For purposes of this Section 7.02, "commence construction" means commencement of meaningful physical development of that part of the Project as authorized by the Building Permit therefor which is continued and diligently prosecuted toward and with the active of completion of that part of the Project. b. All obligations of Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC (including deadlines in the Commencement Date) with respect to commencement and continuation of construction shall be subject to delays and extensions from time to time for Unavoidable Delay (see Article 15). Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall not be deemed to be in default of this Agreement to the extent construction of the Project, or a part thereof, is not complete by reason of Unavoidable Delay. 2, Pursuit of Construction. After the Commencement Date, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall continue, pursue and prosecute the construction of the Project with due diligence to completion, and shall not at any time actually or effectively have abandoned (or its Contractor having actually or effectively abandoned) the Project Site. For purposes of this subsection (b), "abandoned" means to have ceased any construction work which effectively advances the construction of the Project toward completion, including removing all or substantially all of the construction work force from the Project Site. 3. Payment of Contractors and Suppliers. Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall promptly pay, or arrange to be paid, all moneys due and legally owing to all persons or organizations dOing any work or furnishing any materials, fuel, machinery or supplies to Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC or any Contractors in connection with construction of any part of the Project. There shall not be a breach of thIS Section 7.02 unless and until a lien is filed against the Parcel or that part of the Project being developed or constructed thereon and the Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC fails to comply with the requirements of this Development Agreement DRAFT dated 2/7/2001 Page 19 SectIon, 4. Mechanic's and Materialmen's Liens. The payment by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC of the amount required to satIsfy any liens against the Parcel or the part of the Project which Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC is responsible for developing under this Agreement shall be subject to the Right to Contest as provided In Article 13. If, however, because of any act or omission of Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC or any Contractor or subcontractor, any mechanics' or materialmen's lien or other lien for labor, material, fuel, machinery or supplies shall be filed against the Project, the Project Site, or any building, structure or improvement thereon or lands thereunder, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall promptly cause the same to be canceled and discharged of record, bonded off or insured against by the Title Company. 5. Maintenance of Construction Site. During the construction of the Project, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall, at its own expense, keep the Project and all lands owned by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC within the Project Site in good and clean order and condition, and Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall promptly make all necessary or appropriate repairs, replacements and renewals thereof, whether interior or exterior, structural or nonstructural, ordinary or extraordinary, foreseen or unforeseen. All repairs, replacements and renewals shall be equal in quality and class to the original work. When making such repairs, replacements or renewals, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall comply wIth all laws, ordinances, codes and regulations then applicable to that part of the Project or the Parcel on which it is being developed. Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall have the right, after written notice to the City, to contest by appropriate legal proceedings conducted in good faith, the validity or applicability of any such law, ordinance, code or regulation, and to delay compliance therewIth pending the prosecution of such proceeding, provided that such contest shall be in accordance with the Right to Contest provisions of Article 13. 7.04 Construction Completion Certificate. 1, For purposes of this Section 7,03, "completion, "complete," "substantially complete" or "substantial completion" means, with respect to construction of part of the Project, the later of a certificate of occupancy for the shell of any structures) (not including any tenant improvements) for that part of the Project issued by the City or other appropriate governmental authority having jurisdiction over the Project Site or that portion of the Project has been deemed completed by the Project Lender under the Construction Financing Development Agreement DRAFT dated 2/7/2001 Page 20 therefor. 2, Upon the substantial completion of the construction of each part of the Project in accordance with the provisions of the Plans and Specifications, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall prepare and execute the Construction Completion Certificate, which shall then" be delivered to the City. Upon receipt of the certificate, the City shall promptly and diligently proceed to determine if construction of the Project has been completed substantially in accordance with the Plans and Specifications and this Agreement. Upon making such a determination, the City shall execute the certificate and retum it to Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC. The date of the Construction Completion Certificate shall be the date when all parties shall have executed said certificate. 3. The Construction Completion Certificate shall constitute a conclusive determination by the parties hereto of the satisfaction and termination of the obligations of Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC hereunder to construct the Project described in the certificate; provided, however, that nothing in this Section shall be a waiver of the rights, duties, obligations or responsibilities of the City or any other governmental entity acting in its regulatory or governmental capacity or an approval of said construction for purposes of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for that part of the Project. 4. If the City shall refuse or fail to execute the Construction Completion Certificate after receipt of a request by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC to do so, then the City shall, within ten (10) days after its receipt of such request, provide Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC with a written statement setting forth in reasonable detail the reason(s) why the City has not executed the Construction Completion Certificate and what must be done by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC to satisfy such objections so that the City would sign the certificate. Upon Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC satisfying the City's objections, then Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall submit a new request to the City for execution of the Construction Completion Certificate and that request shall be considered and acted upon in accordance with the procedures in this Section for the original request. 5. If the City refuses to execute the certificate and Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC does not agree with the objections set forth in the City's statement, then Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC may invoke the arbitration procedures set forth in Article 14 hereof for the purpose of determining if the prerequisites for execution by all parties of the Construction Completion Certificate have been met, and if not, what actions must be taken to satisfy such Development Agreement DRAFT dated 2f7f2001 Page 21 prerequIsItes, 6, The Construction Completion Certificate shall be in a form sufficient to be recorded in the public records of Pinellas County, Florida, After execution by the City, it shall be promptly returned to Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC who shall record the certificate in the public records of Pinellas County, Flonda, and pay the cost of such recording. 7.05 CIty not in Privity. The City shall not be deemed to be in privity of contract with any Contractor or provider of services with respect to the construction of any part of the Project not constituting all or any part of public improvements. 7.06 Construction Staging Area. The City agrees to allow Developer to use an area of the eXIsting surface parking lot located to the west of the Project Site which is designated by the City for construction staging during construction of the Project. ARTICLE 8. INDEMNIFICATION. 8.01. Indemnification by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC. 1. Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless, the City, its respective agents, officers, or employees from any and all liabilities, damages, penalties, judgments, claims, demands, costs, losses, expenses or attorneys' fees through appellate proceedings, for personal injury, bodily injury, death or property damage arising out of, or by reason of any act or omission of Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC, its agents, employees or contractors arising out of, in connection with or by reason of, the performance of any and all services covered by this Agreement, or which are alleged to have arisen out of, in connection with or by reason of, the performance of any and all services covered by this Agreement, or which are alleged to have arisen out of, in connection with, or by reason of, the performance of such services. ' 2. Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers and employees from any and all liabilities, damages, costs, penalties, judgments, claims, demands, losses, or expenses (including, but not limited to, actual attorneys' fees and engineering fees) arising from or attributable to any breach by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC, as the case may be, of any representations or warranties contained in Section 9.01, or covenants contained in Section 9.02. 3. Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC's indemnity obligations under subsections Development Agreement DRAFT dated 2/7/2001 Page 22 I .. ,1\ j \ '-- / ' r\:'" / "\ \'\;/'1~' 4 ). '-5-)/. '\' . \\'/ .\ . \, \ j' ,I ,~\.~, .... t,.t ~ \.. (1) and (2) shall survive the earlier of the Termination Date or the Expiration Date, but shall apply only to occurrences, acts, or omiSSions that arise on or before the earlier of the Termination Date or the Expiration Date. Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC's indemnity hereunder is in addition to and not limited by any insurance policy and is not and shall not be interpreted as an insuring agreement between or among the parties to this Agreement, nor as a waiver of sovereign immunity for any party entitled to assert the defense of sovereign immunity, 8.02. Indemnification by the City. 1, To the extent permitted by law, the City agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC, its respective officers, and employees from any and all liabilities, damages, penalties, judgments, claims, demands, costs, losses, expenses or attorneys' fees through appellate proceedings, for personal injury, bodily injury, death or property damage arising out of, or by reason of, any act or omission of the City, its respective agents or employees arising out of, in connection with or by reason of, the performance of any and all services covered by this Agreement, or which are alleged to have arisen out of, in connection with or by reason of, the performance of any and' all services covered by this Agreement, or which are alleged to have arisen out of, in connection with, or by reason of, the performance of such services. 2. The City shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC, its officers and employees from any and all liabilities, damages, costs, penalties, judgments, claims, demands, losses, or expenses (including, but not limited to, actual attorneys' fees and engineering fees) arising from or attributable to any breach by the City, as the case may be, of any representatIons or warranties contained in Section 10,01, or covenants contained in Section 10.02, 3. The City's indemnity obligations under this Section 10.02 shall survive the earlier of the Termination Date or the Expiration Date, but shall only apply to occurrences, acts or omiSSions that arise on or before the earlier of the Termination Date or the Expiration Date, The City's indemnity hereunder is not and shall not be interpreted as an insuring agreement between or among the parties to this Agreement, but is in addition to and not limited by any insurance policy provided that said obligation shall not be greater than that permitted and shall be limited by the provisions of Section 768.28, Florida Statutes, or any successor statute thereto. Development Agreement DRAFT dated 2f7 f2001 Page 23 8.03. Limitation of Indemnification. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, with respect to the indemnIfication obligations of Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC (as set forth in Section 8.01) and the City (as set forth in Section 8,02), the following shall apply: 1. The indemnifying party shall not be responsible for damages that could have been, but were not, mitigated by the indemnified party; 2. The indemnifying party shall not be responsible for that portion of any damages caused by the negligent or willful acts or omissions of the indemnified party, and 3. There shall be no obligation to indemnify hereunder in the event that the indemnified party (1) shall have effected a settlement of any claim without the prior written consent of the indemnifying party, or (2) shall not have subrogated the indemnifying party to the indemnified party's rights against any third party by an assignment to the indemnifying party of any cause or action against such third party. ARTICLE 9. REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES AND COVENANTS OF CLEARWATER SEASHELL RESORT, LC. 9.01. Representations and Warranties. Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC represents and warrants to the City that each of the following statements is currently true and accurate and agrees the City may rely upon each of the following statements: 1. Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC is a Florida Limited Liability Company duly organIzed and validly existing under the laws of the State of Florida, has all requisite power and authority to carry on its business as now conducted, to own or hold its properties and to enter into and perform its obligations hereunder and under each document or instrument contemplated by this Agreement to which it is or will be a party, is qualified to do business in the State of Florida, and has consented to service of process upon a designated agent for service of process in the State of Florida. 2. This Agreement and, to the extent such documents presently exist in a form accepted by the City and Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC, each document contemplated or required by this Agreement to which Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC IS or will be a party have been duly authorized by a/l necessary action on the part of, and have been or will be duly executed and delivered by, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC, and neither the execution and delivery Development Agreement DRAFT dated 2f7f2001 Page 24 thereof, nor compliance with the terms and provisions thereof or hereof: (i) requires the approval and consent of any other party, except such as have been duly obtained or as are specifically noted herein, (ii) contravenes any existing law, judgment, governmental rule, regulation or order applicable to or binding on Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC, (iii) contravenes or results in any breach of, default under or, other than as contemplated by this Agreement, results in the creation of any lien or encumbrance upon any property of Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC under any indenture, mortgage, deed of trust, bank loan or credit agreement, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC's Articles of Incorporation, or, any other agreement or instrument to which Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC is a party or by which Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC may be bound. 3, This Agreement and, to the extent such documents presently exist in a form accepted by the City and Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC, each document contemplated or required by this Agreement to which Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC is or will be a party constitutes, or when entered into will constitute, a legal, valid and binding obligation of Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC enforceable against Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC in accordance with the terms thereof, except as such enforceability may be limited by applicable bankruptcy, insolvency or similar laws from time to time in effect which affect creditors' rights generally and subject to usual equitable principles in the event that equitable remedies are involved. 4, There are no pending or, to the knowledge of Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC threatened actions or proceedings before any court or administrative agency against Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC, or against any controlling shareholder, officer, employee or agent of CI~arwater Seashell Resort, LC which question the validity of this Agreement or any document contemplated hereunder, or which are likely in any case, or in the aggregate, to materially adversely affect the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereunder or the financial condition of Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC. 5, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC has filed or caused to be filed all federal, state, local and foreign tax returns, if any, which were required to be filed by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC and has paid, or caused to be paid, all taxes shown to be due and payable on such returns or on any assessments levied against Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC. 6. All financial information and other documentation, including that pertaining to the Project or Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC, delivered by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC to the City was, on the date of delivery thereof, true and Development Agreement DRAFT dated 2f7/2001 Page 25 correct. 7. The prrncipal place of business and principal executive offices of Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC is In Dunedin, Florida, and Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC will keep records concerning the Project (such as construction contracts, financing documents and corporate documents) and all contracts, licenses and similar rights relating thereto at an office in Pinellas or Hillsborough Counties. 8. As of the Effective Date, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC will have the financial capability to carry out its obligations and responsibilities in connection with the development of the Project as contemplated by this Agreement. 9, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC has the experience, expertise, and capability to develop, cause the construction, and complete the Project and, oversee and manage the design, planning, construction, completion and opening for business of the Project. 9.02. Covenants. Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC covenants with the City that until the earlier of the Termination Date or the Expiration Date: 1. Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall timely perform or cause to be performed all of the obligations contained herein which are the responsibility of Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC to perform. 2. During each year that this Agreement and the obligations of Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC under this Agreement shall be in effect, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall cause to be executed and to continue to be in effect those instruments, documents, certificates, permits, licenses and approvals and shall cause to occur those events contemplated by this Agreement that are applicable to, and that are the responsibility of, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC. 3. Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall assist and cooperate with the City to accomplish the development of the Project by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC in accordance with the Plan and SpeCifications, and this Agreement, and will not violate any laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, orders, contracts or agreements that are or will be applicable thereto. 4. Subsequent to the Effective Date, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall maintain its financial capability to develop, construct and complete the Development Agreement DRAFT dated 2/7/2001 Page 26 Project and shall promptly notify the City of any event, condition, occurrence, or change In its financial condition which adversely affects, or with the passage of time is likely to adversely affect, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC's fmancial capability to successfully and completely develop, construct and complete the Project as contemplated hereby. 5. Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall promptly cause to be filed when due all federal, state, local and foreign tax returns required to be filed by it, and shall promptly pay when due any tax required thereby. 6, Subject to Section 18.01, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall maintain its existence, will not dissolve or substantially dissolve all of its assets and will not consolidate with or merge into another corporation, limited partnership, or other entity or permit one or more other corporations or other entity to consolidate with or merge into it without the prior approval of the City unless Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC retains a controlling interest in the consolidated or merged corporation, and will promptly notify the City of any changes to the existence or form of the corporation or any change in the controlling shareholders, officers or directors of Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC. 7. Other than sales and assignments contemplated by this Agreement, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall not sell, lease, transfer or otherwise dispose of all or substantially all its assets without adequate consideration and will otherwise take no action which shall have the effect, singularly or in the aggregate, of rendering Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC unable to continue to observe and perform the covenants, agreements, and conditions hereof and the performance of all other obligations required by this Ag reement. 8, Except for the removal of any structures, plants, items or other things from the Project Site necessary for construction of the Project to commence and continue, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall not permit, commit, or suffer any waste or impairment of the Project or the Project Site prior t6 the Completion Date. 9, Provided all conditions precedent thereto have been satisfied or waived as provided herein, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall acquire the Controlled Property as provided in Article 5 hereof and shall pay the Purchase Price, as the case may be, when due and payable as provided therein. 10. Provided all conditions precedent thereto have been satisfied or waived as Development Agreement DRAFT dated 2/7/2001 Page 27 provided herein, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall design, construct and complete the Project such that it is substantially complete as provided in this Agreement no later than the Project CompletIon Date. ARTICLE 1 O. REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES AND COVENANTS OF THE CITY. 1 0.01. R(~presentations and Warranties. The City represents and warrants to Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC that each of the following statements is currently true and accurate and agrees that Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC may rely on each of the following statements: 1. The City is a validly existing body corporate and politic of the State of Florida, has all requisite corporate power and authority to carry on its business as now conducted and to perform its obligations hereunder and under each document or instrument contemplated by this Agreement to which it is or will be a party, 2. This Agreement and, to the extent such documents presently exist in a form accepted by the City and Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC, each document contemplated or required by this Agreement to which the City is or will be a party have been duly authorized by all necessary action on the part of, and have been or will be duly executed and delivered by, the City, and neither the execution and delivery thereof, nor compliance with the terms and provisions thereof or hereof (i) requires the approval and consent of any other party, except such as have been duly obtained or as are specifically noted herein, (ii) contravenes any existing law, judgment, governmental rule, regulation or order applicable to or binding on the City, (iii) contravenes or results in any breach of, or default under or, other than as contemplated by this Agreement, results in the creation of any lien or encumbrance upon any property of the City under any indenture, mortgage, deed of trust, bank loan or credit agreement, applicable ordinances, resolutions or, on the date of. this Agreement, any other agreement or instrument to which the City is a party, specifically including any covenants of any bonds, notes, or other forms of indebtedness of the City outstanding on the Effective Date, 3. This Agreement and, to the extent such documents presently exist in a form accepted by the City and Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC, each document contemplated or required by this Agreement to which the City is or will be a party constitute, or when entered into will constitute, legal, valid and binding obligations of the City enforceable against the City in accordance with the terms thereof, except as such enforceability may be limited by public policy or applicable bankruptcy, insolvency or similar laws from time to time in effect Development Agreement DRAFT dated 2/7/2001 Page 28 which affect creditors' rights generally and subject to usual equitable principles in the event that equitable remedies are involved. 4. There are no pending or threatened actions or proceedings before any court or administrative agency against the City, or against any officer of the City, which question the validity of any document contemplated hereunder, or which are likely in any case, or in the aggregate, to materially adversely affect the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereunder or the financial condition of the City. ,10.02. Covenants. The City covenants with Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC that until the earlier of the Termination Date or the Expiration Date: 1. The City shall timely perform, or cause to be performed, all of the obligations contained herein which are the responsibility of the City to perform. 2. During each year that this Agreement and the obligations of the City under this Agreement shall be in effect, the City shall cause to be executed and to continue to be in effect those instruments, documents, certificates, permits, licenses and approvals, and shall cause to occur those events contemplated by this Agreement that are applicable to and are the responsibility of the City. 3. The City shall assist and cooperate with Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC to accomplish the development of the Project in accordance with this Agreement and the Plans and Specifications, will carry out its duties and responsibilities contemplated by this Agreement, and will not violate any laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, orders, contracts, or agreements that are or will be applicable thereto, and, to the extent permitted by law, the City will not enact or adopt or urge or encourage the adoption of any ordinances, resolutions, rules regulations or orders or approve or enter into any contracts or agreements, including issuing any bonds, notes, or other forms of indebtedness, that will result in any provision of this Agreement to be in violation thereof. 4. Except for the demolition of existing structures on the Project Site and the removal of objects from the Project Site as contemplated by this Agreement, the City shall not permit, commit, or suffer any waste or impairment to the Project Site, nor shall the City request or recommend any rezoning of the Project Site, or any part thereof, which will prevent or adversely affect the development of the Project. 5. The City shall maintain its financial capability to carry out its responsibilities Development Agreement DRAFT dated 2/7/2001 Page 29 as contemplated by this Agreement and shall notify Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC of any event, condition, occurrence, or change in its financial condition which adversely affects, or with the passage of tIme is likely to adversely affect, the City's financial capability to carry out its responsibilities contemplated hereby. ARTICLE 11. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT. 11.01. CIE~arwater Seashell Resort, LC Acquiring Project Site. Unless this Agreement has been terminated pursuant to ArtIcle 12 hereof, the obligation of Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC to acquire the Project Site is subject to the fulfillment to the satisfaction of, or waiver in writing by, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC of each of the following conditions precedent: 1. Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall have received evidence satisfactory to Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC that the Project Site permits the uses contemplated in this Agreement. 2. The Plans and Specifications as are required for issuance of the Building Permit required to commence construction of the Project shall have been approved by the City in accordance with applicable ordinances, land use regulations, building codes and other regulations of the City. 3, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall have obtained commitments from the Project Construction Lender as provided in Article 6 hereof. 4. The City shall have closed and vacated any streets, alleys or other public rights-of-way as may be necessary for the construction and use of the Project Site according to the Plan and Specifications, this Agreement and approved by resolution the abandonment of all such rights-ot-way in favor ot Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC, provided however that the abandonment will not be effective unless and until the Construction FinanCing Commitment is obtained from Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC as req uired by Article 6 herein, 5, All Permits and the Building Permit necessary for construction of the Project to commence shall have been issued, 11.02. Construction of Project. Subject to termmation of this Agreement pursuant to Article 12, the obligation of Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC to commence Development Agreement DRAFT dated 2f712oo1 Page 30 construction of the Project on the Commencement Date is subject to the fulfillment to the satisfaction of, or waIver in writing by, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC of the followmg conditions: 1. The Plans and Specifications that are necessary to commence construction shall have been approved by the City, and the initial Building Permit for the commencement of construction of that part of the Project and all other Permits necessary for construction to commence have been issued. 2. The vacation of rights-of-way as provided in Section 5.04(1) hereof. 11.03. Responsibilities of the Parties for Conditions Precedent. The parties hereto shall not, individually or collectIvely, knowingly, intentionally or negligently prevent any condition precedent from occurring; provided, however, nothing in this Section is intended or shall be deemed to deny any party the right to reasonably exercise its discretion to the extent permitted by law or this Agreement. ARTICLE 12. DEFAULT; TERMINATION. 12.01. Project Default by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC. 1. There shall be an "event of default" by ~ Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC pertaining to the entire Project upon the occurrence of anyone or more of the following: a. Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall fail to perform or comply with any material provision of this Ag reement applicable to it within the time prescribed therefor, after receipt of a notice from the City pursuant to Pi3ragraph 12,02(2)(a); or b. Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall make a general assignment for the benefit of its creditors, or shall admit in writing its inability to pay its debts as they become due or shall file a petition in bankruptcy, or shall be adjudicated a bankrupt or insolvent, or shall file a petition seeking any reorganization, arrangement, composition, readjustment, liquidation, dissolution or similar relief under any present or future statute, law or regulation or shall file an answer admitting, or shall fail reasonably to contest, the material allegations of a petition filed against it in any such proceeding, or shall seek or consent to or acquiesce in the appointment of any trustee, receiver or liquidator of Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC or any material part of such entity's properties; or Development Agreement DRAFT dated 2f7/2001 Page 31 2. Development Agreement DRAFT dated 217/2001 c. Wlthm sIxty (60) days after the commencement of any proceeding by or against Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC seeking any reorganizatIon, arrangement, composition, readjustment, lIquidation, dissolution or similar relief under any present or future statute, law or regulatton, such proceeding shall not have been dismissed or otherwise terminated, or if, within sixty (60) days after the appointment without the consent or acquiescence of Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC of any trustee, receiver or liquidator of any of such entities or of any material part of any of such entity's properties, such appointment shall not have been vacated; or a. If an event of default by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC described in subsection (1) above shall occur, the City shall provide written notice thereof to Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC, and, if such event of default shall not be cured by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC within thirty (30) days after receipt of the written notice from the City specifying in reasonable detail the event of default by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC, or if such event of default is of such nature that it cannot be completely cured within such time period, then if Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall not have commenced to cure such default within such thirty (30) day period and shall not diligently prosecute such cure to completion within such reasonable longer period of time as may be necessary (provided, however, if Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC is proceeding diligently and in good faith, the curative period shall be extended for a period of not exceeding six (6) months without any approval or consent of the City being required, but such approval will be required if the curative period is to be extended beyond six (6) months (after the notice of default has been given by the City to Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC and such extended curative penod may be ended by the City electing to do so upon any Project Lender finding Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC to be in default of any Project Financing and the curative period therefor has expired without such event of default being cured) then, in addition to any remedy available under Section 12.05, the City may terminate this Agreement or pursue any and all legal or equitable remedies to which the City is entitled, provided, however; if Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall fail to cure such event of default within said thirty (30) day or longer period or ceases to proceed diligently to timely cure such event of default, then the City may proceed to enforce other available remedies without providing any additional notice to Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC. Page 32 b, Any attempt by the City to pursue any of the above referenced remedies will not be deemed an exclusive election of remedy or waiver of the City's right to pursue any other remedy to which either may be entitled. c, Any time periods or deadlines provided in this Agreement shall be tolled or extended by the amount of time to cure any event of default hereunder if such event affects Clearwater S~ashell Resort, LC's or City's ability to perform by such deadline or the expiration of such period. 3. Subject to the rights of the Project Lender, if the City elects under Section 6.03 to cure a default under Subsection 12.01 (1) by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC, construction contracts, contract documents, building permits, development permits, management agreements, and financial commitments (all only to the extent assignable) with respect to the Project shall, if such default has not been previously cured, on the day following receipt by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC of notice from the City of its election to cure under Section 6.03, be deemed then assigned to the City making said election, without necessity of any other action being taken or not taken by any party hereto. ClearwateLSeashell Resort, LC shall transfer and deliver to the City upon making said election, all assignable Plans and Specifications, working drawings, construction contracts, contract documents, financial commitments, management agreements, and all Permits, and, at the direction of the City, the defaulting Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall vacate the Parcel(s), 4, Notwithstanding any provision of this Section, a default by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall not affect the title of any condominium unit or common area conveyed by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC to an unrelated third party or to a condominium association which is not controlled by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC. 12.02, Default by the City. 1. Provided Clearwater Seashell Resort, .LC is not then in default under Section 12.01, there shall be an "event of default" by the City under this Agreement in the event the City shall fail to perform or comply with any material provision of this Agreement applicable to it; provided, however, that suspension of or delay in performance by the City during any period in which Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC is in default of this Agreement as provided Development Agreement DRAFT dated 2/7/2001 Page 33 2, in Section 12.01 hereof will not constitute an event of default by the City under this Subsection 12.02. a, If an event of default by the City described in Subsection 12,02(1) shall occur, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall provide written notice thereof to the City, and, after expiration of the curative period described in paragraph (b) below, may terminate this Agreement, institute an action to compel specific performance of the terms hereof by the City or pursue any and all legal or equitable remedies to which Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC is entitled; provided, however, if the event of default by the City occurs, any monetary recovery by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC in any such action shall be limited to bona fide third-party out of-pocket costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC in connection with this Agreement and the transactions contemplated hereby, unless any such default by the City was willful and committed in bad faith with reckless disregard for the rights of Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC, b. Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC may not terminate this Agreement or institute an action described in paragraph (2a) above if the City cures such event of default within thirty (30) days after receipt by the City of written notice from Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC specifying in reasonable detail the event of default by the City, or if any such event of default is of such nature that it cannot be completely cured within such period, then within such reasonably longer period of time as may be necessary to cure such default, provided however, if the City is proceeding diligently and in good faith, the curative period shall be extended for a period of not exceeding six (6) months without any approval or consent of Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC being required, but such approval will be required if the curative period is to be extended beyond six (6) months after the notIce of default has been given by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC to the City if the City has commenced to cure such default within such thirty (30) day period and is diligently prosecuting such curative action to completion. The City shall within said thirty (30) day period or such longer period promptly, diligently and in good faith proceed to cure such event of default after receipt of the notice from Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC and shall succeed In curing such event of default within said period of time, provided, however, if the City shall fail to cure such event of default within said thirty (30) day or longer period or ceases to proceed diligently to timely cure such event of default, then Development Agreement DRAFT dated 217/2001 Page 34 Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC may proceed with its available remedies without providing any additional notice to the CIty. c. Any attempt by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC to pursue any of the remedies referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) above will not be deemed an exclusive election of remedy or waiver of Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC's right to pursue any other remedy to which it might be entitled. d, Any time periods or deadlines provided in this Agreement shall be tolled or extended by the amount of time to cure any,event of default hereunder if such event affects Clearwater Seashell Resort, LCts or City's ability to perform by such deadline or the expiration of such period. 12.03. Obligations, Rights and Remedies Cumulative. Unless specifically stated herein to the contrary, the specified rights and remedies to which either the City or Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC are entitled under this Agreement are not exclusive and are intended to be in addition to any other remedies or means of redress to which the City or Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC may lawfully be entitled and are not specifically prohibited by this Agreement. The suspension of, or delay in, the performance of its obligations by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC while the City shall at such time be in default of their obligations hereunder shall not be deemed to be an "event of default." The suspension of, or delay in, the performance of the obligations by the City while Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall at such time be in default of its obligations hereunder shall not be deemed to be an "event of default" by the City. '12.04. Non-Action on Failure to Observe Provisions of this Agreement. The failure of the City or Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC'to promptly or continually insist upon strict performance of any term, covenant, condition or provision of this Agreement, or any Exhibit hereto, or any other agreement, instrument or document of whatever form or nature contemplated hereby shall not be deemed a waiver of any right or remedy that the City or Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC may have, and shall not be deemed a waiver of a subsequent default or nonperformance of such term, covenant, condition or provision. 12.05. Termination. 1 . Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC and the City acknowledge and agree that as of the Effective Date certain matters mutually agreed by the parties hereto to be essential to the successful development of the Project have not been Development Agreement , DRAFT dated 217/2001 Page 35 satisfied or are subject to certain conditions, legal requirements or approvals beyond the control of any of the parties hereto or which cannot be definitely resolved under thIs Agreement, Including, but not limited to, failure of a governmental authority to grant an approval required for development of the Project or insurable title to the Project Site has not been obtained. In recognition of these events or conditions, the parties hereto mutually agree that, provided the appropnate or responsible party therefor diligently and in good faith seeks to the fullest extent of its capabilities to cause such event or condition to occur or be satisfied, the failure of the events or conditions listed in subsection (2) below to occur or be satisfied shall not constitute an event of default by any party under this Article 12, but may, upon the election of any party hereto, be the basis for a termination of this Agreement in accordance with this Section. 2. In additIon to any other rights of termination provided elsewhere in this Agreement, this Agreement may be termInated as provided in subsection (3) of this section by the City or Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC after the occurrence of any of the following events or conditions (except for subsection (b), in which event only Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC may terminate this Agreement pursuant to this subsection (2)): a. The appropriate governmental authority (including the City in exercise of its governmental and regulatory authority and responsibility), upon petition by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC denies or fails to: issue the necessary order or other action necessary, vacate right-of-way as described in Section 5,03, issue the Permits, issue the Building Permits, or approve any other land use necessary to commence construction of the Project on the Project Site, provided Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC has proceeded diligently, expeditiously and in good faith to obtain such approval, permits or other necessary actions; b. A previously unknown site condition is subsequently discovered and that condition prevents successful development of the Project, or part of the Project on the Project Site, or part of the Project Site (in which case only Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC at his option can terminate the Project as not feasible), 3. Upon the occurrence of an event described in subsection (2) or in the event that Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC or the City, after diligently and in good faith to the fullest extent its capabilities, IS unable to cause a conditIon precedent to its respective obligations to occur or be satisfied, then Development Agreement DRAFT dated 21712001 Page 36 Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC or the City may elect to terminate this Agreement by giving a notice to the other party hereto withm thirty (30) days of the occurrence of such event or the determination of inability to cause a conditIon precedent to occur or be satisfied, stating its election to terminate this Agreement as a result thereof, in which case this Agreement shall then terminate. I 4. In the event of a termination pursuant to this Section 12,05, neither Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC nor the City shall be obligated or liable one to the other in any way, financially or otherwise, for any claim or matter arising from or as a result of this Agreement or any actions taken by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC and the City, or any of them, hereunder or contemplated hereby, and each party shall be responsible for its own costs, however, the provisions of Sections 9.01 and 10.01 shall apply and shall survive termination of this Agreement, the provisions of this Subsection 12.05(4) to the contrary notwithstanding. 2.06. Termination Certificate. 1. In the event of a termination of this Agreement for any reason prior to the Expiration Date, each of the parties hereto do covenant and agree with each other to promptly execute a certificate prepared by the party electing to terminate this Agreement, which certificate shall expressly state that this Agreement has been terminated in accordance with its terms, is no longer of any force and effect except for those provisions hereof which expressly survive termination, that the rights, duties and obligations of the parties hereto have been terminated and released (subject to those surviving provisions hereof) and that the Project Site is no 'Ionger subject to any restrictions, limitations or encumbrances imposed by this Agreement. 2. The certificate described in Subsection (1) shall be prepared in a form suitable for recording and promptly after executIon by all of the parties hereto shall be recorded in the public records of Pinellas Cou'nty, Florida. ARTICLE 13. RIGHT TO CONTEST. , i I i I Development Agreement dRAFT dated 217/2001 i I I 13.01. Right to Contest. Subject to the conditions set forth in Section 13.02 below, the : City or Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC each may, at its sole discretion and expense, after prior written notice to the other parties hereto, contest by appropriate action or proceeding conducted in good faith and with due diligence, the amount or validity or application, in whole or in part, of any lien, any payment of any taxes, assessments, impact fees or other public charges of a similar nature that may from Page 37 \ time to time be levied upon or assessed by any appropriate governmental authority a9ainst Clearwater Seashell Resort, Le, the Project (or any part thereof), the Project Site, furniture, fixtures, equipment or other personal property thereon, and the revenues generated from the use or operation of any or all of the above, any other payment specifically identified in this Agreement, or compliance with any law, rule, regulation, or other such legal requirement. 13.02. Conditions. The right to contest any charge, payment or requirement pursuant to Section 13,01 is subject to the following: 1. Such proceeding shall suspend the execution or enforcement of such charge, payment or requirement; 2. Such proceeding will not create any risk of impairment of the acquisition or preparation of the Project Site, the construction, completion, operation or use of the Project, the Project Site, or any part thereof, in any material respect, and neither the Project or Project Site, nor any part of the Project or the Project Site, would be subject to any risk of being involuntarily sold, forfeited or lost or the acquisition of the Project Site or the construction, equipping, or completion of the Project or any part thereof be delayed or prohibited; 3, Such proceeding will not subject any other party to criminal liability or risk of material civil liability for failure to comply therewith, or involve risk of any material claim against such party; and 4, The party seeking the benefit of this Article shall have furnished to the other parties such security, if any, as may be required in such proceeding or as may be reasonably requested by the others, to protect the Project and the Project Site, and any part thereof, and any interest of such parties hereunder. ARTICLE 14. ARBITRATION 14.01. Agreement to Arbitrate. Only as specifically provided in this Agreement and only jf any judicial or adminIstratIve action or proceeding has not been commenced with re9ard to the same matter and, if so, the party hereto commencing such action has not dismissed it, any disagreement or dispute between the parties may be arbitrated in the manner set forth in this Article 14. All parties hereby agree such arbitration, once commenced, shall be the exclusive procedure for resolving such disagreement Development Agreement DRAFT dated 2f7f2001 Page 38 or dispute and agree to be bound by the result of any such arbitration proceeding unless all parties mutually agree to terminate such proceeding prior to decision. If any arbitration proceeding under this part adversely affects the performance of any party hereunder, then any time periods provided herein for such performance by that party shall be tolled during the pendency of the arbitration proceeding affecting such performance. 4.02. Appointment of Arbitrators. 1. 2, Dbvelopment Agreement I DRAFT dated 2/7/2001 I I I I i a, Unless accelerated arbitration as provided in Section 14.08 hereof is invoked, any party invoking arbitration herewith shall, within five (5) days after giving notice of impasse in the dispute resolution proce~s or upon following the expiration of the time period for such dispute resolution occurrence of the event permitting arbitration to be invoked, give written notice to that effect to the other parties, and shall in such notice appoint a disinterested person who is on the list of qualified arbitrators maintained by the American Arbitration Association or a disinterested person not on such list to whom an objection is not made by any other party hereto within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of such appointment as the arbitrator or, if more than one (1) arbitrator is to be appointed, as one of the arbitrators. b. Within ten (10) days after receipt of the notice described in paragraph (1), the other parties shall by written notice to the original party acknowledge that arbitration has been invoked as permitted by this Agreement, and shall either accept and approve the appointment of such individual set forth in the original notice as a sole arbitrator or shall appoint one (1) disinterested person per party of recognized competence in such field as an arbitrator. a. If two (2) arbitrators are appointed pursuant to subsection (a) above, the arbItrators thus appointed shall appoint a third disinterested person who is on the list of qualified arbitrators maintained by the American Arbitration AssociatIon, and such three (3) arbitrators shall as promptly as possible determine such matter. . b. If the second arbitrator shall not have been appointed as provided in subsection (a), the first arbitrator shall, after ten (10) days notice to the parties, proceed to determine such matter. c. If the two (2) arbitrators appointed by the parties pursuant to subsection (a) shall be unable to agree within fifteen (15) days after Page 39 the appointment of the second arbItrator upon the appointment of a third arbitrator, they shall gIve written notice of such failure to agree to the parties, and, if the parties then fail to agree upon the selection of such thIrd arbitrator within fifteen (15) days thereafter, then within ten (10) days thereafter each of the parties upon written notice to the other parties hereto may request the appointment of a third arbitrator by the office in or for the State of Florida (or if more than one office, the office located closest to the City) of the American Arbitration Association (or any successor organization thereto), or, in its absence, refusal, failure or inability to act, request such appointment of such arbitrator by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (which request shall be filed in the division of that court responsible for the geographic area including the City), or as otherwise provided in Chapter 682, Florida Statutes, known and referred to as the Florida Arbitration Act, as amended. 14.03. Gemeral Procedures. In any arbitration proceeding under this part, those parties appointing arbitrators shall each be fully entitled to present evidence and argument to the sole arbitrator or panel of arbitrators. The arbitrator or panel of arbitrators shall only interpret and apply the terms of this Agreement and may not change any such terms, or deprive any party to this Agreement of any right or remedy expressed or implied in this Agreement, or award any damages or other compensation to any party hereto. The arbitration proceedings shall follow the rules and procedures of the American Arbitration Association (or any successor or~~anIzation thereto) unless specifically modified by this Agreement, or as then agreed to by the parties hereto. 14.04. Majority Rule. In any arbitration proceeding under this part, the determination of the~ majority of the panel of arbitrators, or of the sole arbitrator if only one (1) arbitrator is used, shall be conclusive upon the parties and judgment upon the same may be entered In any court having jurisdiction thereof. The arbitrator or panel of arbitrators shall give written notice to the parties stating his or their determination wi1hin thirty (30) days after the conclusion of the hearing or final submission of all evidence or argument. 14.05. Re'placement of Arbitrator. In the event of the failure, refusal or inability of any arbitrator to serve as such, promptly upon such determination being made by the affected arbitrator, the affected arbitrator shall give notice to the other two (2) arbitrators (if applicable) and to the parties hereto, and then a new arbitrator shall be promptly appointed as a replacement, which appointment shall be made by the party or the arbitrators who appointed the affected arbitrator in the same manner as provided for in the onginal appointment of the affected arbitrator in Section 14.02 Development Agreement DRAFT datecl 2/7/2001 Page 40 hereof 4.06. Decision of Arbitrators. 1. If any deCision reached by arbitration as provided in this part requires performance by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC covenants and agrees to comply with any decision of the arbitrator(s) promptly after the date of receipt by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC of such deciSion, and to continue such performance to completion with due diligence and in good faith. 2. If any such decision requires performance by the City, the City covenants and agrees to comply promptly with any decision reached by arbitrators) promptly after the date of receipt by the City of such deCision, 'and to continue such performance to completion with due diligence and in good faith. 3. Nothing in this part, nor in any arbitration decision rendered under this part, shall be construed to require any payment by the City to Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC not otherwise provided for herein. 4.07. Expense of Arbitration. The expenses of any arbitration proceeding pursuant to this part shall be borne equally by the parties to such proceeding, provided, however, for the purpose of this Section 14.07, "expenses" shall include the fees and expenses of the arbitrators and the American Arbitration Association with respect to such proceeding, but shall not include attorneys' fees or expert witness fees, or any costs incurred by attorneys or expert witnesses, unless (and to the extent) agreed to by the parties to such proceeding, which in the absence of such Agreement shall be the responsibility of the party incurring such fees or costs. I 14.08. Accelerated Arbitration. : 1. a. b, i I I clevelopment Agreement DRAFT dated 2/7/2001 , , If any of the parties to any arbitration proceeding under this part determines the matter for arbitration should be decided on an expedited basis, then after an initial election to invoke arbitration pursuant to Section 14,02 hereof has been made, either party to such proceeding may invoke accelerated arbitration by giving notice thereof to the other parties no later than three (3) days after arbitration has been initially invoked and the other parties do not object within three (3) days thereafter. Accelerated arbitration, for purposes of this Section 14.08, shall be accomplished by either party notifying the American Arbitration Page 41 AssocIation (or any successor orgamzation thereto) that the parties have agreed to a single arbitrator, qualified to decide the matter for arbitratIon, to be appomted by the American Arbitration Association (or any successor organization thereto) with the consent of the parties to such proceedmg within three (3) days after receipt of the request and to decide such matter within five (5) days after such appointment. c. If an arbitrator is not so appointed with consent of the parties to the proceeding within three (3) days after the notice referred to in paragraph (2) is received by the American Arbitration Association, the accelerated proceeding under this Section 14.08 shall terminate and the procedures otherwIse set forth in this Article 14 shall apply, unless the parties mutually agree to an extension of such time period, 2, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC and the City hereby agree to use such accelerated procedure only when reasonably necessary, to not contest the appointment of the arbitrator or his or her decision except as may be permitted by law, and that all other provisions of this part, except as are in conflict with this Section 14,08, remain in effect and applicable to an accelerated arbitration proceeding. 14.09. Applicable Law. To the extent not inconsistent with this article, any arbitration proceeding under this article shall be governed by the provisions of Chapter 682, Florida Statutes, as amended, known and referred to as the Florida. Arbitration Code. 14.10. Arbitration Proceedings and Records. Any arbitration hearing under this article shall be considered a meeting subject to Section 286.011, Florida Statutes, and shall be open to any member of the public. Unless otherwise rendered confidential pursuant to or by the operation of any applicable law or order (other than an order by a sole arbitrator or panel of arbitrators acting under this part), the record of such proceedings shall be a public record under Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. ARTICLE 15. UNAVOIDABLE DELAY. 15.01. Unavoidable Delay. 1, Any delay in periormance of or Inability to periorm any obligation under thiS Agreement (other than an obligation to pay money) due to any event or condition desCribed in paragraph (b) as an event of "Unavoidable Delay" shall be excused in the manner provided in this Section 15,01. Development Agreement DRAFT dated 2/7/2001 Page 42 2. "Unavoidable Delay" means any of the following events or conditions or any combination thereof. acts of God, acts of the public enemy, riot, Insurrection, war, pestilence, archaeological excavations required by law, unavailability of materials after timely ordering of same, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, freight embargoes, fire, lightning, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, extremely abnormal and excessIvely inclement weather (as indicated by the records of the local weather bureau for a five-year period preceding the Effective Date), strikes or labor disturbances, delays due to proceedings under Chapters 73 and 74, Florida Statutes, restoration in connection with any of the foregoing or any other cause beyond the reasonable control of the party performing the obligation in question, including, without limitation, such causes as may arise from the act of the other party to this Agreement, or acts of any governmental authority (except that acts of the City shall not constitute an Unavoidable Delay with respect to performance by the City). 3. An application by any party hereto (referred to in this paragraph (c) and in paragraph (d) as the "Applicant") for an extension of time pursuant to this subsection must be in writing, must set forth in detail the reasons and causes of delay, and must be filed with the other party to this Agreement within seven (7) days following the occurrence of the event or condition causing the Unavoidable Delay or seven (7) days following the Applicant becoming aware (or with the exercise of reasonable diligence should have become aware) of such occurrence. 4. The Applicant shall be entitled to an extension of time for an Unavoidable Delay only for the number of days of delay due solely to the occurrence of the event or condition causing such Unavoidable Delay and only to the extent that any such occurrence actually delays that party from proceeding with its nghts, duties and obligations under this Agreement affected by such occurrence, ARiTICLE 16. RESTRICTIONS ON USE. , , , , 16.p1. Project. Prior to the earlier of the Termination Date or the Expiration Date, no use ! of the Project, other than as described in Section 2.03, shall be permitted unless ! and until Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC or the person, if other than Clearwater I Seashell Resort, LC, intending to so use the Project or Project Site, shall file with ! the City a request for a release from the restriction imposed by this Section, The i Governing Body of the City shall promptly consider such request and either deny i the request, approve the request as filed, or approve the request subject to such ! terms, conditions and limitations as the City may reasonably require, Unless I specifically requested and approved, a release of the restriction imposed by this I Development Agreement DRAFT dated 2!7f2001 Page 43 Section shall not release Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC from any obligations or restrictions imposed by this Agreement or any agreement, Instrument or document contemplated hereby. ARTICLE 17. FIRE OR OTHER CASUALTY; CONDEMNATION. 17.01. Loss or Damage to Project. 1" Until the Project Completion Date, and without regard to the extent or availability of any insurance proceeds, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC covenants and agrees to diligently commence and complete the reconstruction or repair of any loss or damage caused by fire or other casualty or by eminent domain (provided the City is not the condemning authority) to each and every part of the Project on a Parcel which it owns to substantially the same size, floor area, cubic content and general appearance as existed prior to the occurrence of such loss or damage, promptly after the City approves the Plans and Specifications for such reconstruction or repairs; provided, however, that nothing contained herein shall obligate Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC to restore any retail tenant's leasehold improvements. 2. The City shall review the Plans and Specifications for such reconstruction or repairs as soon as possible after filing thereof by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC. The City agrees to approve the Plans and Specifications for such reconstruction or repairs if the reconstruction or repairs contemplated by such Plans and Specifications will restore the Project, or the damaged portion thereof, to substantially the same condition as existed prior to the occurrence of such loss or damage and if such Plans and Specifications conform to the applicable laws, ordinances, codes, and regulations in effect at the time of filing with the City of the plans and specifications for such reconstruction or repairs. 17.02. Partial Loss or Damage to Project. Until the Project Completion Date, any loss or damage by fire or other casualty or exercise of eminent domain to the Project or Project Site, or any portion thereof, which does not render the Project or Project Site unusable for the use contemplated by Section 2.03 of this Agreement, shall not operate to terminate this Agreement or to relieve or discharge Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC from the timely performance and fulfillment of Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC's obligations pursuant to this Agreement, subject to an extension of time Development Agreement DRAFT dated 2/7/2001 r Page 44 i i I i I I I I I I i i 1 ~ .03. Project Insurance Proceeds. I I I I i 1. I I I I I i ! I i i I 2. I I I I 17~04. Notice of Loss or Damage to Project. Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall ! promptly give the City written notice of any significant damage or destruction to the i Project stating the date on which such damage or destruction occurred, the expectations of Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC as to the effect of such damage or destruction on the use of the Project, and the proposed schedule, if any, for repair or reconstruction of the Project. 17 ~05. Condemnation of Project or Project Site; Application of Proceeds. In the event I that part, but not all, of the Project or Project Site, or both, shall be taken by the I exercise of the power of eminent domain at any time before the Expiration Date, I subject to the rights of a Project Lender, the compensation awarded to and received ! by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall be applied first to the restoration of the I Project, provided the Project can be restored and be commercially feasible for its ! intended use as contemplated by Section 16,01 of this Agreement after the taking, \ and, if not, can be retained by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC. I I AR;TICLE 18. MISCELLANEOUS 18.~1. Assignments. I i 1. 1 I I I I for an Unavoidable Delay. Whenever the Project, or any part thereof, shall have been damaged or destroyed, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall promptly make proof of loss and shall proceed promptly to collect, or cause to be collected, all valid claims which may have arisen against insurers or others based upon such damage or destruction. Subject to the rights of a Project Lender, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC agrees that all proceeds of property or casualty insurance received by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC as a result of such loss or damage shall be available and shall be used for payment of the costs of the reconstruction or repair of the Project to the extent necessary to repair or reconstruct the Project. By Clearwater Seashell Resort. Le. a. Prior to the Commencement Date, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC may sell, convey, assign or otherwise dispose of any or all of its right, title, interest and obligations in and to the Project, or any part thereof, only with the prior written consent of the City, which consent is hereby Deverlopment Agreement DRAFT dated 2/7/2001 Page 45 granted for assignment to Bella Vista Seashell Resort. L.L.C" provided that such party (hereinafter referred to as the "assignee"), to the extent of the sale, conveyance, assignment or other disposition by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC to the assignee, shall be bound by the terms of this Agreement the same as Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC for such part of the Project as is subject to such sale, conveyance, assignment or other disposition. b, If the assignee of Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC's right, title, interest and obligations in and to the Project, or any part thereof assumes all of Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC's obligations hereunder for the Project, or that part subject to such sale, conveyance, assignment or other disposition, then Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall be released from all such obligations hereunder which have been so assumed by the assignee, and the City agrees to execute an instrument evidencing such release, which shall be in recordable form. c. An assignment of the Project, or any part thereof, by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC to any corporation, limited partnership, general partnership, or joint venture, in which Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC is the or a general partner or has either the controlling interest or through a joint venture or other arrangement shares equal management rights with a financial institution and maintains such controlling interest or equal management rights shall not be deemed an assignment or transfer subject to any restriction on or approvals of assignments or transfers imposed by this Section 18.01, provided, however, that notice of such assignment shall be given by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC to the City not less than thirty (30) days prior to such assignment being effective and the assignee shall be bound by the terms of this Agreement to the same extent as would Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC in the absence of such assignment. d. No assignee, purchaser, sublessee or acquire of all or any part of Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC's rights and obligations with respect to anyone Parcel shall in any way be obligated or responsible for any of Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC's obligations with respect to any other Parcel by virtue of thIS Agreement unless and until such assignee, purchaser, sublessee or acquire has expressly assumed Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC's such other obligations. 2. City's Riqht to Assign Riqhts, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC agrees that Development Agreement DRAFT dated 2/7/2001 Page 46 the City shall have the unqualified right to assign its rights under Section 5.04 and 6.03 of this Agreement to any person, subject only to applicable laws in regard to the disposition of an interest in real property, I 18]02. Successors and Assigns. The terms herein contained shall bind and inure to the benefit of the City, and its successors and assigns, and Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC and its successors and assigns, except as may otherwise be specifically provided herein. 18.1:03. Notices. I I i 1 I . i i i I i I ! I I I I : I I , I I I I I i i \ ! i I I I I i ! : , , I , , , , , , , , \ i All notices, demands, requests for approvals or other communications given by either party to another shall be in writing, and shall be sent by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested or by courier service, or by hand delivery to the office for each party indicated below and addressed as follows: To Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC: To the City: [insert] [insert] with copies to: with copies to: [insert] [insert] 2, Notices given by courier service or by hand delivery shall be effective upon delivery and notices given by mail shall be effective on the third (3rd) business day after mailing. Refusal by any person to accept delivery of any notice delivered to the office at the address indicated above (or as it may be changed) shall be deemed to have been an effective delivery as provided in this Section 18,03, The addresses to which notices are to be sent may be changed from time to time by written notice delivered to the other parties and such notices shall be effective upon receipt. Until notice of change of address is received as to any particular party hereto, all other parties may rely upon the last address given. I I 18.Q4. Applicable Law and Construction. The laws of the State of Florida shall govern i the validity, performance and enforcement of this Agreement. This Agreement has I been negotiated by the CIty and Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC and the I Agreement, including, without limitation, the Exhibits, shall not be deemed to have I I Devel,opment Agreement DRAFIT dated 217/2001 Page 47 been prepared by the City or Clearwater Seashell Resort, Le, but by all equally. 18.05. Venue; Submission to Jurisdiction. "1. For purposes of any suit action, or other proceeding arising out of or relating to this Agreement, the parties hereto do acknowledge, consent, and agree that venue thereof is Pinellas County, Florida. 2, Each party to this Agreement hereby submits to the jurisdiction of the State of Florida, Pinellas County and the courts thereof and to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, for the purposes of any suit, action, or other proceeding arising out of or relating to this Agreement and hereby agrees not to assert by way of a motion as a defense or otherwise that such action is brought in an inconvenient forum or that the venue of such action is improper or that the subject matter thereof may not be enforced in or by such courts. 3, If at any time during the term of this Agreement Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC is not a resident of the State of Florida or has no office, employee, City or general partner thereof available for service of process as a resident of the State of Florida, or if any permitted assignee thereof shall be a foreign corporation, partnership or other entity or shall have no officer, employee, agent, or general partner available for service of process in the State of Florida, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC hereby designates the Secretary of State, State of Florida, its agent for the service of process in any court action between it and the City, or both, arising out of or relating to this Agreement and such service shall be made as provided by the laws of the State of Florida for service upon a non-resident; provided, however, that at the time of service on the Florida Secretary of State, a copy of such service shall be delivered to Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC at the address for notices as provided in 18.03. 18.06. Estoppel Certificates. Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC and the City shall at any time and from time to time, upon not less than ten (10) days prior notice by another party hereto, execute, acknowledge and deliver to the other parties a statement in recordable form certifying that this Agreement has not been modified and is in full force and effect (or if there have been modifications that the said Agreement as modified IS in full force and effect and setting forth a notation of such modifications), and that to the knowledge of such party, neither it nor any other party is then in default hereof (or if another party is then in default hereof, stating the nature and details of such default), it being intended that any such statement delivered pursuant to this Section 18.06 may be relied upon by any prospective purchaser, Development Agreement DRAFT dated 217/2001 Page 48 I I i I i I I I I I I ! I I 1~.07. Complete Agreement; Amendments. ! ! I I I i ! I ! I i I I I mortgagee, successor, assignee of-any mortgage or assignee of the respective interest in the Project, if any, of any party made in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. 1, This Agreement, and all the terms and provisions contained herein, including without limitation the Exhibits hereto, constitute the full and complete agreement between the parties hereto to the date hereof, and supersedes and controls over any and all prior agreements, understandings, representations, correspondence and statements, whether written or oral. 2. Any provision of this Agreement shall be read and applied in para materia with all other prOVisions hereof, 18.~ 1. No Brokers. The City and Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC hereby represent, agree ! and acknowledge that no real estate broker or other person is entitled to claim or I i to be paid a commission as a result of the execution and delivery of this Agreement, ! including any of the Exhibits, or any proposed improvement, use, disposition, lease, \ conveyance or acquisition of any or all of the Project Site, I I 18.12. Not an Agent of City. During the term of this Agreement, Clearwater Seashell \ Resort, LC hereunder shall not be an agent of the City with respect to any and all I Deve'lopment Agreement I DRAFT dated 2/7/2001 Page 49 services to be performed by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC (and any of its agents, assigns, or successors) with respect to the Project. 18.13.lMemorandum of Development Agreement. The City and Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC agree to execute, in recordable form, on the Effective Date, the short form "Memorandum of Agreement for Development and Disposition of Property," the form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit I, and agree, authorize and hereby direct such Memorandum to be recorded in the public records of Pinellas County, Florida, as soon as possible after execution thereof, Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall pay the cost of such recording, 18.14. Public Purpose. The parties acknowledge and agree that this Agreement satisfies, 1ulfills and is pursuant to and for a public purpose and municipal purpose and IS in the public interest, and is a proper exercise of the City's power and authority. 18.15. No General Obligation. In no event shall any obligation of the City under this Agreement be or constitute a general obligation or indebtedness of the City or the City, a pledge of the ad valorem taxing power of the City or the City or a general obligation or indebtedness of the City or the City within the meaning of the Constitution of the State of Florida or any other applicable laws, but shall be payable solely from legally available revenues and funds. Neither Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC nor any other party under or beneficiary of this Agreement shall E~ver have the right to compel the exercise of the ad valorem taxing power of the City, the City or any other governmental entity or taxation in any form on any real or personal property to pay the City's or the City's obligations or undertakings hereunder. 18.16. Technical Amendments; Survey Corrections. In the event that due to minor inaccuracies contained herein or any Exhibit attached hereto or any other clgreement contemplated hereby, or due to changes resulting from technical matters arising during the term of this Agreement, the parties agree that amendments to this Agreement required due to such inaccuracies, unforeseen events or circumstances which do not change the substance of this Agreement may be made and incorporated herein. The City Manager is authorized to approve such technical amendments on behalf of the City, respectively, and is authorized to execute any reqUired instruments, to make and incorporate such amendment to this Agreement or any Exhibit attached hereto or any other agreement contemplated hereby. 18.17. Term; Expiration; Certificate. 1. If not earlier terminated as provided in Section 12.05, this Agreement shall expire and no longer be of any force and effect on the tenth annIversary of Development Agreement DRAFT dated 2!7120D1 Page 50 the Effective Date. 2. Upon completion of the term of this Agreement all parties hereto shall execute the Agreement Expiration Certificate, The Agreement Expiration Certificate shall constitute (and it shall be so provided in the certificate) a conclusive determination of satisfactory completion of all obligations hereunder and the expiration of this Agreement. 3. In the event of any dispute as to whether any party is required to execute the Agreement Expiration Certificate, the dispute shall be resolved by arbitration as provided In Article 14. 4. The Agreement Expiration Certificate shall be in such form as will enable it to be recorded in the public records of Pinellas County, Florida. Follo~ing execution by all of the parties hereto, the Agreement Expiration Certificate shall promptly be recorded by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC in the public records of Pinellas County, Florida and Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC shall pay the cost of such recording, 1 18. Approvals Not Unreasonably Withheld. The parties hereto represent that it is their respective intent as of the Effective Date and do covenant and agree in the future that all approvals, consents, and reviews will be undertaken and completed as expeditiously as possible, in good faith, and will not be arbitrarily or unreasonably withheld, unless otherwise expressly authorized by the terms of this Agreement. 1 19. Effective Date. The Effective Date shall be the date of the last signature to this Agreement. I I I : I ! I , I ! i I I I I ! I I I I I I Development Agreement DR..i.FT dated 2/7/2001 Page 51 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and their respective seals affixed as of this _ day of January, 2001. THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA Attest: By: By: City Clerk Mayor Approved as to form and correctness: , Esquire City At10rney STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) COUNTr OF PINELLAS) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of ,2001 by and , Mayor and City CIt:rk, respectively, for the City of Clearwater, Florida, on behalf of the City. By: Signature of Notary Public Printed, typed or stamp My Commission Expires: Development Agreement DRAFT dated 217/2001 Page 52 I I : I Attest: By: I i i I i STATE OF FLORIDA i C?UNTY OF PINELLAS) I I : I The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of i I 2001 by and , President arl,d Secretary, respectively, of Clearwater Seashell Resort, LC, a Florida corporation, on b~,half of Clearwater Seashell Resort, Le. I BYI: 1 Signature of Notary Public i I I CLEARWATER SEASHELL RESORT, LC By: Secretary President ) ) My Commission Expires: Prihted, typed or stamp I I I I I I , i I I , i I I , , , i i , I i i I : i i I \ I _ Development Agreement DRAFiT dated 21712001 Page 53 I DevEflopment Agreement DRAFT dated 2/7/2001 EXHIBIT D List of Required Permits & Approvals Page 57 EXHIBIT H Covenant of Unified Use i I I i ! I i I I ! I , , I I I : I I \ ! i 1 : I : i I I i I I i I \ I Dev~lopment Agreement DRAFT dated 2/7/2001 I i Page 61 EXHIBIT J Project Development Schedule I I i I I I I I I Development Agreement I DRAFT dated 2/7/2001 I I I I Page 63 I I I I 'I 'I I I I I I I I II I 'J I I I Rt((~ ~lJ.V(o I Cv+ C l~vVc,w D{ f1 c e.. Clearwater Beach Seashell Resort DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT EXHIBIT LIST Legal Description of Controlled Property ..........................,.....,.A Project Description ........"........................8 Project Site ............,.................,...C Project Development Schedule ..................................0 Cov€:nant Trip Generation Management Program Covenant Regarding Hurricane Watch )Closure ...........,.....................E ...,.,...........".....,.........F List of Required Permits & Approvals .................................G Public Improvements ..,....,.........,.,.............H Appraisal Instructions ... ......... ...,.............. ..../ CafE: Seati ng .......................... ......J Covenant of Unified Use ..................,.,............K License Agreement .......,...."..,.....,........,.L ",.""" ......t.~ .. '" ~~~ l..l. 1)'::.~,_~)o.~ ~~YII ~...~- ~~'-.\I. \..-:' . ~'" ,. .~~ ===-- ~~ ~\ ~} --?'jf, ..........~~ ~~#)ITE?..,., "1..1" II Cny OF CLEARWATER i' Plannmg Department CYNTHIA H. 7AAAPANI, Ale? ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR 100 S MYRTLE AVE.. 33756 POBOX 4748 PHONE. (727) 562-4547 CLEARWATER. FL 33758-4748 FAX, (727) 562-4865 chardln@clearwater-fl com I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TOTAL PROJECT LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PAHCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 15 EAST, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOT 57, LOT 104, THE SOUTH 20.00 FEET OF LOT 56, AND THE SOUTH 20.00 FEET OF LOT 103, THE LLOYD-WHITE-SKINNER SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 13, PAGE 12, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY FLORIDA. TOGETHER WITH LOT 105, LOT 106, AND THE NORTH HALF OF LOT 107, THE LLOYD-WHITE-SKINNER SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 13, PAGE 12, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA. TOGETHER WITH LOT 58 AND 59, THE LLOYD-WHITE-SKINNER SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 13, PAGE 12, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA. TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF THIRD AVENUE A 60.00 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY TO BE VACATED, BEING BOUNDED ON THE EAST BY THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF CORONADO DRIVE, AND ON THE WEST BY' THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF GULFVIEW BOULEVARD, ON THE NORTH BY THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE OF LOT 57 AND LOT 104, AND THE SOUTH BY THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE OF LOT 58 AND LOT 105. TOGETHER WITH THE EAST 35.00 FEET OF A 70.00 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY OF GULFVIEW BOULEVARD TO BE VACATED, BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY THE WESTERLY EXTENSION OF THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE OF LOTS 57 AND 104, AND ON THE SOUTH BY THE WESTERLY EXTENSION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 59. CONTAINING 1.63 acres (71,068 sq ft) more or less I I I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CONTROLLED PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 29, RANGE 15 EAST, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOT 57, LOT 104, THE SOUTH 20.00 FEET OF LOT 56, AND THE SOUTH 20.00 FEET OF LOT 103, THE LLOYD-WHITE-SKINNER SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 13, PAGE 12, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY FLORIDA TOGETHER WITH LOT 105, LOT 106, AND THE NORTH HALF OF LOT 107, THE LLOYD-WHITE-SKINNER SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 13, PAGE 12, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA TOGETHER WITH LOT 58 AND 59, THE LLOYD-WHITE-SKINNER SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 13, PAGE 12, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CLEARWATER BEACH SEASHELL RESORT PROJECT DESCRIPTION The following text and graphics are reproduced from the submittal to the Community Redevelopment Board, and describe the public and private project improvements. City of Clearwater Land Development Code, Section 2-803 C Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects Compliance with Criteria Existing Site Conditions The properties are developed with The Glass House Motel at 229 South Gulfview Boulevard, The Beach Place Motel at 301 South Gulfview Boulevard, and a single family house and out buildings at 300 Coronado Drive abutting the Beach Place Motel and operated under a common ownership. The proposed project assembles these parcels into a single development site, which incorporates the vacated Third Street right-of-way. Under the terms of the proposed development agreement, Gulfview Boulevard is proposed to be rebuilt to the west; this parcel seeks rights to use the eastern 1/2 of the vacated Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way. Surrounding land uses are: Gulfview Boulevard to the west, a single family unit and the Spyglass Motel to the north, Legends Steakhouse to the south and Coronado Drive to the east. Across Gulfview Boulevard, there is a public parking lot abutting the Gulf of Mexico. The existing buildings consist of two motels which contain 66 hotel units. The existing properties contain several structures, all of which were built between 1941 and 1956. Most of the value in these properties is in the land. The present assessed value of the properties is $2,690,500. Land values are $1,910,000. The value ofthe existing structures is $780,500. The value of the new structure will be approximately $65,000,000. Redevelopment is proposed for these obsolete structures. The proposed use is a 250-unit full service hotel with banquet, restaurant and retail and an 800-space parking garage which will serve both hotel users and the general public. In order to accomplish the proposed development, the applicants I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I propose to implement the Gulf Walk improvement outlined in Beach by Desiqn. This improvement will extend for approximately 1,000 feet, beginning at the exit to the existing Pier 60 parking lot and extending southward. The Gulf Walk will provide'landscaping, pedestrian and bicycle routes and a limited amount of surface public parking, as well as a relocated travelway for vehicles. This travelway will be built in a curvilinear design and will include "traffic calming" features. Public parking will be replaced in the parking garage to be built as part of the hotel. The public will access the beach by a pedestrian overpass. 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The following responses provide justification for this Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, consistent with the City of Clearwater land Deve'lopment Code. 1. The development or r~development of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use, intensity and development standards. The proposed Seashell Resort will maintain the character of Clearwater Beach as a tourist destination and does not deviate from the permitted uses in the Tourist zoning district. As presented in Beach by Desiqn, redevelopment of existing developed properties in Clearwater Beach is not economically feasible at the prevailing density of 40 units per acre. Beach by Desiqn states that, "In order to justify the cost of demolishing income producing improvements (no matter how modest), new resort development would require a significant increase in density above 40 hotel units per acre". Standards for land intensity and development standards do not recognize the economics of redevelopment and the need to establish an appropriate scale of operations to support a full-service hotel with retail, banquet, restaurant and entertainment uses. The levels of amenities offered at this facility will reflect back to the luxury hotels which were built in Florida's golden age of tourist development. The principal difference between this property and older "grand hotels" is that the Seashell Resort will provide the room sizes, automobile accommodations and construction standards which will be consistent with present day development. It is not possible to provide this level of amenity, attraction and public benefit without deviation from the intensity standards contained in the Tourist zoning district. According to Beach by Desiqn, "The economics of destination resorts are such that, except in very exotic locations they require a certain critical mass of rooms in order to support the high cost of quality improvements and amenities. Industry sources indicate that 200 to 250 rooms is a practical minimum for the number of rooms which are required to create a successful, highly-amenitized destination resort". 2. The development of the parcel proposed for development as a comprehensive infill redevelopment project will not reduce the fair market value of abutting properties. The value of property depends on the highest and best use, improvements on the site and the market factors of supply and demand. The value of abutting properties to the north and south will not be compromised, and will likely be enhanced, by development of the Seashell Resort. Patrons of-all nearby development will have access to covered parking spaces in the on- . 3 \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I site garage. In addition, a substantial public benefit will be created by the relocation of Gulfview Boulevard, the creation of a pedestrian promenade on the existing Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way, and the retention of surface parking in the vicinity of existing businesses. Lush landscaping will replace asphalt paving in the front of nearby businesses. Pedestrian access will be enhanced. Clearwater Beach will have a supply of 250 new hotel rooms, which will bring patrons to nearby restaurants and businesses. Existing motels will benefit from overflow patrons of conventions and meetings, and will also be able to offer covered parking in the public garage. The value of abutting properties is presently depressed by the current level of under-investment on the Seashell Resort site. According to property appraiser values, the land for the subject parcel is worth nearly twice the value of the improvements. The buildings on the site are about 50 years old. The new structure will add approximately $65,000,000 in building improvements. 3. Tif-Je uses within the comprehensive in fill redevelopment project are otherwise permitted in the City of Clearwater. The uses on the site will be hotel (with accessory restaurant), meeting, lounge and retail use. The public parking space is an existing established use on Clearwater Beach. By relocating public parking into a covered garage, patrons will benefit from less heat build-up in parked vehicles, protection from salt and rain, and safe access to the beach via a pedestrian overpass which traverses the motor way, promenade and bike path. 4. The uses or, mix of uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are compatible with adjacent land uses. The uses on the site are highly compatible with the adjacent land uses. There is a restaurant located to the south of the proposed site. There is an existing tourist property located to the north of the proposed site. Presently the site is developed with hotel units in several obsolete structures. This property renewal will set a new standard of elegance for development on the southern beach front. 5. Suitable sites for development or redevelopment of the uses or mix of uses within the comprehensive in fill redevelopment project are not otherwise available in the City of Clearwater. The developers of the Seashell Resort are the early visionaries who are 4 .1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I willing to enter a partnership with the City to create both public and private benefits on ClearWater Beach. Other property owners may come forward with alternative development proposals. However, the Seashell Resort development has a unique location, in a strategic site within the area with redevelopment potential. Because it is located in the midst of the existing hotel district, it has potential spin-off benefits to other surrounding properties. It is located on the South Beach, which experiences the highest degree of visibility for beach-goers and the traveling public. Approval of the development agreement, which carries the commitment to rebuild Gulfview Boulevard, creates a significant public benefit which will provide an enhanced community recreation resource for decades to come. 6. T.he development of the parcel proposed for development as a comprehensive infill redevelopment project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. There will be a significant improvement to the function and appearance of both the public and private realm. According to Beach by Desiqn, "A key element of Beach by Desiqn is the transformation of South Gulfview into a local access street as a part of a great resort street/place", The public beach , front will be transformed into a world-class beach experience. The developers will dedicate an additional 10 feet along the rear (Coronado Drive) property line to facilitate improvements for vehicles and pedestrians. With the creation of a beach front promenade, nearby businesses will be able to establish a pleasing interface with pedestrians, and to install outdoor dining, music and art. Landscaping proposed for the Gulfview relocation project is extensive. Over 50 specimen Majool Date Palms are proposed, along with 250 Sabal Palms. Paver tile or brick will be used for promenades, to replace the existing cracked concrete surfaces. 7. The design of the proposed comprehensive infill redevelopment project creates a form and function which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. The design of the proposed Seashell Resort and surrounding property improvements will create a form and function which enhances and redefines the community character of the immediate vicinity. The design of the hotel and parking structure features massing which steps back as elevation increases, creating elegant spires along the skyline. The second level is proposed to feature an arched pedestrian bridge from the parking structure to the beach. This will create a feature which will be recognized by motorists as well as pedestrians, and will provide a functional landmark for visitors and , 5 I I I I I I I I I I ,I I I I I I I I I guests. By integrating the public parking within the hotel structure, the community will gain a covered parking area which is compact and functional. At the same time, one of the objections to a parking garage - namely, that it will be a visual intrusion - will be overcome. The front elevation of the parking levels will contain guest rooms with balconies which overlook the Gulf of Mexico. The fac;ade will appear as a full hotel floor. Parking will be "camouflaged" behind the building elevation, and will be hidden from beach goers. The design of public improvements is extensively specified in Beach by Desiqn. A great deal of expertise and public input has gone into the development of this design. It represents a detailed analysis of use, existing conditions and community needs. 8. Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking 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. Flexibility in regard to setbacks and height is required to make this project possible. The creation of the public parking benefit could not be accomplished without the six levels of internal parking. This in turn necessitates a relaxation of height standards. In addition, the design of the structure, with massing reduced as height increases, makes the increased building height a memorable asset of the design and creates pleasing proportions. By contrast, the appearance of buildings such as 440 West, which maintain the same proportions for their entire elevation, create a feeling of heaviness and have a roof line which is does not contribute to the cityscape. The proposed project needs relieffrom side setbacks due to the scale of the development, the need to provide for on-site building circulation, (and the dedication of 10 feet of right of way along the rear property line. The promenade elevation, whic~ will be improved by the developer for property for a distance of approximately 1,000 feet, will serve as a landscaped gateway to the community's businesses. In addition, this promenade area will function as a front setback with pedestrian amenities, such/as a covered walkway, pavers, landscaping and a sidewalk cafe. 9. Adequate off-street parking in the immediate vicinity according to the shared parking formula in Division 14 of Article 3 will be available to avoid on-street parking in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. 6 I I I I I I I I I I ,I ,I I I I I I I I A combination of uses is proposed to serve the needs of tourists and day visitors. The hotel will include a multi-use parking garage with parking which exceeds the required hotel spaces by over 200%. The provision of adequate off-street parking is a hallmark feature of this development, and will create a significant community benefit. The amount of parking on-site will exceed the needs of the uses within the hotel. The shared parking formula documented in Division 14 of Article 3 provides a formula to be applied when multiple users within the same development share pa~king, with different users entering at different hours of the day. Although this formula is not strictly applicable to a hotel with adequate guest spaces as well as a significant number of public parking spaces, some of the parking occupancy characteristics are relevant for consideration in approval of the Seashell Resort. Beach users will largely be daytime patrons, while restaurant patrons will principally be evening users. Entertainment uses will encompass both the recreational beach-goer and the evening bar and dining patrons. There is expected to be little conflict between the family going to the beach during the day and evening users who want to come for a sunset walk, a beverage and dinner on the beach. 10. The design of all buildings complies with the Tourist District design guidelines in Division 5 of Article 3. The design of the proposed Seashell Resort complies with the following design guidelines outlined in Beach by Desiqn: II. B. Height (2) portions of any structure which exceeds one hundred feet (100) are spaced at least one hundred fifty feet (150) apart. The Seashell Resort will have two towers exceeding 100 feet in height. The bases of these towers are separated by 110 feet. (3)( a) between forty-two feet (42? and one hundred fifty feet (150? the f100rplate will be no greater than 25,000 square feet: This design constraint cannot be accommodated in the subject parcel due to the establishment of parking on levels 2 through 7 of the structure. Between one hundred feet (100') and one hundred fifty feet (150) the f100rplate will be no greater than 10,000 square feet. 7 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The proposed height will have varying floor plates above the seventh level. The floor plate which will occur on levels 11 through 14 will have fa floor area of approximately 9,000 square feet. II. C. Design, Scale and Mass of Building~ ! (1) Buildings with a footprint of greater than 5,000 square feet or a single dif!1ension of greater than one hundred (100) square feet will be constructed so that no more than two (2) of the three (3) building dimensions in the vertical or horizontal planes are equal in length. For this purpose, equal in length means that the two lengths vary by less than forty-percent (40%) of the shorter of the two (2) lengths. The horizontal plane measurements relate to the footprint of the building. The front elevation of the Seashell Resort has a base level facade of approximately 280 feet by 88 feet and meets this design criterion. Above the 88-foot level, the facade is broken into two towers located approximately 109 feet apart. A typical base elevation is established for levels one through seven which features guest rooms on levels three through seven. On the Coronado elevation, the towers are not separated until the 11th floor level is reached. Above the seventh (garage) level, the building mass is set back from the building edge and landscaping is instituted. (2) No plane of a building may continue uninterrupted for greater than one hundred linear feet (100? For the purpose of this standard, interrupted means an offset of greater than five feet (5? Offsets are provided on the Gulfview Boulevard and Coronado Drive elevations to exceed this standard. (3) At least sixty-percent (60%) of any elevation will be covered with windows or architectural decoration. For the purpose of this standard, an elevation is that portion of a building that is visible from a particular point outside the parcel proposed for development. The proposed design will comply with this requirement in the 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I _I I I I , I I following manner: the Gulfview Boulevard elevation will consist entirely of common areas or guest rooms with balconies. The Coronado Drive elevation will consist of openings to the parking garage on levels two through seven which will have an architectural treatment. On the north and south property elevations, there will be large windows in guest rooms above the seventh floor. (4) No more than sixty-percent (60%) of the theoretical maximum building envelope located above one story will be occupied by a building. For the purpose of this standard, theoretical maximum building volume is the maximum permitted building volume that could be theoretically occupied by a building and occupied by a building includes any portion of the maximum possible building envelope that is not visible from a public street. This standard can realistically be applied only to levels above the parking deck. For those levels, the maximum calculated floor area ratio (per floor) is 42%. Therefore, it appears that the hotel portion of the building will comply with this standard, (5) The height and mass of buildings will be correlated to (1) the dimensional aspects of the parcel proposed for development and (2) adjacent public spaces such as streets and parks. The height and mass of the Seashell Resort have been designed to respond to the proportions of the site. The resort will be an integral part of the adjacent public spaces, through establishment of the promenade abutting the building and construction of an elevated pedestrian walkway to connect the hotel garage to the beach. (6) Buildings may be designed for a vertical or horizontal mix of permitted uses. The Seashell Resort will provide a variety of uses for both hotel guests and the general public. D. Setbacks and Stepbacks 1. Right-of-ways The area between the building and the right-of-way (edge of pavement as existing and planned) should be sufficiently wide 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I to create a pedestrian-friendly environment. The distances from structures to the edge of the right-of-way should be: (1) fifteen feet (15? along arterials; and (2) twelve feet (12? along local streets Setbacks from rights-of-way for Seashell Resort will be integrated with plans for the abutting streets. Where Gulfview Boulevard is proposed to be relocated, the building will adjoin the pedestrian promenade. Along Coronado Drive, an additional 10' of right-of-way will be deeded to the City. The applicant will reset the sidewalk as part of the building construction in an appropriate location to provide an attractive environment and a functional drop-off area for arriving guests. The minimum sidewalk width will be 10'. 3. Stepbacks For buildings over three stories (42 feet) in height, portions above 42 feet should be set back at least one foot for every two feet of additional height. ... Architectural details that create a "human scale" may be substituted for side and rear stepbacks. Stepbacks in facade elevations begin above the parking levels. These stepbacks, along with architectural details, comply with this design guideline. E. Lot Coverage and Open Space At least twenty-five percent (25%) of each parcel proposed for development should be maintained as open landscape or qualifying hardscape. Open landscape or qualifying hardscape means "landscaped areas, plazas and other areas covered with pavers or other decorative treatments, but does not include off-street parking areas or roadways. The Seashell Resort yvill have a pool deck plaza of approximately 21,000 square feet. This is 28% of the site area. Hardscape areas at the ground level will provide for an attractive and functional interface with surrounding properties. F. Slfee~LevelFacades 10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I (1) at least sixty percent (60%) of the street level facades of buildings used for nonresidential purposes which abut a public street will be transparent. Street level facades at the Seashell Resort are designed to exceed this standard with windows along the extent of both Gulfview Boulevard and Coronado Drive elevations. (3) Building entrances should be aesthetically inviting and easily identified. Building entrances are proposed to have canopies, walkway coverings and other features to make an attractive addition to the streetscape. G. Parking Areas Entrances to parking areas should be clearly marked in order to avoid confusion.- When a parking garage abuts a public road or other public place, it will be designed such that the function of the building is not readily apparent except at points of access or egress. The entrances to the Seashell Resort parking garage will be clearly marked. The parking garage is hidden from view on the rights of way in the following manner: Coronado Drive, architectural screening; Gulfview Boulevard, guest rooms located in front of parking area. H. Signage A complete signage program will be submitted for approval at a later date. I. Sidewalks Sidewalks along arterials and retail streets should be at least ten feet (10? in width. All sidewalks along arterials and retail streets will be landscaped with palm trees spaced to a maximum of thirty-five feet (35? on centers, with "clear grey" of not less than eight feet (8'). Portions of required sidewalks may be improved for non-pedestrian purposes including outdoor dining and landscape material, provided that: movement of pedestrians is not obstructed; and non-pedestrian 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I improvements and uses are located on the street side of the sidewalk. Distinctive paving patterns should be used to separate permanent sidewalk cafe improvements from the pedestrian space on the sidewalk. Sidewalk widths and landscaping along Coronado Drive are provided consistent with these guidelines. Along the Gulfview Boulevard elevation the pedestrian promenade which will be created by the relocation of the street will comply with these guidelines. The balance of these guidelines (J-M) address issues which will be determined later in the construction process (for example, materials and colors), or are not relevant to the proposed project (fountains). Allocation of resort units from the "pool" proposed to be created in Beach by Desiqn is contingent on meeting 14 criteria. The proposed project meets all of these criteria; specifically: 1. A minimum of 200 hotel rooms 2. A full' range of amenities 3. Access to hotel rooms through lobbies and corridors 4. A national marketing affiliation 5. Trip generation management enforceable by covenant, (airport and resort shuttle service) 6. Mandatory hurricane evacuation when warnings are posted 7. Maximum of 10% of rooms to have kitchen facilities 8. Exceptional architectural design 9. Frontage on Gulf of Mexico 10. Minimum size of 1 acre 11. Property currently has obsolete structures 12. Development density to be increased by transfer, height restricted to 150 feet 13. Create demonstrable benefits to the City 14. Participation in Clearwater Beach assessment program (when established). 12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A PAACa OF u.HD lYWa IN SECllOH, TOMGilP 28 AAHGE IS EAST f'INEl.U.S COUHN f\.ORlDA BEfoG WORE PNmCUl..AAl.Y DESCRlIJa) AS FaJ..OWS. lOT O,lOT 104 THEIOIJIli2D.OORETOFlOT6O, AN)THI!: aotITlt2000FEE!TOFlaf ::;:::~~~~IHP\.AT&OOK1J.PAGl!!12. 'i'CGot.-TtM ml" t.vT 1~ wr lOll, Nt) TtE HORIlt HALf 01' LOT 107 lie UCYD-wt1ITE-Sf<JMiER Sl.eOIVISlOH. AS RECORDED.. flAT BOOK 11 PAGE 12, OF nE P\.IBUC Rl:CXIROO 01' f'IHEU.A$ COlNTY Fl.ORmA. ltXi€TlER wmt lOT 5Il,.lr,t.C) >>. HE u..o'r1).~~ Sl.eOMsDt, NJ AECXlAOED IN PlAT &OOK lJ. PIDe t2, 01" THe PUIlUC ~ OF PltEll.AS COUNTY, fl..ORIDA.. TOGEl1-ER MTH THAT I"OR'fll:;W 01" ntlAO AvauE A IO.OCI FOOT RIGKJ.of' WAY TO BE VACATED aEIHQ &e:lUNDED Q\lllE EAST BY THE M.STRIOHT-OF-WA'f lINE OF COAOH.AOO 0RJVe.. ANI) ON TlE WEST BY THE EAST RIOHT-ao-WAY UNE C# GlAJ' 'JlEW DOU.fVARD ON nE NC.RrH lIYnte.3ClU'mPROPERTYUNEDFLOT S1 AHDLOT 104 AND T1iE 90UJN 8'( THE NORTliPROf"ERlY UE OF LOT 51 AHa lDT 1QO.. ltlGE'llER WfTH TIE EAST aoo FEET OF It 10..00 RXJT RIGHT.a:-WAYOF GU..f \1EW ~ARDro~V~~~OH~~~~~~~~ OF TlE HCWrrH PROPERTY UHE OF L01lIo S1 AN) '0.. AHJ OH DE SOUTH BY THE WESTERlY ~ 01' 1lE sount UE OF LDf sa. CONTAINING l.a--. cr'....),. __01.... t AU. EIOSTIHG OCCl.I>AllOH REQlJIRED TO COHSTRUcT THE PROf'OSEO ~ IS toBEREMOYm.. 2. ~ASS TO PfOoIlDE........ t.o..a.RNaOWR RElOCATED 0lJU'\IlEW~.MD 1. alJUllNa 10 IE Sf'RHUlD FOR F1fIZ 8l.I"PAESSIOtt. ... SOL.I:I WASTe. TO !IE HANDLm BY COWPAC'TCA. S ~ OF TI\AFFIC (MOT) Pl..AHS WI.L BE IMPl.SEHTED FOR GU.FVlEWBOlA..EVARD~ .. CCRlHADO DRIVE U"AOVD.IEHTa WILl. lIE DERNED ntROlJGH 1LIPl.EMEHT"'1lOHOF~1JY0ESIGHN<<)~Sl\.lOES. 7 ~ UTU1lY IEAS8IIEHl3 WLl.. 8& ~ THROlJQH HOR1H 8ffE (SEfMCE) DAAleWAY .. PU8UC MlEWALJ( MJ. BE f'RO'l/UD ADJ.AC:ENT TO f'UIUC DRl'VE.. LEGAL DESCRIPTION ipS 2 level Jubllc Pedeslnan ~. w I use Agreement for f,utdoor Cafe l, , ..-..... III: +i LU r 50 I ~L___.~ J 1'( -"--o!:...u:.':.~_.._ I I ..... I, ~I ltf, LOT 57 ~I 1- II LOT 103 I permIt to be ";",lned by .B~ach ~y Oeslgn~ J e ~ t . NOTES ... LOT 58 LOT 105 !:! r ;; ~ :I 0 - 0 0 .., ""... i5 8 - LOT 60 Port LOT 107 I LEGEND -.. - PRIOPEJnY 8CItJC>>,RY (-'lo_ a ..-~ . ....,.HD --- - ..... o_~ (J ............. /!lIRa c::. IAHDSCAP( NCA r:J 1'RDf'OSm"""", -- ---- ., ". . '-; . " - :J~ .. .. ... ~aN~.""INCI t AJ.OC'A~I' INC.. ~ J~~-- _~J ~ =~- Clearwater Seashell Resort LC Clearwater Beach SITE PLAN SITE DATA -- ...., un IIfEA (SQ. n NG ACRES) LOr .... LOr_ -- (...."....,."'_011I) CR)SI fl..I:Jmt MfA NG r.A.A.: ........ "'"'" --- .............- .-.. ...., - HBGiN1' WH 80IrIJS PRCMSIOHS "'~ ~QIl'lDf~~(lQ.fT. ~~ 1tIr1U EXISTING -(I) UOI11ts) 71.1~ .. (1.a:sJ AC) PROPOSED -(I) 230 lHT Ha1U. NG P\JILIC_ 71.133 IF (1.833 AC) 100" (lb1h fill 3rd ,fw) ~~/,.a ~ 01 ~ #If) ... ,.. (0'.2) -....../>I1iJ"WESf 2JlI" NTDIIOR SAllCE 32:2.,4.35 . _ CCN>mON<D lSP>a: ~ SF =--s ~ -...s ct-lr rr _"-IT rr _rr-a- .. .... '" P$I) ,err /,"'" IVA IVA .... - ~ (3X OF lO'Pl) -~- -.- - - - - - - - - - - -.- - - - - - ~(r~ ~ ~ , ---L PrQI!~!!~~M.ar!iott Hotel Parking Facility N~ - - x'- t) ct W III a: w ~""j _ct ~:= .a:" ~ct. ~~H ~ o a: a: ct :ii - - - - - --. - - - - - .. - - - - -, - ~~ Em" '-E1l\IL _ &w:e ,"".. . -~--=--'-:-~:::---- '; . I!I-.u-I'DCto\ ....... II":::;\'''' '-'rc: r,; '~rn:l I'L).=;\-,~:\~J~ 1\,1 t--I,r---i f If' .'I:lFEa-8!)'1;01 '------- ~_ J , ~ "J i . He - - :J: U i3 II) a: ~ ~<q ~::~ . a: - icd .W' a...J~ .u I: o a: a: c:t ::E A2 - - - - - - - '.. - - _. ... - ,- - cpcp fA\- . 3'-b~ 'I V ~ _ I_==il 0----~ - - II I v:1 0---- -- - ~ ,'- 11,,=;1 0---, -:1 I I I I I I 0-----~ - ,- ~~~ - -[' - --{4"L'11J--- -- l- I i'--.'.;7)p'/i Ii' l 0--- -- ' - -~/~\.T- -, - -I .---~ -- ~ --- -- - - - II : :'1'1'/'~ I I '. I I I .>' I &----1 j -, (f/~'--;->1::: -- I - --I. -- -;- l - -(- -1---!--"-- @-- ~--11 -I /~v> +-J- ---~ ~ -~- t -- : - IV/ / I, I' I :r I 0-~ --- (.+:---- --- .--- - --~- ~ 0----1~ I-i~~" -I.~-- -~ --!~ - ~ 0---11: Ii 'I 0---------1, -- il 0- ----1! -- II II @----- -I --!I v II 0--------- -- II ---.- -1 II ~~ I Iii @------ I -II -- -I--t - '~-:--- -i . II ,I ~ , i 0 i i I 0--- -! ~ II -- u~-":-~--JDL~---~--l=~~--.;. ---41--: -i- ~--1i.~._tl - ~ II I I I I I I I I, 'i I I I J I , "- I I ' 1 -I - ---f: -1 'lOlJHCE: I i ~Pl.>>fT ..._--a- - -~.-- ~ ! I ~ - -I --- i I ----1 1 - 1 --- i- - 1,- ,..J... : "''''' ' -1 ---. - -l- ~ -II-- 1- . - -~- ~ ~-.-- ~' - I ;__ '.L ' EllV"ORS ---t--.' - r- ,-;--,-- - 1- ""'" ,...., , ' CCl -. - I i1t.7 .-- , Ir;:::-"'''''C""';~I-'' , IIC:!L-Si"~r, -i -~rT~-~ - 8 i~ ' ! '-~--,- -- ~-;:, -: - ---r=::==_.---:_~~ i -I -------- , i -I -- --- i , , - i ----- , I -1 --- -- ---- NED ~~.':'~/;, !?-O~-GROUND FLOOR PLAN CCl - - ~ NICHOLS BROSCH SANDOVAL I AGOClATU IIC. -'- ........ ..... -....... fl.abaM ...,..,... ""- I U L5 !XL a:: w' 1-11 z <(l'i g; ~u: ~ a::'" <(~ ~ Wl:l ~ ---J::l u!C ~ f::~ OU a:: a:: , <( :2: JANZ9Z001 I 2034 I G - - - - ,- - ,- - ,~ _VIa! euNO ' , . . . - - - - - - - :J'! ' , .' " l , " 1 ", , ' \ . - , ,I , " " ~ !', l' 1& . l;I . ~ t.e'4f;l. 6NY6e . . L-e:--=_- :. ~ HO"leL &0< C>' \1OISE '5Ef\VIc& Si"-W ;.NEN:j 15,;:0 .. . . . r-:-':: - . . . ,-:-en '2fX) Le....eL G.6lV\6oe c;t. SPICeS ., 1 . . . ~ ~G2 . . - . . [;] I.&'<'>C Sf'1a IS""',"""", 5lOo ~ . . . . . PARKING GARAGE I RETAIL LEVEL 200 s:;.o.u;;Vi/,"'Cf ,- .. 1..--.- -,;"'_-=r,""", ir\\1 '0)' '- '''''-0 II II~'~' - =:, , i!~;~-_~~~~~I .. - J: o ~ ID a: au ~~i i~~ ~<(5 a~1 .0 ~ o a: a: <( :E A3 - - --_!_- .. --\---- - - - I 111IJ] 1- I J I - I__I_L_II I I I lr= 1~m-l , ~ M N o j=: i I ' -l' , '!- -~I- +--1 I I, I , , , t -i I I - -I -- -I 0p I -I o G )~~\91E D' In.l~-8:~Jl!:V :,___r:~~UI ~ -I I -I -,~- N LEVEL 300-700 PARKING/GULF SUITES PLAN BC4lE 1I'ae- . 1'-0. CCL CCL - - ~ NICHOLS BROSCH SANDOVAL . AISOCA TU. Ie. -'- ---- caw....... R.CHlA.... -- ""- I () ~ en 0:: w ~!;: g;3: Ii 0:: ~~ >-1 jU ~~ 0 0:: 0:: <C ~ JAM 19 too! I 2034 I D - - -, - ( - - - .. - _ n----I TAa..eS/~S - -' - "'-'la<' -..-------.--. r I.t ~OAp.-'I--l it L ->_..l - 1 - - - - -- -HOTEL POO-L DEClfiEVEL 800 .CALE t11... "-OM - f'ooF I><R ....., - - ~r:~~[D) -~'H"""'''' '.\"i:" - - :I: o <( UJ In a: -UJ i!f- ;:< 83: ~a: ~<( >UJ j..J -,0 l:l~ o a: a: <( :: -B~ ~-- n"""OI _'7JN-I0I AS - - - ,- - - - - - - - _0 _ - NED ;C:l~~};' ~.~? HOTEL PLAN - - o --0 --0 -0 --0 --0 --0 --0 --0 ----0 - IfO)~!C~iWIE.f[J irUE)[hV. P.N.'.oIN';.LO(IfEI..(lPLCU.r SfI>''lI..ES OrtOf C'U.""'hITEII - - ~ NICHOLS BROSCH SANDOVAL I AS$OClATQ. IN:.. -'- Il.lOBllA'lBtE ~~ -- ""... :r: () <( W III 0::: W I- <( :s: 0::: <( W --l () 1= 0 0::: 0::: <( ~ JAN 29 ZOOJ I 2034 I G (1)1 C:' _I -il m! r-' ml .., t----- ------.-~------ ----- ----- -- --------1----- ------------ I ~--- ill -1 i\8 00 ..... I ~S? .\1.\1 00 ...N : , - tI!\ii ~ Vi\; - :5'+ I 'li~ i 1 , ~5' I 00 00'" __L____ ----------4---1 , I L --1---- --- -- - - ----~--- ~ , ~-2Ql [0 "UJIfihl j;.;, ill (("")j "'i; , If\rll I'~" a:l <= \;.~ 1:1 ~ ~_ i 19) BELLA VISTA GROUP,lNe. MARRIOTT CLEARWATER BEACH Clearwater, Florida .rn",z ;~~:: ~)>;::Oon l~", ~ZUl:J: ~'^;' ~8(')o '. .'. ~~:J:U; i\~ I I I I, I I I I I I I I 'I I I I I I ~ I t- I 1 , (I)! c:! =il ml I r-I m <I ml !:I 81 ~~I ~I (iOI I I J..---_ - --- ----- - ------ --------- ---- ---~ I I gg ..... I r I ~ ! g ri j --- _____n_____ ----1 I I L___ r-~~I IUilJr~l~ IS' t i ~g BELLA VIS1)\ GROUP,INC MARRIOTT CLEARWATER BEACH Curwaler, Florida ~~ ~~ ~s ~2 . I "(/'ICDZ , ~, ~)>o- I~:-: Rei ",2 ~Y> ~2Q~ ':' ~~ '" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ - - lIT~t=---- .l:'~ I~I~ . , ~ . " ~ i, 0 I ~ - :l:> ; .. . ~ \l l> " b '" ., '!. Tl ~: I:: ~- ..' o..:l~~ I ;. t-=-= 0', IWOknH I +---- yl I~~..~~ ,\S ...1 , 10. 1000 II:~~ , +--- D-l!L- ~ I ~.. --- !llj=+-_ I "L-- 'J:~- I.~g- - - - - - - - - - ~ I: lawru I' .1 !I ! ...... , i ! HD1'nLftU :-- ': , lltDTB.lRYD. - IItOTULCVI:L i 1 " no --:f.~ ."..~. .~'~.[:.- LE\'l'.L 700 LEVEL 600 LE\o IlL!OO LEVEL 400 LEVELJOO UVI:L 100 -- ... ~-- r W-- H l--r U!lCJ;a '-111 j :(,; I J! I:: ; Ii' : I' o I --~, f"TI - - (~'l _ -r ~ l-J rj I I 11 rl j - -' !--l UVQ5IlI - - - - - ~ - 1 - I ~- ir~~~:mr,~ V! 'Ii ,Ii ct. . "'Jill )} I - '-'L L=:/ I fU."l~:~~~1 I l~~~~~ -...... .....- _CROSS_SECTION ~u.sl) LONGITUDINAL SECTION (lOOKING SQUTH) ~I II il 'i ,/ r ~------ r/I I - ) ~=-:._}:~~-- , 1 r.:._ -~---~ , , , - - :r () ~ 1XI IX: ;tl!!a ~~~ "D: & iU5~ ~dl t: o ii: IX: <( :;; A9 ---~--------------- - ---~-- - -~-- ---~-~ -------- ~- ---- ---- CORONADO AVENUE ELEVATION J: U <t ,. w " CD a: ~' w I- ~ <t ~ . s: f ~ a: ~ . <t . · w' i.-d- u ~ o a: a: <t :E A10 ---~--------------- ^ --~ ~/ ~~ - '---- :I: o <t w m 0: w I- <tt ==1 0:. <t$ wI ..Ja o 1= ~ o ii: 0: <t :iE -.!.~....QL- GULFVIEW DRIVE ELEVATION All - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -_. NOf!.T.!i.~,g!1t t. .~ ~. c~ '~(J " I ~l3- _:; .~ -~ A12. ' - - - - - -~ .,--CP-~t ,,~-., ~ .. If ..-~" ~~T-~ 'P.~ CPl'- ~l ~ "' ~ -~-~ , , Ii! I j I i I i I j' ~.'; - :.,t'~t-:i:E~tT~~tL J:>jif;,'" ';): ;=:',(, " : iE o j- ,-,I I ~t,:- -f,,- "---] '--f~I-~..~i-- '~~---Itt-- -, : 101_- I-,'--~ I -Ii; - . ---+-0 ~ It- 'L Ii. 1.1 ':_--,---1,- - __J !.t I..._~ I '-I';!' LT~ I ~-l-----f---d.!.{ 1. 1;. L I~ ,'7 1: ~ G}~-- nl~_ ;i~- - 1-- :_1 [-f -, -- -~ __L_-j~L___ _~uu~!_+-~~'L_u Iii --~ --r--(D J '( ~f i, iJ:(.--~.. 'T' ,1~~""'" .-', '-,' ; .-f-, _ r;' : - ,,:~~~~" .-~ -,:, ",;; Ij~ ' 1 CD - c ~fl ; .,.--'+..H- tt+ -hlH - J- -i11---+a.!~----'- -:fu.-1 llB~ - -I ~ j B~~= t ~.~u l~ ~: I'll I-- ~, -t ---1---0 ~ ;- il,-~ "' ,kA-J.. 1_ .L. \-J ~_>~ L ~ r !t~..L I ...'l..:. !.T~ I -t.4;.ft. r;:TL~ l_~ ~ "'-~ -'a L:\,"-,_ :,- ~ , 1 I - f2~J~~ .I~ r;~I~ ,""~ 1!~1 I! I l~...%.,.f ,,~~11tl,:1 \\ '~~\il~"~" I I (1'\-1- --I --, ----.'<" r,_ 'f ~I, --- ~I-~'-"-I - -- '-I-~d-- ,-~~--~---- -.ti'~--1<-.;>-t",---- -- ': , (1') 'I ~ I" t.\ ~ 11;, 1 ~l,}"\ 1. lf~? I ~::. ~~~,'~ 11_ :rl - - I:~- ~i~~<f -- 7~r~' j~tj ir~rl- -' {: - i:i~- .f. m-it-- ~L:;~il-.I~ti&,i;i - ~i~" -:2J - )I -1 0 r- ".-" ~'" ,-' 'i' '--" I '_J_J '-i-J '( ,I c_",. -0- -" '-1-J '-I" ~- ~!-. @-1--- 'I:f -~,n~-~'1~~~ -:~i; ~~~~-. ~_--.:~~:--!---,r-'J~--:Ii!- ~~}-- ,2- J~ ----- .-~___'::____~_ ]-0 0--+- - - "r-I:o+-----;-J}.+++ -o,,,+--L --r-+~ +---- : ~ I Hf- L+i,jj';:~; ~-t~---j., - ( _.- I 0 o j ~---C, r-f~)<1>~t~ .~~~t,- :--~:--~- - I -j~~~'--~,-CD- ~~1:- J~- -, -~~~r----'~ ~-~: ~I CD @--I----I-- 11,.,0- :~,,-~'+--r -I."::",~ 1- i,~~_:_-_j t'IH-L--:.-t-lail-r-~-: -I' ,j Iq,--t\ -I --1-0 ~ \ 1- ;J. ~-,--J. 1-1-1. IL-':' !.f~ - l_f-~ I !.r~ L-.LJ I-T~ I_~.i. ~i~ " , :' ; o 1 - -- I i ili -I 1 i- -- -t-, I -t_uf-- _L j-- -!-- II 't' --~, - - I 1 'I' , I I ,I " " " 1 'r '.,. 1 ~ ",n, i ..t, ,-!-, I " .'!' i '--'l '!' ,=_J ; ",,: 0--1-- -I: - no'"--#- ---,1'6<1<- --i-t>h,Iq.:- L :: -:~I .7.'1<1;' ~IH:- __ '---;:--,-I~: t - ---I- I '1-' IL J I, ~ 11.1 IfJ~>> ...;.'!..~_e h.u I L) LLI I [t J ,,-'l./ Iv ~ ,...] Ii ":;~ { f;1...! -. I o : -- -11\ --~,' -=-~~ ~~:' -' t: li--11l r~4-rr -&JI;- - :~-'~~ ~l i ]~-H p--~; <t :~:- ~ t~---L-. ,~B \;'-'iiW-')~;~!'i-~-tm~-l ;J~! ; ,~ r _,h-(-, j 0~~1 t -I ~(~t 1~ tal l-c.o,- ;1lI~ i:-~-tt~: 1~ r-t M-a-i+-'a-lj,~ , ~1~: I ~ lir-) I: ~_. ~. r~:~~! -J. i :!~, 'L~l J LCl~; L~r~i--- I j L_~! L-~ii I---,i~~ ~~~ ~ ~I- 0- 1--- ~ - 1--- j -~-LIjiT +-ljH- -, I" -j..ljI-h,---. ~ - ~:.I ~ 'firl j. ~ -,- +-e...-~-t L~_ --nl'l(- -j :,L. Il;. -_ '-r.;.. I J.. I..T;i. :: : 1. Lt.i. L,d I Ltoi!.. I. r .1I...t ~l- 1 .11 'I: : I '~, ,:D: :0:, l ' I I I':~~'> I:, <v-j- - -, ~~ !~ r.r~~:-=i-~~t~~lr':~~r:, ~~:1~flt2C :,-~~"r!::::~~:-;=jt:J;~f~; c - ':;~ <.. ~ :.-....__1, :....---"""----:t!J'!1 1'1 'ill II III ill I I IlL I' Ill! i'l ~.----.....--_'- ...~ 0' ! 1- - -1~=~::=~- '.~-~ ,-~-"" f - ~-~-~~-~-~-IlI-~-~-':O:~-.!J:"- 1__-':- ill I r I" 'I ~ ' I I l:.j :; 1 . ; : , 0.'0 dl ~_H !-<<~ u cD ..<t-.~ ~ ~ ~ "~ l!) ~-~-0-l~ '.<-- ~ .. ~ - - - - - - - -' - o ~p__ " .- <1-- LEVEL 100 FRAMING PLAN - ---1- 0 1-0 o : -j- I I 4 i ~ --f 0 i ---+-0 -10 -_\.~ -<1 - ~~~~~~}}/ l ';~ ~ ," .! ~,} ,i, I ~ 1 KEWLA" Njl- - ~ ~t~ \ ~,~r"'~ ?,D ,II - - ~ NICHOLS BAOSCH ~~J!Qgyl1 ......-.a-. "'Ii~-- ID<C~ ~~;1~ -.=1:-?ii-- I 0 <( W ro 0::: ~a <(~ Sit 0::: <( w -' 0 t::: 0 iY 0::: <( ~ .J~!1'''~ ~1" -- --- ---- -- -- - - --- c=J I $-101 I - - - - - GENERAL NOTES. ICODE& . ......." 'r"-', '" ,'u. ....'. "'.0:'" .{c-r....,~, ,.... .r~ (I", ,tf. ........,..' .[0 ",""-t ,,,,.,-!: ~""', "!to..., '"- r..'.... 0..,,(, "S~ I ...<' ~ _ toe.< ...........'''''1 reo ~l'~(""~ ~r.. <lIE ::I . <" '" . '"~''' .,."" I ~_~., '."", ., ",..... So., i.' ,,,,,,.,(\10. '''''''x <)j,s'....-".., ".".......} ~ '" ~.... ....., '. "r~" i1_,-,_ -..A ~.L<i~t' ". f.... ........" S',"",,...,,....., ..1' "'1 . ..<t. .. , , ...'-' \ "_' n.,,'. _',r.. "'~"I>< '" ',-"" (or c..-...t_-."" ~ 1"fI. ~ II'"" ....>BI"R, ''\1' 1'';1. I ",' N r, .no '. '^ "'n.." .1..'" _c "6_'",,, <.1:'.... I ""1' ~ .11.' . '1'1 " - ....;. ","t.. .. I,., J II M.o.Tt:AIAl6. .~" 'Jo. ...$ ~ '. J ,........ .0 H .1re >'1.' ......~ '<1. ..........1< < ..""",, '~1... 11 ~'''''''''' "'-_" 1- ;rcn___, H'~ .,' ..-<1.. ~ H...'....... '..." ",. ." "" "'~ f~. <'Iii ..n ,_ .. '" ... { ..( ,->.r " ,~.n 'rn'",,,~ ,J' . "'-' ~.., >"'ll t ~l~'" !'It.c. ",r~.'>o __",,,..., ,,'",'.-"1",. ,"'............... . .'1 ,i' . .. '1'1 fe" ~" " ~ " ~ .~S '" ..... "'" ....~H ..,~. ~.~ :;..~~ ~['",..' 'H I ~r ,,", ~'" e, ~ ,r ..u" ~., . ,...Iff ..... /""'"' 1" "L' 'II ~, ,.. 5'"'' t . . ~ F_L i- ,r.." J.' L, ~"" ~ , 'f'"'' ~<t r..... .,~ .... . ., "'...." "".,, ,0 ." \" ~Alt ." "l..~,' ",.flT , r..'."'..... "..".""" .,,," .r.. , ", iii GENERAL 'l.S ,,'. ,. ", .. "~'.MU "..... III.... ~..'" lull.. ~'" "to. . ~, I~"..r ''''.. " L"'::Our..- ~ T ",On...., ".. .. ....Q" l'd" ~ ,. . '...J~" ",!.I 'I"' .I'K,('Q" II' f,.....,".. "''' ""'"",)1' '<'" ~!.€l .. ~,.. '.....' "",.,~. .-v.,.~ '..J" ,. ...,,' M' " .U.. ",;; !,o. s C,"~ I .......:.11..' .,~ ..,c"... " ".... ~ f .l... ,. I...,", ,,, '~f'rf' C"......." 1 I<l ...,....(.'" 1 " "''"'''' L" r. ~ 'of' f..' loO'.' a:~ ,~ ... '" ,.."... ....,,, ,,,,...,, ,","~ /\/"....... ~ J...~,.P 'S'L" "l{' "\lF~, h. ","'H'_,n""_"",,,' ~ _,....""", . 1-"'... l. .<1,.......;. '......fU~l'!.Il:.'''n-'~' o".~ "'T', ,< ,~ ,1'</' . I" ..,,~~ '" 'A"'" ~'>'\'", . '.....1" ..~,~, lJ{ """'Hv """'. ""'~".~-r.:. ,......,," I'" .. 'A" "I. u "~ , .. u ."',,, ~"p ~"',.I.'[' ,( \ .......' .;; {. '.... 'I<( ...1 ",' .,~, ~_~l'('<:t .. , '~I~~"-.....,.......,.. I,; ..:o<,t,.,~l" It ,,~~'.r.. 'M"'~'~"''''J_d''.., ..._'tII. ,,.. ,~. ~ ..' < <: ( " '~"'" ," " , ..,. ~ ", ", ~ ~, ..... ~,C~L.,.I 'Flc ",~."~..,~.,,,Ct, '''>1M, 1 ,""f . n;,.."" I 1<;." >'l ~( .. ,,.. C, R~ ." "L'-" 1'1'"""' "."H".'....'".... r D~"",~'~"',r~~..,..., 'of ~,.~ ~, .. ...." ,,'-,,~. ~1 .."..,,~ ~ r<sl... ~Ir~"',,"" ., ",.)0' "01: L.l-M' .. "'..... '.-..1 ~ '0[" ~1..i..F~,~'.. u" ,~".., ~ ~.~, .. 0\1'0"1... ~ r~, ,...[~ .~... ". .,F' ..[ "'~ a'1o..1. ,. L u: ",...r.. .. 1"1 ~ .......,...., ".,.....,( """'WI ~. ,t.. r", "" ,e,,<... ..n;. . 1 ,'~.)T~ .I'.~. '~.~h) I') I "f, ,'" ~.,,~ ,It .'(~ 'II .P.. ,... ft~.. ~... "II ,,,- . "." t.. ""..-. h.'.' ~f '..'0.... ,.,. '" . r;:..,.. ...~ ~ , ,~"r:.l k "1 ..r.r """~ II ll"'1 ~ " ~, <' ".I"'" ,...q"~J"4 ..", < ,,.-....1 ~ ", .0, " .,' ,....' .. l~! 'lo,o '.C <r[~, "L . "C"'" "'~f ",. ,. .I11"C~...,",.".'~I~H...'.'I',::.~1 '" _, .",.. . (, ".1 ..~, . h.... ... ..,'"~,, r..-..... ~ , 't, -. ....".,~,~ ~.." :r "th,,_.~ ib' fl. C, , . If~' o( "'" "" '(L< ".......... W., ~ ^,.." .~1\.> <C ~,..~,~ ,Jr' .., "~U",.." ll.....'r <',r[, "'.. ., '" ... '1 or...." ,... , ~~... '..... '., 'no',",'''',~, ~f~, .,.,~,",.. '~"""""I.~t'"~'''~t<....~,t''<''' ',-,,''''.( ( ". '~'" IC' '" ~ ,..~" _" II' ^ ,,, ~. ~ ~., Tn "',,,,, "" '''l. ,'".or I.. "..;ij. I, or '",' .... I,~" ~ '"'.~ ',., ,f' ,. '"'" ~.".. ',,,...,,. u.. ~[.. ~'" -. ......, ...." ~', "~ ., '" ~l'..C* [... .... ~ I'" '_'. ," ""....,.. 'c' ,,(.~.., "~.."'"'l">lo_.,'U~ '" " .,.,~","~..,.F ",)O,,~""..."C'-~ta.. ,,. --' -""" . ,-. ,.,- ~ . "','" .,~..,. r. ~ .....~...lr" ,,, ,.....,...,....,...."'., ..,:;;.,."D'j' - - - v COHCflE11i.HOTEa: , ..."........... ~IH' """ ~.'" . ""........ r r.~ 'IJ"t' "rllto '".-, "", * ~\"...." , '~'t l f",,) [[ '~I......,)o, .~.'ttl.a ~ l>'i .....".~ , , ~ or. )' I"" r. ~ c'""U"'( 1101.''',[1 '" ....^'.fJl 'A_, ,,,,!..., ",p,oo........", ~ ..,,~,~ (',(I ,0).. u .~" ......ju,. SU.)O',S 0i.1S ." ,. 1'1 .'~~ ,.. ,. -" "" "''''I~ il\l~< "...f.<...., ,.. ...,jJ!.,n .' '-!..r(;f'....~,' ,"" ., t..~1I1i&: '< .......~. ...,~ "_t,, '" t,.,c",--. ",.ern..., ",,,,,,eo,.. D'" ....'J iN ....~...'~I' M ,,,,n' ,)<, """~ '" >>". J ;..c'm.c'.....~ l lO",t.~~.'--'fo",,"""~'f.JI',"~" tf'r!""' ".... 'In l.5 I'L .. "ll'~IlJ_'" <I, 1..,$ ilrT..... q~ .... ~:Ir.' ,<<'n 1>(, ."""~1" ."<1 n.. '" ,,"C.'P,l ....\ I.h""....\. ",' I... ""'" L~.L~"~ .. 'i"'L'~ I'" ",.,~""" C""."~I F'.. I' c..n J ""~,~ ,.., .a. . '''' ,.."" , ,<, l' (I, ~~~i'n. co, "".. .J! ~","'l .. ,..,. :...'1'.... '" ". ! ...."" "' "~l.,. ....,.".~^"~~J'"'II ..r....'~""'. I" .' .",." _ ,,,,.n',N " ...'''' " >~,..l<I.""1 .-w.., ul "'....." .. ,.cor ......nu, I~ I.. 'ltu. " 'I''''J/.L. '"II"," 1> ",T.. .,. "'''''' '. '" :",."l.... ,.., ~'"'' ,,~f1C.. .. .., .."., ~'e , '" . ~~... <"""~"..t"" u-,.'..~'.f;-~.. . CONDlUE STR[lJl.,TH (1'51) TOfflARS "LD iNI/J(HES ;: ,~~:t~~ <~1~:::; ,~:;~ a~ -I t i~ i ?--r-:.- ~-,~;~ ~ - -!S -l~-r; - CQlJCRETE $TREIIGni (1'5') uThffl Il,.jiS - 'lD" 1// IUOIE~ .. -, ~. 1 ~':j'~H' n"" ":;.;-;; (/r~""";- ..~-.:-... f:tl~LrllXf ~= j~l--'_ ~ 1 - I~' f.. n. i'~~ ~'..!:I ~"...., ,-.;.~^.... '1:"' "h(~' Mn ..... '"'' 'J --.r ,........ 'I ~;, " .. ,"""I"l~,, "". .[,,"It< .~. .1..... I .,,' "...s".' "'.,,,. _,....,... .... -.n. t""f\ll.....' &r "'J'~ '0 ...~ TI, ,,('IT'fl' ",m. 'f< VI PoaT"TENSIONEO COHCRiTE NOTE$; , 1'., 'I"~'",,, .>1(0(",,, "'...,...."" "'_ .r", ..:" H 11 ,_ ..or.," "v....,..;u.,r rr,,~'" '''i "l"f." ) c """. .. So ,_ ,~"...l ". .. ,.. IN "~.cl:1 ....-- . .",. ....,.,., I"."", '. ('''I< ,r~f .",J( 'e"" M'~ \.:>t '''~ ,., " ".' .., ,..n~' " c.. e.. ~.. ,,'.I $1<.., ., ,vI. '.... ,o'~n ., l'~''''-''';[" 11' .Ct', S '>t '_~~"~,$ ,,;., P.. . ,"hi ., ,..- O'I.OfI. ~,".{,"'h llU""" ......l'. ..... Ii-~, ...~ ;.K' ." o "r~ 1<.... "L~" ~ ,.~ <Illl". < <0' J ... I c ,!,.~" F1~.h .~"'.. " '''I ~."...' ~,... ...., ",,-, ~ .<>1 .r,..II. '"" l>' ~'Cl.......r.". <.....{'",. ,;"r nC. '. ., 'rVl....Cl ;;I..~ l~. ",,'.rof""'tJl!,1 ,,,!M.l"" S'~""''''D~'.'~ " "'AI, Ni< ..,~ r....II I n:~(I:'''''. ""'-F ". ..~ ...." .,r",.. ".~"'''I'''''''.. _..."JAI' '.I~""~C,"""" ~ ~." ", Sf><,,' '" ~".....I . ",... "' ""'$ :Ii.u "" . ,'C>o, ..,,; y,,>< '~I J J '''[jl S....'" . "I"",", 'C t1 ,t. '" ..... .. . ,'" , .('~ I "...,ku' . 'J , , .Il'..,"~...... ~,~ l.I~' C"'A "'" "'",...",\\" .. .......", -"'''' ,....nJ, '''.cr.~.,^~", iJ....c,.,".,~ r.:""'~'Ll.~'l~"'" J "'~<>i,.rl'~~.", ...d..>U:H ~l"'"L'" .~" "".u. . H''''' P 11<[ .,,[...,.c ,.."'.. ""., ~ :)O'f""'" "' ,e .( '''fl' v'" ,', '" '~I-' t" ~ .." , re,,,,,,, ,.. ", ...', ""'.... ",," ~ ""',~"T" ..., , 'f '... "h.,.r, '''~I "~5"'" c",'''_.. ~......~.,,~ ... e. ".,1 .' ,_( CUiI". ""':'i'i luao!"l ~"'m "'-"'" ". " "'I'" 'S'I""t.'~" ...<""_I!."~.'"" ~S""""'P'~'~" 'Y "''''''''_;l-lJ~'~''' a.'~ 'tJ"l~'" ......~'" ~ H .~ 1-......". ,f >C'. '"'" "'<1.1 ,I"~" ..n""I "'.. ~'" ......~~.....l GI','-><I""!l,I_'.l"'''..l''';''J r.., (f'''' .;I;"l(U ,C""" ....f...... ,,,.. Hi" Jot_ ,)~,. ..,.. ...'::.' c,.,.' "" "".0::..''''' ,. .,.. ...... 'fI' ""0' .,.~, ~~~~ :;," ,~;~~ ,,, ~;-, c~-,,;,~"",:r"~ I.;; ~; ~ ".:;. -:.,';' '" , . _'" . "",,,, 0: ,"'ll. .J .... , """ , .". "'''.'' "~ '... ....., """'c,........II.n..rIf........li """,,"'Il{.,.;.., !..." - - - 1 L<<> ,\) ," ...'1.S r.""IIo(.....~......... '" ........,.1: f.H" ~N.":.r v ....".4' ""~~'~''''L ~t.... ,~...., ...M'( ". ....- .Lf"",.. '''' >tull[!>>!" fu....nH' , ..U'I~ Cot....., .......... ...".fa~ III.'.... '~.' "'C,L "...... PI",_L '''' lV."" . I ""[0..""''' ,~'" ~ ... Ru~ '.F .,<Xl>< "1.-'0><." 'J """ll'l .... Ik:,.n "OO~ IL'".. .1l1 .1kU: lo.u"I!;!>. .,.0 (", >l-1l' P...:l'~~ :i ""- . ...." ~-"'. 'l,OTl<> ~,"':lil~ Ie ~. ~[UiU. I, ~ ,~~"'.,"" ".. .... llU I nw,,,n, 'C~O'" it...,,; ..1.t......"H~. , ,,"':.$ O,u".'U <"'''' C" \I''''''''" "II " '" n, . ~.' I~' ... "r" 'h"",. .: :~~: ;~~~~'~~ "" '''' , "" ".~"" ..".. "..... 'f""l ~~ :t~~~~0~:li~~ ~::;~a,~~::?~~!~ ,:,~::::::~: '~r:S Ii i ... ,.... '" ,""'...", 0' ,"~ .' ,. ".o.~'~", ",.' .. ""'" "'"' ,"'''''w ~"'U.L~"'tS. """' fir Frf:,...lo1c .. (,,-'h,u , ~'d:; ;K." ~...I' ">1f~ '~'L ~'I... .. '"" "" '''' .... ~ . "1 O'f ~,t:P, ..u T ,.,.; .... It" .,. 'I <U..."". NO{. J" """ I. ~., '" .c..~i. . ~"" II~'" ,-,," b'"'''''' ,,,,~ '1.~. .."" y, P.. '" ",. '''' ,...... dl: "Fl.",,, [, !iU "'~L~ ..,.", ,: ........Ii~'" "',,,., ~ ,0."'" ""'" t.... f'....... . ,,'" or .>or.. 'J"..o'IJTT,,,':;<Y:i,~""'.ol"~1f( '!\""flllf~' n!...~.",- P<l""."FR'",c... ""1',,". YUI METAL. DECK NOTE8; , <lw' ""-' "f"!l(, ". ~., ./(H 1.01:50"'(1 r,,~ ..,w;;ou, C I"'" It), ...""[1'11.....5<-.1: II,," ~,"" F 'It"' JII. i~".... ,...n !.I''',S :. ~c?;~..~~~~r~:'~~.:~~~,f:~~:::::~;:"~., l{ ~, ~:/s ...~~.~J(~~ .'f:"' .',,"0.'" F,-""~. .,.....< "'" "E.n~ I~.... ",~..."~ "1"6f~' ,,'.. I,' ~. ~tQld ,{ nS", 0, ~"(... Il,D ~,'U ~. .{I>f>1OTUO it, 'I~,',l ~'l..J!i I', I-k lII(;f ,.~~ " Jo 01-' .04 II~ i" ~;~fO '" '...(N' 1.1'.JI.s . H<V .., ....... '" ~...~,~,~ .. ~.~ ,...,.. "'~""" ",,. j ". ......"... "'-~." " ~~ . "r, ." ,,;. If I 0 "" <I'"~",, "'''"'''',, _.~..'n.."..F,," ...V, 'eR> , I __"ll"...... '1<>"" af <, Ife I ...., ~ .~r...'.. ...01-....... "'W" ...,S ....~ ~."",-... . I, J,~ .. ,,') C ., .,nr"" ,. < . .,,"D~!:J" "-" ..... ..""..[. '" 1(, ..n:; c,., ...,~ "....,l'(, ~I.I ~.. "h ....~l ;'<il-H > .~~. ,,(, (f.."" 't< "..,. ~ .. H1,.. "", ~ l'~ H II,.. I ~'"f''''''''' >. '~"'-"" .-" ,'C, SO '" "n" ~ ...". IX MMOHR\" HOllIS; '.l."~, ....,__ "- .....""'., ...'''~, ,,.. '~h" t"."..~ "'''.. .~ ..!t, ',0- <;I',J;t , 1>1." IIC....... 't',..1 ..n, '" . I <;~ F. .; II......... "'" c"r"".. "'~..... 10, ,.....- II..., K.> 'f ~.... ,.,"'.. ,<",('00'''.00 , "''''".... "w.~ 1.1.1. M" ''''~'"'~ ,~ ON ..". '''~ J)O/) P'> ~""""" .> f r.",. ..... S~'l\_ ~, " ,f1i., ,". " ,1' ., 1 u:Tt~,. . 'Ul '~~O{,'ll. f<........ .!U..' . .". ,R.tr , .."".... orl.""",,~ .~.., t. "'" 'l'~ "h'~ .. utf ",,<J (HI "':'''N ,.. >" q~"" '" ,.~,,~~ f..G....'S ii ~;~ .. ~c" ,"I... ../, ...,..~ ..," ...-, ,J>> .. " '''' '~""'ud""C,,,,(~"...,.." 00' I' ~ )( llt.lBai NOTES: , "I.~'" i." ."" ~'I.' "'U """....' " "11' f ...>....1- UL1;.I1'I<<""'=II.,r""'t>,"",(>r,"I~"'.'1 ~,,~ ""Ii.".' "A U >Ji' "",,,.,,,,.,,, >In.. .r"'~ . ~......_ iUS '.. ''"'' _Ii' t,...~1 ^. ......."'1 ~ ...1.... ~~or..,'"'.. "A ...... I"""A =~I"'" "'II ......... ,,'~u '" Ofen_. IQ '" p. ....,~ ,~'" .I ".. .:S'" ~ l~' 1~',1'f .o['<"'Il~ Q>-.o(<-,v< ","". ~"" '. ~'"N''' wll!;l.'il/ ~""'i'l .1 "'1 ~ N,~...I.. ..~, ~...........' ~n, P 'a . _"... ""'" '" .,,;.., . --" ~,,(J~..., ..., '<1< 9, L[.i I..." r,,,- .n,U ~.(^"~ ~ <)>, tU, ".1 ,..,r~DI.~"."...~,;..t~"''''~''I'~.'''''" ..'.....~I' ...t<l. ",.r~'I!'" T" ~,..' ~r" ""_' !;",~,^ '.ilI" FFcli"" .. '''''i'~,f; ,_. ~ '''1T"I~. "'" "'''....i..cr. n,.t:.., "l 1"''''''''''' L "I" .< '>1:".1[(; .~o .~ 'i """ 'lID" ...~, ~'." L'. ."'1' ......"" ~,'_ol..,:r.I..~l'''' fIJf<t" l,fI ......~'.n ~~~~~~ ~~~: ~~~:.~'~;l~. ~,,':~1~L:~ri~~ ~~~~~:,~ ~'~~ '<II > ""'.... ~..~, 1...,-" "'.... ,., '''",L '~"l"....~ , r... ,.,L ".. CI ,'" ., ""I.. ". .".",~ ~)I.""" ,..,. ,oj: ... "".. ,,,' .1. ~ '.. t~ ..,,, , ,",0' .... --',. ,n.'."" (..,n_ . "1' n 'u ~'."""".# , ''''T T '" .........,".. f,..", ,"'l:; ""~ ~"1t..\ . ,~'" "I\J 'T" " ,. "".-n, " ,,00" it "l J/"... ""o,,..u; l~" ,,~, Q "~""'l". . ~,,,.. AI'" '." to''" '_ $<.....,...c;.$ .-€...."l.. c\ . ,e"n .""~.~. .,.....,...". II., ~'.o. ,.. ~ ...... . .....t<'~ "..... ..'" '" "'- ,", .... <......... ",., "...1 tJLf,1 A. ""r""y ,.~ .n~ ".... ,..'",. II...., ".,"!h._ """I"'lr...,,,,~, ".. '"I''''''''' PI'" """""-". _"..... '" ~u ,., C{ l""~' I( t. C'.,,, .'L ," ,,"'v ::,:;r~'.. ~.~;;.~ T~~"'~ ~~.;. ':::,i~~~';...:::'~"'" . 5"c' """"'~ J I_,~r"\"''''!:l'''<'' '-'iE^".'~'~C"..l:"' '''- (-n.'~"" '~_H."'t ~.. '.. .~...I. """ II....~ ....'.... ~ . ....,:,. f", 10.... '" T.lel....' ,,_.tlll 'It" .JU ~ if ,,1>041;2. . ~ ,,~..c"c.a " ~",f ......, , ~'" 1><1 .~...,f"~. ",~", "I' ~1"..u:D ~~...O~...... ...... .".. n'''''''~' "'i~ ,,,,. '0.' ,;: .".or., ~,." 61 ~. Ill.' f' ',i I" ...:" ... ~ ,.,.", ~ p~,.. " ...1-."" - - - 10 8VNBOlII usm ON DRAWINGS' I I J ...,.,..~ .....<I.h... "",AA .""f.."1I "....^"" 9".1',<1.." ,J'f!-,...."u".....;l'..."n..uao.....&- f,,'IGIU'.ri<.. ....t,-"'.) ~~~: :';;~,:;~;:,(,~~"5 lX ~I[~ ....'...w Dl:...tp.CuNtl:..... ,<: ,,"~ln 1>>...>1)0, CO .. .(oS....... , ~~~:;;(.,'~ ,~:"':::..~I"H..~..' .... .J ".,"',);1"-,"'" ,~,,,...... t ....... 00")( 'II..' t~ . ,," ., ~~... ,.......j_.".........H;'!;;;J,''.. ....::::~. ~:..~T~":,,""'::, 1'1t... .,tj;L'''-'' ~ u j~2,~~ ::' ~~"~~'~::21~I ~2~C1~;~:~F . J;;..,~ '.j. ,.. ~'&J" ..~~.".... ''''''t. J- ';(''^'~'' ,....., 1 M". .'!"...li''''..,T.,,'', ur.. "CO ~ ." " - - - ~ ~ \,~" " ~\ '- , \~:(\ltl- ;0 .:j}}J ,.?/' - - ~ NICHOLS BROSCH SANDOVAL IAS>oOa"tU" _.1'...." ::~~_.. mcc~ ~~;~~ ~\'~ I U <( W CO a:: ~~ " <(~ " :s:~ 0 a:: <( € w -l ~ u l= 0 iX a::: <( ::2: " . - - - - - - - - c=J IS-0011 - - - - - - - - - - - - LOT 9 , I I I LOT 10 , , , wi , -- I -- - ?;, -I, 'I , , 8' LOT 11 I z' 0 ~I n:: <<: > f!i. w -' 1/>, ------.4 ::J ~I , 0 I m s i!, w 5 ~t LOT 12 "- o 8 , -' ~ ::J 8 , C> ., ----~ I I , , LOT-12 1/2 I I , I . I -- i , -- , I LOT 13 8121 , , I _.r--Z"' - - - - - - - /5 gIR''''" c"~l ~~l n.ITA 'W'" 0"'2002" Q"1o}6" 0'10'20' 1""3844" .U-:u" 1IJ.tIItIS 1127 ~2 a221 !)2 0'27 ~2 .121:12 e.G81..~ OOll:lo2 .II~ -.. IU' IIJSi \1~1I7 rwn&lO T...Nt::FN"'f rwMll AI" .IJl.1HG ,00." '00" 5 0CI"'2.)'27"'I ,... ... N ()~nll 44"1. ".. N OT,1'1t1"[ 11:1.61 ..... S 04"1.01"' I ()-l 5/ ~, ." I. ,j I~ I , I LOT 56 .:- ':i- LOT 103 ..... ,. il d OJ,.. ..... s LOT 57 ~ J8~ 8i -s :::t 'II ~1I o z . J r OJ" (nf'ICJ.I...) LOT 104 00' I , LOT 105 !I (; fWD Ngil 0, LBJJ889 <<: 2925' Z -.------- 0 , n:: 0 , u I , LOT 106 I I l-Story , Wood Garg~. I , ort LOT 107 I , 82'3833 W 100 18 . H &r.ITI'-' IllO.OO"'(P) 1.1 .... , I l/~ I Port LOT 107 - -- <<:6 DC ::~'Il~~'- ~""~~I BOUNDARY SURVEY ';' MarrIott Resort Development Clearwater Beach .... "'... PC fND Hoil '" Olsk LBp889 I I , , , I . , I Wi6I ~ zt. RNG: t:I PIT. I'IeUoS A'UlQ1. ~UIG~":':~ AS fC11DIIlk ca.Mf'(flJJIAl NGHII1I1H2lUCRP LOT ril lD1104, H SJJlH ~ ~ AS IlftQlOED It PUT aocK [ ~~oa ~ ~~rUau rI PNU).S tOM1T. fU&J4 lQCVlD .-at un UlO, lDT 1. NCl ~ ~r ~ :r,,:.: 12. rI ~~tt-=-~~.~ 1fDIun'. ~..... wno-.m-1ICIMlI ~~ == It "-'111Dl* Q, ,AQ( 12. rS 'DE PlDJC RED;JIl:I CQ.I(1"I'. fUIC)A. AXJJ a:m-a-_1' 10 torilEHJIlIlH lKo\l PCI(UI fE .._~~ ~ = IDQfl-a-WAl tX rS · "",nn.o:zc:::mKal';::lft 1HE wr ~u:-~~':;~ r~~~~~orlO'l"/oII)LDf1C6. Iftt 1H[ PSt aOD AD fS A lIUlO ~~~~ ~Aa) 10 lIE ~~~~E.57 AND 11)4", IrIC) Oil H. ~ ~ ~ OOOCSD' tI 'DC 5OJ1H ~ fI LOT llI1 alNl....-G LA __ (71_ wt/l). __ III ..... --- I~HIIIE!t L MODCA'lAlIC*.....~~:*~ C6 IKt 1JtJIJlQlI!J.ua..::s HNllIO[OlI ,.., 5'- IU JiJD-E CIlIlDG ~jaI ~au..m CII Y.J<<:PN..~"U3~ NG H U)CA1DI rs.M1. ~~~ FOIl pcA.VA1IOI CIl ~1td~~....Wf=-m=~~ lItlm' 1tICA1DIS. UII.110 .. MO~(#~~~~llo\l. ~ ftJ'II WIEDl ~:'iDl5l IIEJ1IIC1KIO c;f" IG3IlD lKAM""::.:=UHJ 'Ul'C\QI ~ -lIA~TOUKIS ~~:altOS( IllDlilIII MiIJlM)f1l fI rE.aIlD ~ 10 H &a'C'IUl u: LOCAlQIl ur'ID II:Ml:ftlJ )DP* IS *If lNlDUD 10 =. OR /IIE,U rI & ::DaI1EMl1 or Nl'f~':: ~ ca Q1.lIVAa ~~..: lIQKt DZ51' eII:n" tIJT LQC.\llD AS" ,All ~ HI aJMY. &.lIUSIaa:NtSU8'l'l.~~~~~~\ ~ ~~NGftIIJQ5D QILl.va IS wn ~ I. NN ~ rI..s pr.o ~o:u11-= =-.'" ~IH) J~~~=;H& .-'" -- ...... ..,.. lClBII ,. u:D OM H canDUIE (I ... .u8d .. AI!IMII 'I) Elf,,/rIA MM"Jl o-w. 1. LAP GAll " NJJ>> -..eft '/Wi/OL NJ>> mE JL. KA'M3 .. H!IilBGI ,AIdL ~I~'= ::' (MfDIDd "Kl H: lUoldUL ~~DtI=hJ!~~~ ~==~~DA1Ij"""1"1" F'~- '(I; '.., '" D'. 20\00 .f ~.. fEU LEGEND f-~~-"" - .- -::t. :::............. ..... _ m"E 110M IIPM'I&I 0& ~::.:.- s::. ....... .., _ UlBIB .... .... ,.A.C. _lGRtlIQIIIJII:IIOI ,.u.rc-tfl'_ l ........ ",_~I aD. - uw._ ra..- RUG.... ~:: ;::';-..Ift.. aCM'L&IIIlI ra.. RUtI QiIIJd...... ....~p.~. ::::::'-..... o .~..IIIII..... U. ............. flU ~ ~~1:.~L8J1tO =~~~ -..u - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Marriott Seashell Resort Fast-Track Project Schedule Quarterly through Grand Opening I I I I Action Quarte Jan-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Oct-01 Jan-02 Apr-02 Jul-02 Oct-02 Jan-03 Apr-03 Jul-03 Oct-03 Site Plan Approval - February 20, 2001 City Adopts Beach by Design Plan - February 15, 2001 City Adopts Development Agreement - March 1, 2001 Issue Foundation Permit - March 2, 2001 Mobilize on Site - March 16, 2001 Maintenance of Traffic Plan - March 16,2001 Phased Foundation Construction - March 16, 2001 Phased Beachwalk Construction - March 16, 2001 Issue Demolition Permit I Demolition & Utility Relocations Issue Shell Permit Building Shell Construction Issue Interiors Permit Building Interiors Completion Garage Opening ( requires partial CO ) - Hotel Opening I Bridge Construction Bridge Opening I I I I I I I I: I I ,I ,I I I I I, I I :1 I I I DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS THIS DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS is made as of the day of ,2001 by Clearwater Seashell Resort, L. C. Clearwater Seashell Resort; L. C. is the owner of fee simple title to all of the real property described in Exhibit 1 attached hereto and made a part hereof (hereinafter the "Real Property"). The City of Clearwater has amended its Comprehensive Plan to designate Clearwater Beach as a Community Redevelopment District pursuant to the ,- Pinellas County Planning Council Rules in order to implement the provisions of Beach by Design, a preliminary design for the revitalization of Clearwater Beach. The designation of Clearwater Beach as a Community Redevelopment District provide for the allocation of bonus resort units as an incentive for the development of destination quality {resorts with a full complement of resort amenities. Pursuant to the designation of Clearwater Beach as a Community Redevelopment District, the allocation of bonus resort units is subject to compliance with a series of performance standards, including a requirement that the resort hotel to be developed on the Real Property implements a trip generation management program to reduce the number of vehicle trips generated by the use and operation of the Real Property. The City of Clearwater has granted, by City Commission Resolution passed and approved on , Clearwater Seashell Resort, L. C.'s application for an allocation of bonus resort units pursuant to the provisions of the designation of Clearwater Beach as a Community Redevelopment Districts subject to compliance with the requirements of the designation of Clearwater Beach as a Community Redevelopment District. Clearwater Seashell Resort, L. C. desires for itself, and its successors and assigns, as owners to establish certain rights, duties, obligations and responsibilities with respect to the use and operation of the Real Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of the allocation of bonus resort units to Clearwater and the designation of Clearwater Beach as a Community Redevelopment District, which rights, duties, obligations and responsibilities shall be binding on any and all successors and assigns and will run with the title to the Real Property. THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and restrictions herein set forth and to be observed and performed, and in further consideration of the allocation of bonus resort units to Clearwater Seashell Resort, L. C. and other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Clearwater Seashell, L. C. hereby declares, covenants and agrees as follows: -1- I I I :1 I I' I I I I I I .1. I I ~ ,/ ,I I I I 1 . Benefit and, Enforcement. These covenants and restrictions are made for the benefit of Clearwater Seashell Resort, L. C. and its successors and assigns and shall be enforceable by them and also for the benefit of the residents of the City of Clearwater, Florida and and shall be enforceable on behalf of the said residents by the City Commission of the City of Clearwater. 2. Covenant to Prepare and Implement a Trip Generation Manaqement Proqram. Clearwater Seashell Resort, L. C. hereby covenants and agrees to the development, use and operation of the Real Property in accordance with the provisions of this Declaration. 2.1 Trip Generation Manaqement Proqram. Clearwater Seashell Resort, L. C. shall prepare a Trip Generation Management Program which includes, at a minimum, the program elements which are set out in Exhibit 2 which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. 2.2 Implementation. Clearwater Seashell, L. C. shall take all necessary and appropriate steps to implement the Trip Generation Management Program. 3. Effective Date. upon its recording. This Declaration shall become effective immediately 4. Governinq Law. This Declaration shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Florida. 5. Recordinq. This Declaration shall be recorded in the chain of title of the Real Property with the Clerk of the Courts of Pinellas County, Florida. 6. Attorneys Fees. Clearwater Seashell Resort, L. C. shall reimburse the City of Clearwater for any expenses, including attorneys fees, which are incurred by the City of Clearwater in the event that the City determines that it is necessary and appropriate to seek judicial enforcement of these Declarations and the City obtains relief, whether by agreement of the parties or through order of the court. 7. Severability. If any provision, or part thereof, of this Declaration or the application of this Declaration to any person or circumstance will be or is declared to any extent to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Declaration, or the application of such provision or portion thereof to any person or circumstance, shall not be affected thereby, and each and every other provision of this Declaration shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. -2- I I I I I I I' I I I I I ,I ,I I I I I I IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Clearwater Seashell Resort, L. C. has caused this Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions to be executed this day of ,2001. Signed and sealed and delivered Clearwater Seashell Resort, L. C. in the presence of: By: Name: Title: Date: STATE OF FLORI DA ) ) COUNTY OF PINELLAS ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 2001 by on behalf of Clearwater Seashell Resort, L. C. Notary Public State of Florida My commission expires: -3- I I I I I' I I :1 I ,I I I I 'I I I I I I EXHIBIT 2 Trip Generation Management Program 1 . Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the 'Seashell Resort, the developer shall submit a Transportation System Management Plan to the City. This Plan shall establish practices, procedures and costs/fees for services to reduce the number of trips to and from the site. Examples of methods which may be considered are: 1. Guest shuttle services/airport 2. Guest shuttle services/activities 3. Employee shuttle 4. Non-motorized modes for guests 5. Fixed route transit 6. Taxis/demand responsive transit 7. Non-motorized modes for employees 8. Staggered working hours 2. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Seashell Resort, the developer shall submit a Hurricane Evacuation Plan to the City. This Plan shall establish practices and procedures to be implemented when a tropical storm watch is established for Clearwater. These practices and procedures will lead to evacuation of the Seashell Resort when hurricane warnings are issued for Clearwater. C \WTNDOWSIDESKTOf'lSEASHELL EXHIBITS\TSM#L.DOC I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS THIS DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS is made as of the day of ,2001 by Clearwater Seashell Resort, L. C. Clearwater Seashell Resort, L. C. is the owner of fee simple title to all of the real property described in Exhibit 1 attached hereto and made a part hereof (hereinafter the "Real Property"). The City of Clearwater has amended its Comprehensive Plan to designate Clearwater Beach as a Community Redevelopment District pursuant to the Pinellas County Planning Council Rules in order to implement the provisions of Beach by Design, a preliminary design for the revitalization of Clearwater Beach. The designation of Clearwater Beach as a Community Redevelopment District provide for the allocation of bonus resort units as an incentive for the development of destination quality resorts with a full complement of resort amenities. Pursuant to the designation of Clearwater Beach as a Community Redevelopment District, the allocation of bonus resort units is subject to compliance with a series of performance standards, including a requirement that resorts developed with bonus resort units pursuant to the Community Redevelopment District shall be closed and all guests evacuated from the resort within twelve (12) hours after the National Hurricane Center posts a hurricane watch that includes Clearwater Beach. The purpose of the evacuation of the Real Property within twelve (12) hours of the issuance of a hurricane watch is to ensure that the Real Property is evacuated in advance of the period of time when a hurricane evacuation would be expected in advance of the approach of hurricane force winds. The City of Clearwater has granted, by City Commission Resolution passed and approved on , Clearwater Seashell Resort, L. C.'s application for an allocation of bonus resort units pursuant to the provisions of the designation of Clearwater Beach as a Community Redevelopment Districts subject to compliance with the requirements of the designation of Clearwater Beach as a Community Redevelopment District. Clearwater Seashell Resort, L. C. desires for itself, and its successors and assigns, as owners to establish certain rights, duties, obligations and responsibilities with respect to the use and operation of the Real Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of the allocation of bonus resort units to Clearwater and the designation of Clearwater Beach as a Community Redevelopment District, which rights, duties, obligations and responsibilities shall be binding on any and all successors and assigns and will run with the title to the Real Property. THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and restrictions herein set forth and to be observed and performed, and in further consideration of the allocation of bonus resort units to Clearwater Seashell Resort, L. C. and other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Clearwater Seashell, L. C. -1- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I I I I hereby declares, covenants and agrees as follows: 1. Benefit and Enforcement. These covenants and restrictions are made for the benefit of Clearwater Seashell Resort, L. C. and its successors and assigns and shall be enforceable by them and also for the benefit of the residents of the City of Clearwater, Florida and and shall be enforceable on behalf of the said residents by the City Commission of the City of Clearwater. 2. Covenant of Development. Use and Operation. Clearwater Seashell Resort, L. C. hereby covenants and agrees to the development, use and operation of the Real Property in accordance with the provisions of this Declaration. 2.1 Use. The use of the bonus resort units allocated to Clearwater Seashell Resort, L. C. shall be limited to overnight accommodations with occupancy limited to stays of thirty (30) days or less. 2.2 Closure of Improvements and Evacuation. The improvements developed on the Real Property shall be promptly closed upon the issuance of a hurricane watch by the National Hurricane Center which hurricane watch indudes Clearwater Beach and all guests, visitors and employees other than emergency and security personnel required to protect the improvements, shall be evacuated from the Real Property within twelve (12) hours of the issuance of said hurricane watch. In the event that the National Hurricane Center shall modify the terminology employed to warn of the approach of hurricane force winds, the closure and evacuation provisions of this Declaration shall be governed by the level ofwaming employed by the National Hurricane Center which precedes the issuance of a forecast of probable landfall in order to ensure that the guests, visitors and employees will be evacuated substantially in advance of the issuance of a forcast of probable landfall. 3. Effective Date. upon its recording. This Declaration shall become effective immediately 4. Governinq Law. This Declaration shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of Florida. 5. Recordinq. This Declaration shall be recorded in the chain of title of the Real Property with the Clerk of the Courts of Pinellas County, Florida. ~2- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -, I I I I 6. Attorneys Fees. Clearwater Seashell Resort, L. C. shall reimburse the City of Clearwater for any expenses, including attorneys fees, which are incurred by the City of Clearwater in the event that the City determines that it is necessary and appropriate to seek judicial enforcement of these Declarations and the City obtains relief, whether by agreement of the parties or through order of the court. 7. Severability. If any provision, or part thereof, of this Declaration or the application of this Declaration to any person or circumstance will be or is declared to any extent to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Declaration, or the application of such provision or portion thereof to any person or circumstance, shall not be affected thereby, and each and every other provision of this Declaration shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Clearwater Seashell Resort, L. C. has caused this Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions to be executed this day of , 2001. Signed and sealed and delivered in the presence of: Clearwater Seashell Resort, L. C. By: Name: Title: Date: STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) COUNTY OF PINELLAS ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 2001 by on behalf of Clearwater Seashell Resort, L. C. Notary Public State of Florida My commission expires: -3- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPROVALS & PERMIT LiSt · Site plan, height, vacation approval · Piling & foundation permit . Demolition permit · Site alteration/drainage permit . Utility relocation permit · Vacation condition & replat approval · Building permits package o Structural o Mechanical o Electrical o Plumbing · Beach Improvement permits o CCCL permit - from Florida Beaches and Shores o Utility & Drainage permit - with City Engineer & SWFMD approval o Roadway Permit - approved by City Engineer o Landscape, Irrigation (graywater) & Lighting - approved by Recreation & Parks o Pedestrian Bridge, Elevated Walk & Beach Elevator Public Service Facility (building permit) ------------------- Public Improvements Gulfview, Beach Walk, Garage Access Improvements & Public Facilities Area Phase "An Gulfview Beach Walk: Roadway, Bikeway Pedestrian & Transit Elements Conceptual Design subject to design and permitting - more complete description contained in Adopted Beach By Design Document and Delivered by the terms of the Development Agreement Phase "B" Gulfview Beach Walk: Ro~dway, Bikeway Pedestrian & Transit Elements Conceptual Design continuation to the south at City Option within six months of start of construction - - - - - - - - - - - - 'I-' , \ '1-:-:' 'iI. <i. ,~l r-.-~.J '. 'J _ ~ "" ~ , j '!;-',' ':1\.-' '- ,- ~ ~&.r 6ACt:;. I. . ~ .. .. ~... r ~ I .' . - -. 7:-:- - ~ ---: --:- -': -..;....~..:-- ---11" . . 1:>=__ ~1fi."':S . .~.., WAJ-K _ 1/ ~1 L ?J-....ZA./":?,PIS"'-/AJ.-. e-ve1-l"-~ , ~ ' Gulfview Beach Walk Landscape Plan Clearwater Seashell Resort LC - - - - - - - BASIC CONCEPT Quantity lIem Descrlpllon 205.800 Demollllon eXisting slle features 1 Retrofit underground utilities 4,766 Asphall pavement roadway/bikeway 3,885 Asphalt parking lots Incl Striping and wheet stops 3.600 Crosswalks, concrete pavers over concrete slab 10.000 6-8" wide concrete curb, std 17,500 Plaza pavement. concrete pavers over concrete slab 37.350 Promenade pavement 500 Sealing wall 1 Sleps to beach 61 New pedestroan lighting (by FPC) 1 Slgnage (allowance) 45 Bollards, custom precast 52.600 Accents, shrubs and ground cover 52 Specimen MedJool date palms 48 Washlngtoma palms clustered In key Iocaltons 36 Sabal palms at crosswalks 55 Ornamental trees 1,000 Clean fill 600 Mulch Shredded cypress, 3" depth 13,200 Tuli, St Augustine "Floratam" 65,800 Irrigation (allowance) 1 Irrigation meters and connecllons Unit SF LS SY SY SY LF SF SF LF LS EA LS EA EA EA EA EA EA CY CY SF SF LS OPTIONAL UPGRADES (BUDGET-DEPENDENT) 750 Berms/earthwork CY 52 Upllghllng on specimen trees EA 2 Gateway features EA 2 Lighting on gateway features EA \, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appraisal Instructions In the event that the public garage is to be acquired by City from Developer, the . purchase price shall be determined as the simple average of three appraisals. Developer and City shall each select one appraiser, and the third shall be agreed by the parties. Typically, an appraisal of this type will use three appraisal methods,' separately assessing Comparable Sales Value, Income Approach (Net Present Value of Future Income Stream), and Replacement Cost. Furthermore, a typical appraisal is to determine fair market value, as defined under Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989, 12CFR Part 323.2.f. This definition is: The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: 1. Buyer and seller are typically motivated; 2. Both parties are well-informed or well-advised, and acting in what they consider their own best interests; 3. A reasonat;>le time is allowed for exposure in the open market. 4. Payment is made in terms of cash in U.S dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and 5. The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale. This transaction is not arms length, in the conventional sense, and therefore several of the traditional appraisal techniques are not appropriate. The sale will occur because one of the parties has triggered a clause in this Development Agreement that provides for a City purchase of the public garage at appraised value as a remedy. This is not a typical motivation for a buyer and seller, and there will be ':10 exposure to the open market. In fact, there is no known open market with comparable garage sales within the Florida West Coast market area, which eliminates the Comparable Sales Approach to valuation. This public garage is to be held as a commercial condominium, and will form one of the components of a mixed-use project comprised of a hotel, restaurants, retail, and additional parking used by the other components. The underlying land is therefore owned by the condominium, and a determination of the value of the portion of land to be attributed to the public garage would be subjective, at best. If the appraiser were to assume the garage were free-standing using a Replacement Cost method, the land would have to be valued at its Highest and Best . Use, which would not be as a parking garage. Therefore, the Replacement Cost Method is not useful for this appraisal. The remaining method, the Income Approach, is I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I the only reasonable method for determination of the transaction value under these conditions. Therefore, for purposes of calculating the value of the public parking garage and setting the purchase price, the appraisers engaged for this assignment shall be instructed to ignore Comparable Sales and Replacement Cost as methods of determining said fair market value. The appraisers shall be instructed to compute the transaction value using only the Income Approach. For purposes of computing the transaction value based upon the Income Approach, the appraisers shall be instructed to compute the value of the public parking garage to equal the projected net operating income to be generated from the operation of the public parking garage for the ensuing year divided by a capitalization rate of six percent (6%), said rate exceeding the City's cost of funds at the Effective Date of this Agreement. The projected net operating income shall equal the projected gross revenue minus the projected operating expenses. The projected gross operating income shall be equal to greater of the prior year's gross operating income adjusted for inflation or the projected stabilized gross income generated from the rental of the public parking spaces as accepted and relied upon by the project lender. The projected operating expenses shall equal the owner's projected operating expenses, based upon the owner's budget, if the public parking garage has been operated for less than 2 full years at the time the appraisal is conducted or, if the owner has operated the public parking garage for 2 years or more, the projected operating expenses shall equal the actual cost incurred by the owner to operate the public parking garage for the immediately preceding twelve (12) month period multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which is equal to the total number of public parking spaces being conveyed to the City and the denominator of which is the total number of parking spaces located in the entire garage facility constructed upon the Project Site. Such operating costs shall expressly exclude all costs related to (i) debt service, (ii) returns to equity investors, (Hi) non-cash charges (e.g. depreciation), (iv) capital improvement costs and (v) capital reserves. Additionally, the appraisers shall be instructed to ignore the impact upon revenue of any public parking spaces proposed or contemplated to be constructed within one thousand feet (1000') of the Project Site. -2- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Cafe Seating The ordinance to be adopted by the City of Clearwater shall authorize the use of the easteily [20] feet of the West 35 feet of the existing right-of-way of South Gulf View Boulevard, as well as the elevated sidewalk located adjacent to the easterly edge of the Project Site for the purpose of placing chairs and tables to operate restaurants/cafes within such areas. Such areas may be used for the service of food and beverages, including beer, wine and alcoholic beverages so long as the alcoholic beverages are not sold for off-premises consumption. Additionally, such ordinance shall authorize the operators of the restaurants/cafes to install decorative fencing around the perimeter of the seating areas, as may be- required by Health Department officials. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I THIS INSTRUMENT PREPARED BY AND WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO: Stephen J. Szabo, III" Esq. Annis, Mitchell, Cockey, Edwards & Roehn, P.A. Post Office Box 3433 Tampa, Florida 33601 COVENANT OF UNIFIED USE THIS COVENANT OF UNIFIED USE (the "Agreement") is executed this _ day of , 2001 (the "Effective Date") by CLEARWATER SEASHELL RESORTS, L.C., a Florida limited liability company ("Owner"). w ! T N E SSE T H: WHEREAS, Owner is the owner of the real property legally described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Property"); and WHEREAS, Owner and the City of Clearwater (the "City") are parties to that certain Development Agreement dated , 2001 (the "Development Agreement") pursuant to which the City has agreed that Owner may develop and construct upon the Property a multi-use project consisting of not less than 750 parking spaces (of which not less than 400 shall be public parking spaces), up to 50,000 square feet of retail space and 250 residential hotel units, all as more particularly described in the Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, Owner has agreed that the Property shall be developed and operated for a unified use, as more particularly described hereinbelow. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Owner does hereby agree that the Property shall be developed and operated as a unified mixed-use project such that the residential hotel units constructed upon the Property shall be occupied and operated as a single hotel. The restrictions set forth in the preceding sentence shall survive for a period of L--J years from the Effective Date of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude the purchase and sale of the residential hotel units and all other components of the mixed- use project constructed upon the Property to separate, unrelated third party owners, so long as the residential hotel units are operated and occupied as a single hotel throughout the term of this Agreement. Owner agrees that the City shall have the right to enforce the terms and conditions of this Agreement. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Covenant effective the day and year first above written. Witnesses: CLEARWATER SEASHELL RESORTS, L.C., a Florida limited liability company Print Name: By: Print Name: Print Title: Print Name: STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF day of , as of CLEARWATER SEASHELL RESORTS, L.C., a Florida limited liability company, on behalf of the limited liability company, who is personally known to me or has produced as identification. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this February, 2001, by NOTARY PUBLIC Name: Serial No. My Commission expires: m0137 v1 - 10814-020 -2- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT, made and entered into this _ day of , 200_, by and between the CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, a Florida municipal corporation ("Licensor") and CLEARWATER SEASHELL RESORT, L. C., ("Licensee"): WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Licensor is the owner of fee simple title to the area described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein; WHEREAS, Licensee is the developer of a mixed use resort 'project on Clearwater Beach which will include at least four hundred (400) parking spaces which will be open to the public; WHEREAS, in conjunction with the construction of the mixed use resort project Licensee is constructing an elevated beach access facility between the parking spaces which will be open to the public and the public beach ("Elevated Beach Access Facility"); WHEREAS, the support structures for the Elevated Beach Access Facility on the gulfside of South Gulfview will be improved for the public convenience and benefit with public beach service improvements ("Beach Service Facility"); WHEREAS, the Elevated Beach Access Facility and Beach Service Facility will be dedicated to the public; WHEREAS, the City has determined that it is in the best interests ofthe residents of the City of Clearwater to have the Beach Service Facility operated by the Licensee; WHEREAS, the Licensor is willing to grant a license to Licensee to use and operate the Beach Service Facility for the purposes stated in this agreement; NOW, THEREFORE IT IS MUTUALLY AGRI~ED, AS FOLLOWS: 1. License Granted. The City hereby grants a license to use and operate the Beach Service Facility. 2. Term. The term of the license is fifty one (51) years, beginning on the first (1st) day of June, 2001 and ending on the thirtieth (30th) day of May, 2051, unless terminated pursuant to paragraph 3 of this License Agreement; -1- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3. Termination. The license may be cancelled by the Licensor at any time, sixty (60) days after providing Licensee written notice that the Beach Service Facility is not being operated in accordance with the requirements of this License Agreement. The written notice shall specify each and every way in which the Licensee has failed to operate the Beach Service Facility in accordance with the requirements of this License Agreement and the Licensee shall have sixty (60) days to reasonably cure such failures. 4. Exclusive Riqhts. The Licensee shall have the exclusive right to conduct the activities described in Exhibit "1", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein in or at the Beach Services Facility. 5. Payment for Services. The goods and services provided by Licensor shall be available to the general public, however, the City agrees that the Licensee may make special provision for payment of services rendered to the public through the Licensee's resort or other resort properties on Clearwater Beach. 6. Hours of Operation. The hours of operation of the Beach Service Facility shall be at all times when the parking spaces are open to the public. 7. Operation and Maintenance. Licensee shall be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the Beach Service Facility including operation, maintenance, upkeep, repair and replacement. Licensee shall maintain the Beach Services Facility in good order, condition and repair. 8. Use of the Facility. Licensee hereby covenants and agrees to make no unlawful, improper, or offensive use of the Beach Service Facility. Licensee shall not permit any person other than Licensee to conduct a business in or from the Beach Service Facility without the written consent of the Licensor. ( 9. Assiqnment. Licensee hereby covenants not to assign, pledge, hypothecate the license created herein, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of the Licensor. The paragraph is intended to and shall be construed to include a prohibition on the assignment of the license by operation of law. 10. Taxes. Licensee shall promptly pay any and all taxes, including but not limited to ad valorem property taxes, personal property taxes, state sales taxes, occupation license taxes, beverage license and permit fees due in regard to the operation and use of the Beach Services Facility. 11. Utilities. Licensee agrees to be responsible for all costs related to any utilities provided to the Beach Services Facility. -2- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 12. Modifications to Structure. Licensee is not authorized to make any material change to the Beach Services Facility without the written approval of the City. 13. Indemnification. Licensee agrees to indemnify and hold Licensor and its employees harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, causes of action or lawsuits of whatever kind or character arising out of this License Agreement and/or performance hereunder. Licensee agrees to investigate, handles, provide defense for and defend any such claims, demands, causes of action or lawsuits at its sole expense and agrees to bear all other costs and expenses related thereto, even if the claim, demand, cause of action or lawsuit is groundless, false or fraudulent. 14. Insurance. Licensee shall at his own expense purchase and maintain during the term of this License Agreement the following insurance coverages: [to be inserted at time of execution] Licensee shall provide the City with copies of all insurance policies required by this License Agreement. 15. Destruction of Facility. In the event that the Beach Service Facility is destroyed, by whatever means, Licensee shall be required to rebuild the Facility in accordance with the original plans and specifications. The City agrees that any insurance proceeds received by the City in conjunction with the destruction of the facility shall be made available to Licensee for use in rebuilding the Facility. 16. Compliance with Government Requlations. with the requirements of all agencies of government. Licensee agrees to comply 17. Siqns. No sign shall be permitted to be erected on the Beach services Facility unless authorized by the City of Clearwater's Land Development RegulE:1tldtls. 18. Costs of Enforcement. In the event that Licensor incurs ~~y cost to enforce any of the provisions of this License Agreement, including but not 1imited to attorneys fees, Licensee agrees to pay said costs. -3- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Countersigned: 'Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney's Office -4- CI1Y OF CLEARWATER By: City Manager Attest: City Clerk CLEARWATER SEASHELL RESORT, L. C. By: I I I I I 1. 2. I 3. I 4. I 5. I I I I I I I I I I I EXHIBIT 1 Rental of beach towels. Rental of chairs, umbrellas and cabanas. The sale of packaged snacks and non-alcoholic beverages. The sale of beach sundries. The rental of showers and lockers. -5- . {t" COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING Application for Site Plan Approval Case No.: FL 01-01-01 and DA 01-01-01 DATE: February 20, 2001 TIME: 1:06 p.m. to 5:17 p.m. PLACE: 112 South Osceola Street 3rd Floor Clearwater, Florida 33756 REPORTED BY: Donnell Baumbach, RPR Notary Publlc State of Florida at Large OR,.? ./ l COpy LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. Reglstered Professlonal Reporters 12600 South Belcher, SUlte 106-F Largo, Florlda 33773 (727) 535-1171 FA.x (727) 535-2522 2 1 APPEARANCES: 2 BOARD MEMBERS: 3 Vice-Chalr Davld Mazur Carlen Peterson 4 Alex Plisko Davld Gildersleeve 5 Shirley Moran William L. Johnson 6 Brenda Moses, Clerk 7 Lisa Flerce, City Staff Revlewer 8 Ralph Scone, City Plannlng Department Pam Akin, City Attorney 9 Cindy Tarrlpani 10 Blair Culpepper, Esquire and 11 Gordon J. SChlff, Esquire Atto~neys for the Opponents 12 Experts: Ethel Hammer 13 Michael McElveen John Nichols 14 Blll Kimpton, Esqulre 15 Attorney for the Appllcant 16 Rlchard Gehring, Applicants Representative 17 18 PAGE Cross-Examlnatlon by Mr. Schlff of Mr. Nichols 76 Cross-Examlnatlon by Mr. Schlff of Ms. Flerce 81 Cross-Examlnation by Mr. Schlff of Mr. Stone 85 Cross-Examlnatlon by Mr. Schiff of Mr. Gehrlng 93 Cross-Examination by Mr. Gehrlng of Ms. Hammer 144 Cross-Examinatlon by Mr. Gehring of Mr. McElveen 150 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 3 1 2 3 PRO C E E DIN G S MR. MAZUR: I'd llke to call to order the February 20th meeting of the Community Development Board. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S Would you all please rise for the invocation and remain standlng for the pledge of allegiance. (Off the record.) ,MR. MAZUR: Okay. Before we get started, I would appreclate it if everyone that has elther Cell phones or beepers would shut those off. We have a long meeting, and It would be preferable not to have lnterruptions durlng the meeting. The chairman is not here right now. I wlll be vlce-chalrman for all except item B 1. Hopefully, Mr. Figurskl wlll be here by the time that starts. We have to select an interim vice-chalrman, I guess. So the first ltem before us is a request for continuances and reconslderation, which lS FLOO-08-33, address 3006 Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard. MS. FIERCE: The appllcant is not here, but he did submit a letter requesting that It be contlnued on to the next meetlng date. MR. MAZUR: Is there a motlon to that effect? MR. JOHNSON: So moved. MS. PETERSON: I second It. LAWlERS' CHOICE, INC. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. MAZUR: Made and seconded. All those In favor, except the public, say aye. (The Board responds aye.) MR. MAZUR: All those opposed? (No response.) MR. MAZUR: Passed unanimously. Okay. I believe we are on B 1. Mr. Stone, is there any special procedure we need to follow, or is there someone to volunteer to handle this agenda? I don't believe I will be (lnaudible) . MR. STONE: It's my understanding, Mr. Chalrman, that regardlng clearing the conflict, I would suggest that you entertain a motion from the Board to nominate an alternate chair here in the course of this particular item and to re-occupy the chair. MR. JOHNSON: All right. I'd llke to make a motion that Mr. Glldersleeve receive the executlve's chalr. (The Board responds seconded.) MR. MAZUR: All those In favor of Mr. Glldersleeve say aye. (The Board responds aye.) MR. MAZUR: Those opposed? LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S (No response.) MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Mr. Chalrman, yes, I can do that. There lS an item, though, that's the number three on our contlnued ltems, the Palm Island Southwest case, which, I believe, you could still chalr that item. And then I'd like to suggest that given the time It'S going to take, perhaps, on the flrst item, that we move that one, cover that one flrst if the Board is agreeable. MR. MAZUR: Yes. ThlS lS agenda ltem B 3? MS. PETERSON: The Juhl property. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: The Juhl property. MS. PETERSON: Mr. Chairman, could I ask that they move that machlne over. I'm being blinded by the llght. MR. MAZUR: Yes. Okay. Well, I guess we need to flnd out If anyone on agenda ltem Bland 2 have any obJectlon to that. Is there a request by the appllcant to do that. MR. STONE: Yes, there was. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yes, there was. MR. MAZUR: In that case I can stay for that one. If there lS no obJection, then we -- the flrst ltem we wlll hear wlll be an ltem that's also LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 continued, i~ lS FLOO-ll-S9-222, Palm Island Southwest. (All who speak before the Board are duly sworn to tell the truth by Ms. Moses.) (Off the record.) MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Case number 01-01-01 and DA 01-01-01 for property located on South Gulfview Boulevard. I understand that we have qUlte a few folks here who wlll be speaklng to thls lssue today. What I'd like to do, just real quickly, lS to run through the procedures that we would normally follow in this particular case. Flrst, we'll have a presentatlon by the planning staff. That will be followed by a presentatlon from the appllcant. Normally, that presentation lS ten minutes. I think the Chalr and the Board is open to a little blt longer presentatlon tOday glven the complexity of the project, probably somewhere In the area of fifteen to twenty minutes and, perhaps, the appllcants wlll express that need at tha~ tlme. Following that, they have comments by the publlc supportlng the appllcation, opposlng the appllcatlon. In this particular case, too, I belleve It'S falr that we allow any opponents of the proJect to have at least an equal tlme to the proponents of LAWfERS' CHOICE, INC. 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 the project In terms of their presentatlon. And wlth that, if that's -- the Board lS amenable to that, I'd like to move under that dlrectlon. I don't know If the staff has any other comments or the attorneys in that regard. MR. SCHIFF: Mr. Chairman, may I speak to that? MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Yes. MR. SCHIFF: And I apologize. My name lS Gordon Schlff. MacFarlane, Ferguson & McMullen. And, Just for the record, I should let you know we represent A.P. Mar, Inc., Anthonlos Markopoulos, Kolossos Inn, Inc., T.M. Megas, L.C.C., and T.M. Megas, L.C.C. are all of which of -- I thlnk most of you are familiar with is, is the Markopoulos parcel located adjacent to thls appllcation. If I understood your proposal, the opponents would have the same amount of time as the proponents. I Just wanted to let yoU know that If the outset of thls matter does go forward, that we feel ~hat in order to fully present our case for the Markopoulos (inaudlble) would be at least twenty-five mlnutes. Otherwise, we won't have an opportunity to fully 25 present our case. The o~her reason that I rose at thls tlme and I apologlze for coming up, perhaps, out of LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 order -- lS that we have a concern -- in fact, an obJection to thls matter gOlng forward. We belleve that this matter has not been noticed properly and, therefore, cannot go forward. We would flle wlth you -- and I mentioned to Ms. Akin before the hearing that I would raise thls at the beglnning, and we're requestlng that this hearlng be cancelled. And I do have a motion requesting to cancel the hearing based upon the lnsufficient notlce. And the basis, In a nutshell, lS that the notice that I was sent for this hearlng involved two sltes spllt by Thlrd Street. And the Third Street is part of thls appllcation. Therefore, you have not had notice of all of the property which lS the subject of thls appllcatlon. In fact, the series of applicatlons that are comlng before you today. The case law under notlce lS very strictly construed. Failure to properly glve notice is not a case of the avoldable act, it's a null-and-void act. And I'd just cite for the record, Davtona Lelsure CorD., v. The Cltv of Davtona Beach, whlch lS at 539 SO.2d 597. GHOOLA v. City Of Auqustine Beach, 588 So.2d 666; and the Cltv of Sanlbel v. Buntrock 409 So.2d 1073. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 9 1 2 3 My pOlnt, though, lS tha~ thls matter cannot proceed, and I would hope -- we have copies of the motlon which are belng dlstrlbuted to you, and we'll file the one in the record. But we feel that thls matter should not go forward. There lS no proper notice. If in fact you do go forward, we would protest it going forward and reserve all of our legal rlghts havlng no option but to participate. But we believe that wlthout notlce being fully and strlctly complied wlth under the case law, and under your code for that matter, we would suggest to you that this matter can't go forward. One other subobJectlon is that all property owners, all property owners, for a proJect must execute the appllcatlon, and that is clearly set forth in your code. Part of this applicatlon involves Clty property, and the Clty lS not an applicant. Therefore, you have what is essentially an lncomplete appllcatlon also before you today. So for both of those reasons, and as otherwlse stated In our motion, we would request that this 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 matter this hearlng today be cancelled and that the matter be properly notlced and appllca~ion be LAW~YERS' CHOICE, INC. 10 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 lS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S made complete before anything lS brought before you. I appreclate your (inaudlble). MS. PETERSON: I'm sorry. I was reading your motion. What was your second -- was that a proper MR. SCHIFF: Well, the property involves, essentially, 1.6 acres. About-one acre of that property lS the applicant's. The rest of it lS city property, and the Clty is not an appllcant here. The city was not -- did not slgn the appllcation, and the city -- and that out of your code which must be strictly construed under the case law nature, your code requires all applicants to slgn. That means that thlS applicatlon is lncomplete. And then from a notice standpoint, you sent notlce to the public. The notlce only deals wlth the private property and not the Clty'S property. So you have a defectlve notice. And wlth that, we would request this hearlng be cancelled. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Thank you. Ms. Akln, do you want to -- MS. AKIN: Yes, Slr. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: respond? MS. AKIN: I have Just had an opportunlty to look at the motlon, and It's my recommendation that we move forward. If there lS a notlce to defect, LAWYERS' CHOICc, INC. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 then they can b~lng that up before the court and (lnaudlble) . MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Very well. Then the pleasure of the Board, I presume, that we speak to your -- however you form the motion. MS. FIERCE: Good afternoon. MR. STONE: I just wanted to make a couple of introductory comments to Mr. Chairman and Mr. Board. Thls lS a signlflcant case, and probably the first one is following on the heels of at least your reVlew of the Beach-By-Design plan: And I should apprise you that the City Commlssion approved the Beach By Design last Thursday nlght as you know, as they know, wlll now go on to the Pinellas (lnaudlble) Council and the Board of County Commissloners. But that partlcular effort and the precedlng effort, WhlCh was the strategies for revitallzatlon of Clearwater Beach, and then the effort that preceded that was a study by Ann O'Neill, a planning consul~ant out of Tampa, who looked at the issue regardlng whether the beach quallfied as a S~ate Chapter 163 result in our lssue to deflne the (inaudlble) be performed to prove that it did lead up to the Beach-By-Design document being developed by LAWYERS' CEOICE, INC. 12 1 2 3 Mr. Seaman which means it's been approved by the Board and lS on ~he Clty COffiffilsslon. This proJect obvlously speaks to one of the major components of Beach By Deslgn, and that lS the reposltioning and the redevelopment of Clearwater Beach. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 It takes advantage of some new incentlves that are created in Beach By Deslgn, particularly those related to the reconflguratlon of South Gulfvlew, the development of a public sector In terms of what we call the beach walk, whlch you all are famlllar wlth, and the creatlon of -- In effect a resort bonus pool belng as to (lnaudlble) this kind of a free quallty. We recognlze that, and as lndicated in the staff report, that there are a number of additlons that will be required to be satisfied in con]Unctlon with the approval of the slte plan and development agreement. But we wanted to make clear for the record that this do~s succeed that considerable body of water. And as Llsa wlll pOlnt out in the staff report, there are conslderable goal suggestions and pollcies and (inaudible) that speak directly to the need for flexlbillty and develop the regulations of the need for redevelopmen~ particularly In con]Unctlon wlth LAwfERS' CHOICE, INC. 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the beach and downtown, and the need to pay particular attentlon to the sensitlvlty of the tourism and timing as far as the future health of the city's economy as a whole. And as you all may -- may know, the (inaudible) Development Council and (lnaudible) Bureau has recently determined that the product that lS avallable for tourlsm on all of the Pinellas greater islands is really a deflcient one, and thelr number one prlority lS the replacement and the upgrade of that tourlst proJect. So for all those reasons, we think this partlcular application as a timlng line and (inaudible). MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Ms. -- also, before you start, there's really two actions here today, and one is the development agreement, then the other is the flexlble development approval. Do those requlre a separate motion? MR. STONE: We would request that you take them separately. Your action on the slte plan In effect lS a final actlon, can be appealed to the state hearlng officer. Your action on the development agreement is an advlsory one In your role as a local plannlng agency to the Clty COffiffilssion (lnaudible). Ms. Fierce lS LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 14 1 going to address the slte plan lssues, and I'll go over development lssues. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Okay. MS. FIERCE: Good afternoon. Llsa Flerce for the planning department. As Ralph has alluded to tOday, we are gOlng to talk about a major redevelopment project for the beach. The faculty's proposal for a natlonally recognlzed resort hotel will asslst In redeflnlng the beach as a prlmary tourlst destination, and It also represents the city's vislon for the beach and ltS future. The staff is recommending approval of both the flexible development appllcatlon and the integral development agreement request. As you look to the screen, you'll see the aerlal view that was lncluded In your packet. You'll note that the slte lncludes an assemblage of varlOUS parcels affectlng on both South Gulfview Boulevard, shown here, as well as Coronado Drive. It also lncludes Thlrd Street. It runs through the slte In that locatlon there. Not only will the existlng bUlldings be demollshed, but, as we've talked about previously, Thlrd Street wlll be vacated from South Gulfvlew to LAWiERS' CHOICE, INC. 15 1 2 3 ) 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Coronado Drlve. .~d a portion of South Gulfvlew lS to be vacated as well as far as thlS proposal. And the proposal lS to basically turn thlS site of modest hotel bUlldlngs and there lS one single famlly dwelling on the parcel as well -- into a 250 room hotel with a full complement of amenltles lncludlng abundant parking. As we discussed at the January CDB meeting, as Ralph alluded tOr the slte is located In the beach walk district of the Beach-By-Design plan. The area lS recognized as the primary beach-front destlnation on Clearwater Beach. And the plan recommends that this area be fully redeveloped in terms of road allgnments as well as parking and bUlldlng design. In partlcular, It recommends the redevelopment of South Gulfview into a beach-front promenade. Also as Ralph mentlon, the proposal includes a 600-unlt denslty pool as a redevelopment lncentlve for hotel use. And In thlS particular appllcation, the proposal lncludes the use of 183 of those unlts. The pool, agaln, is intended to stlmulate the deslred catalytic (inaudlble) proJects agaln lncluding thls proposal. As shown on the screen, north lS actually off LAWYERS' CHOICEr INC. 16 1 2 3 to the to the lef~ of thls plan view. Coronado Avenue lS here along the top, and then South Gulfvlew is over here to the bottom. 4 The proposed Marriot~ Seashell Resort will lnclude abundant amenltles lncluding a health club, a pool, banking facillties, and various restaurants and hotel uses. The rooms will range from standard rooms to luxury sUltes wlth kitchenettes, and some rooms will have private lanais. For Coronado, the sectlon includes a drop-off area for Vlsltors as well as -- as guests, and they'll include an entrance and an exit to the parking area shown In thls location here. At the north end of the site lS a serVlce drlve that's fully screened, and it will include all the dlfferent service uses includlng dumpster location and dock. The South Gulfview Boulevard slte wlll have rlght-ln, rlght-out access as shown here at the southern end of the site. And a pedestrlan bridge, excuse me, will be loca~ed from the second story of the hotel and parklng garage across South Gulfview Boulevard over to the beach. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S A traffic lmpact assessment was provided by the LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 appllcant's trafflc engineerlng consultant, WhlCh is Klng Engineerlng, and they concluded that the redevelopment of thlS slte as proposed does not expect It to degrade the eXlsting levels of service along the South Gulfview Boulevard which currently has a level surface of D or along Coronado Drive lS -- has a level surface of D or the surroundlng roadway system. The deslgn of the hotel will include two towers with a center stand. The towers will be 100 feet apart, and the ground level will include lobby meetlng rooms, agaln restaurants and retail uses. And on top of this ground level -- I guess we better look at thls one -- on top of the ground level floor will be SlX levels of structured parklng, and then on top of that there wlll be seven levels of hotel rooms. That wlll take you to fourteen floors, a total of 150 in helght. The parklng garage which lS lntegral to thlS overall development proposal wlll include over 800 parking spaces. Four hundred of those spaces will be allocated for public use, and the other remalning spaces will makeup for hotel patrons and guests. In terms of more speciflc design in archltecture lS the Coronado elevation. You'll note LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 18 1 2 3 ~hat wlth all the elevatlons that you see, they all have a tlered or layered effect or staggard helghts of roof llnes. 4 The formal entrances proposed along the Coronado elevatlon. A less formal more, I guess I've heard the term beachy entrance, is proposed along the South Gulf Boulevard. It includes a serles of dlfferent arches and canoples and things like that that are obvlously taklng advantage of the views over the gulf. The applicant also provided a view above the north elevation of the building. Again, It -- It'S a llttle bit less dramatlc than the other two elevatlons, but It does, agaln, lncorporate the tlered or the layered effect. And It does a very good Job of screenlng otherwise less attractlve parklng structure In the lower portion of it. With all the elevations, the proposed materlals wlll be pollshed stone, stucco, include the use of natural colors and a barrel tlle roof. The archltect is gOlng to present to you in much more detail about all the architects -- all the archltectural. As you recall from Beach By Deslgn, the proposal wlll lnclude the lmplementatlon of the beach walk improvements. Again, the South Gulfvlew LAWYERS' CHOICS, INC. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Boulevard wlll be ultlmately redeslgned. It wlll lnclude special plantlngs, the promenade, certaln sections of parklng areas and, again, the walkway over South Gulfview Boulevard over to the beach. That's It for the plctures. The applicatlon is for flexible development approval, and It'S part of the Comprehenslve Infill Redevelopment request. The speciflc request lncludes an increase In helght from 35 feet to 150 feet, an increase in the number of rooms from 65 to 250 rooms, reductlon in the front setbacks along both South Gulfvlew Boulevard and Coronado as well as a reduction In sites attached to both the north and south elevations from 10 feet to zero feet. The staff is of the bellef that the increase In height and a reduction in setbacks is consistent wlth the lntent of the Beach By Design. And the design gUldelines, as you may recall, are actually intended to be flexible in thelr adminlstration. They're not lntended to serve as regulatlons that requlre relief with the exception of those projects that requlre an increase in building height and those proJects that one to be spaced less than 100 apart. Agaln, staff is recommendlng approval of both the flexlble development requests as well as the LAWYERS' CEOICE, INC. 20 1 2 3 development agreement. The staff believes that the proposal furthers the city goals and objectlves as outlined in the comprehenslve plan, and we've listed those for you in the staff report. And we belleve that It complies with the Comprehensive Infill crlterla as well as the general flexibility criteria as well as the Beach-By-Deslgn criteria. The staff lS recommendlng approval with three condltlons listed In the staff report, and they lnclude the followlng: Number one, that the application be effectlve upon development agreement approval by the City Commission. Number two, that the South Gulfvlew Boulevard and Thlrd Street rlghts-of-way be vacated by the City CommlSSlon. And, number three, that the front of the llne of the building be conSlstent with conceptual elevations as submitted and/or modified by the Board. And Mr. Stone wlll talk to you about the development agreement in more detall. Also, to let you know, in case Ralph doesn't mention It to you, we dld dlstrlbute to you today thlS flne bound document, here. It represents the exhlblts that are to be attached to the development agreement. There is actually no~hlng new in that document that you haven't already seen, but It really Just LA'~IERS' CHOICE, INC. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 consolidates it In an all-ln-one bound fashlon. 23 MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Any questlons of staff? Ralph, do you want to go ahead and cover the development agreement at this time? MR. STONE: Yes, sir. Just to very briefly summarize the key buslness pOlnts of the development agreement, as Llsa indicated, the developer lS propoSlng to bring in a 250-room resort facility on Clearwater Beach. They are proposlng a mlnlmum In the development agreement of no less than 750 rooms. We think it wlll be somewhere In the nelghborhood of around 800 to 830, excuse me, parklng spaces. 800 to 830 parklng spaces. 400 of those spaces would be dedlcated to public use. The remainder of the spaces would be dedicated to the private part of the proJect. They are proposlng to provide 150 percent of their prorated cost of the overall cost of the beach walk and South Gulfvlew reconfiguration based on the percent of thelr frontage as opposed to the llnear total of the project. So If thelr frontage happens to be 25 percent of the total project cost, maybe pay Lhat In ltS entlrety. They're also proposing to the front of the 24 25 LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S cost the same lmprovements between First Street to the north and south, to the south edge of the Beach Pavlllon whlch is out on Clearwater Beach. They would do the design and construction with Clty partlcipation, and would finance those costs up front. And they would be pald back over tlme or a period of up to 25 years. The consortion step would be limited to the lmplemental increase in thelr ad valorem taxes and money for lmplemental lncrease and thelr utllity taxes. The extent whlch those revenues could be applied would be no more than 50 percent, again a (inaudlble) time period. There is an option for the city to vote to buyout the parking garage as far as the publlc spaces are concerned. Its entlrety in the first five years. There's also an optlon for the Clty to go out and (inaudlble) a competing garage wlthln a quater of mlle durlng the perlod prlor to them providlng a debt coverage subJect to thelr flnancing of 125 percent of those costs. So the flnanclng that they wlll have applied to the entlre parklng garage wlll have some protectlon if the city wants to bUlld a blgger garage withln a quarter mile of (lnaudlble) LA~ERS' CHOICE, INC. 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I thlnk that pretty much covers the key business (lnaudlble). MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Any other questlons for the staff? MR. JOHNSON: I do. I have a questlon. Tlmetable. Is Coronado to be three lanes, correct? Because that's what I keep hearlng. MR. STONE: When South Gulfview is redesigned and moved to the west, the center turn lane will come off of South Gulfview, and it will be moved over to the Coronado (lnaudlble). MR. JOHNSON: Okay. So lnstead of Coronado belng two lanes, It will become three? MR. STONE: That's correct. MR. JOHNSON: Gulf instead of three wlll become two? MR. STONE: That's correct. MR. JOHNSON: Now, how lS it all gOlng to coordlnate for traf -- I mean say -- let's say thls gets approved, okay? If you were bUlldlng a hlgh-rlse, you got 400 extra parklng spaces here. The beach the Gulfvlew Boulevard, you're gOlng to change it to make It llving -- curvy. Sorry. I dldn't know the exact word. You're going to ellmlnate the parklng over LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 here, are you gOlng to worklng on Coronado at the same time as you're going to be working on Gulfview and the beach? How lS It all going to -- MR. STONE: Well, clearly, It'S going to be a Challenge to flgure out the tlmlng of the you 24 know, pertinence up on South Gulfvlew and Coronado and to accommodated parklng on the beach. And we don't know how that's gOlng to work rlght now. As you know we have a conceptual kind of footprlnt for the reconflguration of South Gulfview and the beach walk, but we don't have final design. Now that the beach walk proJect has been approved, one component that we'll go ahead and move forward on lS the detailed deslgn of South Gulfview and the beach walk. I thlnk once that's concluded, then we will be slttlng down wlth engineers and contractors and property owners out there in trYlng to flgure out how the tlmlng of those lmprovements can work best to accommodate the trafflc flow and the parklng until the proJect lS concluded. And whether that happens in a phased conflguratlon or happens on an east/west conflguratlon or a combinatlon of these thlngs, it wlll stlll have to be figured out. That wlll be a LAwiERS' CHOICE, INC. 2S 25 1 2 3 slgniflcant challenge. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Do you have a question? MS. PETERSON: Yeah, I just have a questlon. I'm looking at the development agreement, page 11, section 10. It says the city shall provlde the developer with publlC flnancing for that Gulfview South Gulfvlew and beach walk lmprovements. Is that what you're talklng about wlth the ad valorem tax, that that's how we would provlde financlng? 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. STONE: (Nods head.) MS. PETERSON: And that's the (lnaudlble). MR. STONE: That's correct. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Any other questions?- At thlS tlme is the appllcant prepared to make a presentatlon? MR. SCHIFF: Mr. Chairman, again, I have to apply -- you know, for the sake of the record, I have to obJect gOlng forward. And not knowing whether we're gOlng to have an opportunity to cross-examlne the staff, or whether we're going to have party status established at the beglnning of thlS presentatlon, which I thlnk lS the next order in your code, that party status in a quasljudlcial hearing has to be established. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. AKIN: Do you accept them as partles? Do they have -- they are the obJectors (lnaudible). MR. SCHIFF: For the record, Gordon Schlff. And I apologlze for thls, but we're followlng your code strictly. It's still under protest. If you're going forward, we have no optlon but to simply follow-up the process. The next stage is to, I understand, is to establlsh party status and to -- after advislng us on our rights to personally testlfy and present evidence and cross-examine wltnesses, and that would include our opportunity to cross-examine staff based upon their presentation. And the only other thing lS. I think. at this point to save tlme -- and I realize you have a long agenda -- we have 20 obJectlons to flle WhlCh I will flle by letter now for you. The predomlnant lssue here lS that you are the questlons being asked as we go along. You're aSking questions about thlngs that haven't happened yet. No one has vacated a road. On your code, the Clty CommlSSlon has that power, and you're dlscusslng a proJect over a road that chere hasn't been an opportunity to vacate. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: I thlnk we understand. MR. SCHIFF: Well, we have to lodge an LAWfERS' CHOICE, INC. 27 4 ob]ectlon because It'S clear-cut for a poor sltuatlon gOlng on here. If that was never vacated, we're wasting our tlme here today. And that's why I feel we have to put thlS on the record early on because we feel that the process is not in order, and we have to lodge an obJection. I will at thlS pOlnt submlt our letter of ob]ectlon now for the record. MS. PETERSON: Your action wlll be contlngent on the subsequent action required by the commlSSlon, and there are numerous subsequent actlons required lncludlng the (lnaudible). So here's the slte plan approval, and the recommendatlon will be contingent on those thlngs. You are the development agreement and ultimately on the vacating. But on the lnfill, you were the flnal decision. But It is contingent on and that's an understood. MR. SCHIFF: Well, we have to stand by our ob]ectlon. MR. KIMPTON: Board members, Mr. Chalrman, good afternoon. I'm very happy to be here. As you can see, there have been some varlables in gettlng thls far, and we're Jumping over thlngs as qUlckly as we 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 can. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 28 1 MR. GILDERSLEEVE: For the record, could you provlde your name and -- MR. KIMPTON: Yep, my name is Bill Klmpton. I'm the attorney for the applicant. I'm also a principal of the appllcant. I'm also a resident of Clearwater Beach at 265 Bayside Drive, and have been for 25 years. As you can see, we're -- we're gettlng by these hurdles. This property for thlS project has been under contract since 1999. It was inltlally brought to the city as an alternative to Pier 60 plus which was a naked deck wlth a hotel on top of it right in front of the marlna on Clearwater Beach incorporatlng some of our neighbors' property and also some of the city's property. Once we presented It to the city, they saw It as a very viable alternatlve and have been pursuing It every Slnce. We dld suffer a six-month delay when we went through the downtown redevelopment which, unfortunately, dldn't pass. So there's, you know, a totally dlfferent process gOlng on at Clearwater 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Beach. I think that what's happened here in the passage of Beach By Deslgn has been to brlng one of the blggest thlngs that's ever happened to Clearwater LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 to the front burner, and It'S your oppor~unlty to look at that wlth us. The city is it going forward with a tremendous amount of lmprovement in hopes of stimulating redevelopment on the beach lncludlng the roundabout and the new 60-mllllon-dollar br~dge that is llned up to be completed at the same tlme this proJect comes along. 23 24 25 I can go on for a long tlme, but It's apparent that we're going to have some tlme c9nstraints here. So at this tim~ I would like to lntroduce Rlchard Gehrlng who wlll bring forth the technical. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Mr. Gehrlng, can you glve us also an idea of how much time that you feel you need? Can this be done in fifteen, twenty mlnutes? MR. GEHRING: My goal, Mr. Chalr, will be to use approximately fifteen mlnutes, and some of the time the staff (inaudible). Pilld I did brlng. Mr. Nichols from Nichols (inaudible) from Coral Gables today as the architect, and I was looklng to assign eight to ten mlnutes for him to walk through the deslgn so that you would understand the dynamics of the property and the investment. So we could be wlthln a 25-mlnute ~lme frame. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: I assume the Board has no LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 obJectlon? Contlnue. MR. GEHRING: Okay. I have to push the computer. Good afternoon. Some member may be joining us, I understand, in the process If Figurski arrives. He's comlng In from Dade Clty or something like that? MR. GILDERSLEEVE: He is comlng in, and he's gOlng to be tardy. And then we were probably negligent at the front end of this hearing to let the appllcant know, even though thlS is a contlnuance, you do have the option to continue it agaln in the absence of a Board. MR. GEHRING: As long as you have your quorum we'd like to proceed Slnce we're on the schedule. I think It'S important because what's exciting lS that for Clearwater Beach It'S beginnlng to happen. And what we thlnk lS lmportant lS that an area that is one of the hlghest growth curves In our natlonal economy for decades, there has been marginal If (inaudible) investment of any consequence on Clearwater Beach. I thlnk Beach By Deslgn stepped out to try to respond to that, and then we In turn are very happy to be, what's called, catalytlc proJects. We've been called a lot of thlngs, but catalysm, I thlnk It'S LAwYERS' CHOICE, INC. 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lndictive of somethlng that's trYlng to create a new future and we are exclted about that. This was our conceptual deslgn as it came forward of a system of two towers and a hidden deck. But the key was that we would brlng a Marrlott Hotel conference center, parklng system, retall and restaurant in a maJorlng (lnaudible) proJect that creates a new opportunlty to revitalize tourlsm and attract a new quality resort hotel in the Gulfvlew dlstrict and really stlmulate redevelopment. Mr. Stone outllned a county-wlde process. I think tired and obsolete has been the terms that the county's been using about our tourlsm. Fabric. Our fabrlc has been less than responsive to the National trends. As price pOlnts contlnue to drop on the beach, the challenge lS how to brlng the beach back. I think we're respondlng to that wlth an outstandlng -- thlS lS a respond -- quallty deslgn, and we will have the architect glve you more detall on it. But this lS brlnglng and returning to the world-class resort lmage of our path. We're dependent on the Don Cesar character of the classlc Florlda beach hotel. It creates a great destlnation tha~ people remember. Our team COffiffiltment lS to be professlonal and LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 capable and deliver a communlty base hoping to crea~e a process. We've been dOlng that for over 18 months. We're commltted to a public/private working relatlonshlp only to be exceeded by thls, by the quality of the proJect ltself. We commit lastly that Clearwater's success in implementlng Beach By Deslgn was our success. So we're very happy to be In this partnership, and we say let us begln. We're frank here by the resort experience where what we have lS a beach-slde experlence, this world class. We constantly see our beaches In Plnellas, and partlcularly Clearwater, gettlng recognlzed In natlonal and international rankings as a great destinatlon. What we don't have lS equallty of sittlng on the malnland and the upper portlon that responds, produces a sense of place on the beach side that people enJoy being at, stay at, create the prlce points that re-enforce our economy, create more lnvestment, and that's what this partlcular proJect lS about, is llnklng a word-class resort capablllty to choose our word-class beach. So the klnd of images and great destlnatlons are wonderful pool-slde images and locations where LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 people can gather and have a memorable experience at Clearwater Beach are a key. Earller in November with the Clty Commission, we appeared wlth Mr. Brian Multon who is the vice-president of the hotel development for Marrlott. Marrlott International presented their vision, their mission, thelr community character and lmpact they felt they would have. And they have major resources In the State of Flori~a partlcularly In Orlando and now In downtown Tampa wlth the new waterside which lS a key to the link of a beach product to those unique houses. If you've been to any of the Orlando complex or the new downtown complex, then you know the character of what I'm talklng about. There's an awful lot of opportunity on Clearwater Beach. There's numerous dlstrlcts to deflned In Beach By Deslgn, and there was -- and this lS presentatlon -- an outline of WhlCh dlstrict we're In. And I thlnk what -- what really the key here lS that there's lots of areas that the Clty is lden~ifying as needlng stlmulation for change and new re-lnvestmen~, and that lS the key In a redevelopment envlronment. LAWY2RS' CHOICE, INC. 34 1 So we thlnk that there is many great beach 2 projects, and we'll -- we applaud the partles who are 3 currently out there maklng investments, and we 4 applaud our neighbors who are also lnterested In 5 maklng lnvestments. 6 I think that's the key. There's going to have 7 to be an awful lot of effort, public and prlvate, 8 here to make thls happen. We've selected thlS 9 Gulfvlew location. We need a key catalytlc area and 10 \ stimulus. 250 keys will come lnto the hotel 11 privately owned and financed. It wlll be the only 12 Marriott north of Marco Island on the west coast of 13 Florlda. 830-car parking garage, 400 spaces public, 14 400 for the hotel. ?~out 150 of the hotel's spaces 15 are actually gOlng to go lnto a shared mode with the 16 400 that are dedlcated. The administrative -- the 17 development agreement requires a minimum of 400 18 (lnaudible). We'll have more available. 19 The restaurant retall actlvlty was funded 20 30,000 square feet of dynamic trash empowered there 21 wlth addltlonal restaurants and additlonal meeting 22 facllities. The parklng garage will be delivered and 23 completed wlth the new bridge In 2003. Part of our 24 emphaSlS and tlmlng and moving is, the commisSlon has 25 mandated to us to say can this happen wlth the new LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 brldge. Now to do that, we've lald out a schedule In our development agreement that tracks the bridge bond with an issue, and the constructlon site to build th~ bridge to deliver both parking and the hotel on that schedule. Why would they flnance the garage wlth no subsidy and no clty rlsk? Free the city from other beach proJects. Now the people wlll pOlnt to this and say oh, there's only 800 spaces. Well. we reduced It from a thousand. made It go In smaller at the Clty'S request. And the Clty. we anticlpate. will be comlng forward wlth elther a marlna lot or a north pellcan lot or a lot to be even In our area when the market Justlfles it. But this is coming forward wlth no city expendlture. So the city can take its own parklng resources and lnvest them in parklng improvements wlthout any obligation. The annual economlC lmpact of the proJect wlll be over a milllon two, and It will be over 250 to 300 Jobs on slte. Two motels. you know. that I would say most of South Beach -- and I'll be presentlng some of those archs what I call a llght conditlon, will be replaced by a stunnlng Marrlott. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The beach walk, WhlCh lS thlS new structurlng element, an lmage. If you've been to Fort Lauderdale recently In the last five years, you'll see that they've reprogramed their lmage. Glossovas (phonetlc) Avenue and a new beach front. There's a major new lnvestment, maJor new attractlon. Similar to what happened in South Beach Mlami, the quality and character of the investment lS occurring. We thlnk that shall happen. The beach walk will make that happen on Clearwater Beach. Then we have (lnaudlble) development agreement which has terms, whlch Ralph had covered (inaudible). I won't dwell on thlS. The keys before you today are the physical facilities. The outllne of issues I've got to present is that there's an area there today where we're proposing this VlSlon, and thlS lS what It looks llke. And If you go lnto Beach By Deslgn, there's a phrase that I thlnk lS appropriate. It says South Gulfview lS all but an embarrassment. And I thlnk that In a town Wlth almost a flve bllllon dollar rate of base, they would have to sell thlS sparkllng they'd have to sell thls maJor attractlon. The character and quallty of what we're curren~ly trYlng to brlng forth as product In urban scale and In aglng LAWl2RS' CHOICE, INC. 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S structures, It definltely lS tired and obsolete. So when you go to Clearwater Beach and you can't flnd a pedestrian system to walk on, and you can't find a better system to drive and (lnaudlble) on, and you can't park your car convenlently, and the most maJor urban deslgn feature is a stainless steel dumpster, I think there's a challenge there. And I've llved In here -- went to Clearwater High, Class of '65 -- for a long time. So I know that the conditlon can turn around and needs to turn around. So wlth that, thls lS our assessment here lS that this area lS certainly a prime location to deliver and lmprove and a maJor catalytic proJect occur. Three key lnvestments are occurring by the city: A brldge, a new gateway, and Gulfvlew ltself. These dlagrams were taken out of the, not current Beach-By-Design study, but the beach vislon document which actually goes back three or four years. So cltizen groups have been formlng and defining the ltems as a key for some time, and we're very happy to step forward and try to dellver them. Another stlmulator for our proJect lS what we call the battle alternatlve. And that was trying to make the pler park locatlon perform for a thousand- LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 38 2S to 1200-car parklng deck. And In a format even with or without another hotel on it, It created a deflnltlon which we taught was going to be a neighborhood beach. We really got into thls project by looklng for an alternative to taking parking from that location to a location farther south. It's wrltten rldged llne on that graphic is the eXlsting -- it's a poster of art -- we move down to the yellow area centrally located. It's for beach commerclal. saves pler parking for some future use. Pler parklng wlll be a future expansion. Pier parklng will be a future expansion of the park whlch wlll be a great asset to the overall community. It expands the opportunlty there. creates a private lnvestment. facllitates more than parklng. It avolds eminent domain. The other alternatlve is prlor comblnation actlon whlch lS extremely costly. It moves the parklng farther away from the roundabout so the trafflc doesn't back into the roundabout. and It starts South Beach redevelopment. Now. I want to emphaslze starts South Beach redevelopment. Because we don't make the lnvestment actlon happen. With our dollars, we'll hopefully see o~her people's dollars follow on. 833 space in the LAWfERS' CHOICE, INC. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 lS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S deck. There wlll be 60 half grate spaces left in the Gulfvlew corrldor. This is the flrst catalytic proJectment. Third Street vacation occurred was unifled and actually makes the slte -- It's like two football fields to scale. There's 250 mlllion keys. ThlS lS a quality flag. Retail restaurant base will be there so that the ground floor is not just'a parklng facillty. The ground floors are actlvated. All the people actlvities, the restaurant, the ballroom functlons, meetlng room are all on the bottom floor. So when you walk by this faclllty, you see people in actlvlty and you're lnvlted In. 150 helght lS utlllzed, but It'S utlllzed to the Gulfvlew frontage and cascades down to the beach. Gulfvlew lmprovement turnkey. The city has 5 mlllion dollars In thelr penny fund for beach lmprovements. They need money on Mandalay. They need money on Coronado. They need money In a lot of places. And they sald to us, if you can't deliver the Gulfvlew improvement and make your own little mlnl lnternal tlp and return to ourself, that wlll facllltate the proJec~ and that stlmulates redevelopment. Interestlngly, the promenade, WhlCh lS shown here In the red llne, really the Grand Boulevard, lS LAWYeRS' CHOICE, INC. 40 1 2 3 what South Beach doesn't have Beach By Deslgn's 35-foot maJor promenade sidewalk down the current allgnment of Gulfvlew. Our abutting property owners to the north, the Markopoulos' properties here in another capaclty today, are actively pursuing redevelopment. Actlvely pursulng redevelopment. To the south of us lS a unique locatlon whlch is the Legend site, which lS on the assemble by the group and the retall restaurant, and they appeared to the commlSSlon the other evening asklng the question: Can we use Beach By Design? Can we come out 35 feet onto the setback area and expand our restaurant and our retall? And the commisslon responded yes. Our two neighbors abutting that are actlvely pursulng redevelopment. Our design has been sensltive to those lssues. We see the alignment of the roadway and the blkeway system being an evolving design in worklng wlth the city both to permlt and put in place with some communlty partlclpatlon so the people are comfortable wlth it. But I want us to talk here a moment and outllne that when we place our property in serVlce, here to the south, thlS is the Legend's property. It lS 180 feet of Frontage. They have a retail faclllty and a LAWYERS' CEOlCE, INC. 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 lS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S 41 1 restaurant facllity they would both like to expand. 2 So we see them comlng out to the 35-foot frontage and 3 belng on the new promenade wlth thelr retall 4 facllltles and restaurants. That's the goal they've S set up. 6 Our neighbor to the north has proposed two 7 major redevelopment strategies. We've been in front 8 of the Clty CommlSSlon simultaneously at Joint publlc 9 hearlngs. Those items are shown here. This lS 10 proJect A, which is approximately the entire 11 unification of all their holdings with the vacation 12 of First Street into a maJor development, It places 13 on our southern boundary a maJor pa~klng deck. 14 As far as situating it, this lS our site shown lS here in the red In the Marrlott Seashell. It would I 16 separate this plan wlll separate the Marrlott 17 Seashell from their proJect wlth a 60 or 70 foot 18 F rlght-of-way for a future reallgnment first. 19 All these plan elements are subJect to Clty 20 approval. They're not as far In the process as we 21 are, but thls is a plan they lnformally submltted to 22 the city, and It has the separatlon of roadway. It 23 has over 700 linear feet of structure at hlgh 24 elevation that is an lssue, and It proposes placing 25 the entlre proJect on the beach taklng a~ay Gulfvlew. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Now all these lssues have to get resolved wlth the city. Obvlously, there's going to It be a process a process. The project could be as high as flve to 600 unlts requirlng a DRI. The tlmlng of thelr project, we certainly hope, wlsh them the best that they move forward and work wlth the Clty. But thlS subsequently created proJect B. ProJect B is shown here in the cross sectlon. On thlS property boundary where a dash line Just appeared is our property boundary. Our blue there is our parklng deck, our red's our retall, our pink is the hotel. The checkerboard area lS the existlng Spy Glass Hotel and south will be Spy Glass II. So that area would brlng a nlne-story hotel expansion down to our ground (lnaudible). And behlnd it lS an eight-story parklng deck. So and then on the north portion of the proJect glves you a cross walk, and they do a slmllar project to the north. So what you have here lS In thelr -- In their second proposal -- they subml~ted to the Clty Commisslon, as I know, on January 16th, and this document was dated January 8th -- they are showing an elght-story parklng deck on the site boundary and two verSlons of Spy Glass I and Spy Glass II. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 , 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 They are not utllizing the opportunity to come down In the 35 percent bracket area which they could do and move thelr proposed Spy Glass II so that it would come out closer to the water. All of our vlsions In our cash plans have been they are intended to -- to demollsh the Spy Glass. ThlS is the flrst plan we saw where we dldn't demollsh the Spy Glass. So what I'm placlng on the record here, there's two abuttlng nelghbors both actively pursing redevelopment, both actlvely pursuing the stimulus of Beach By Design as a tool to be utilized. The key for that is the new Gulfvlew concept, and we've got here a potentlal for the site to sit in a key locatlon, have that parklng garage connected to the beach with a major pedestrlan crosswalk. And out in the edges of the pavement various zones exist for cafe distrlct, for pedestrian distrlct, for roadway, for blkeway, and, ultimately, for the beach Jogglng trall. And that's an excltlng opportunlty to have a real people-orlented place. If any of you are famlllar wlth four maJor (lnaudlble). It's an auto zone today. It's like standlng In a mall parklng lot instead of belng In a maJor destination resort. So thls lS the new count for parklng that we see occurrlng In that new 576 LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 spaces would be avallable In the process. There's also a key to thlS that we're taklng on these lmprovements and in the water-front area. And the next graphic shows the what we call phase A, 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Gulfview lmprovements, and phase B. The first piece is sort of llke from where the conceSSlon stand and double parklng wldth is all the way to the north to where the city defines Gulfvlew ends In the design process. MR. JOHNSON: Can you point It on -- on the thing? Oh -- oh, you can't. Never mlnd. MR. GEHRING: No. MR. JOHNSON: If you can't, no you can't. It's not in the computer. MR. GEHRING: Gulfvlew north lS everything where you see that two (lnaudlble) parking -- the big parklng Job. MR. JOHNSON: Rlght. MR. GEHRING: And it would be back to here where the city wants to take It. And, well, In the second phase would be from there south to Adams Mark. MR. JOHNSON: From the pavlllon WhlCh lS on -- MR. GEHRING: The pavillons lS right. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. MR. GEHRING: So wha~ happens in tha~ flrst LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 45 1 2 3 phase lS the maJor lnvestmen~ that the blg parking plan (lnaudlble) comes off. It goes into the deck. It's two 60-foot lots are retalned, promenade gets bUllt. There's a crossover from the deck to the beach, and some sort of 88 vertlcal clrculatlon will be developed there for elevators out on the -- on pOlnt. And whenever you come down to grade, there wlll be a publlc facllity zone for services that are a key. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The city lS -- In our development agreement is mandatlng that we deliver the portion to the north. The section to the south. The enduring six month after SlX months of constructlon, they had the opportunlty to put this proJect to us If they -- If they raise the flnancing for it, which I believe they wlll. So, hopefully if It works right, all of Gulfvlew will be lmplemented at one tlme creatlng the total lmage. In our package we also have the design structure for thls, and we've had Phil Graham, a landscape archltecture from St. Petersburg, do a takeoff on thls conceptual design, and we started to deflne the character of materlals and papers and how many trees. And we lntended to have thlS landscape at a quall~y with mature facilitles so ~he day the LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 46 1 2 3 landscaping opens, It has a strong new image and lmpact. The design settlng is required public/private partnership. We are pleased to be the flrst to propose and respond to Beach By Deslgn to become catalytic. We thlnk we're responslve to all those elements that are required. I think they're fairly well listed In your applicatlon, so I'm not gOlng to dwell on them. But you have to have at least 200 rooms, and we have more than that. You have to at least (lnaudible). We have more than that. You have a full-servlce hotel. You have to be a flag mo~el, et ce~era. So we have all the elements that have been proposed for conference centers, urban hotel facllltles, full service -- and I'll let the archltect expand on those as he does his presentation. The resort destination is naturally recognlzed. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 We don't thlnk a better flag Marrlott lS a really 24 big key here. In the 21st Century Design, we've been worklng wlth them on a new product they Just put on the south -- on Miaml Beach and then in at Atlanta WhlCh lS the model for these proJects. The project lS 1.6 acres af~er vacation. (Inaudible) lS in excess of the acre. There lS a 2S LAWYeRS' C~OICE, INC. 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10-foot vacat~ of grantlng the rlght-of-way on Coronado. The goal of the Clty lS to make Coronado current 60 feet wlde. 80 feet wlde. So we~re providlng our 10 feet to the 40-foot half section so that, hopefully. some day Coronado could become a four-lane section. And. lastly, there's a mid pOlnt In the beach which makes thls project really a great location for the parklng. It's not a naked deck. All the deck lS screened. It will not look llke a parking deck. It's financed privately. The expansions can be coordinated. and you could plug in elther directions lnto abutting properties with (inaudlble). The parklng removal will require somewhere between 250 (lnaudlble). 317 spaces will come off of the frontage, If you do grosi counts, and there wlll be a replacement of some 60 new spaces in what we'll call the eyebrow lots. There are a lot of designing gUldelines of, at least is covered In the remote degree. we've accommodated. And. actually, our origlnal concept plan appears to Beach By Deslgn because we sort of predated the document. Coronado and Gulfvlew promulgates what wlll become great pedestrlan locations, and we have a cafe seatlng zone on the LAWYERS' CHOICE. INC. 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 beach slde whlch is In our developing agreement. The prlvate investment proposed and thlS wlll be, you know, make beach walk 'occur through a conduit bond. The inner beach transit, which is in the plan, we thlnk will be accommodated with this crosswalk and be a real key to the people if they could park thelr car and go anywhere on the beach as If It were a future tran north, south transit mode. That would be a key. In the intrlcate design, we certainly exhausted even though It'S just a very lose concept at this time. I want to turn to the hotel and bring up the architect. ThlS is an outstandlng facillty for Plnellas County. We thlnk this will be a key for our future tourlsm lmpact. Tampa's new Marriott in the Orlando market lS outstandlng, and the quality lmage that wlll splll over to the rest of the beach. Well, we're talklng about how much our rate will be. If we can -- what the goal's here, If we can ra~se the price point In the average dally rate for a whole beach because the lmage is up/ the quallty is up, everyone will benefit. So we see thls as a real key. Our abut~lng property owners are gOlng to have more valuable property. But the overall staYlng power -- and then if we can raise It Just a llttle LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 bit, even though those properties that don't get redeveloped, wlll have posslbly an lncrement of value that they can let them re-invest In those properties and make them a little blt more attractive to the marketplace. All these items here define the project. So let me ask John to come up. This is John Nichols. John Nichols lS Nlchols (lnaudible). John NlChols is what I would call a preemlnent hotel archltect In the nation. Thelr flrm has developed and deslgned over 150 major hotels. He's done over 20 maJor Marrlotts. If you've been to the downtown waterside motel, then you've been to John's most resent deslgn. It's a 719-room facility. And, you know, he can speak to the quality of it. And wlth that, we'll turn to the Board, and I'll just assist hlm. John-- MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Before Mr. Nichols speaks, any questlons for Mr. Gehrlng? MS. MORAN: Yeah, I have one. Could you tell me if your agreement wlth the Marrlott has been solidi fled? Because at one tlme I saw a meetlng before the commisslon where It had not. And, you know, lS it gOlng to be a Marrlott? MR. GEHRING: We had -- Mr. Multon appeared LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 50 1 2 3 4 5 J 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 wlth us. Marrlott has -- lS In agreement wlth the development group. Marrlott is In a management capacity to this operating entity for Marrlott International. Marriott is currently at the phase of we're In of reviewing the plans. John works closely with their staff. He sent all their deslgns out. So the process lS underway. And when you say is it done? It will be done In the methodology of flnal approvals and lnklng contracts WhlCh are in the future. But the commltment of Marriott to Clearwater Beach, if you're gOlng to marry out to thls team and this as proJect slte, yes, that has occurred. There is -- that agreement is in place. The complexity of it, I think John told me the story that the downtown hotel, Marrlott Host actually owned it. Marriott Internatlonal operated It. And untll they were about to open the door, they actually dldn't have to make the flnal management agreement lnked because they were stlll arguing over who paid for what and who got what. So In the complexlty of the business relatlonshlps, It'S an ongolng process. But the comml~ment of Ma~riott to be here lS afflrmatlve, and the commitment In the development agreement lS ~hat LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 24 25 51 1 we must have an lnternational flag. So If for some reason there were any condltions or change, they're only enlistlng of seven or eight maJor flags that the city would find acceptable under this definition. So we're talking Marrlott Hlghlander. The question was asked: Is everything agreed to? And In that meetlng you made It seem, and I had 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to answer It: Well, of course. It's in process. We need another approved proJect before we have an approval -- a fully approved agreement. But It lS underway and Marriott Internatlonal lS cOffiffiltted to the proJect. MS. MORAN: Okay. Is the process at a point now where -- where it stlll could not be a Marriott? MR. GEHRING: The design approval, I thlnk when our development partner, Jay, was quoted In the paper as saying: They get to (inaudible) door knobs. In that process, there's a whole approval cycle in a business relationship. And I thlnk that each of those were exhausted. They're -- you're not at the final-lnked document. At the same time we have secured the archltect that Marrlott llkes to work wlth. We are in the process wlth them. So as far as I'm concerned, yes, when you say lS there any poten~lal, LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 52 4 wlll the sun rise tomorrow? wlll Clearwater -- I mean the process of putting thlS in place, I thlnk, is a very afflrmative step. And the agreements that It takes are llterally mammoth In scale. The attorneys are currently working on it because there were packets of documents like you have here only four or five tlmes higher that are in process. And whenever they get all those done -- I think they don't enter that task unless they really are committed to the proJect. They're in It. They're deep in it. They're In design renew, and I think that's an affirmatlve step. But, yes, we have Marrlott. Marrlott has authorlzed to use Marrlott. We are in an excluslve relatlonshlp to Marrlott. We're bound to Marriott's bound to us and we're bound to them. So I think that's pretty blndlng, but there's still a lot to do. 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Any other questlons for Mr. Gehrlng? MR. NICHOLS: Good afternoon. John Nichols of NlChols (lnaudible) and Archltects and based in Coral Gables. I'm very happy to be here. I wlll tell you that Marrlott lS very excited about this property you saw on the commltment they made both on the ownershlp LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 and management of the waterslde project from downtown Tampa. 23 We have met wlth them numerous times. I mean they are as exclted as they can be about reviewlng these plans and gettlng lnvolved in thlS. They are very particular, as you know, about mentioning their name on anythlng untll -- so they'd rather not be there. So Richard Dryfuss is part of the process you go through. We have fortunately -- been fortunate to have been involved In many, many, many major hotels, those ocean-front hotels that lnvolve urban propertles. This lS an exclting property the cause of whlch you are dOlng in the Clty and the beach walk and beach-front plan programs. This bUlldlng to be designed, we think, takes the spirit of that Beach By Deslgn and incorporates It almost ldeally lnto a project that really runs home all of the posltlve aspects of that, of the street that goes along our particular phase of property. As you get lnto the slte plan ltself, the bottom lS Gulfview Drive, Coronado at the top. As Rlchard had mentloned, we have two seven-story bUlldlngs. Baslcally, (lnaudlble) bUlldlngs tha~ Slt 24 25 LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 on top of a seven-s~ory podlum plece which has the park -- Clty'S publlc parklng, the private parklng, and the ground floor level of retail. We also have, faclng the entlre garage runnlng all the way down to Gulfview, we have guest rooms that go all the way down the phase because that's very important to you and us. Just making sure that we activate these wlth somethlng other than a parking structure. So these are all of the guest rooms. I wlll show you in a flnding that phase four's (lnaudlble). And phase four lS your new beach walk and the new Gulfvlew drlve that runs up the front. And the ground floor runnlng all the way across is also retall facllltles as much as we can possibly get lnto that -- that area. Thls is the ground floor plan. This lS the new beach walk and Gulfvlew at the bottom. All of the pink areas are retall areas that go all the away across the top of It. We've used as much frontage as we posslbly can to actlvate the sldewalk whlch lS the type of facility that you would llke to have. Up on Coronado, we do have a drop-off as well as a through drop-off that caD come through and approach from either Sloe so that elther the public parklng can come In, enter, go up into the faclllty LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 55 11 as well as the parklng facllities. As staff mentloned, we've also been very careful with the serVlce of the facility to go all the way through the property back In so It'S totally screened from the road. We're not openlng any dumpsters or anything llke that onto the road. The truck can pull In underneath our bUllding, back in and drive back out of the property. So It would contain all of that actlvlty on the lnslde. There are meeting spaces. Approximately 4600 square feet of meetlng space aDd a meetlng room facllity here as well as all of the retall (inaudlble) that go through. On the second floor of the facillty you start to 'see the garage up here which is to be masked by to be retall or (lnaudlble) that are on the second floor that face Gulfview. There is the pedestrlaD brldge that goes across Gulfvlew when it does sWlng In close. These red areas, these are the elevators, the public eleva~ors, baslcally, that can come from anybody parklng in this garage. A very easy garage 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to maneuver. (Inaudlble) they can see that. They can come down, take the elevators rlght to thls pOlnt, go across the bridge, and they're rlgh~ on the LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 beach. So it's extremely easy to move back and forth. The garage, whlch you're seeing here, lS a tYPlcal floor of the parklng garage. Three fans of double-loaded parking ramp In the center so we don't have any exposed ramping, sloping condltions on the outer wall of the bUlldlng WhlCh we never llke to see. The ramp lS an internal and complete loop system all the way around. So, again, it's a very easy drlve to maneuver whlch is lmportant as a publlC garage. And then on the Gulfvlew slde coming all of the way across the front, and these are from the gulf (lnaudible) Vlew, the rooms and sUltes that actlvate thls entire edge as you go forward. These are the publlc elevators. They come rlght to those elevators, go down and go straight to the beach very easlly. MR. JOHNSON: So excuse me one second. I see you access those rooms through that other elevator right there. MR. NICHOLS: (Inaudible). MR. JOHNSON: That one right there, see? MR. NICHOLS: Okay. MR. JOHNSON: So you're lD the ground floor. You have a room -- thlrd floor Gulfvlew. So you wlll LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 go up that elevator to that, and you'll be In at that corrldor there on that third floor, and you won't have access to the parklng garage. Just access to the elevator -- MR. NICHOLS: That's exactly correct. Exactly correct. And has their own hotel elevators there. There at the yellow lS a corrldor, and the elevators where the publlc elevators open to the garage depot lS the lnternal section. So they Dever cross back and forth through there. But the good part lS you'd come stralght to the elevators of the public, go rlght down to the second floor or ground floor. Elther one can go stralght across to the beach. MS. PETERSON: Are the stairs open to the hotel and garage (lnaudlble)? MR. NICHOLS: Excuse me? MS. PETERSON: I can't really see. MR. NICHOLS: These stalrs? MS. PETERSON: Are those stalrs? MR. NICHOLS: These are fire stalrs. MS. PETERSON: And how do those (lnaudlble)? MR. NICHOLS: They go straight down to the bottom, and they eXlt stralght to the outSlde. Those flre stalrs only. This whole thlng. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. PETERSON: (Inaudlble). MR. NICHOLS: As you go on up to the roof of the parklng structure, these are the hotel guest rooms that go down both sides. Across the back there is a three-story structure which has a health club that opens out to this pool deck. Very pretty landscaped pool deck. A pool that will drop at it's edge wlth a llttle inflnlty edge piece that's goes across. And then we set the buildings back from the edge -- a distance of about 25 feet back to the edge of the buildlng across there. There's a terrace that goes all the way across the front, and those terraces are used for the pool/grlll faclllties (lnaudible) across the whole edge of the faclllty. These elevators also work -- these pUblic elevators work for the hotel where anybody can come out across the pool deck to these elevators, go down, go to the beach back and forth wlthout going through the gust of the hotel. A typical floor plan of the bUllding, the two tall buildlngs, they are over seven-story buildlngs on each side of the three-story bUlldlng that goes across. Once you get off the upper floors, there are LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 just two slmple rectangular towers so that the light and alr goes all the way through the property. Very lmportant. We set these bUlldings back 20 feet from the outside edges so we can have complete glass wlthout (lnaudible) pulllng down the outer edges. And then as the bUlldlng keeps gOlng up, you saw before where it sat out at about thls level, we're bUllding each terrace in back away from the ocean. So it dges stagger back from (lnaudlble). In these cross sectlons, you can see -- see that stagger? This lS the the new beach walk. There is a covered section of It that goes -- or a brldge that goes across, takes people down. And that is -- these are the Gulfvlew suites. The blue lS the corridor, and the garage sits in behind them so that these go all the way across the front. These are the premlere rooms. But, more lmportantly, from complete oceanslde, people are looklng at real -- you know, real property that goes up. So It staggers ltS way back, comes ~o the pool deck, It Jumps back agaln, and then it steps back tWlce more as l~ goes up. So it's a 150 foot por~lon of the buildlng. Only ~his one-story piece rlght here. Then It drops down about 10 feet, keeps dropping a~ 10 foo~ LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. J 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 60 lntervals untll l~ comes down. In the upper (lnaudlble) section thls lS all the publlC area at the base: The garage piece. The pool deck that sits in between. And they're a graceful way to keep buildlng the (inaudlble) parklng. When It gets to the architectural character, you can see we've worked very hard at trYlng to break thlS bUllding down lnto step pleces. We want to glve It a very classlcal resldentlal scale of the hotel or of that -- that style. We're thlnklng of, agaln, the very classlcal elements of free-cast base, stucco, barrel tile across the upper section and movlng it up and down, even stepPlng back above the podlum, stepping back the upper sectlon where the health spa lS that goes across. And from the Gulfvlew side, again, thlS is the predominate plane that goes across. These bUlldlngs are stepped back, and they step back fur~her and further and further to the open court. These are all these rooms that face directly towards the -- toward the ocean. There lS the covered beach-walk sectlon that goes across and the brldge that comes across. All of this is aimed at, really, trYlng to produce a very resldentlally scaled LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. , \ ( 61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 proJect. I know thlS is extremely lmportant to you. Anytlme you deal wlth an 800-car garage, that can be a blg facllity. But we've worked very hard to mask it very carefully with good architectural elements and archltectural features. So I thlnk I would stop at thlS pOlnt and really open up to questlons. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Any questlons? MS. MORAN: Yeah, I have one. Could you go back to -- I thlnk it was about your second picture that showed the front of the bUlldlng on Gulfvlew. MR. NICHOLS: ThlS lS the front of the buildlng that draws (lnaudible) the floor plan? MS. MORAN: Yeah, but It was one -- no. It was -- no. It was before that, and it was -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Is It the elevatlon? MR. NICHOLS: Was that the floor plan? MS. MORAN: Yeah. More -- more -- I think it was more In elevatlon. MR. NICHOLS: Or the cross-sectlon through? The cross sectlon? MS. MORAN: No, It was larger. MR. NICHOLS: What about that one? MS. MORAN: No. MR. NICHOLS: (Indicating. ) LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 MS. MORAN: No. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: We're almost there. MK. GEHRING: ThlS lS the one on the parklng deck wlth the -- MS. MORAN: No. MR. GEHRING: retail. MS. MORAN: No. MR. NICHOLS: It was the parklng lot? MS. MORAN: It was the one -- MR. GEHRING: Is that the grouDd floor? MS. MORAN: It was either right before or right after that one. MR. NICHOLS: The ground floor plan? MS. MORAN: Be that one would do it, probably. MR. NICHOLS: Okay. MS. MORAN: Yeah. Okay. One of the thlngs you're asklng for lS zero setback. MR. NICHOLS: That's correct. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. MORAN: Can you show me or what -- If you're walklng along In front, or drlvlng along in front, what would one see? Because there is no setback. MR. JOHNSON: Is there a zero setback on that north that -- you're aSking for zero from the north it says here. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 MS. MORAN: All the way around. MR. JOHNSON: But you've got a driveway there. ISD't that a drlveway? MR. NICHOLS: The buildlng, it's over that drive so that it's an internal drlve -- MR. JOHNSON: Oh. MR. NICHOLS: underneath the building so It covers all the surface areas. MR. GEHRING: This lS (lnaudible). MS. MORAN: No. I thlnk It's thlS one here where I see trees. MR. NICHOLS: Are you looking at what It looks llke on the side versus MS. MORAN: ThlS lS Gulfview, right? MR. NICHOLS: This lS Gulfview rlght there, correct. MS. MQRAN: Where the trees -- MR. JOHNSON: Oh, yeah. And that will be the walk 24 MR. NICHOLS: -- trees and carry It all the way back down to both sldes. And then Gulfvlew lS the serpentlne-shaped road that runs all the way through thls. There is zero setback at thls point, and there lS the covered (lnaudlble) that comes ou~ tha~ covers part of the beach background program -- the way that LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 25 64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S works all the way across there -- and then we have dedlcated 10 feet MS. MORAN: So where does the building on Gulfvlew actually begln? MR. NICHOLS: That part right there. MS. MORAN: Rlght there? MR. NICHOLS: Right there. MS. MORAN: Okay. MR. NICHOLS: That's the retall fronts, and It all traces right on to the beach walk. The beach walk is 35 feet wlde from those store fronts out to the edge, and there is a provision for covered pleces of that just to cover for people that could Slt out there and knock off tables and things that go all the way across. MR. JOHNSON: Says 35 feet. From here to the wall? MR. NICHOLS: ThlS room is probably 15-by-30 feet, correct. Just probably Just sllghtly wlder than thls room, 35 feet. That's Just the pavlng surface. MR. JOHNSON: That's Just the pavlng surface. MR. NICHOLS: Just the pavement on all of the landscaplng. All of thlS is extremely broad as It goes all the way across. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. GEHRING: The red lS the promenade. MR. NICHOLS: Yeah, you go red lS the - - is the 1 promenade. That's the 35 feet. And then all of this lS very heavy landscaplng. And the roadway, actually, is way out here by the bike bath, the road lS, In additlon to the 35 feet. And there was some small areas of parklng that were buried into the landscape. This ~s the part of the Beach-By-Design 25 program. MR. STONE: Also, Mr. Graham -- if I could comment on the zero setback component of the site plan, and thlS is going way back to when we were conslderlng the communlty development code, that there were two distrlcts that we antlcipated and a number of circumstances would in fact have zero setbacks. The GEO's group downtown dlstrlct for tourlsts dlstrlct. So If you look at the tourlst dlstrlct and you looked at all the flexlble,uses, every slngle flexlble use has the option, perhaps, of going through an inflll process of gOlng to zero on all four sldes. And there are four standards that address that clrcumstance. Let me read It to you real qUlck. The flrst was: Reductlon In the front setback contrlbutes to LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 more active and dynamic street lighting. You know, and second: Reductlon of the front setback resulted In approved slte plan through design lmpairments. See, the reductlon in slte rear setback does not prevent access to the rear of any buildlng by emergency vehicles and, B, reductlon site rear setback resulting In lncreased slte plan, more efflclent parklng and lmproved (lnaudlble). And the reason that lS In every slngle use lS because, Just llke we have on North Mandalay, this strlp along South Gulfvlew lS antlclpated to accommodate common-law constructlon and to bring '1 3 that those bUlldlng fronts out to the pedestrian 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 area so that we have that more accurate street scaling and street llghts. So this lS not an extraordlnary circumstance comprlsed by us. ThlS is exactly where we antlclpated this particular report (inaudible) . MS. MORAN: Well, the reason I ask is because on South Beach we have a new -- some new constructlon going on of a garage that -- wlth no setbacks. And It'S ugly. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: That's why MR. STONE: Also preceded thlS code. MS. MORAN: I know. I know. Bu~ that's why I LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was addresslng thlS because -- and I understand havlng a setback lS a luxury that we probably can't have anymore on the beach. But I think If it's, quote -- I think you used the term mask, and If it's ascetlcally present, then I think it's acceptable. MR. NICHOLS: I think that's why we worked so hard. These are all hotel guest rooms and suites. These are balconies. These are (inaudlble), and llghts come on at night. People in there. People sltting on the balconies overlooking the ocean. And down on the ground floor, that's all retall fronts that open out to the pedestrian beach walk. So the entire thing you see, that's what you see. The garage lS behlnd that. So it's extremely lmportant to glve that entire facade a very strong articulation and actlvation with real uses all across WhlCh lS what we dld. We did no~ do that on both sldes because It'S antlclpatlng that there are future developments, as Rlchard showed you, the property to the north, the property to the south, that almost abuts the east. But you want the contlnuous actlvlty of thlS beach walk to continue all ~he way down to the end. MS. MORAN: Hopefully, it wlll be contagious. MR. NICHOLS: I would thlnk so. If you started LA1~'ERS' CHOICE, INC. 68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 off strongly wlth a klCk start like thlS, it would help It a lot. MS. PETERSON: How wlll cars, or will cars be able to access the hotel from Gulfview? Because they're gOlng to -- you know what? There won't be a drop-off point where they wlll be able to go off that site? MR. NICHOLS: No. There is -- there is no real drop off. There is a -- the roadway does go through underneath the buildlng. I think there will be a right-hand lane out conditlon both In and out at thls edge. And we thought It was lmportant to let thls go through Just to let people move around this block versus to do it all In one direction. Wlth (lnaudlble) still up, that the Clty decided that's what they want. MS. PETERSON: But that's my question. MR. NICHOLS: But r~ght now we -- MS. PETERSON: TrYlng to make it lnto a more pedestrian frlendly walkway, and we've got cars stuck across over here. MR. NICHOLS: Correct. MS. PETERSON: That mlght be a site for us to remember. MR. NICHOLS: Part of thls whole drive In the LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 serpentine nature of it and the traffic-comlng devlce In slowlng traffic down and allowlng the trafflc, really, to come In and come from behlnd, park In the facllity or come out, walk through the beach and never even have to get out here. It was much eaSler to, you know, get In the garage In thls fashlon. Plus there are sidewalks that go all the way through underneath here to walk to one slde to the other. MS. PETERSON: Wlll the Clty -- considering the fact that they're going to be bone arches, we have a Slgn the city has a slgn issue bringing people on and off of Coronado? MR. NICHOLS: Oh, yeah, absolutely. Very lmportant to any of these garages that are bUllt withln a public private facillty is a sign that talks about public parklng, and I believe part of the program wlll work wlth the Clty and Public Works to make sure that leads (lnaudible). MS. PETERSON: My other questlon was, and I can't -- dld you say there was going to be an elder cafe or a beach-side cafe or some~hing? MR. NICHOLS: Beach side. I mean they're rlght here at ground openlng OD to the sidewalk. And right on the second floor above this, we have two places LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that could very well be a cafe, is on the second level opened out to where it would be -- the pedestrlan brldge goes across. MS. PETERSON: Does that open up to the part that gets covered? MR. NICHOLS: It's all -- all of the actual restaurant faclllties are under cover. It's under the edge of the building. There is the roof of the -- of the (lnaudible) below WhlCh is almost a part of the pedestrlan bridge that you could open out onto it and klnd of have outdoor tables and chairs. Although, somethlng like that (inaudible) Just as you could on the lower level, which lS what you want. Now I think you'd want that activlty, which is very very nlce, that would be underneath the heads of the palm trees that go all the way out to the (inaudible) . MR. GEHRING: (Inaudlble) in discussion over (lnaudible) the klnds of destlnatlons we'd like to have on Clearwater Beach. And rlght now, In fact, In the evenlngs, there is no actlvlties. So someone holds an event or there's somethlng to be held today, you people walk out and you go what do I do here? So we're actlvely looklng a~ two to three destinatlon quality food facilltles and LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 71 l' energlzlng nlght thlngs so when the SUD sets It'S not 2 the end of everything. 3 MS. PETERSON: But why does It have to be 4 Marrlott and not just restaurants (inaudible)? 5 MR. GEHRING: Some will. They have thelr 6 own -- thelr own, but usually -- now there's a lot of 7 integration of quality product -- 8 MR. NICHOLS: Marriott would have one of them 9 I on the ground, and there would be the other one, 10 excuse me, on the second floor or the ground. 11 MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Any other questions of 12 Mr. Nlchols or Mr. Gehring? 13 Just from a procedural standpoint, and I know 14 Mr. Schiff wants to cross-examlne these gentlemen 15 other gentlemen. Is It appropriate that the 16 opponents here do a presentation prlor to that or 17 MS. AKIN: I mean the rules that are set up say 18 that all presentatlons are done flrst and then you 19 have cross-examlnatlon. But if you wish to allow 20 cross-examinatlon now lnstead of after the 21 presentatlon, that would be up to the Board. 22 MR. GILDERSLEEVE: I'm just trYlng thlnk of 23 what's the most efflcient way to do thlS 24 MR. SCHIFF: Our reques~ would be to do 25 cross-examlnatlon now. And then once our wltness are LAWYERS' CEOICE, INC. 72 1 put on and they have some cross-examination of our 2 wltnesses, then it will be appropriate. In each 3 case, I thlnk we should have an opportunlty to 4 present 5 MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Do either of you have a 6 formal presentatlon? 7 MR. SCHIFF: Yes, we do. And accordlng to my 8 watch, we're almost fifty minutes into the 9 applicant's presentation. And I think we're gOlng to 10 need equal tlme, you know, for our presentation. 11 MS. PETERSON: Mr. Chalr, we need to make a 12 motlon to (lnaudible). 13 MR. SCHIFF: (Inaudlble) some pOlnt to know 14 whether or not there's been on the recognltlon of our 15 party status. 16 MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Okay. Prior motion? 17 MS. PETERSON: Yes, Slr. 18 MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Is there a motion to that? 19 MS. PETERSON: I . I wlll move that we recognlze 20 Rlchard. 21 MS. AKIN: (Inaudlble) Markopoulos (lnaudlble). 22 MS. PETERSON: We get the partles (inaudlble). 23 MR. GILDERSLEEVE: SecoDd? 24 MR. JOHNSON: I'll second. 25 MR. GILDERSLEEVE: All those lD favor of the LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 motion? (The Board responds aye.) MS. AKIN: I wlll pOlnt out that you don't typically count tlme whlch you ask questlons and get responses. That's part of the applicant's presentatlon time. I don't know that we have identlfled that time. MS. MOSES: Yes. It's been thlrty minutes not includlng questlons from MR. GILDERSLEEVE: That's about what I thought It was as well too. MR. GEHRING: I just have one closing schedule element here WhlCh I can MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Now, Rlchard, thls is gOlng to add to your tlme frame. MR. GEHRING: I know. I know. But as I get back up to the screen, If somebody will cue me, we are on a schedule of the commission mandatlng If they want to dellver thlS with the bridge. We do have a 65-million-dollar proJect, 40 mlllion on the hotel, about 10 restaurant/retall. Fifteen in garage, and then plus -- plus the total lmprovements. By prloritizlng the garage, the whole thlng was on the tax roll which lS, I thlnk, lS an afflrmatlve actlon. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So we have a heavy tax roll. A good portlon of that goes to the city, and it will also have a tourlst development -- TBT. Tourist bed taxes and the utillty taxes, and about 300 jobs and three shifts. Mr. Kimpton you met. I'm here as the prime interest on the development planning and program for the proJect. Mr. Hoover is on constructlon. Valvlsta, a group, lS a developer out of Tampa. Sarasota lS going to bUlld an entlty. Brian Multon, International, Marriott IDternational, and the arch on the local operator. Englneering lS gOlng through Klng Englneering whlch lS avallable today, but we are not going to go lnto detail. You can ask speciflc questlons. Legal flowing from both Klmpton and Burke, White, and Annis Mltchell on that side. And Mr. Trapp (phonetic), the publlc parking, has been our parking analyst for publlc parking owns -- or manages and operates the TIA garage at the lnternational airport. We have a lot of experience, and I think the issues here are the quality of the project that can be delivered that activate ~he waterfronts for both urban and tourlsm actlvlties. And we create some world-class destinations that we thlnk we would like LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. ~ 75 25 to brlng those talents to bear in thls particular proJect. The resolutlon format, in my understandlng of It from the Clty attorneys, is the adoption of staff lS worklng to complete the development agreement in front of you. The economic terms are probably the only elements that are stlll in some discussion pOlnts. The commisslon had a presentatlon on the flrst of those. There was a second hearlng on the 15th along the Beach By Deslgn's adoptlon. ThlS lS your publlC hearing on your recommendation, the 20th, and then this final publlc hearlng on March 1st. So wlth that, we do have a (inaudlble) slte plan traffic utlllty expert avallable on the engineerlng slde If you wlsh to discuss those pOlnts. And we would just like to say thank you, Clearwater. I thlnk this is aD outstandlng opportunlty, and we want to be In a strong catalytlc proJect. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Thank you, Mr. Gehrlng. At thlS tlme what the Chair would llke to do lS to lnvite Mr. Schiff and hlS folks If they'd like to cross-examlne. We'll do that for a few minutes. I want to Just encourage that we have a very business agenda today. If we could be, you know, as sustalned LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 76 and brlef as we can. At the end of that period, I would like to have a recess before you actually make a formal presentation. MR. SCHIFF: So If I heard you correctly, we should undertake our cross-examinatlon now. I guess 7 the easiest way to do thlS is Just to call the 8 witnesses who've spoken. 9 Mr. Nlcholas (SlC) could you come up? 10 CROSS-EXAMINATION 11 BY MR. SCHIFF: 12 13 14 15 16 Q Mr. Nlcholas, are you an appraiser? A No, I'm not. Q Are you an economist? A No, I'm not. Q Have you been trained In any market and 17 research skills? 18 19 A No. You mentloned In your presentatlon that thls Q 20 bUlldlng -- and I may be paraphraslng -- lS lnvolving 21 llght and alr? 22 23 24 25 MS. MOSES: You need to speak into the mlcrophone, Slr, because It'S not gettlng you on the MR. SCHIFF: We're trYlng to both use It. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Okay. MS. MOSES: You have a soft VOlce. If you could speak up -- MR. SCHIFF: Well, I would be glad to speak -- MS. MOSES: -- I would appreciate It. MR. SCHIFF: I'll be glad to speak up. MS. MOSES: Thank you. BY MR. SCHIFF: Q Isn't it a fact that the base of the bUlldlng is approxlmately an 85-foot-tall mass from sldellne to 11 sidellne? 12 A That's correct. I believe (lnaudlble). 13 Q Okay. So that -- and then you would ralse it 14 even hlgher above the flood level potentially, maybe, 90 15 feet, 95 feet (lnaudible) 95-foot box sldeline to sldeline 16 as the base of the buildlng predomlnant (lnaudlble)? 17 A NO, not qUlte that hlgh. We would meet the 18 mlnlmUffi flood factor. It's only a few feet above what's 19 out there rlght now. 20 Q So wlth a 90 -- 85 or 90 foot box sldeline to 21 sideline, there's no light or alr gOlng through that box 22 lS there? 23 A Not through that dlrectlon, correct. 24 Q Are you aware cf the Beach By Deslgn's 25 standards? LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 78 ~ 1 A Yes, I am. 2 Q Are you aware of -- and I'll show this to you. 3 It's on page 2, and ltS entltled Gulfvlew/Coronado Hotel 4 Retall and Redevelopment, and we'll ask at the end that 5 Beach By Design we take judlcial notice that it come 6 lnto the record as an exhlblt. 7 Would you read the last sentence beglnning wlth 8 the deslgn of bUlldlngs, please, for me. 9 A Yeah. The design of buildings in this area 10 shall allow greater height whlle malntalnlng (inaudible) 11 at pedestrian level, and maintaining light, alr, and view 12 corrldors. 13 Q Now you're under oa~h. Can you tell me, lS 14 your bUlldlng malntalnlng the eXlstlng light, alr, and 15 Vlew corrldors lncludlng Third Street? 16 A Yes, it is, In terms of the gUldance from these 17 type of restrlctlons. Baslcally, what we've done lS not 18 bUlld a bUlldlng 250 foot helght that goes all the way up. 19 We've broken that down so the bUlldlngs are In parallel 20 towers where only the podium plece, whlch lS the retall 21 plece that goes across the base which lS actually 22 encouraged, and the parklng mask goes across the upper 23 level of the seven storles whlch would contain the various / 24 hotel rooms, are broken lnto tower setback and they open 25 down between. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 79 1 Q Let me ask ~hat again. Is the -- the corrldor 2 that currently eXlsts, which lS Thlrd Street, lS that 3 being maintained? 4 5 A through No, It lS not. We do have an openlng that goes through from side to side. It goes 6 through from Coronado all the way through to Gulfview. 7 That is the pedestrlan sldewalk and where the driveways go 8 through. 9 Q Okay. Isn't It a fact that pedestrlans 10 standing on Coronado wlll not have a view of the beach 11 once this building is bUllt? They will not be able to see 12 through this 85-foot mass sidellne to sidellne? 13 A That's partlally true. They would be able to 14 see through the open corridor. It's about a third-foot 15 wlde slot that goes all the way through Coronado to 16 Gulfvlew. 17 Q And you are not planning to replace Third 18 Street, you're Just ellmlnatlng It. Is that your proposed 19 plan? 20 A Thlrd Street lS elimlnated. And then the 21 street that goes through underneath, llke I mentloned lS 22 sllghtly to the south of that, goes through Coronado to 23 Gulfvlew. 24 Q And you also mentloned in your testlmony that 25 thlS proposed structure is resldeDtial in the scale. Do LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 80 1 you recall that testimony? Rlght no I'd llke to know if 2 you recall, and then I have a question. 3 A Yes, I do recall a resldentlal. I thlnk that's 4 architectural character. 5 Q Would you -- well, maybe you need to clarify 6 your testimony. Is this building residentlal in scale? 7 8 9 10 11 A It lS mld rlse resldential in scale, yes. Q Okay. What residents in Clearwater do you know that is 85 feet to sideline to sldeline? A I can't cite any examples. But the overall project is meant to be broken down into pieces so that it 12 gives it more residentlal scale, resldential scale 13 openlngs, residentlal scale wlndows, barrel tile roofs 14 broken in that fashlon. 15 Q Scale to meet the Slze. Is this the Slze of a 16 resldentlal structure? I don't want to belabor thlS 17 point. Is this a resldentlal scale reductlon here? 18 A If you look at the Gulfvlew elevatlon, It very 19 well could be a residentlal scale structure. Resldentlal 20 In mld-rlse helght of constructlon. 21 There's an eight-story bUllding that goes 22 across faclng Gulfvlew, and theD a seven-story bUlldlng 23 excuse me -- seven storles hlgh. I thlnk they're seven 24 story pleces that Slt back up on top of It, but the whole 25 side of that bUllding is all a -- lS a residen~lally LA~{ERS' CHOICE, INC. 81 1 deslgned ~ype of structure in terms of a multl-famlly 2 residentlal bUlldlng. 3 4 5 MR. SCHIFF: I Just want -- I Just have a few questions for Ms. Flerce, and a few questlons then for Mr. Stone. And I'll Just ask from here. 6 CROSS-EXAMINATION 7 BY MR. SCHIFF: 8 Q Ms. Fierce, do you -- do you know who wrote the 9 staff report on thls matter? 10 11 12 A Q A I do. Who partlclpated In that? It was a comblnatlon of the plannlng department 13 team and It'S members. 14 15 Q A And who are those, please. I believe origlnally mostly the development 16 review folks had a -- had some part in reviewlng it 17 and/or edltlng it or readlng It lncluding myself, 18 Mr. Stone, Ms. Harden, Mr. Gibbons and Ms. Clayton. 19 Q Isn't it a fact there's no market analyst or 20 economlst on the staff who reviewed thls appllcatlon? 21 A I'm not sure of all the qualificatlons of all 22 the other staff in terms of whether they have -- they have 23 experience In economic development matters. 24 Q Can you look at number two of your staff report 25 on page 8, and, If you would, read the statement number LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 82 1 two, whlch I belleve lS an attempt to state what the code 2 crlterlon is. 3 4 A Do you want me to read this to you? Read the criterlon at the top of that page Q 5 there. 6 A The development as (lnaudible) development as a 7 Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project wlll not 8 materially reduce the fair market value of the abuttlng 9 properties. 10 Q Okay. So that's the standard that the staff 11 reviewed the appllcatlon under? 12 A That lS the standard that's required to be 13 reviewed In the code. 14 Q And If that were not the standard, that the 15 staff have not reviewed under the standard under the code? 16 A I thlnk generally we hlstorlcally always look 17 at what the -- what the value of the property is as It 18 currently eXlts and how the proposal wlll improve the 19 value of the property and, therefore, In turn, perhaps, 20 beneflt surroundlng property values. 21 22 23 24 25 Q A Q A Q Are you an appraiser? I am not a llcensed appraiser. Are you a market analyst? No. Can you name, whlle we're in thls quasijudlclal LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 83 1 hearlng today, any market analyst who looked at thls 2 criterla for the Cl~y of Clearwater? 3 4 A I can't name any. Q I'd like you, if you can, to look at sectlon 5 2803-C.2 of your code. Do you have that handy? .If not, I 6 can provide it to you. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 MS. AKIN: Would you repeat that, please. MR. SCHIFF: Okay. It's 2803-C.2. It's a criterlon for infill development number two. MS. FIERCE: Could you tell me whether it's a distrlct we're talking about here? MR. SCHIFF: It's your code divlslon under the Comprehensive Infill (inaudlble). I have an lnternet 14 verSlon (lnaudlble). 15 BY MR. SCHIFF: 16 Q And also when we read the provlsion when you 17 reviewed this report to us -- when you read that, you IS revlewed it under a standard of whether it would 19 materlally reduce the falr market value of the publlc 20 properties. 21 Can you tell me where the word materlally lS in 22 number two of your crlterlon? 23 24 25 A Q A No, It'S not. Is It there? I don'~ see It In the -- In ~he code version. LAWfERS' CHOICE, INC. 1 2 Q A 84 So what does the code say? The code says everythlng I said except for the 3 word materlal. 4 Q So the code says the development of the parcel 5 and proposed for development as a Comprehensive Infill 6 Redevelopment ProJect will not reduce the fair market 7 value of the abutting propertles; is that correct? 8 9 A Q That's what I stated. Okay. So that lS a burden of the appllcant, 10 under your code, is meant to show that the project will 11 not reduce the falr market value of the abutting 12 propertles? That's their -- that's thelr burdeD isn't it? 13 A The applicants are required to show how they 14 adhere to the standards of the code. 15 Q And they, In fact, have a burden to meet those 16 crlterla don't they? 17 18 A Q If you want to lnterpret it that way. Do you know whether Rlchard Gehring is a 19 consultant to the Clty? 20 21 A Q I'm unaware. Have you met with Rlchard Gehrlng during the 22 pendency of thls appllcatlon? 23 24 A On a few occaSlons, yes. Okay. And, what, dld that involve dlscusslng Q 25 the Beach By Deslgn? LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 1 85 A Only lnsofar as how -- as If his proposal met 2 the requlrements In Beach By Deslgn. 3 MR. SCHIFF: Okay. At this point I have Just a 4 few questions for Mr. Stone. 5 CROSS-EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. SCHIFF: 7 Q Mr. Stone, In order to obtaln a varlance to 8 slte setbacks, lS it necessary to meet all of the criteria 9 under the city code both for redevelopments and for the 10 general standards? 11 A I thlnk the criteria is there to understand the 12 lmpact of the proposal. I'm not -- I don't interpret that 13 every slngle criteria has to be explicltly met in order to 14 support the appllcation. I thlnk there's some balance 15 that's applied in that regard. 16 Q If the code were to say that all crlteria had 17 to be met, you would have to follow that wouldn't you? 18 19 A Yes. You mentloned that there's an optlon under Q 20 Beach By Design to go to zero feet setbacks on all sides. 21 Is that guaranteed for all development? 22 A The optlon really lsn't lD Beach By Deslgn. 23 The optlon lS in the communlty (inaudlble). 24 25 Q A Okay. Is that guaranteed for all appllcatlons? It lS not guaranteed. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 4 86 1 Q Does the appllcant have to meet all appllcable 2 crlterla under the code In order to reduce setbacks in the 3 Clty of Clearwater? A We would have to address all of that crlteria. And if the code says you have to meet the 5 Q 6 crlteria, then you would follow that code? 7 8 A Q Yes. You also mentioned that you anticipated to 9 accommodate common law constructlon of projects. You're 10 famillar wlth this applicatlon aren't you? 11 12 A Q Yes. Are you familiar with the elght-story parking 13 garage that abuts my client's property? 14 15 16 17 A Q A Yes. And It's right to the sldeline is it not? Yes. In order to antlcipate common-law construction, Q 18 have you antlclpated common-law constructlon wlth respect 19 to my client's property? 20 21 A I thlnk we have, yes. So if my clients wan~ed to build a hotel Q 22 adJacent to the property llne or adJacent to an 23 85-foot-tall parking garage, would you have antlclpated 24 tha~? 25 A If It comes to accommodate common-law LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 87 1 constructlon. 2 Q That's not my questlon. My question is: You 3 said you've anticlpated common-law constructlon. This 4 involves -- this proJect lnvolves an 85-foot parklng 5 garage immediately adJacent to my cllent's property. 6 Elghty-flve -- I mean seven stories of car parking. 7 You antlcipate that we will have a wall of a 8 hotel in that tourlst dlstrlct immedlately adJacent to 9 that 85-foot wall? 10 A There's no way for me to prognostlcate about 11 the option that your cllent may want to develop on hlS 12 property, but It'S entirely common In an urban dlstrlct 13 llke thlS one just as It would be in the downtown dlstrict 14 to have common-law construction. -15 You have hotels in downtown dlstricts that are 16 bUllt on the lot lines. You have offlce structures and 17 other klnds of structures that go to the lot llnes to the 18 extent that he, you know, has design challenges as a 19 result of that kind of phllosophy. They'll Just have to 20 be worked around, and they revellng on (inaudlble). 21 Q Where In the Clty of Clearwater lS there an 22 85-foot parklng garage adJacent to a common wall of a 23 hotel? 24 25 A Off the top of my head, I don't know. Have you antlcipated any partlcular development Q LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 88 1 on my cllent's property? 2 A We have -- we understand ~he two proposals that 3 he has brought forward. One of WhlCh has a very high wall 4 and will be a common-wall construction wlth the current 5 appllcatlon. 6 Q Is it falr to say that none of those proposals 7 are relevant in this hearlng at this time because no 8 application is pending before the Clty of Clearwater for 9 either or any projects on my cllent's property? 10 11 A Q No, I don't think it's fair to say. So you thlnk It's falr to consider my cllent's 12 plans on the Board which haven't been submltted to the 13 Clty of Clearwater In revlewlng thls proJect? 14 A I'm posltive that I wasn't conslderlng your 15 cllent's plans. He would (lnaudible) city manager's 16 offlce and complained about It. 17 Q So what plans are you conslderlng if my cllent 18 has no offlclal appllcatlon before the Clty of Clearwater? 19 A Ones that he has presented to the Clty 20 COffiffilSSlon and asked us to (inaudlble). 21 Q Is my cllent guaranteed approval of ~hose 22 plans? 23 A No, he's not. 24 Q I need to take a step back here because I'm not 25 sure. Is It the polley of che Cl~y of Clearwater to LA~fERS' CHOICE, INC. 89 1 consider appllcatlons WhlCh have not been (inaudible)? 2 3 A Q A In what respect? In respect to development of property. To consider them In what respect? 4 5 Q To consider them well, you have -- we have 6 here today before this board an appllcation. That 7 appllcation, we've dlscussed with Ms. Fierce, lS reviewed 8 in the context of the criteria of your code. 9 You have a staff report that is to address 10 whether -- you know, address the criterla. And we have 11 you know, the appllcant addresses the crlterla. We have 12 an opportunlty to address the criterla and declslons made. 13 And my question lS: Why in the context of an 14 appllcation, whlch does not lnvolve my cllent's property, 15 are you considerlng an unofflcial deslgn that mayor may 16 not be an ultlmate design on someone's property wlth 17 respect to this appllcatlon? 18 A It would be nleve for us not to do that. Flrst 19 of all, it's entlrely common to have that klnd of 20 dlscusslon before we take his property In an officlal or 21 an unofflclal way whether they submlt an application or 22 not. 23 Secondly, In thls particular lnstance, it's not 24 llke there has been no communlcatlon between your cllent 25 and the Cl~y staff as far as anythlng llke property LAWY~RS' CHOICE, INC. 90 1 submitted to a speclfic developmeDt optlon to us lncludlng 2 presentatlons of the City Commisslon and -- well, under 3 the extent of developlng archltectural plans and 4 elevatlons for us to consider. 5 So I think It would be almost unprofesslonal 6 for us not to take those thlngs lnto consideration when 7 somebody rlght next door lS comlng In (inaudible). 8 Q And whlch proposal -- you Just said someone 9 next door is comlng in with a proposal. Which proposal 10 are you assumlng my cllent's coming In with to apply in 11 the Clty of Clearwater and under what process? 12 13 A Well, he has submitted two optlons to us so far, and I can't I can't antlcipate what he lntends on 14 following through wlth. 15 Q But none of those have been submltted under an 16 appllcation to the Clty of Clearwater. Those are plans 17 that have been dlscussed wlth the staff that mayor may 18 not go forward on my cllent's property, right? 19 A He has not submltted the formal appllcatlon. 20 He has dlscussed wlth us the alternatlve of developlng -- 21 developing agreements wi~h the Clty based on what lS hls 22 alternatlve. 23 Q And none of those plans or dlscusslons have 24 been memorlallzed In officlal appllcatlons to the City of 25 Clearwater; lS that correct? LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 91 1 2 A That's correct. So none of those plans have any offlclal status Q 3 at thlS pOlnt? They have not been approved have they? 4 A They don'~ have an official status in terms of 5 being able to pull permlts, but I think they do have 6 offlcial status. And they have been proposed to the city, 7 at a Clty CommlSSlon meeting, in whlch a publlc hearlng 8 conducted speclflcally about maJor development proposals 9 on the beach. 10 There were three. HlS was one of them. And 11 those are -- I was (lnaudlble) movlng forward and 12 developlng agreements then. 13 Q Do those plans restrlct my cllent from applying 14 for something else? 15 16 A Q No. So he could apply tomorrow for an application 17 wlthln the current zonlng or under, perhaps, the 18 Beach-By-Deslgn standards? Or, perhaps, he could propose 19 a hotel wlth an 85-foot sheer wall rlght to his property 20 llne couldn't he? 21 A That's correct. 22 Q So that is the current status of hlS property 23 isn't It? So -- isn't It? 24 A We have not recelved a slte plan appllcation 25 for hlS property. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Mr. SChlff, I thlnk -- MR. SCHIFF: Yeah. ThlS ls'very lmportant as we think thls lssue -- so you know for the record, we think this whole issue of brlnglng In evidence on our client's property is not relevant. And we object to It comlng in, and we would ask that it not be consldered. And you probably are thlnklng the same thlng. Our project is not here before you, whatever that proJec~ may be, but we have now had testlmony before I had an opportunity to object or to cross-examlne by both the developers' representative and by staff on a project that has no offlclal status. So, for the record, If you want me Just to move on, we'll obJect to any of that eVldence In the record we think is not relevant. We also wanted to make sure that we said In the record, WhlCh I thlnk -- I think Mr. Stone has been forthr~ght about, that there lS no offlclal status of any development on my client's property. So that -- all of that lnformation that I believe is very irrelevan~ to thls proceedlng. You are conslderlng appllcatlons under the Clty code, and we would Just stand by the obJectlon and move on at thls pOlnt that all of that evidence to me lS lrrelevant. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 1 2 3 4 5 93 MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Very well. The pOlnt I wlsh to make, I thought Mr. Stone answered the questlon probably two or three tlmes, and I would llke us to move forward. MR. SCHIFF: At this pOlnt, I would llke to 6 call Mr. Gehrlng. 7 CROSS-EXAMINATION 8 BY MR. SCHIFF: 9 Q . Mr. Gehrlng, I Just wanted to conflrm, I thlnk 10 you sald thlS, but it was not entlrely clear to me at 11 least. You -- isn't It a fact that at thls point there lS 12 no sigDed agreement with Marrlott to build the hotel? 13 14 A Q Marrlott In this relatlonship is an operator. Okay. There is no signed operating agreement 15 wlth Marrlott as we stand here today? 16 A There is an agreement of -- per the Clty to 17 pursue Marrlott's operatlng relationship. lS Q So the answer to my questlon lS no, there's no 19 operatlng agreement? 20 A The operating -- the detalls of the operating 21 agreement are in negotlatlon, discusslon and reVlew. They 22 are revlewlng plans, and they have an exclusive 23 relatlonshlp to the proJect. Tha~ lS In agreement form. 24 And there lS a mul~itude of, quote, agreements that must 25 be materlalized. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 1 94 Mr. Gehrlng, lsn't It a fact that you're not an Q 2 appralser, or you are no~ an economlst and not a market 3 expert? 4 A I'm a community planner and developer with 25 5 years of experience in this market area and have been 6 lnvolved In both plannlng and dellvering mllllons and 7 mlllions of dollars worth of product and projects of WhlCh S you have been attorney to in the past. 9 You're famillar wlth those, but I do not 10 functlon as an appralser. I do not functlon as an market 11 analyst professionally, but I do lnvolve myself In 12 analyzlng markets for projects I'm lnvolved with. And I'm 13 not oplning here as a market expert. 14 Q Thank you. In your applicatlon I'm not sure 15 if thls is your language or not -- you stated that parking 16 will be camouflaged and hidden from the beach goers. 17 Do you consider an 85-foot wall lmmedlately lS adJacent to my client's property, whlch lS essentlally a 19 parklng garage, camouflage? 20 21 A I don't recall uSlng the term camouflage. I sald screened. I think we were comparing a naked deck, 22 whlch was the Clty'S earller proposal, for exposed parklng 23 floors with one for the Clty cars versus an entirely 24 screened faclllty. 25 The condl~lons of the -- of the property on the LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 95 1 abuttlng sldes which abut your property -- your client's 2 property, have code cons~ralnts, whlch Mr. NlChols can 3 certalnly speak to, that rely only on certain materials to 4 be-utlllzed on the abuttlng edge. So it lS a surface that 5 shows. 6 7 Q A My question ThlS is the now you showed me -- this is the side of -- the north 8 slde of the property. ThlS is step back. It has ~wo jobs 9 at the surface corner. It has two alr shafts, and it has 10 a series of glass block at the top. And all the other 11 detall~d elements here are baslcally indentatlons In the 12 surface. 13 Antlclpatlng whether someone had a two- or 14 three-story structure abutting thlS, they could -- you 15 know, would create a very posltlve facade edge to the 16 abutting site. And I also conslder that we develop thlS 17 In relevance to your appllcant -- your owner's IS representatlon that he wlsh ~o place even a nlne-story 19 bUlldlng and an eight-story parklng deck agalnst thlS 20 wall. 21 (Many VOlces are speaklng at one tlme.) 22 23 24 25 MR. SCHIFF: Agaln, It's not relevant to thls proceedlng at ~hls tlme. MR. GEHRING: Fine. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 96 1 BY MR. SCHIFF: 2 Q Are you an advocate for your client? Are you 3 an advocate In thls proceedlng for your cllent? 4 A Our project team lncludes a number of 5 individuals who are working on the proJect as Beach In 6 Deslgn and lnvolve the other technical expertlse that I'm 7 a partlclpant in the proJect. S Q You slgned as your cllent's agent when you 9 applied for this appllcatlon dld you not? 10 11 A Yes. Does your client have ownershlp or control of Q 12 Thlrd Street? 13 A Thlrd Street wlll be requested to be vacated, 14 and there's been part and parcel over the dlscusslon wlth 15 Beach By Deslgn Slnce the whole Beach-by-Deslgn plan was 16 submltted and went through numerous public hearings. I 17 belleve some eleven or twelve have been held by Beach By lS Deslgn whlle recognlzlng the opening of Third Street as 19 the conditlon of thls proJect. 20 Q So the answer to my questlon is Third Street is 21 not owned by your cllent? 22 23 A It's subJect to vacatlon. Do you recall in your appllcatlon tha~ you sald Q 24 that the proposed proJect needs rellef from slte setbacks 25 due to the scale of the development? Page 6 of your LAWYERS' CHOICS, INC. 97 1 appllcatlon. 2 A In the appllcatlon we deflned the dynamlcs of a 3 parklng garage conflguratlon requlring the utilizatlon of 4 the slte setbacks to go to zero. 5 Q Let me show thlS to you. I'm asklng about some 6 speclfic language (inaudlble). Page 6 In the appllcation. 7 Can you read thls flrst paragraph. ThlS is your 8 appllcation, rlght? 9 A Flrst paragraph. Interested defined by 10 prepared by Klng Construction wlth the applicant. The 11 proposed project needs rellef from slte setbacks due to 12 the scale of the development. The need to provlde for 13 on-slte bUllding circulation and the dedlcatlon of 10 foot 14 of rlght-of-way along the rear property line on Coronado. 15 The promenade elevation, WhlCh lS approved by 16 the developer for property for a distance of approxlmately 17 a thousand feet wlll serve as a landscape gateway to the 18 community business. In additlon, the promenade area wlll 19 functlon as a front setback wlth pedestrian amenlties such 20 as covered walkways, pavement, landscaplng, and a sldewalk 21 cafe. 22 Q Thank you. I only asked you to read the first 23 sentence, but you're welcome to read on. The first 24 sentence, the meetlng will be from slte se~back due to the 25 scale of the development. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 98 1 Mr. Gehring, isn't that backwards from a 2 planning standpoint? Isn't It a fact that if a proJect 3 does not flt on a property, It'S slmply too large or too 4 huge and you don't ask for a (inaudlble), you scale down 5 the project? 6 A I'll refer to the comments that the client In 7 the record used in deallng wlth the lntentions of Beach By 8 Deslgn WhlCh define In thelr structure an intent for an 9 urban tourlst dlstrlct. And in that framework, if you go 10 to the beach today, you'll find several nonzero setback 11 condition. 12 In this partlcular property, the merglng of a 13 250-room hotel, WhlCh could be done wlth a parklng deck 14 for Just ltself at a certaln scale, lS accommodatlng the 15 park -- the hotel and the admisslble parking program and 16 the retail actlvatlon In the street. 17 Those uses coming together for an excltlng 18 mlxed use proJect created as a mlX use proJect or scale, 19 and that's what's meant by the Slze of the proJect. 20 Q Let's go a llttle further with that. Your 21 cllen~, do they own the property right now? 22 23 24 A Q A The property lS under control. Under control. So they don't own it rlght now? I answered it. Did I say I owned It? I said 25 It'S under control. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 1 2 J ~ 99 Q Is it under contract? A It's uDder control. Q Okay. And tha~'s what you mean by (inaudible). 4 And the property is 1.08 acres accordlng to the 5 appllcatlon, rlght? 6 A The property lS Sllghtly more than that. I'll 7 show you thlS staff report that I have. A llttle chart I 8 believe. More like 1. -- 1.63 is the aggregate with 9 vacatlon. The orlginal component is the four parcels 10 whlch -- 11 12 13 Q Which is your (lnaudible). A I think It's more like one twenty. Q Well, from my renewed staff report shows that 14 the total proJect is proposed on 1.63 acres. 15 16 A Correct. Q It also shows that there lS 1.08 of five laDds 17 from the report I was glven. Now If that's true, 34 18 percent of your proJect lS comlng from publlc land. 19 Assumlng that's true, Mr. Gehring, don't you 20 thlnk you're flttlng too large of a proJect on thls one 21 acre track when you're proposlng a 250-room hotel more 22 than 150 feet hlgh on sldeline to sldellne wlth no Vlew, 23 no air, aDd no llght? 24 A Would you llke me to compare thls project In 25 conJuDctlon wlth your appllcant's 700-foot-long building LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 100 1 that's 150 feet tall and has no lnflll penetratlons In it 2 at? 3 4 Q A I'd llke you to answer my questlon regardlng Yeah. Well, I want to know what your 5 relevant -- your relevant definitlon of Gulfview 6 Q I would llke you to -- to answer the questlon 7 as to whether or not your project simply does not fit on 8 this property that lS mlX used to the property because 9 there is no air, llght, or view, or pedestrlan with the 10 publlc. 11 A Subject slte was 280 feet of frontage on 12 Gulfview. 305 feet of frontage on Coronado. 245 feet of 13 depth between block face to block face with the vacation 14 of the 35 feet of Gulfvlew into the slte produces a 1.63 15 acre site whlch in urban characteristics is developed here 16 an approprlate character and scale to the urban intenslty 17 of the tourist dlstrlct the Clty has defined In Beach By 18 Deslgn. 19 150 foot helght lS used only on the Coronado 20 frontage, and there's slgniflcant llght and alr on all the 21 occuplable portlons of the structure. As to the parking 22 deck, it lS gOlng to lot llne to lot llne to accommodate 23 au~o and vans for both the Clty and the public. That lS a 24 very acceptable tradeoff In dellverlng quallty house, 25 hotel house, and a quallty parking deck on thlS site. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 101 1 I do not conslder it to be an intenslficatlon 2 unlike the character of the commercial quallty of 3 Clearwater Beach deflned In Beach By Design or, although 4 you wouldn't llke this, defined in either of your client's 5 current appllcations whlch are not formal but lnformal. 6 I dld review those. I dld study those. I dld 7 try to accommodate those. How you can stand here and ask 8 me whether hlS eight-story parking deck lS abuttlng our 9 elght-story parklng deck are in conflict wlth one another 10 whenever they are there to be compatlble means that you're 11 ignorlng your cllent's lntent. 12 MR. SCHIFF: Agaln, I'll obJect for the record 13 on relevance of any mention of proJects on my 14 cllent's property. 15 BY MR. SCHIFF: 16 Q The flnal question, have you been employed by 17 the Clty of Clearwater at anytlme during your career? 18 19 20 A My entlre llfe. Numerous times. Numerous tlmes you're entlre life? I've worked wlth the Clty In a number of Q A 21 capaclties. 22 Q Have you been employed by the Clty of 23 Clearwater In any capacity regardlng Beach By Deslgn? 24 25 A No. Have you been employed by the Clty In any LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. Q 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 102 1 capaclty regardlng any of the beach standards? I mean any 2 staDdards concerning Clearwater Beach? A Q I've not been lnvolved In Beach By Deslgn. Have you been employed by the city wlth respect 5 to any consulting contracts durlng the last year? No. MR. SCHIFF: I have no further questions. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Thank you. At thls tlme before we do take a break, does staff wlsh to A cross-examine? (NO response.) MR. GILDERSLEEVE: That being the case, we'll take a flve to ten mlnute recess. (A break lS taken in the proceedings at 3:36 p.m., and at 3:49 p.m. the proceedings continue.) MR. GILDERSLEEVE: I would like to go ahead and reconvene the meetlng. MR. SCHIFF: Mr. Chairman, at thls pOlnt I understand we would llke to present a short legal argument followed by our experts who was brought with us ~oday. Initlally, as you know, we've already flled our obJectlon and are standlng by that thls proceedlng should not be gOlng forward. We wanted to relterate, just for the record, that your board does no~ have LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 103 1 2 3 the authority to grant a site plan on property which has not been part of an applicatlon. We also wanted to note that there is no eXlsting community redevelopment dlstrict. It's our understandlng that has not been approved at this pOlnt, and thls prOJect is being revlewed In the context of an assumptlon that a community redevelopment distrlct would be establlshed to allow for conslderatlon of these proJects. So we feel that lS the cart before the horse. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 It's premature to consider it. I wlll contact some other communlty redevelopment dlstrict main branch, and you would have then no authorlty to grant this request. We also wanted to note for the record that thlS applicatlon is lnconsistent with the comprehensive plan and the county-wlde plan. BellaDors (phonetlc) cannot be issued lnconsistent wlth comprehensive planning, and that wlll be a vlolatlon of Chapter 163 Florlda Statutes. So, for the record, we would obJect based upon the conslstency wlth the comprehenslve plan. We have a long list of due process concerns today. For example, we were provlded the same packet I think you recelved. There were materials in that LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 104 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 packet WhlCh we saw for the first time today. They were legal descrlptlons. They were documents that we saw just hours before thls meetlng. Now, we recognlze staff had a big job, but that's not that's not the problem. The problem is that we're going forward tOday. There should be sufficient tlme for the public and for my client to review anythlng that lS presented to this board. And givlng us just a few hours on the project of thls magnitude, we submit prObably it's our cllent's due process rlghts as well as our equal protection rights. So we have a standlng objectlon. We'd like to note for the record also pending materlals that have been submltted by the staff are part of the applicatlon, which were submltted today, dld not provide sufflclent notlce and an opportunlty to be heard through my cllent. We violated due takes of fundamental fairness. We do appreclate your granting us party status. We greatly appreclate you glvlng us the opportunlty to cross-examine wltnesses. We wanted to note for the record that the appllcant, under the Clty code, has the burden to establish that every slngle crlterlon must be met by competent substantlal LAwfERS' CHOICE, INC. 105 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 lS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 evidence. And now I wlll submlt to you that in many cases what has been brought before you today, the record lS devold of any eVldence and certainly any competent evidence to support the crlteria which must be met to grant the approvals requested. So our posltlon lS that the appllcant has not carrled thelr burden. We also wanted to note that when an appllcant lS utillzlng 55 percent of ltS project from public lands or variances, the project doesn't flt. F~d that lS almost ObVlOUS that a proJect that must use a public street wlthout relocating that street, a project that must go sldellne to sideline, slde yard to side yard, and Just destroy any Vlew that currently eXlsts today, is slmply to blg, and does not flt. At thls pOlnt I would llke to lntroduce to you Ethel Hammer of the Englehardt, Hammer and Associates Planning Flrm. We have her resume submitted in the record. In the lnterest of tlme, we will ask her to state that that resume lS accurate, and also we offer her as an expert In all plannlng lssues related to the appllcatlon as well as the crlterla of the code. At this time Ms. Hammer. LAWYERS' C~OICE, INC. 106 1 MS. H~~MER: Good afternoon. My name is Ethel 2 Hammer. My address lS 5444 Bayside Drlve, SUlte 122, 3 Tampa. 4 And Mr. Schlff asked me to certlfy or to ~ ~ acknowledge that my resume lS correct, and I wlll do 6 that at this time. I was asked to look at thlS 7 project from a plannlng perspective and to really 8 look at two speclflc thlngs. 9 One, whether or not the proJect was conslstent, 10 excuse me, wlth the regulatory framework that is set 11 up to reVlew the proJect In the Clty. And, secondly, 12 whether the proJect had any lmpacts on my cllent's 13 property, whlch lS the Markopoulos' property. 14 The flrst thing I would like to address would 15 be the criterla or the standards for the level one 16 and level two approval condltlons, and that's sllde 17 one. IS The flrst criterla, and I'm not gOlng to do 19 them all. I'm Just going to do several of them. The 20 proposed developmental land wlll be in harmony wlth 21 the scale, bulk, denslty and character of the 22 adJacent propertles In WhlCh It lS located. 23 It lS my oplnion that thlS project lS not In 24 scale or in charac~er wlth the adjacent propertles. 25 The staff report, in addressing thlS partlcular LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 107 1 2 3 crlteria, didn't really answer the questlon of evaluatlng thlS par~lcular language. What they dld was to say that It was In compllance with the Beach-BY-Deslgn criterla. Well, you have a proJect in compliance with this criterla but not necessarily the appropriate In the scale and the bulk for the partlcular property in WhlCh It was belng proposed and being compatible wlth adJacent properties. I think you have to look at what's existing on the adJacent propertles and what's proposed. Certalnly we feel It lS not compatlble with what is eXlsting out there on the beach now. I'd like to ask for bracket number seven. What we have done lS take the design, the architectural plans that were submitted and to scale lnsert them in a common aerial. ThlS shows the bulk and magnitude of the proposed proJect relatlve to all of the uses around It on the beach. And the next one would be number elght. We have three sllghtly dlfferent Vlews, and the next one would be number nine. This renderlng clearly shows that It is certalnly out of character and certalnly out of scale wlth everythlng else that's out on the beach., LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 108 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 Now, as I mentloned earller, the question really becomes -- you know, you look at what's eXlting and you look at what's proposed. Well, certalnly there are no other proposals on the table before you or that have been submltted to the Clty. But If the same due conslderation were given to the next proper~y owner as lS belng glven ~o this property owner, we would have the followlng bracket WhlCh I belleve lS number eleven. So this would be basically -- not that we would have an identical project, but that we're just trying to show the bulk of two proJects side by side wlth no llght, air, and view corrldors being considered on the beach. We feel that thls lS settlng a negative precedent. That It is, as Mr. Schlff has sald, that it lS a project that is far too lntense for the size of the parcel ~hat It is on. And we would llke to state for the record that we are certainly not opposed to redevelopment out on the beach. We are not opposed to use of the ho~el. We thlnk tha~ it lS approprlate and certalnly the use ltself is compatible. What lS not compatible lS the bulk and the scale. Number two -- criterla number two. And that lS sllde number elght. One of the thlngs It says lS the LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 109 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 proposed development wlll not hinder or discourage the approprlate development in the use of adJacent land and bUlldings for slgDificantly lmpaired value thereof. p~d Mr. Schlff had brought this out in one of the questlons he asked earlier about the light, air, and view corrldors being extremely lmportant to the entire premlse of the Beach-By-Design plan. We feel that this proJect is not consistent with the statement that is required in Beach By Deslgn. ThlS proJect lS asking for some pretty intensive development. It's asklng for zero setbacks on all sides. That to me is a wall-to-wall type of development where you have no interface wlth the public at street level and the beach ltself on the east side of the project. It's a small property that, in our opinion, is being too intensely developed. The project also is asklng for two portlons of It to be hlgher than 100 feet. One of the things that Beach By Deslgn states that I belleve it's slide number nlne -- states that ~here lS a hlgh crlterla. Under subparagraph number two, talks about you can't have any intrusions over 100 fee~, no more than two of them belng withln 500 feet of each other. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Well, this project lS asking for two, WhlCh are 100 feet apart on the structure. But that in and of ltself is baslcally asking for all of the allotment that goes to some of the propertles lmmedlately adJacent to it. And if I could show graphlC -- I believe It's eleven at this tlme. This just those shows ~he relatlonship of how much of our property Mr. Markopoulos' property would be taken up by the 500-foot radius on whlch nothlng over 100 feet could be permitted. So, certalnly, when It says In crlterla number two that the proposed development wlll not hlnder or dlscourage the development and use of adJacent land, thls fact that they are asklng for two towers lS basically drlvlng the design and to scale and to helght on the bulk of Mr. Markopoulos' property. So It certalnly does have an effect. Criterla number flve, back on sllde one, says the proposed development is consistent with the communlty character of the immedlate vicinlty of the parcel proposed for development. Agaln, my comments prevlously about the fact that we feel that It lS not In character wlth ~he surrounding area, there really aren't many LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 111 1 developments out in thls general locatlon that 2 exhlblt thlS type of lntenslty. 3 Crlterla number six. The deslgn of the 4 proposed development mlnimlzes adverse effects 5 includlng visual, acoustlc, and olfactory, and hours 6 of operatlon impacts on adJacent propertles. 7 In the staff report they evaluated everythlng 8 except vlsual. Well, we thlnk vlsual, from our 9 perspectlve, may be one of the most lmportant thlngs 10 in thlS crlteria. Because we believe that because of 11 the lntenslty of the proJect, it lS havlng a vlsual 12 lmpact on the adjacent properties. 13 I'd like to go to sllde number two, which lS 14 the flexiblllty crlterla for Comprehensive Inflll 15 Redevelopment projects. Crlteria number one says 16 that the development or redevelopment of the parcel 17 , proposed for development is otherwlse lmpractical lS wlthout devlatlons from the use intenslty and 19 development standards. 20 AS I stated earller, we are not In objectlon or 21 not opposed to the use. What we are opposed to is 22 the lntenslty of use, and we feel that some 23 devlatlons from the standards may be necessary but 24 not to the extreme extent that are belng proposed 25 here. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 112 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 To approve a prOJect tha~ has an impervlous surface ratlo of one, whlch means It'S covering the entlre property, it has zero setbacks on all sldes, and the helght In the form of towers basically overflows or has off-site impacts to what other properties can do, is too lntense of a project. Development on thls site could be done with a smaller more reasonable proposal that would not requlre all of these crlterla to be flexed to this degree. Crlterla Number four says the use or mlX of uses wlthln the Comprehensive Inflll Redevelopment ProJect are compatible wlth adJacent land uses. When the appllcant submltted hlS proposal, he said that the proJec~ was compatible wlth adjacent land uses. And he went on to cite that there are restaurants and hotels In the same block. Well, compatlbllity is not strlctly a nature of 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 use against use. It lS a also a measure of scale and lntenslty. And, agaln, we feel that thls 24 25 crlterla lS not belng met. Crlteria number flve says suitable sltes for development or redevelopment of the uses or mlX of uses within the Comprehensive Inflll Redevelopment ProJect are not otherwlse avallable In the Clty of LAWYERS' CHOiCE, INC. 113 1 2 3 Clearwater. When the appllcant submltted hlS appllcatlon, he stated that thlS was a unlque location. We do not agree wlth that. We do not see that this lS anymore unlque than the propertles next door to it. And that, obvlously, there are other sites that may be more suitable for thls intense of a project that don't have to vacate a street; that don't have to welgh all of these criteria; that may be startlng out with a larger piece of land to accommodate something of thls intensity. Crlteria number seven. The design of the proposed Comprehensive Inflll Redevelopment Project creates a form and function whlch enhances the communlty character of the immediate viclnlty of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole. Agaln, It'S my oplnlon that the deslgn of thls proJect lS too intense. That it lS not compatlble with -- excuse me -- the eXlsting community character. And I thlnk it sets a negatlve precedent for future developers who come In and are gOlng to be expectlng to receive the same kind of walvers with thls proJect has been -- lS requesting. Number elght. Flexlbillty wlth regard to lo~ LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 / 114 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 wldth required setbacks height and off-street parklng are Justlfied by the beneflts to communlty character and the immedlate vlcinlty of their parcel proposed for development and the Clty of Clearwater as a whole. I thlnk appllcatlon of thls goal has to be done, or this crlterla has to be In concert wlth what lS reasonable. And we do not thlnk that the request lS compatlble wlth the surroundlng propertles and wlth even proJects that mayor may not be proposed. With speciflc regard to some of the standards In the Beach-By-DeslgD document, one of the standards that is required is addressment of wall coverage and open space. The only way thls project meets the crlteria is by poundlng the pool on the roof whlch, to me, open space and lot coverage lS a publlc purpose and that the open space and lot-coverage standard should -- be should be appreclated and be avallable to view by the public. Certalnly, If you go on the roof, does no~ really meet the lntent of open-space standards. Whether or not It actually meets the setbacks, we know they're asking for zero, the appllcatlon never really sets forth what the exact setbacks are so we have to assume they are zero. LAwyERS' CHOICE, INC. 115 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The floor plate in the appllcatlon -- and they recognize the fact that they do not meet that standard as well. The standard requlres no greater than 25,000 square feet above 42 feet. And, of course, they can't meet that because of the parking garage. Slide number twelve. In summary, thlS project in our commune lS not compatlble with adJacent propertles elther wlth eXlsting or wlth future development princlpally because of the zero setbacks and the height In the towers that are being proposed. We think It negatlvely lmpacts the future development potentlal of adJacent propertles for the reason that I've explalned because of the two towers, and the fact that withln a 500-foot radlus we are limit In what we can do. So it's drivlng our design and helght. The proJect is too lntenslve for the Slze of the property on which It'S located. It sets a negative precedent for all future development proposals on Clearwater Beach. I guess I would just leave you wlth the questlon: Does thls proJect belong on a 1.6 acre parcel after vacatlons are completed out on Clearwater Beach? Thank you very much. LAwfERS' CHOICE, INC. 116 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Thank you, Ms. Hammer. Mr. Schiff, in a matter of falrness, I thlnk we're gOlng to try and allow thlrty to thlrty-flve minutes for our presentatlon. Do you think you can work wlthln that? MR. SCHIFF: That's flne. I think we wlll. We have one more wltness to present, and then we have a few items to mention to you. Before we introduce our next wltness, I would just note for the record that some of you may want to take a look at, on page 9 of the packet that was submltted today, Exhlbit B I guess It lS. On page 9 under number four on that page it talks about no more than 60 percent of the theoretlcal maxlmum building envelope located above one story wlll be occupied for a bUllding. That's a standard for which you're Judglng thls proJect on tOday. The appllcant's,response lS, this standard can reallstically be applled only to levels above the parklng deck. I wlll submlt to you the answer to that standard therefore is, the appllcant lS not meetlng that standard. There's been no reques~ filed to change that standard. Tha~ standard was Just recently adopted. I would suggest to you that that on It'S face lS an LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 117 admlsslon by the applicant that they cannot meet the standards that he must meet for this proJect and glves you one addltlonal reason why thls project must be denied. At this point -- of course, if you have any questlons for Ms. Hammer, perhaps after my next wltness, you can ask either one. My next witness lS Mlchael McElveen. He's with Urban Economlcs, Incorporated. Mr. McElveen has a wrltten report which I will submit In the record as well as hls resume. And I would also ask him for the sake of tlme to conflrm that his resume is accurate, and that he prepared the written report. And at this point, Mr. McElveen, could you -- oh, and I offer him as an expert on lssues concerning value In the criterla whlch lS before you. MR. McELVEEN: I would -- hello. My name lS Mlchael McElveen. I'm a state general certifled real estate appralser In the State of Florida. I also hold the Member Appralsal Instltute designation for the Appralsal Instltute of the United States. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: And your address for the record, Slr? MR. McELVEEN: It lS 18 South Sterllng Avenue, Tampa, Florida. And I would also state for the LA\NYERS' CHOICE, INC. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 118 record that the resume that I submitted lS true and correct. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Go ahead. MR. McELVEEN: I was asked to analyze two speclfic points. It's general standard two of the General Applicabillty Standards and also standard two of the Inflll Develop Redevelopment ProJects. Now the first, the general standards hereto are really part of a two-part test. The proposed development wlll not hinder or dlscourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land or bUlldings -- that's the flrst part -- or signlflcantly lmpalr the value thereof. The two lssues that I was concerned about was helght, and it's effect on development on Mr. Markopoulos' property, and the zero north slde yard. We studied -- in looklng at height, there's a great many artlcles that have been wrltten Scully (phonetlc) Publications regarding height and developlng denslty. Especlally true for hotels, gulf-front hotels on the beach. They are sold In an (lnaudible) In the basls. The more rooms you can get with the market demand, the more valuable the property. Before development occurs out there, everybody has ~he right to essentially bUlld up ~o LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 119 1 150 feet. 2 If the bUlldlng exceeds 150 feet, all of the 3 property owners wlthln 500 feet, are their rlghts 4 taken away from them? The bUlldlng envelope, WhlCh 5 the Beach-By-Design project does mentlon as a deslgn 6 criterla, lS therefore reduced. The number of rooms 7 are reduced. The value of the property is lmpaired. 8 It's a pretty much quid-pro-quo relationshlp. 9 The more rooms that can be developed, the more 10 valuable property at the end lS, lS also true. 11 Mr. Markopoulos' property lS otherwlse belng taken 12 away and transferred to the adjolning property owner 13 In effect. 14 The second lssue regarding the first part of 15 the standard lS the zero side yard variance. It's an 16 84-foot-hlgh sheer concrete block wall. The whole 17 purpose of the slde yard is a community rlght, and 18 \ the rlght actually will beneflt the people closest 19 too it. Alr, light, and Vlew. Very common In mld 20 ties, residentlal developments, subdivlslons wlll 21 offset lots so that the people across the street 22 would have to look between yards to get those Vlews. 23 You heard tOday Mr. NlChols made a very good 24 statement at least talklng about towers. Llgh~ and 25 vlew were very important In the spacing with ~owers. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 120 1 2 3 The reductlon In the slde yard from ten to zero lS reductlon In alr, llght, and Vlew. It is not only for my -- Mr. Markopoulos' property, but for all the adjolning property owners. Rest have denled that provlsion of alr, light, and Vlew. We've studied the room rates, hotel room rates on the gulf beaches. Those with Gulfvlew. Those wlth alr, llght, and Vlew. Those with dlmlnlshed alr, llght, and Vlew. Those with no alr, light, and 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 view. They have a significantly dlfferent room rate. They have a slgnlflcantly lower occupancy rate when you have lower alr, llght, and view. The direct translation of that is slgnlficant lmpairment to dlscourage development or approprlate development on this property. The second part of the test is significantly lmpalred value. Just llke what we talked about prevlously. The loss In the Dumber of rooms1that can be developed on a property, which is the appropria~e development, or the loss In alr, llght, and view WhlCh decreases the quality of the slte lS also an lmpairment -- slgniflcant lmpalrment of value. The second portlon of the standard lS In the lnflll development standard. Interestlngly, thlS LAWiERS' CHOICE, INC. 121 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 standard lS a very mlld standard. The development of a parcel that lS proposed for development as a Comprehenslve Inflll Redevelopment Project will not reduce the market value of abuttlng propertles. All I ask you to do lS reduce the value. Let me make one clear distlnctlon. I don't thlnk anybody would say bUlldlng a 65-mllllon-dollar resort would not enhance the values on Clearwater Beach. However, the bUlldlng of a 65-mllllon-dollar resort on Clearwater Beach wlth appropriate height and slde yard setbacks would increase value even more than without it. That lS the key dlstlnctlon here and is not addressed. Agaln, we studled -- based on the studles that I performed, the analysls of sales, land sales, accrued sales, rental rates, occupancy rates of properties Mr. Markopoulos wlll suffer wlth the adJolnlng property owners wlll suffer a loss of market value of the adJolnlng property. The excluslon or transfer of rlghts lS a transfer of value away from the adJolning propertles given the hotel's size and loss of air, llght, and view. The o~her aspect of that I was asked to look at is the appllcant -- appllcatlon that was submltted. It must have clear and -- clear and LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 122 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 lS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 convlnclng criterla ~o prove their pOlnt. It lS the appllcant's burden not that of the adjoinlng property owner. I've reviewed the response to questlon number two in the lnfill for redevelopment projects, and I agree wholeheartedly wlth the flrst part of their 'statement. The value of property depends upon hlghest and best use. And (lnaudible) market factors upon demand. Absolutely. Glven the reduction of air, light, and Vlew of a 10-foot-yard setback and the height reduction that wlll occur on the adjolnlng property, the hlghest and best use of the adJolnlng propertles is dlIDlnlshed. Accommodations wlll have to be made to accommodate for that loss that has been taken away from adjolnlng property owners. The remalnder of the response that I have read here lS, frankly, not germane to answerlng the question if there has been a loss of value. Granted thelr argument is a 65-milllon-dollar hotel wlll incur -- lmprove the values. I don't think anybody could dlsagree wlth that. However, one that had the appropriate side yards wlth appropriate helght, bulk and scale, would lncrease everyone's values even more. That lS the LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 123 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lssue. I have no further questlons. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Thank you. Does that conclude your presentatlon? MR. SCHIFF: That concludes our experts. I have just a brlef statement to make. At this point I would just llke you to take a look at a few exhibltS. We have slides of -- I'm sorry -- graphlcs one through six which I thlnk demonstrate our client's property and the proposed property. The flrst slide lS showlng you the proposed property. Our client's property lS outllned In green. If we can go to the next sllde. Once, agaln, a closer look at the appllcant's property separated by Third Street and our client's property. The next slide. This is looking\ from the other side. And I thlnk what's been shown by some of our experts, this sllde lS looklng to the west. If you picture what eXlsts today and plcture and consider the lssue of Vlew, llght In the publlc's Vlew, you're gOlng to see a dramatlc change where the two parcels are hlghllghted in the yellow and Thlrd street lS, as proposed by the appllcant, is ellminated. Our cllent's property, agaln, lS to the rlght on thlS picture. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 124 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 The next sllde. ThlS is just one more view of the appllcant's property as well as our clien~'s property. It also shows the property further to the south of our client's property. I think that the lmportance of thlS sllde lS It demonstrates that there's certalnly -- there's more than two lots proposed by the appllcant where Beach By Deslgn can be lmplemen~ed. And, in fact, Beach By Design recognlzes that as a much larger area. So I submlt to you, there's nothing unlque about taklng two lots and eliminating a -- an existlng publlc street to -- wlth regard to thelr project. I thlnk our experts have demonstrated to you that the criteria -- and there's two sets of crlterla that are before you tOday. Number ten crlterla under the lnflll -- lnflll flexibllity standards that must be met, and there are also SlX crlterla under the general crlteria of the code whlch must be met. This is not a sUbJectlve cholce. All thls crlterla must be met. Your code states -- the code also states that the appllcant has the burden of establishlng by substantlal competent eVldence that all these criterla have been met. So If you see one crlterla not being met, ~hey 25 LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 125 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 haven't met thelr burden, and you have no cholce but to deny this appllcatlon. I thlnk what we have gOlng on here lS what I would term a tower play. ThlS project is simply too intense. There's nothing wrong with towers. There's nothlng wrong with towers as recognlzed in Beach By Deslgn. What's happenlng here lS you have too many towers on too small a site ellmlnatlng a street. And, forgive me, but It'S simply crammlng in too blg a project on too small a site. The crlteria, as we submit, have not been met by the appllcant, and we thlnk that our testlffiony makes It a very bad crlterla and cannot be met in thlS particular proJect. I would also, for the record, would like to submlt that you had, what I would consider, a slmllar request whlch concerned the Rockway (phonetic) house -- and I'll submlt the mlnutes to that proceedlng to you -- where another property owner trled to ellmlnate slte setbacks came before thlS board. And we found that there were not -- at least thls board dld not vote to approve that request resultlng In a denlal of tha~ request based upon It was too intense. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 126 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 So I submlt that for the record, and I belleve that stands as a precedent In the context of this application. The reverse slde of that may be more lmportant for the -- I think they put the thank-you Clearwater sign up at the eDd of their presentation tha~ the appllcants did. Well, plcture that if you grant thls, you must treat -- under the Unlted States Constitutlon and the Florlda Constitutlon slmilar -- simllar property owners must be treated in a similar fashlon. If you're gOlng to tell someone that we wlll give you a road, we wlll glve you 55 percent more space than you have to bUlld on, and we are going to allow you to build sldellne to sidellne, then the next person that comes in you're going to have to treat the same way. Otherwlse, you'll be vlolatlng their rights. We submlt to you that's not a good precedent to set In thls context. And I would also submlt to you that thls proJect -- whlle, agaln, we don't object to the use -- lS slmply too lntense. With that, I would Just llke to note for the record, we ask that you take Judlclal notlce of the Clty of Clearwater Comprehenslve Plan, the county-wlde plan, the community development code, the code of ordlnances In 23 24 25 LAwYERS' CHOICE, INC. 127 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Beach-By-Design standards. We also have submltted a number of ExhlbltS lnto the record. I have a notebook of the exhibits that were presented to you on the screen whlch we will also submlt that will, I hope, assist you In your determination. With that, I'm avallable to answer any questions, and -- lS that is all the exhlbits? And we appreclate your time very much. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Thank you, Mr. Schlff. Does the Board have any questlons of elther Mr. Schlff or Ms. Hammer or -- MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Schiff, I have a questlon for you. MR. SCHIFF: Yes. MR. JOHNSON: We've had eleven publlC hearings on thls thing, and this is not the flrst tlme I've heard Mr. Kimpton's presentatlon. Where have you been? I mean thls lS -- I mean -- let me finish. I've heard hlS presentatlon four times In a public hearlng. I have never once heard your cllent say, hey, it's too lntense. I don't like that. It's too hlgh. What about me? All of the sudden, at last second here, here you are. I mean I think the Clty has gone for months LAWYZRS' CHOICE, INC. 128 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 wlth them worklng on this project. And all of the sudden, here you are a~ last second saYlng hey, they're getting -- I'm not -- I'm not going as fast as they are. I want mlne. Don't give them there's. MR. SCHIFF: Well, we're here. Flrst of all, the aDswer -- MR. JOHNSON: Hasn't there been eleven public hearlngs? Hasn't your client -- MR. SCHIFF: No, sir, there hasn't. MR. JOHNSON: presented his case? MR. SCHIFF: ThlS lS the first publlc hearing. MR. JOHNSON: Well, I've been to 'em, Beach By 23 Deslgn. MR. SCHIFF: Let me tell you where we are In the process. You are at your first publlc hearlng on thlS request. You have the crlterla which are to be considered. ThlS the flrst publlc hearlng. There may have been other hearings In the Clty on Beach By Deslgn. There may be hearlngs In the future of the Clty. But the answer to your questlon lS no, there have not been eleven publlC hearlngs on thlS request. ThlS lS the inltial public hearlng. ThlS board -- and the code lS set up pretty clearly. This board makes some recommendatlons and makes some declslons. The flrs~ tlme we've been 24 25 LNNYERS' CHOICE, INC. ~ 129 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 asked to make a declslon on ~hls proJect lS today. MR. JOHNSON: True. MR. SCHIFF: ~~d that is where we are today. Now, our client has met with the Clty. But our position is, is those meetlngs are irrelevant In the context of what you are hearing today. Now I respect the fact that proJects like this get a lot of press. They have a lot of meetlngs of Clty commlssions or local governments. But where you are today in the process is the actual publlC hearlng, the actual quaslJudlclal hearing where my cllent has every right to object or to support dependlng upon whether or not they like the proJect. But thls is the first hearlng. I appreclate your comment. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Any other questlons? I do have one question for Mr. McElveen. MR. McELVEEN: Yes, Slr. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: In your opinlon, your testlmony stated that because of the scale and Slze of the (lnaudlble) development would have a negatlve impact on some abutting propertles. At what pOlnt and what klnd of developmen~ would result in a posltlve fashlon on the property? What would have to be done to thls (lnaudlble)? LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. McELVEEN: Maybe my focus is a llttle bit more narrow. From a legal standpolnt, If they lmplied that they dldn't have the slde the 10-foot slde yard variance and reduced the height of thls proJect, there wouldn't be an issue. Then hls property would be lmpacted less, let's put It that way, a standard where It currently lS proposed. I ~hlnk that's the most approprlate answer. It would be less of an lmpact. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Is the Don Cesar out of character in St. Pete Beach? Does that have a negatlve impact on the (inaudible) property? MR. McELVEEN: No. It -- no. No. No. No. We're not saYlng it's a negatlve impact. It lS a negatlve impact If the Don was to side yard to side yard which It is not and rlght to -- up to the adJolnlng adJacent property llne, then it would have a negative impact on the abutting property owners. However, by moving It In and protectlng the alr, llght, and Vlew, it has a much lower lmpact. And It's that marglnal dlfference lS what we're concerned about. It's that marglnal lmpact on value. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: At thlS tlme does staff wlsh to cross-examlne? MR. STONE: I have a couple of questlons of LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 131 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ms. Hammer. 11 MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Before we do that (lnaudlble) . MS. PETERSON: Actually, qUlte similar to what you Just asked. Consldering the towers, let's assume for arguendo that we allow thlS proJect to go ahead with the tower, and then Markopoulos came in and wanted a tower spaced 100 feet apart, people to the south of 500 feet wouldn't have a rlght. So are you saYlng Markopoulos would, therefore, have conslderatlon for those people to not put a tower that hlgh, or lS that what he should do? MS. HAMMER: There is opportunity on his property, because his property is three and-a-half acres, to create some distance If there were only one tower on the subject property because the standard is 500 feet. So there lS opportunlty to create some dlstance. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. PETERSON: (Inaudlble). At some point there's going to be someone who cannot put a tower up? MS. P~ER: Rlght. MS. PETERSON: It's gOlng ~o happen. MS. HAMMER: If there's a lot of small propertles In a row, that's correct. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. ~ 132 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ( 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 v 24 25 MS. PETERSON: Exactly. It's gOlng to happen? MS. HAMMER: That's correct. MS. PETERSON: Thank you. MR. McELVEEN: Well, on -- at tha~ same issue, there's market demand. I mean Beach By Design claims to some extent says there should be a certaln fixed number of towers. So not every property owner has the rlght to the first four or SlX, I belleve, have a rlght to have a tower up so -- WhlCh lS a llmltatlon on the market WhlCh it would probably depend. It's not gOlng to demand a market for ten towers out there. The lnadequately spacing them lS flne. So the flfth (lnaudlble) of market demand only for towers. The flfth person that's under that lmpact, because there's going to be a demand for that rlght anyway. You've got to have demand for It to have value. MS. PETERSON: Now we're gettlng back to wha~ Mr. Johnson said. Me first. Whoever gets there first get the prlce. MR. McELVEEN: Well, It'S not really flrst. It's the first four people (inaudlble). MR. SCHIFF: Agaln, Just to sum up, I thought I and that's a very good questlon. Is it a ques~lon of who gets there first, or lS It a question LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 133 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of deslgn? And the whole point of Beach By Deslgn was not to treat projects on an indlvldual basls. It lS to treat projects on an overall basls by district. And one of the problems with this project is It dldn't consider -- that's the whole pOlnt of Ms. Hammer's testimony -- It didn't consider the compatlblllty, perhaps, wlth the eXlstlng, what's out there today. Or, maybe, more lmportantly, It didn't conslder the compatlblllty wlth what should be out there tomorrow. And that's -- MS. PETERSON: Well, agaln, you were quizzing Mr. Stone so harshly about posslbly conslderlng your property to the north. So you've got a dichotomy gOlng here. I mean or (lnaudible). MR. SCHIFF: We don't have a dlchotomy gOlng, but -- and I apologize if it was harsh. It was not intended to be harsh. MS. PETERSON: Well, I understand. I Just meant (lnaudible). MR. SCHIFF: But the point there -- the pOlnt there lS Just a separate pOlnt. What would be unfalr to my client is to assume any particular proJect. I think It'S reasonable that you should assume that my cllent should have an opportunlty to avail itself of Beach-By-Design standards. But Just LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 134 1 because someone lS first, you should not hurt my cllent. That's why we're here today. Our cllent lS gettlng hurt by ~hls partlcular design, and It'S our position, the reason for that is, lS that this particular deslgn is too lntense. It they scaled it down or moved It off our client's sldeline or redeslgned it, which we are, of course, are not here to design the proJect, then they could reduce those adverse impacts. But what's happenlng today is you are not implementing Beach By Design. You are focusing on a single proJect wlthout considering what is gOlng to occur around It. That's why we thlnk It'S defectlve or deficlent In the application. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Mr. Stone? MR. STONE: Ms. Hammer, it's my unders~andlng . your offlce lS in Tampa, correct? MS. HAMMER: That's correct. MR. STONE: And you all have the opportunlty to do work on both sldes of the bay, I assume, for both Pinellas and Hillsborough County in the bay area? MS. HAMMER: That's correct. MR. STONE: How would you characterlze the general economlC climate in this region in the pas~ decade? 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1~ 20 21 22 23 24 25 LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 135 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 lS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. HAMMER: By definltlon of reglon, you're speaklng now of the Tampa Bay area? MR. STONE: Plnellas, Hlllsborough. MR. HAMMER: I thlnk it's been very good. MR. STONE: Are you famlliar with the Clearwater Beach area between -- especially the commercial area (lnaudible) and Clearwater Pass? MR. HAMMER: In general, yes. MR. STONE: Are you familiar wlth general property values in the case of redevelopment aDd renovatlon on Clearwater Beach? MS. HAMMER: No, that's not my area of expertise. I'm not an appralser. MR. STONE: Well, you had the opportunity to author or admlnister a redevelopment plan or speclal aerial plan? MS. HAMMER: No, I don't belleve so. MR. STONE: One of the comments I have made In the (lnaudible) or so publlc hearlngs that I would llke for you to address yes or no in terms of your perspective, lS I had sald that In the decade of '90 when we've had the hottest (lnaudlble) in the hlstory of thls country and lowest interest rates Slnce World War II, nothlng of substance has occurred on Clearwater Beach. Would you agree wlth that? LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 136 4 MS. HAMMER: I would agree that there's been no new maJor developments out there. That's correct. MR. STONE: Are you famlllar with the plannlng flrm of Anna Morton? 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. P~MER: Certalnly. MR. STONE: Are you famlllar that she did a (lnaudible) conceptlon report for Clearwater Beach? MS. HAMMER: I learned that today earller in the scene. MR. STONE: Are you famlllar with the findings of that report? MS. HAMMER: No, I'm not. MR. STONE: Would it surprlse you to know that the concluslon of that report was that Clearwater Beach in the area that I was talking about met the state criteria for the definltlon of (lnaudlble). MS. HAMMER: I've worked on proJects that have met that crlteria before, and I'm not questloning that that lS a true sltuation. MR. STONE: ThlS case -- havlng practlced In thlS area and havlng extenslve experlence that I know that you have, when you have that klnd of a Clrcums~ance, you have that kind of flndlng, you have that kind of economlC cllmate, what frequently is the Solutlon to that klnd of lack of (lnaudlble)? LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 137 MS. HAMMER: A new proJect. Now let me Just say again for the record, we are not opposed to the project per se, the concept of a new hotel. All we are suggesting lS that we think that the project as designed lS not appropriate for thlS location. MR. STONE: I understand. Would a response to that klnd of condltion be some type of plan that, hopefully, would have the effect of changing those condltions? Like a redevelopment plan? MS. HAMMER: Yes and no. MR. STONE: If you have an area that has had a flndlng of belng (inaudlble) you have an area that's an economlC condltlon of no human lnvestment in thlS type of economic cllmate MS. HAMMER: Uh-huh. MR. STONE: -- the normal planning response to that, I suggest to you, would be some type of special aerlal plan or speclal technlque to change that condition. MS. HAMMER: That lS true. MR. STONE: Do you agree with that? MS. HAMMER: Yes. MR. STONE: So you're famlllar that we have Charlle (lnaudlble) speclal aerlal plan? MS. HAMMER: Correct. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 138 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. STONE: And you had an opportunlty to reVlew the plan? MS. HAMMER: I have. MR. STONE: And you understand that the plan breaks the beach down lnto geographic areas? MS. HAMMER: Yes. MR. STONE: Are you famillar wlth how he treats the varlOUS scale and character of development In each one of the geographlc areas? MS. HAMMER: 'Yes. MR. STONE: And how would you characterlze if he has defined the scale of development In the Gulfvlew corridor as opposed to say the marlna residentlal dlstrict? MS. HAMMER: Well, certainly, thlS lS an area that lS being proposed for more lntenslve scale development. But he also states that it's supposed to be In scale and character wlth the surroundlng communlty and, most lmportantly, preserve the llght, alr, and Vlew. MR. STONE: He has, In thls partlcular dlstrlct, deflned some lncentives as are normally found In thls type of plannlng document, redevelopment plan to lncent -- or move the climate or change the cllmate as opposed to the publlC sector LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 139 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and prlvate sector partlcularly In the case of thls (inaudible) report. Have you had the opportunlty to review the concept of the unlt (inaudlble)? MS. HAMMER: Yes. MR. STONE: So you're famlllar wlth the crlteria that he has lald out to engage In that optlon? MS. HAMMER: I belleve there's ten crlterla. MR. STONE: Okay. So looking at it from a specific site perspectlve, do you know what the mlnlmum slte Slze can be as prescribed for the use of pool that is (lnaudible)? MS. HAMMER: It was either -- I don't remember It -- an acre, an acre and-a-half. Maybe It'S an acre and-a-half. I don't have that in front of me. MR. STONE: It says the site must have a minlmum land area of at least one acre. MS. HAMMER: Okay. MR. STONE: And thls partlcular slte lncluding the right-of-way has a slte size of what? MS. HAMMER: Includlng the right-of-way? MR. STONE: Yes. MS. HAMMER: 1.63. MR. STONE: So you would agree that it exceeds the mlnlmum Slze that he's prescrlbed (lnaudlble)? LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 140 1 MS. H.AlVIMER: Correc~. 2 MR. STONE: \ In terms of (inaudlble), ar~ you 8 famlllar wlth the criterla that he's established for the use of the new pool? MS. HAMMER: Yes. MR. STONE: And that lS? MS. HAMMER: I don't remember where It lS In the document. 3 4 5 6 7 9 MR. STONE: Let me read one of the crlterla to 10 you. 11 MS. P~MER: Could you read from the page 12 MR. STONE: Paraphrase distrlct itself -- 18 (Many voices are speaking at one time. ) MS. HAMMER: I have the document with me. MR. STONE: It's on page 45. MS. H.AlVIf'IER: Okay. Great. MR. STONE: Lower - - I mean the left-hand column on your bottom. 13 14 15 16 17 19 MS. HAMMER: Okay. 20 MR. STONE: WhlCh says that the use of thls 21 pool In this par~lcular area as contrasted between 22 the other areas, I'll paraphrase, allows structures 23 up to 100 to 150 feet. 24 MS. H.AlVIMER: Correct. 25 MR. STONE: It establlshes in effec~ that ~he LAWfERS' CHOICE, INC. 141 1 2 3 mlnlmal amount of Slze of one acre, and allowance of 4 (inaudlble) 150 feet? MS. HAMMER: Correct. I mean obviously, It'S permlssible or we wouldn't be here today. MR. STONE: Have you had an opportunity to look at the progress plans? MS. HAMMER: Yes. MR. STONE: And you're famlllar wlth the pollcles In the plan that address the circumstances that we have and in a bUllt-out community llke thlS that create (lnaudible) and policles for areas that are considered (lnaudible) communlty development? MS. HAMMER: Correct. MR. STONE: Would you mlDd readlng for me Gulfvlew of Objective 2.1 In the pollcy and 2.1.1? MS. HAMMER: The goals and policy? UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: Just three. MS. HAMMER: Oh, the three? MR. STONE: Yes, Just those three. MS. HAMMER: All right. The flrst one that Mr. Stone lS asklng me to read lS a goal statlng the Clty of Clearwater shall utilize lnnovatlve and flexlble planning and englneerlng practlces and urban deslgn standards in order to project hlstorlc resources, ensure nelghborhood preservatlon, 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 142 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 redevelop lighted areas, and encourage lnflll development. And under that we have Objective 2.1. The redevelopment of llghted areas shall be a high priority and promoted through the implementatlon of redevelopment plans and proJects and contlnue an emphasls on property malntenance standards. And then under that, we have policy 2.1.1. Renewal of the beach tourist dlstrlct shall be encouraged through the use of design gUldelines, lnnovated shared parklng Solutlons, possible land acqulsltlon, transportatlon lmprovements, and establlshment of a community redevelopment area or areas. MR. STONE: Would you agree that the normal context of the appllcation of the speclflc development regulations that had to stack up through zonlng code, to a speclal area plan, to a comprehensive plan normally result In a set of regulatlons that are, in a sense, customized. They're not the kinds of regulatlons that you would normally apply to a healthy enVlronment. Otherwlse, you wouldn't need to do that? MS. HAMMER: Correct. MR. STONE: That's all I have. LAwIERS' CHOICE, INC. 143 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. HAMMER: Just In response to all of thlS, I don't see where any of these policies or goals are lD confllct wlth anything that I've sald. The comprehenslve plan is to be looked at as a total document. So you have to look up all of the pollcles in the concert when you review any particular proposal. And I think what we fOUDd thlS proJect to be lnconsistent wlth were the policy is deallng wlth compatlbillty with surrounding propertles. Thank you. MR. SCHIFF: I won't ask for any time to -- MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Thank you. MR. SCHIFF: wlth respect to Ms. Hammer. I thlnk she spoke fine. But I would llke to note for the record, we previously noted that there is no community redevelopment distrlct that exists today on Clearwater Beach. So I would obJect to the relevancy of those, Just for the record, since you need a -- you know, whlle it's a worthy goal, it may be somethlng that eventually comes to pass. As we Slt here today, it does not exist. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Thank you. At thls tlme does the appllcant wlsh to cross-examine? Then we're gOlng to open thls to the publlC as It lS a publlc LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 144 1 2 hearlng. MR. GEHRING: Just a few questlons. I would 3 like to kDOW If Ethel Hammer could come back up for a 4 moment. 5 CROSS-EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. GEHRING: 7 Q Ethel, as a practlcing planner, have you 8 prepared any plans under the city's new code structure as 9 adopted most recently In the last two years? 10 11 12 13 A Q A Q For the City of Clearwater speclflcally? (Nods head.) No. Have you prepared any plans or gUlde In the 14 development done under Beach By Deslgn? 15 16 A Q No, I have not. Could you clarify, and it's found on -- lS 17 there a balance? You're addresslng speclfically mass and IS scale. There lS a Joint set of beneflciarles occurrlng 19 here. 20 Do you belleve that a 250-room hotel, which lS 21 a goal of the Clty to achleve wlth a quallty flag and a 22 publlc parklng (inaudible) available to the public are 23 both public (inaudlble)? 24 A Agaln, I'll state for the record that we have 25 no problem wlth the concept of the hotel. We have no LAwfERS' CHOICE, INC. 145 1 problem wlth the concept of the parking garage. We know 2 It'S needed. Our concern lS wlth the specifics of the 3 deslgn. 4 Q Could you expound on -- is there -- I don't 5 know how to practlcally ask this. 6 You showed in your graphic analysis a 7 comparlson. I presented in my graphic analysls my 8 representation of what your sllent has proposed publlcly 9 In the publlC record for his proJect, not necessarlly 10 offlclally subml~ted as a proJect. And that was 11 considered to be lnapproprlate and objected to. And you 12 showed a hypothetlcal condltion of puttlng two of our 13 buildings slde by side. 14 Can you expand on why that lS an lnapproprlate 15 representatlon? 16 A I only dld that -- aDd I said thls was not 17 meant to suggest that anybody could bUlld two buildings 18 slde by slde that were ldentlcal. It was just an attempt 19 to show the -- just a posltlon of two proJects of the same 20 scale, bulk, and lntenslty lmmedlately adJacent to each 21 other wlth both proJects havlng zero setback. 22 Q You also oplne to the open space elements. Do 23 you belleve that the removal of 317 cars of parklng and 24 ~he realignment of Gulfview Boulevard and the creatlon of 25 a landscape amenlty on the property frontage, WhlCh will LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 146 1 occur as part of thls proJect, and under the development 2 agreement the proJect, lS a qualltatlve lmprovement to 3 condltions of Ilght, alr, and Vlew? 4 A That lS off your property boundary. And the 5 criteria In the code don't speak to off-slte improvements. 6 The code speaks to what lS wlthln the boundaries of the 7 proJect and can be evaluated. 8 Q If thls development agreement encumbers us to 9 dellver that amenlty creatlng an expanded slte boundary 10 really over the entlre beach front removlng an 11 auto-intensive zone and maklng it a pedestrlan frlendly 12 zone, while it may not be on our controlled properties, lS 13 part of the, quote, the project. 14 15 16 17 18 19 MR. SCHIFF: I'm going to object to that. That's not a question. That lS argument on behalf of counselor whatever -- MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Excuse me one mlnute. MR. SCHIFF: -- It'S (lnaudlble). MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Mr. Gehring, why don't you 20 rephrase it. 21 BY MR. GEHRING: 22 Q Is there a balancing of benefit between the 23 character of the design of the proJect on it's property 24 and the associated publlc amenities provlded in Beach By 25 Deslgn? LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 147 1 A I thlnk that the intent of thlngs llke open 2 space and lmpervlous serVlce ratlos are meant to be within 3 a proJect. And what the developer agrees to do off slte 4 lS, in essence, some klnd of mitigation for his project 5 and doesn't speak to the lntensity of design on his own 6 slte. 7 What Mr. Gehrlng lS speaklng to is, of course, 8 mltigatlon for hls proJect that is being done out In the 9 publlc right-of-way. And I don't thlnk that goes to the 10 heart of providing open space within a glven project. 11 Q Are you famlliar wlth the DRI process and 12 threshold for a motel? 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 MR. SCHIFF: I'm gOlng to obJect on relevancy, but he can go forward with this. But It's totally not relevant to this project unless he intends to put on witnesses that his project is a DRI. Otherwlse, I'm going to continue the exam retentlon. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Mr. Gehrlng, why don't you go ahead and ask the question -- MR. GEHRING: Ask the questlon. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: And I wlll determlne from -- 22 BY MR. GEHRING: 23 Q The scale of -- I'm transferrlng the record to 24 scale of proJect to be threshold for DRI. 25 A Yes, I'm famlllar wlth that. Again, qUlte a LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 148 1 few years. 2 3 4 Q A That number is? 350 rooms. 350 rooms. Are you aware that both proposals Q 5 that have been promulgated publlcly by your client exceed 6 the DRI threshold? 7 A I don't see the relevance of that. My client's 8 property is three and-a-half acres. It is more than tWlce 9 as large as this property. 10 So If he's proposiDg more than 350, you're 11 proposlng 250 on something that is less than half the 12 size. 13 Q Correct. For the record then, are -- If that 14 were to occur In a prlvate property of -- at three 15 and-a-half acres or 51& acres or (inaudlble) for property 16 at three and-a-half acres at 600, it would be relatively 17 on a hlgh end 171 unlts per acre versus 142 on the low IS end. 19 If our project next door is 156 -- 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SCHIFF: Again, I have to obJect. ThlS is testimony. We're in a cross-examlnation stage. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Mr. Schiff, let me recognlze -- Mr. SChlff MR. SCHIFF: Can I Just have a standlng obJection? And I won't keep get~ing back up. But LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 - 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 149 that is testimony of the advoca~e for the appllcant, and that's not what cross-examinatlon lS. If he has questlons for my wltnesses, have at It, but that's not questlons MR. GEHRING: It's to the point, Mr. Chairman. If you wish to come up and argue compatlbllity and you put projects and plans lnto publlc record that have certain levels of density and lntensity, I'm trYlng to declare the boundarles of lncompatlbility that Ms. Hammer's opining to when between one forty-two and one seventy-one, our density at one flftY-SlX would be on 1. -- 1.6 acres is certainly In the range of what they have proposed. So I'm trying to determine where we are lncompatible. MS. HAMMER: We have proposed nothlng in the official records. And what my cllent eventually ends up comlng forward with as an official appllcatlon lS yet to be determlned. MR. GEHRING: That's the pOlnt of clarlflcatlon. I'm trying to deflne what lS lntenslty glven what I've experienced in numerous publlc hearings that I've watched. We have all been co-applicants in front of thls commlssion. We just happened to have filed an appllcatlon. End of questlonlng. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 10 150 1 The -- I'd llke to ask the economist one 2 questlons, please. 3 MR. McELVEEN: Just as a clarificatlon, I'm not 4 economlst. I'm a real estate appraiser. 5 CROSS-EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. GEHRING: 7 Q Real estate appralser. Flne. Are you educated 8 In the dlsclpllnes of planning? 9 A NO, I am not. I (lnaudlble). Q Are you educated In any latest control 11 mechanlsms, condltlons of setback, and the character of 12 development? 13 A I am as far as it relates to my profession as a 14 real estate appralser, that a proper pollce tower lS a 15 functlon of value, yes, I am. Other than that, I can rely 16 on Ms. Hammer for her expertise. 17 Q Then your abllity to be spoke to on the 18 condltlons of the side yard setback being reduced to zero 19 havlng an lmpact, can you quantify that relatlve impact to 20 the magnltude of the benefit of the 65-mllllon-dollar 21 proJect occurrlng so we have some balance between the 22 (lnaudible) and beneflt? 23 A My whole pOlnt lS that there is no questlon a 24 65-mllllon-dollar project lS a benefit. It would be even 25 more beneflt If they could bUlld thelr proposed proJect LAWYERS' CEOICE, INC. I 151 1 wlthln the gUldellnes of the Clearwater code. And we 2 wouldn't even be here if they were to do that. 3 Thelr inslstence on being able to build a zero 4 lot llne, taklng alr, light, and view away from my 5 cllent's property, market evidence is clear that a 6 reductlon of alr, llght, and Vlew is a reduction In value. 7 Q If we remove -- speaklng to your setback 8 theory. if we remove parklng spaces in auto-related zones 9 In front of the subJect area and enhance that lnto a fully 10 landscaped zone and distrlct wlth pedestrlan circulation 11 and facllltate the city's goals on that behalf, and we 12 provide a parking resource on our site, lS there a 13 correspondlng benefit to the surroundlng property value in 14 that prlce? 15 A Absolutely. I think it's a beneflt to the 16 community. Any development would be. Again, going back 17 to my orlglnal statement, if they can bUlld thelr project 18 retalning the 10-foot slte setback and helght limitatlon 19 of 100 feet, there would be a greater communlty benefit 20 and beneflt to the abutting property. That's the whole 21 lssue. 22 It's the marglnal loss In value. Your whole 23 argument of parklng and so (inaudlble) being of value lS 24 directly what you're talklng about here in reductlon of 25 the (lnaudlble) propertles 10-foot slte or air, llght, and LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 152 1 Vlew. 2 Q If I had the photographs, I would show you my 3 abutting -- our abuttlng 10-foot property findlng. But 4 there are tentative setbacks whlch are baslcally used for 5 storage and materials and dumpsters. 6 And if you can tell me why -- what economlC 7 beneflt as belng recelved from those other pieces of 8 property -- and I'm lecturlng here and I'm not 9 questlonlng. 10 The only other questlon lS, lS there a 11 corresponding value that you can place that's occurring 12 13 because of If this project were approved? You seem to you opine to the fact that It'S -- 14 of course, it would have posltive value. Do you know the 15 magnltude of value of (lnaudlble)? 16 A No. That's not part of the asslgnment because 17 that's not part of the crlterla In the Clty code for 18 lnfill redevelopment. I can glve an opinlon in dollar 19 amount, number. It's the criterla of the code lS a 20 relatlonship with decreased value. 21 22 23 24 25 MR. GEHRING: I only have one other questlon, but I don't know whether it's approprlate to the planner or -- the attorney can't answer questlons, correct? MR. SCHIFF: I'll be glad to. LAWYERS' CHO!CE, INC. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 153 MR. GEHRING: The subJect property in question, and I'll -- whoever can field this question, answer It. Anyone knows that thlS lS the abuttlng parcel. Do you know how long your -- your representlng party has owned that property? MR. McELVEEN: I can speak to only portions of it. They've accumulated thls property, some -- since the early 1980s. Some they bought just recently. There's been a varled mlX of assemblage, I belleve, of four dlfferent propertles. MR. SCHIFF: I can speak to that. You asked and I wlll. There has been assembling over tlme. My cllent owns all of the abuttlng propertles to the north. They do have expectations to develop those at some pOlnt under the Beach-By-Deslgn criterla, and we're here today because this proposed proJect does not -- adversely affects both it's eXlsting and proposed development (inaudlble). MR. GEHRING: Thank you. Gordon, do you know the closing date on the acqulsltion of that park (inaudlble)? MR. SCHIFF: I know It'S a matter of publlC record. We'll be glad to submlt those to you -- deeds to you. MR. GEHRING: Okay. Well, I would -- I would LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 154 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 state -- and you may correct me if I'm not approprlate -- that I belleve it closed In March of last year, 2000. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Mr. Gehring? MR. SCHIFF: There's no relevancy to this anyway. MR. GEHRING: Okay. Relevancy of It plus my questlon. I believe the property was closed on March. Our particular project has been -- our flrst development agreement draft was prepared in March of last year wlth the City COffiffilssion. There was publlc exposure, full advertlslng and artlcles on our proJect wlth scale, and our concept plan was in the public record before this party closed on that property. So I'm statlng for the record, he had substantlve knowledge prior to acqulsltlon of the scale of character and intenslty of our project. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: At this pOlnt, Mr. Schiff MR. SCHIFF: I would like to put another objectlon In the record. Thls was cross-examlnatlon. I move to strlke all the testimony of Mr. Gehring. Whatever the deed showed in the publlc record we'll be glad to give thlS board, and you can see when my cllent purchased property. But we would LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 155 1 object to relevancy and testimony by the advocate for 2 the appllcant. 3 MR: GILDERSLEEVE: Thank you. At this time 4 we're going to open the publlc hearing for those who 5 may be in favor of the appllcation. 6 If anyone has not been sworn in and you are 7 gOlng to testify, if you could rlse at this tlme and 8 be sworn in. Is anyone in that category? 9 Well, why don't you come ahead. Are you a 10 proponent or opponent? 11 MS. GARRIS: I've Just got a few questlon to 12 ask you. 13 MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Why don't we go ahead and 14 swear Ms. GarrlS in. 15 (Ms. Garris is duly sworn to tell the truth by 16 Ms. Moses.) 17 MR. GILDERSLEEVE: What I would like to do at 18 thlS Junctlon, though -- If you are in support of the 19 appllcation and wish to speak, please come forward. 20 And If you would state your name and address 21 for the record. 22 MR. BIGSTAFF: Bob Bigstaff (phonetlc). 1007 23 East Dume Road. I'm In favor of the reductlons. But 24 gOlng back a llt~le ways, thlS could actually -- r 25 actually be the best thlng that happened. Because LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 156 1 2 3 about flve years ago when Mlchael (lnaudlble) came in here, he was the one that star~ed the redevelopment plan. 4 Sald to myself, that makes senses. As we come lnto develop, now we can make it to go ahead and be -- get along wlth the properties as develop (lnaudlble). Initial development, you bullnose it down and you stack It up. The county made a mlstake. I don't see where I made the mistake. I have been talklng wlth hlm Just as a cltlzen, and talked wlth him on the property and asked questions. And I belleve that the one that is here today should go up Just the way it is, but there was one blg mlstake made. The county kept looklng at the plan. If he had taken me down by Pier 60 and coming south on Pier 60 up to the Adams Mark and theoretlcally made a presentation sketch of what he would llke to see, glve people an ldea of how he's thlnklng, he could have got with the Days-Inn people, he could have got wlth the other group. He could have got with the faxes as they came In, and the dlfferent ones that came In. He would have had somethlng tha~ he could have given someone like myself and other people In the Clty a vislon of wha~ LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 157 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 he'd llke to see. I can see that this strlp of property right now from Days Inn on up to and lncludlng thlS one here, there's no reason why that doesn't go together except that we have some dlfferent trends of thought when It comes to redevelopment or sometlmes plannlng. We overlook some of the things that are right in front of us. We overlook some of the indlviduals that don't have a background in real estate or in developments or anythlng like that. They may be englneers of a dlfferent type. We never would have got the opportunlty -- I would have never have got the opportunlty to speak to thlS board from the staff. I have arguments with them now and then, but I agree wlth where they're headed. And anytlme everybody agrees on something, something's going to go sour somewhere. There's got to be someone that -- but as long as you do It on a constructed basls. I can envislon what these gentleman here have put up, and I can see what Days Inn has got. p~d I, In my vislon, can see what It can look- llke and all of ~he thlngs that our consultants ~alk to us about. But as long as we look on a constructive way, and as long as we don't look dlscouraged, nothlng has been LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 158 i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 stopped here. I think what's happened is we've come to a meetlng -- I don't know how we reached it, but we've come to It. Now the group can get together and make that sectlon the beginning of our redevelopment that started five years ago. I'm In favor of it, but it's not as ltself a loner because it is too small for this piece of land that It'S on. But If there was another plece that went wlth it, all around It, there's no reason for anyone, to stop it short. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Thank you. MR. BIGSTAFF: Thank you. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Yes, ma'am. MS. GWALLA: Good afternoon. My name lS Hlllary Gwalla (phonetic). My husband and I live at 110 Vaughn Drive whlch lS withln the 500 feet of where this property lS going to go up. We are In favor of definitely of improvement on the 'beach. And I thlnk what's been presented to us for thlS Marriott is quality and certalnly wlll be a very strong lmprovement out there on the beach. I do have a couple of concerns that I would llke you all to address wlth thlS program. And ~hat lS, yes, we need a garage. We also need a bet~er way 25 LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 159 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to get people on and off and in and out of that 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 garage. I live the flrst house lnSlde. The -- there's days I can't get out of Devon. There's days I can't get lnto Devon. This afternoon in order to get to this meeting, I had to go to Sand Key and come through Belleair because there was a truck in the (inaudible). And, so, therefore, It was all backed up over there. Now, you know, that's funny, I know. But It lsn't funny when you're trying to go somewhere. All rlght. I also know that my husband and I raised seven children here. We would take them to the beach. And when the thunderbooms came, a lot of people trled to leave at the same tlme, and that hasn't changed and never wlll change. But I'm glad to hear that there's a group that wants to do a quallty hotel llke thls one lS. I'd llke to encourage you all In your place that there's got to be trafflc addressed as far as how's it going to get on and how's It gOing to get off. It's wonderful to bUlld a garage. It's wonderful to bUlld a hotel. That island can hold only holds so much, and there's tlme that I really belleve It's gOlng to slnk. But my husband was born LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 161 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Mr. Stone talks about Mr. Seaman like he, you know, created the unlverse. And that he has -- the fact that he has said here's the crlteria, but it's all right for us to ignore It. I mean they're Mr. Seaman's criterla, and he ought to be the one who says and everything else has got to follow. But that's beslde the point. The pOlnt I want to make with you is, thls lS a copy of the -- a page of the Charter, Clearwater Charter. And it says, no rlght-of-way or easement which terminates at or provldes access to the water's edge of a body of fresh or salt water maybe vacated for prlvate beneflt. Nothlng contalned In thls sectlon shall present an easement for utllity purposes, and It goes on. 24 Now, years ago, the Clearwater Beach hotel wanted to vacate the street between lts hotel and ltS annex. And they clalm, the attorney -- the Clty attorney, they sald -- all it said was, no right-of-way or easement WhlCh terminates at the body of water. And they said oh, well, it terminates at the beach. So It doesn't really terminate. So the people of Clearwater at ~he next opportunity put into the referendum thls addltlonal or easement whlch 25 terminates at a body of water. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 160 4 out there so I guess It's not gonna. But, anyway, I appreciate what y'all are dOlng, and I have to commend you after having to Slt through this meetlng today, commend you hlghly. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Thank you. MS. GWALLA: Thank you. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Is there anyone else wishing to speak In favor of the application? (No response.) MR. GILDERSLEEVE: There belng none, those In oppositlon (lnaudible). MS. GARRIS: I will come under that category. Would you pass that. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Ms. Garris, would you give us your name and address for the record? MS. GARRIS: Yes, sir. My name is Ann Garrls. I live at 38 AcaCla Street, God help me. Beyond the parking, beyond which I have (inaudlble). 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I have I have llstened from the very beglnnlng to the efforts to put together thls proJect. And I thlnk It'S good to have a nice new project on Clearwater Beach. I totally agree wlth the argument that it is way too hlgh and way to wlde, and there's thls llttle problem that I think you all need to consider. LAwfERS' CHOICE, INC. 162 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 I submit ~o you that both Flrst Street and Flfth Street or Third Street or whatever streets that they are wantlng to vacate for thls purpose, it is 21 agalnst the Charter. And I ask you to table thls matter until someone has found out from someone with due respect to our clty attorney -- I -- who lS hired by a Clty Commlsslon, I would llke for ~his group to take the responslblllty for tabllng thls matter until such tlme as you have a deflnltlve legal answer as to whether the people of Clearwater have a rlght to have thls access contlnued. And In case -- and this lS out of respect for the people. Because If thls Charter says you can't do It, then they need to go back to the drawing board. And the sooner they do it the better. I submlt to you, Slr, that at last Thursday's meetlng we were told by Mr. Stone that there were stlll documents to do wlth this slte plan that had not yet been presented. So as of today, this is the flrst real publlc hearlng about thlS proJect because nobody knew exactly what It was gOlng to be untll the report was In. So this buslness of eleven hearlngs on It, I'm sorry, they were ~alklng about somethlng other than what you are looklng at today. Thank you. LAWYERS' CEOICE, INC. 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 163 MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Thank you. Is there anyone else that wlshes to speak in oppositlon? MR. ROSSEN: My name is Edgar Kenneth Rossen. I don't know If I'm in Opposltlon or In favor of thls proJect, but I would llke to glve you some insight lnto the background of It. I'm the previous owner of the Spy Glass Motel and the Golden Beach Motel. I was also an owner of the (inaudible) Motel (lnaudible) whlch has been, lncldentally, redeveloped. It's now Red Roof Inn. MR. JOHNSON: And It looks very good. MR. ROSSEN: I thlnk so too. But let me mentlon first the (lnaudlble) development. I think Mr. Stone has indicated that It's not an important development. It's not a major development. But maybe It lsn't, but It'S a nlce development. That development sits on an acre and-a-half of land. The unlts allocated to the development when I owned It were 72 unlts. The Red Roof Inn that SltS there now lS 72 units. A request was made by the buyer of the property of all unlts, and he was told this could not be accommodated. Setbacks had to be honored, off-s~reet parklng had to be honored which he did. And he carried It off and he has a nlce looklng development. LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 24 25 164 Certalnly better than what was there for the last 25 years (lnaudible). Ten years ago I got a plan to redevelop (lnaudible) and was told it could not be done. Now we have a code and now we have a Beach By Design where these developments can be done. Mr. -- or the new development being proposed had an opportunity to purchase the Spy Glass and the Golden from me a llttle over a year ago. They had several people who are looklng at purchaslng the property including Mr. Markopoulos, and It lncluded two or three others who had come In to look at the redevelopment in Clearwater Beach. Other purchases who re-evaluated at that time, Mr. Markopoulos was the only one who could close rapidly on the property. At my age of seventy-two, I was anXlOUS to retlre and sell the property, put It for sale, but unable to be (inaudlble) until the present time. Now we have the opportunity for a complete redevelopment of Gulfvlew Boulevard from Pier 60 to Adams Mark. I don't see a plan for the whole area. I see a redevelopment laYlng out of the street. I see a boardwalk gOlng in, and I see an idea. But there's certaln other factors that enter lnto the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 165 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 private part of redevelopment. As I understand It, the Clty'S made avallable 600 unlts of denslty pool to be allocated to redevelopment projects. They've offered to vaca~e the streets and so forth. I'm In favor of Mr. -- of the new proJect going In. However, I agree wlth the -- wlth the statements that have been made here today. But for the size of the property, this lS entirely too maSSlve of a structure. It wlll eat up approximately 200 unlts wlth a density pool. You're going to have other requests comlng forth over ~he next years for density to redevelop other spots both along Gulfview and also around Clearwater Beach, and the unlts won't be there. It seems to me an ldea here that could be frultful to everyone would be that Mr. Seaman, Mr. Stone, Mr. Markopoulos, the new project you're consldering today, perhaps Legend's next door going the other way could all sit down and take a look at the whole area and come up wlth a mutually agreeable way of redeveloplng that stretch of property. Then you would have a real lmplementatlon of Clearwater Beach By Deslgn and be able to further encourage LAWlERS' CHOICE, INC. 166 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 other areas of the beach to be redeveloped. I hope I'm maklng sense. I'm not against the redevelopment of Clearwater Beach. I'm not agalnst thls p~oJect, but I do agree It lS too massive for the small area that it occuples. And that it's utlllzlng too many of the incentlves that the Clty'S gOlng to have to offer for redevelopment of the beach. Thank you. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Thank you, Slr. Is there anyone else wishlng to speak in Opposltlon? (No response.) MR. GILDERSLEEVE: There belng none, It's appropriate at thlS point ,In the hearing, If there's any opposlng (lnaudlble). MR. STONE: If I sald anythlng, I think I'd be tired. Just, you know, you all know where we have been as far as development of the plan. This, obviously, lS a component of what we hope to have seen over tlme, and it's happened very fast, and we obvlously hope It succeeds. In terms of It'S context regarding the current development regulatlons, they anticlpate (lnaudlble). They antlclpated zero lot line development partlcularly in thls corrldor along the beach. And In, for example, the Mandalay retall dlstrlct, the LAWYERS' CHOICS, INC. 167 1 notion of zero lot line development should be 2 expected. We expected It. 3 We expected It, you know, in effect If you 4 followed the development code before there was a 5 Beach By Design. So the issues of the design 6 component of It, we have reviewed. We feel like that 7 there lS a lot there. 8 We think it's done in a sensltlve manner. Llke 9 the archltectural, we feel llke it meets the deslgn 10 gUldellnes, and that will add value to the beach and 11 adds a lot of pUblic parklng that wlll come off the 12 dry sand. And in total, both conslstent wlth 13 development regulations Beach By Deslgn (inaudi~le). 14 MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Thank you. And any closing 15 remarks? You have three mlnutes. The appllcants can 16 have more. 17 MR GEHRING: Thank you for your patience. 18 You've done a marvelous Job. The area I thlnk, as 19 Ralph hlghlighted, does have a plighted position 20 - WhlCh we thlnk we're respondlng to aggresslvely work 21 closer wlth the city to come up wlth something that 22 even though the economy has not responded to 23 Clearwater Beach, we can do what we call the Ialr 24 deal plan. 25 And ~he fair deal is to come up with a balance LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 168 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 between developmen~ program and publlC beneflt In the guise of what the Clty could accommodate and create wlth the package they're puttlng together In Beach By Deslgn. The citizens request for the plan, Beach By Deslgn, we went to all those pUblic hearlngs. We sat through all those dlscussions. Our project was put on the table and used as a model In those discusslons. We have -- we thlnk we got a fairly good response from that. The Clty wanted a proJect to accommodate parking and a maJor flag. They were looking forward to building that deck and getting the Marrlott flag WhlCh wlll glve us, what you call, a world-class attractlon power here. And as to, ultlmately, what you've gone through, I wlll (inaudlble) from the standpoint that we have consistently been avallable to dlscuss and to reVlew and to have all these meetlngs, and there lS a -- there lS, quote, another agenda. I can't (lnaudible). I understand it. It Just lS. And It relates not the GN Sands (phone~ic) or the abuttlng (lnaudlble) sand as It relates to how a successful proposal in the northern parcel. They need to go do that. They need to do It on LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 169 1 2 3 thelr own. They need to go through the process. We can't make It happen. And we'd ask you to let us move forward, and we are ready to proceed. And we're worklng with the Clty on a patent to go through BCC with this, through the board of county commlSSloners. The city wants to dellver (inaudible) wlth the parklng, wlth a new brldge. We need to get that brldge -- we need to get going so we can be underway. We also have other substantlve lssues, control lines and other maJor tiny issues that are crltical. So we appreclate your attention and your patlence. Thank you very much. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Thank you. And prlor to closlng the hearlng, I just do want to say, this has been a -- thlS lS an lmportant lssue, a vltally lmportant lssue. Certalnly a very passlonate issue. And I Just want to thank everybody for thelr cooperatlveness In thlS process today. It's been long. I don't know that we've had a four-hour process In qUlte awhlle, but we do appreciate It. At thls tlme the publlc hearing lS closed, and we'll open It for the board for dlsCUSSlons. MS. MORAN: Are you able to offer an opinlon now on the Clearwa~er Charter? MS. AKIN: Yes. I understand the issue that 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 170 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Ms. GarrlS is ralslng. That lS really not an issue for ~hlS board. That wlll come before the commisslon when they make the declslon on vacating. I will state that I do not belleve that the (inaudible) violates the (lnaudlble). And, of course, there wlll be more discusslon about that. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Any other questions? Comments? (No response.) There being none, the Chalr will entertaln a motion, and we'll be voting on two items. The first being the publlc (inaudible). MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chalr, based upon the staff report and testlmony at this public hearlng, I move approval of the appllcant for the flexible redevelopment as shown -- as recommended by the city staff. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Is there a second? MS. PETERSON: Second. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Been moved and seconded. All those In favor? (The Board responds aye.) MR. GILDERSLEEVE: All those opposed? (No response.) MS. FIERCE: Can I ask a questlon? Are you LAwiERS' CEOICE, INC. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 171 lmpoSlng the condltlon as stated In the staff report? GILDERSLEEVE: Yes. MS. FIERCE: Okay. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: The second ltem before us is actually the development agreement and the Chair would like to make motlon. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chalrman, based upon the staff report and tes~imony at thlS publlC hearlng, I move approval of the development agreement as submltted. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Is there a second? MS. PETERSON: Second. MR. GILDERSLEEVE: All those in favor of the motlon? (The Board responds aye.) MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Opposed? (No response.) MR. GILDERSLEEVE: Motlon passed. Thank you very much. We'll take just about a two-mlnute recess so we can get our real Chair back up here. (The proceedlngs are concluded at 5:17 p.m.) 23 24 25 LAWYERS' CHOICE, INC. 172 1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 2 3 STATE OF FLORIDA 4 COUNTY OF PINELLAS 5 6 I, Donnell Baumbach, Registered Professional 7 Reporter, certlfy that I was authorlzed to and dld 8 stenographlcally report the Communlty Development Board 9 Meetlng, and that the transcript lS a true and complete 10 record of my stenographlc notes. 11 12 I further certify that I am not a relatlve, employee, 13 attorney, or counsel of any of the partles, nor am I a 14 relatlve or employee of any of the partles' attorney or 15 counsel connected wlth the actlon, nor am I flnanclally 16 lnterested In the action. 17 19 Dated this J&i:/. day of g~~/ ' 200l. ~~'-~)~/'~ DONNELL BAUMBACH, RPR 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 LAwI2RS' CHOICE, INC. .. t By: Engelhardt, Hammer & AssOclates; 813 286 2308; (~ Feb-28-0113:50; Page 2 ~;.!T,~,-~ ENGELHARDT, HAMMER & ASSOCIATES ..r_._ UrbGn rJenn.lfl ScrYlctJ Ethel D. Hammer Ethel D. Hammer has over twenty-four years experience in the field of planmng and public administration. Her experience as the Director of Planning for a pre-eminent land use law firm provides a practical as well as legal perspective to land use planning at Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. Ms. Hammer was the Principal Planner in charge of short-range planning for Hillsborough County and was responsible for a staff of nine County employees. She also was the ChIef Environmental Planner for Hillsborough County while employed at the Hillsborough County Planning Commission. Ms. Hammer has testIfied as an expert witness on land planning issues at the Circuit Court level in Florida. Ms. Hammer has superior writing and presentation skills and has made numerous public presentations before local and state government officials. Professional Experience President, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc., Tampa, Florida-- Responsible for administration and management of consulting firm specializing in land planning, eminent domain consultmg, zoning, permitting, appraisal support, and other land use-related services. Director of Planning, Taub & Williams, P.A., Tampa, Florida-Responsible for the coordination of all land use-related activities, Including zoning petitions, site plans and Development of Regional Impact Principal Planner and Senior Planner, HiIIsborough County Department Of Development Coordination, Tampa, Florida--Responsible for short- range planning in Hillsborough County. Supervised and coordinated the planning analyses of rezoning petitions, subdiviSion plats, site plans, and other land development proposals. Supervised a staff of nine professional and technical employees. Environmental Planner, HiIIsborough County Planning Commission, Tampa, Florida--Provlded environmental review of applications for subdivisions, site plans, and rezonIng petitions. Reviewed phosphate mining activities. Served as official Development of Regional Impact Coordinator for the Planning Commission, and conducted environmental reviews of all DRI applications. 54U Bay CenJer Dr/V(', SUlle 122, Tampa, Fl. 33609. Telephone 81J 282-J855, FQJ; 813 2862108 \t By: Engelhardt, Hammer & Assoc~ates; 813 286 2308; Feb.28-0113:50; Page 3/3 ''-': /D-.. ENGELHARDT, HAMMER & ASSOCJA 11::8 Llrbtlll Planning S~.\',~" Ethel D. Hammer (page 2) ReMesentative Project~ · Veterans Expressway, (Multiple Eminent Domain Planning Analyses), HiIIsborough County, Florida · Florida Department of Transportation, (MultIple Eminent Domain Planning Analyses), Hillsborough, Pasco. Polk and Pinellas Counties, Florida · Florida's Turnpike, (POlk Parkway Eminent Domain Planning Studies and Expert Witness Testimony), Polk County, Flonda · T. J. Maxx (Rezoning) Pasco County, Florida · CF Industries, (Rezonlng/DRl/Plan Amendment), HiIlsborough County, Florida · Luria's, Inc. (Rezoning), Tar1)pa, Flonda · Chick-fil-A, Inc. (Rezoning), Hillsborough County, Florida · Operation PAR, Inc., (Rezoning), Pinellas County, Florida · Publix Supermarkets, Inc., (Rezoning), Tampa, Florida. Professional CredIts Undergraduate Degree, BIology, Juniata College Graduate Degree, Environmental Planning, UnIversity of Pittsburgh Post-Graduate Studies, University of Pittsburgh Member, HiIIsborough County Development Regulations Task Force Member, Amencan Planning AssociatIon Member, League of Wo~en Voters 5444 Bay Cenw Dnv~, Sulu 122, Tampa, Fl. ]3609, T<!I~p}l(m~ I:JJJ 282-3855. Fax 819 286-2308 :, "1 QUALIFICATIONS OF MICHAEL A. McELVEEN EDUCATION B.A. Finance, UniversIty of South Florida, 1981 B.S. Insurance, RISk Management and Real Estate; Mmor - Economics, F10nda State UniversIty, 1982 AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION Real Estate Valuation and EvaluatIOn. Valuation emphasis on apartments, retail centers, regional shopping malls, office bUIldings, department stores and service stations. Evaluation emphasis is on access studies, linkages, partial mterest studIes, highest and best use studies, property taxation, condemnation, econormc base analysis, mobile home park unreasonable rent studies, proxinuty mfluence, contammatIon and supply and demand studies for office, retail, single-family and multiple-family housing. AFFILIATIONS Amencan Real Estate and Urban Economics Association American Real Estate SOCIety Member, Appraisal Institute, Certificate Number 7569 LIcensed Flonda Real Estate Broker State Certified General Real Estate AppraIser, License Number 0000360 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE - PARTIAL LISTING May 1982 - December 1985, ASSOCIate appraiser employed by Warren HunnIcutt Jr., Incorporated, St. Petersburg, Flonda. Work expenence encompassed the valuatIon of commercial real estate with emphaSIS in apartments, lodgmg faCIlItIes, golf courses and retaIl centers. EvaluatIOn aSSIgnments included MarketabilIty StudIes, Market Studies, HIghest and Best Use and Econormc Base AnalYSIS. December 1985 - June 1987, VIce - President of Warren Hunnicutt Jr., Incorporated. ResponsibilIties included project plannmg and staffmg, chent development, and strategIC p1anmng. June 1987 - Present, DIrector, Urban Economics, Incorporated. Urban Economics IS a multI-disciplined real estate and market research consultmg firm. WIth emphaSIS on valuation and evaluation of umque property types, prOpertIeS contammated WIth hazardous matenal, lodging faCIlItIes, retail centers, mdustnal parks, service stations, reSIdentIal developments, office buildmgs, smg1e-tenant retaIl, convemence stores, and geographIC mformatIOn systems. '( '( EXPERT WITNESS QUALIFICATIONS Admitted as an expert in real estate valuation m the followmg countIes and jurisdIctIOns: H1l1sborough County Pinellas County Polk County Pasco County Hernando County Manatee County Hardee County Orange County Broward County Dade County Federal Bankruptcy Court - MIddle District Federal Bankruptcy Court - Lower DIstrict PROFESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS MIchael McElveen, David S. Eastman and Barry A. DiskIn, Ph.D, "Rent Control LegislatIon for Mobile Home Parks In Flonda," Journal of Property Management. Michael McElveen and Barry Diskin, "ValuatIon of Anchor Department Stores," The Assessment Dzgest, (Sept/Oct. 1990): pp. 14-21. MIchael McElveen and Barry Diskin, "Valuation of Anchor Department Stores," The Journal of Property TaxatIOn, (Nov. 1990): pp. 20-29 MIchael McElveen, Barry Diskin Ph.D., and Joel B. Haynes, "Lender Perceptions of Value Influences of Asbestos Contammation in Income-ProducIng Buildings." The Assessment Digest, (Nov.lDec.): pp. 10-15. Working paper, MIchael McElveen~ Barry DIskin Ph.D., "Productivity ValuatIOn Theory For Service StatIOns" PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATIONS Guest lecturer, InstItute of Property Taxation, 1989 Property Tax Symposium, "Valuation of Anchor Department Stores. " Member job analysIs panel and item wnter for the State of Flonda Real Estate Appraiser LICenSIng Exam. Guest lecturer, Florida State Umversity, topic "Highest and Best Use Analysis". Guest lecturer, International AssocIation of Assessing Officers, 55th International Conference, "Special Problems in Shopping Center Valuation." 1997 Chairman of the Florida State Univensty Real Estate Trends & Network Conference Guest lecturer, Hlllsborough County Bar AssociatIOn, Emment Domain Section, "Larger Parcel Theory". Guest lecturer, Florida Bar Association, "Geographic InformatIon Systems and Proxrrnity Damages". \ Guest lecturer, McDonald Corporation, "Fast-Food Restaurant ValuatIon". ) .; URBAN ECONOMICS INCORPORATED REAL ESTATE ADVISORY MICHAEl A MCElVEEN MAl unN'fO R[^l E~T^TE I\ROKER HATE CfRTI~J[n GENERAL ArrRAISER NO OOOOlbO LICENSED REAL ESTATE BROKER H LINWOOD GILBERT IR MAl L1CEN~ED REM ['TAll RRlH.[R STo\Tf CERTIFIED G~NERAl ArrRAIHR NO OOOOI).W February 20, 2001 Gordon J. Schiff, Esq. Macfarlane, Ferguson, and McMullen, P.A. 2300 Park Tower 400 North Tampa Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Re: The Days Inn, Beach Towers, Spyglass and Golden Beach Motels Located at 100 Coronado Drive, and 201, 215, 219 South Gulfview Boulevard Clearwater Beach, Pinellas County, Florida Dear Mr. Schiff: As requested, a detailed investigation, analysis, evaluation and limited appraisal as to whether the proposed Clearwater Seashell Resort flexible development transfer of development rights site plan and right-of-way vacation to implement the Beach-By- Design Plan conforms with the general standards of Level II approval conditions, Clearwater Community Development Code, Section 3-913 and the approval conditions of Comprehensive In-fill Redevelopment Projects, Clearwater Community Development Code, Section 2-803 C2. At the client's request, I am conveying my opinions in a Restricted Report format, which is intended to comply with the reporting requirements set forth under Standards Rule 2- 2@ of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice for a Restricted Report. As such, this restricted format does not present discussions of the data, reasoning, and analyses that were used in the analysis process to develop the analyst's opinions. Supporting documentation concerning the data, reasoning, and analyses is retained in the analyst's file. The depth of discussion contained in this restricted report is specific to the needs of the client and for the intended use stated. The opportunity to have been of service is appreciated. If you have any questions or comments, or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ~\g~ Michael McElveen, MAl St Cert Gen. REA #0000360 810 SOUTH STERLING AVENUE TAMPA FLORIDA 33609-4516 V-E-I TELEPHONE (813) 289-8844 FACSIMILE (813) 289-8041 URBAN ECONOMICS INCORPORATED REAL ESTATE ADVISORY MICHAEL A MCELVEEN MAl lICENHD REAL [IiTAn RROKER IiHTI CERTIFIED LENERAl AI'rRAIHR NO 0000)60 LICENSED REAL ESTATE BROKER H LINWOOD GILBERT IR MAl lICENS(D REAL [\TAH RR,OKfR STAll CERTIfiED GENERAL Arl'A.AISER NO 000094(1 CERTIFICATE OF OPINION This is to certify that, upon request for valuation and evaluation by Gordon 1. Schiff, Esq., Macfarlane, Ferguson, and McMullen, P.A., 2300 Park Tower, 400 North Tampa Street, Tampa, Florida 33602, I have personally inspected, collected and analyzed various data, and estimated whether the proposed Clearwater Seashell Resort flexible development transfer of development rights site plan and right-of-way vacation to implement the Beach-By-Design Plan conforms with the general standards of Level II approval conditions, Clearwater Community Development Code, Section 3-913 and the approval conditions of Comprehensive In-fill Redevelopment Projects, Clearwater Community Development Code, Section 2-803 C2. As of the date of valuation and evaluation, February 19,2001, I believe the following: · The proposed Clearwater Seashell Resort will hinder and discourage the appropriate development and use of the adjacent land and buildings. · The requested variances of the flexible development approval as part of a comprehensive in-fill redevelopment will significantly impair the value of the adjacent land and buildings. · The requested variances of the flexible development approval as part of a comprehensive in-fill redevelopment project will reduce the fair market value of abutting properties. I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: · The statements of fact contained in this restricted report are true and correct. · The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions. · I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. · My compensation is not contingent on an action or event resulting from the analyses, opinions, or conclusions in, or the use of, this report. 810 SOUTH STERLING AVENUE TAMPA. FLORIDA 33609-4516 V-E-I TELEPHONE (8131289-8844 FACSIMILE (813) 289-8041 - Our analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. - I have made a personal inspection of the properties that is the subject of this report. - To the best of my knowledge and belief, the reported analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal Institute. · Ethel Hammer, a land planner with Englehardt, Hammer, and Associates, provided land planning and land use analysis. This information was provided to us in meetings and in telephone conferences. I have considered the information provided by Ms. Hammer. · The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives and to the State of Florida relating to real estate appraisal sub-committee of the Florida Real Estate Commission. - As of the date of this report, Michael McElveen, MAl has completed the requirements of the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute, and has completed the requirements of the State of Florida for State Certified Real Estate Appraisers. · The undersigned analyst, based on education and experience is competent and qualified to analysis on the issues involving the subject property. ~1?h 81. Cert. Gen. REA #0000360 D-E-I PURPOSE FUNCTION, DATE AND SCOPE OF ASSIGNMENT The purpose of the evaluation and limited appraisal herein is to estimate whether the requested variances of the Clearwater Seashell Resort from the Clearwater Community Development Code comply with Section 3.913 A2, Level 2 approval conditions and of Standard C2 of Section 2-803 of the Clearwater Development Code, as of the date of analysis of February 19,2001. Defmitions Variance is defined as: "A written authorization from the responsible agency permitting construction in a manner which is not allowed by a code or ordinance.,,1 Market value is defined as: "The most probable price, as of a specified date, in cash, or in terms equivalent to cash, or in other precisely revealed terms for which the specified property rights should sell after reasonable exposure in a competitive market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, with the buyer and seller each acting prudently, knowledgeably, and for self-interest, and assuming that neither is under undue duress.,,2 Fee simple estate is defined as: "Absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate subject only to the limitations imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat.,,3 Function The function of the restricted report is to assist the adjacent and abutting property owner in estimating the impact, if any of the proposed Clearwater Seashell Resort variances to the Clearwater Community Development Code. Intended User The intended user of this restricted report is Gordon J. Schiff, Esq., Macfarlane, Ferguson, and MuMullen, P.A. and Antonios Markopoulos. Scope The term "scope" means the extent of the process of collecting, confirming, and reporting data. IThe Appraisal Institute, The Dictionary of Real Estate AppraISal. Third Edltlon, (published by the Appraisal Institute ChIcago, IL , 1994), p. 387 2 The DictIOnary of Real Estate Appraisal. p 222 J The DictIOnary of Real Estate Appraisal, p 140 U. E. I 2 The scope of this limited appraisal and evaluation is to employ all basic real estate analysis methodologies to estimate whether the requested variances on the Clearwater Seashell Resort property will hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the market value or fair market value of abutting properties. I have used reasonable and applicable real estate evaluation and valuation methodologies to estimate the impact, if any, on the adjacent properties caused by the requested variances. Other techniques of greater depth and accuracy are available to be applied to answer the variance problem, however, I have been asked by the client not to apply them. The valuation and evaluation methodologies used are sufficiently accurate to provide a credible opinion. The undersigned has advised the clients that the assignment calls for something, less than, or different from the work required by the specific requirements and that the report will clearly identify and explain the departure. To develop my opinion, I performed a limited appraisal and evaluation process as defined by the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. This means that I have invoked the departure from Standard 1-4 and Standard 4-3 to estimate whether the requested variances will reduce the fair market value of the abutting properties or significantly impair the value of adjacent land and buildings. · I have performed a bibliographic review of pertinent literature to examine whether similar studies have been performed, addressing the impact on market value of adjoining properties caused by similar variances, impediments, or development constraints; · examined comparable land and building sales, with a highest and best use similar to or the same as the highest and best use of the subject sites located along, or within the immediate proximity of the Gulf of Mexico Beaches within Pinellas County; · inspected the subject properties and the proposed site of the Clearwater Seashell Resort; · performed a room rate study of high-end lodging facilities along Clearwater Beach to ascertain occupancy and room rate differences between open waterviews, limited view and interior view; · examined plans by Bella Vista Group, Inc. for the Marriott Clearwater Beach, dated January 17,2001; · reviewed Beach-by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidelines, dated February 9,2001; U. E. I 3 · reviewed the application for site plan approval by Clearwater Seashell Resort, LLC, dated January 12, 2001, City of Clearwater Planning Department Staff Report, dated January 31, 2001; · considered information provided by Ms. Ethel Hammer, a Land Planner, with Englehardt, Hammer and Associates; · and discussed lodging facility supply and demand with the client. In all instances, when I am discussing abutting or adjoining properties, I am referring to properties presently occupied by the Beach Towers, Days Inn, Spyglass and Golden Beach Motels, which, effectively, are the four lodging facilities located adjacent to and north of the proposed Clearwater Seashell Resort containing 2.41 acres. The discussed adjacent properties are illustrated in Exhibit "A" in the addenda of this report. General Standards for Level II Approval Conditions According to the general standards for Level II approval conditions, Section 3-913 (A2), there is a two-step standard that must be met to grant a variance. The first part of General Standard A2 is "The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings...". The second part of General Standard A2 is "The proposed development will not .. . significantly impair the value thereof." The applicant is asking for an increase of the building height from 35 feet to 150 feet. This variance of the height standard will allow the construction of twin towers on the Seashell Resort site, the most northerly tower will be located approximately 18 feet from the south property line of the adjacent property. The first seven base floors will be immediately adjacent to the abutting property. The Beach-by-Design Plan states that ". . .no more than two structures which exceed 100 feet within 500 feet...',4 With the ability to transfer development rights onto a development site, so as to increase development density given appropriate demand for the lodging units on Clearwater Beach, the overriding constraint on development is the maximum building envelop. The market value of lodging sites is based on an overall price per room, thus any diminishment in the number of rooms that could be physically developed on a site will correspondingly decrease the value of a lodging site. The increase of the height permittable on the adjacent property from 150 feet to 100 feet will diminish the number of lodging rooms that can be developed within the building envelope on the adjacent site and, thus, decrease the market value of the adjacent sites within the 500 foot radius. Effectively, the 500 foot radius, limiting development to 100 feet in height, hinders and 4Beach-By-Deslgn' DeSIgn Gu,delines City of Clearwater FlaT/da, February 9, 200 I, P 56 U. E. I 4 discourages appropriate development on adjacent sites and, at the same time, significantly impairs the value of the adjacent site. The elimination of the side (north) setback from 10 feet to 0 feet would allow development of the Clearwater Seashell Resort immediately adjacent to the adjacent site to the north. As planned, the Clearwater Seashell Resort is developing immediately adjacent to the north property line a ground floor service area and then six levels of parking. There will be an 84 foot high shear concrete wall on the north property line. The elimination of the 10 foot side yard setback will eliminate the air, light, and view that is the basis for a side yard setback. The side yard setback accrues to the benefit not only of the property itself, but all~ adjoining property owners. All adjoining properties are enhanced because of the enforcement of side yard setbacks. Having studied land sales, lodging sales, average daily room rates, lodging occupancies, and scholarly publications, it is evident from the data that the elimination of the 10 foot side yard to 0 feet will significantly impair the value of the adjacent land and buildings. I have analyzed Section 2-803 (C2) of the Clearwater Community Development Code regarding comprehensive in-fill redevelopment. This standard is "The development of the parcel proposed for development as a comprehensive in-fill redevelopment project will not reduce the fair market value of abutting properties". As discussed previously in this restricted report, the reduction of building height within a 500 foot perimeter from 150 feet to 100 feet will hinder and discourage appropriate development of adjacent land, and significantly impair the value thereof. As such, the reduction in the highest and best use of the adjoining sites and the resulting significant impairment of value, it is axiomatic that the proposed Clearwater Seashell Resort will ".. .reduce the fair market value of abutting properties;". I have reviewed the application of Clearwater Seashell Resort, LLC, dated January 12, 2001, as it relates to Standard (C2) of Section 2-803 Comprehensive In-fill Redevelopment Project, and I agree, wholeheartedly with the first sentence in the response to General Standard 2, which states, "The value of property depends on the highest and best use, improvements on this site, and the market factors of supply and demand. However, there is no basis in fact, data presented or logical reasoning to support the opinion that "the value of abutting properties to the north and south will not be compromised and will likely be enhanced, by development of the Seashell Resort." A more appropriate question would be how much greater of a value benefit would accrue to the adjoining property owners be if the appropriate height and side yard setbacks were maintained. The argument that a substantial public benefit will be created by the relocation of Gulfview Boulevard, the pedestrian promenade and lush landscaping in front of the property is not relevant to the impact on the development of the adjacent property and the diminution of market value caused by the variance of height and side yard setbacks. All of these ancillary amenities would also benefit the adjoining properties if the height limitation of 100 feet and a 10 foot side yard setback was maintained. U. E. I 5 The statement that "The value of abutting properties is presently depressed by the current level of under-investment on the Seashell Resort site" is most probably true. However, the adjoining properties would also be significantly enhanced by the $65 million investment if the height limitation of 100 feet and the side yard setback of 10 feet is maintained. This enhancement of the adjoining properties would probably be greater and less of an impact than a similar development of 150 foot in height and with no side yard. D-E-! URBAN ECONOMICS INCORP.ORATED REAL ESTATE ADVISORY MICHAEL A McELVEEN MAl llUN\[D REM ESTAT[ l\ROh.ER HAll Cl:RTII-IED GENERAL AI'I'RAI'iER NO OOOOlbO LICENSED REAL ESTATE BROKER QUALIFICATIONS OF H LINWOOD GILBERT IR MAl llCENHD R~M [HATE I\ROJ."ER ~T^H URTlrl[[) GENERAL ^rrR^I~ER NO 0000940 MICHAEL A. McELVEEN EDUCATION B.A. Finance, University of South Florida, 1981 B.S. . Insurance, Risk Management and Real Estate; Minor - Economics, Flonda State UniversIty, 1982 AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION Real Estate Valuation and Evaluation. Valuation emphasis on apartments, retail centers, regional shopping malls, office buildmgs, department stores and service stations. Evaluation emphasis is on access studies, linkages, partIal interest studies, highest and best use studies, property taxation, condemnation, economic base analysis, mobile home park unreasonable rent studies, proximity influence, contamination and supply and demand studies for office, retail, single-family and multiple-family housing. AFFILIATIONS American Real Estate and Urban Economics ASSOCIation American Real Estate Society Member, Appraisal Institute, Certificate Number 7569 Licensed Flonda Real Estate Broker State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, License Number 0000360 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE - PARTIAL LISTING May 1982 - December 1985, Associate appraiser employed by Warren Hunnicutt Jr., Incorporated, S1. Petersburg, Florida. Work experience encompassed the valuation of commercial real estate with emphasis in apartments, lodging facilities, golf courses and retail centers. Evaluation asSIgnments included Marketability Studies, Market Studies, Highest and Best Use and Economic Base Analysis. December 1985 - June 1987, Vice - President of Warren Hunnicutt Jr., Incorporated. Responsibilities included project planning and staffmg, client development, and strategic planning. June 1987 - Present, Director, Urban EconomIcs, Incorporated. Urban Economics IS a multi-disciplined real estate and market research consulting firm. With emphasIS on valuation and evaluation of unique property types, propertIes contammated with hazardous material, lodging facihties, retail centers, industnal parks, service stations, residentIal developments, office buildings, single-tenant retail, convenience stores, and geographic information systems. 810 SOUTH STERLING AVENUE TAMPA FLORIDA 33609-4516 D.E.I TELEPHONE (813) 289-8844 FACSIMILE (8131289-8041 EXPERT WITNESS QUALIFICATIONS Admitted as an expert in real estate valuatlOn m the followmg countIes and Junsdlctions: Hillsborough County Pinellas County Polk County Pasco County Hernando County Manatee County Hardee County Orange County Broward County Dade County Federal Bankruptcy Court - MIddle District Federal Bankruptcy Court - Lower DIStrict PROFESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS Michael McElveen, David S. Easttnan and Barry A. Diskin, Ph.D, "Rent Control LegIslation for Mobile Home Parks in Florida," Journal of Property Management. Michael McElveen and Barry Diskm, "ValuatlOn of Anchor Department Stores," The Assessment Digest, (Sept/Oct. 1990): pp. 14-21. Michael McElveen and Barry Diskin, "Valuation of Anchor Department Stores," The Journal of Property Taxation, ~ov. 1990):pp.20-29 Michael McElveen, Barry Diskin Ph.D., and Joel B. Haynes, "Lender Perceptions of Value Influences of Asbestos ContammatlOn in Income-Producing Buildmgs." The Assessment Digest, (Nov.lDec.): pp. 10-15. Working paper, Michael McElveen, Barry Diskin Ph.D., "Productivity Valuatwn Theory For Service Stations" PROFESSIONAL PRESENTATIONS Guest lecturer, Institute of Property Taxation, 1989 Property Tax Symposium, "Valuation of Anchor Department Stores." Member job analysis panel and item wnter for the State of Florida Real Estate Appraiser Licensmg Exam. Guest lecturer, Florida State University, topic "Highest and Best Use Analysis". Guest lecturer, International AssocIation of Assessmg Officers, 55th InternatlOnal Conference, "Special Problems m Shoppmg Center Valuation." 1997 Chairman of the Flonda State Univensty Real Estate Trends & Network Conference Guest lecturer, Hillsborough County Bar AssociatlOn, Eminent Domam SectlOn, "Larger Parcel Theory". Guest lecturer, Florida Bar AssoclatlOn, "GeographIc InformatIOn Systems and Proxl1mty Damages". , Guest lecturer, McDonald CorporatIon, "Fast-Food Restaurant Valuation". D-E-I ~ co~':9 \pes '~a\,>\e ~ ,,~\ IE' I/c 14 13 ,..._+--t I r) (;. C. . ---... --- c. . ~l I ~ l__.:~~.. (r.1 J -1 i --'--'--. J 4 xhibJt ~ GlIlf'VI!W Bg~\y- A BL 17550 2' 3 i51 51 -t 5 G ~~. ..c ~6 C ~":l; ss :;::.. 100 kJ -J 54 :>- QJ - !Ol 0: oS Q to:? --.sa.. - -I-Q.;;...- S7 104 7 e 9 10 II Ie I u. E ~ I ~ PARt< a: c 16) o 13 7 CAUSf:.'WA'i Ie r- - L.!5606 g...... ....... ./... .u..... ......,.. ...... .... ........ <(. z; 0: Ce. 0: <J; 1"-- L-' 5D "( -.J 2' r- -.....;;; L- { 7568 "( -- -...J 2 3RO 57 YlA1ER L01 1 (14) ~ lL.r ..:> 1,11. " t ...~ -l ..- I" ~. r...-~~ ". l' l. '.. _ . 1 ' I i~ ~j" , , ). ',~ "'~Jil - . ~ ,., l'l'~''''''~\\~''' "')/'.,1" ... ," I - ~- ~':tJ:,', h"'I. . \ .~""f""'''!' ""'h /~\\h~'~fr~'[~..~ _ :,~k _ _:. :: A!:tt-,.~,1fn~t~~ If)'i. '~ ,. ~.. .: ~" "l ~!\ ;~~~ ~'J.il} \ C -' g"'.'1 '1'111, - '. !'~J."~1ll~ \~ . - , '-.. ,1:'/1j\~~. . ,,_~-- li\\~ -:, .. .' ;~\ "",'!. ~~;.'.~~, -.... ." 1. J, Fu. ... " ., ,.. ~!(4 " " ~ -...'1;;: .... ~ ,'~ ., I, Ie' ... . "... , ", " , . /" ~ j .. ~ of' 1("- '~l ~! '. "'..... ~ ti '. ., " 'J. .."- Best Copy A,,~il~hIA aiQenel\V Ado ~sa~ ......,.., '<. 'I' .... ~ 'i'" ,~... -,to .t;' ,. " r,. ~ '.~:-i' ~l'J ---.' ~,,. "1.1 ~~ P I p. '1" . '..... .... .~, a,qel!l?AV ,A\dQ~ .~q'~,(~. ..' ~~t,."i~ 1~_:: '~~~ {;.:,\"~:,.:;." ,,, >;, v ~-"<: -, ..:- /t:l;'':~:~~:~~Zn~~tJ]i~~~I~~w:~:~;,nl~~'';,~ :~-- ).~~~~ ~??~t ~~ --- 1>'- I ~'"~"';',"t'''::~; Ft(J!~:r~~ \ 'I~~~~,I "JI;: IJl ~ :i;~l.r.) J'f\.f i ~'<\r l1:c.1~,(Jl';~(';; "~{~tJW71l~f I ~ r . Vf )~~_ -' ~,1 t ' ~.:: ~"},::::?,?;:~;.:~;::" :;f'>;;:~~':.;~:~~;:}i:r~,:~~~~,:;f~:t~:~~;:::~.:~i.?::~.;'\;.~'.;. .:~ :';"";< ' -,"- ~ - -, i-, I ~" "I', ';' I, ,~! ,'.. :', ';' ~~~ .,1,t\l ':;:: " i. / t " , ":.'''' . .., to.....'... '... .' ;,'1 i I . . ,,' ..... ~: ~". .~" ',a \ . . 11 <:t; l~~ ..... - ... .. l:t __' fA ...~ '-. ., . ., :::. ::. ffr\/ ...... alqenei\V . .' .... '::~~~~~~15~~:~~~~!~~~~~Ji~1s~r " fjll t ' "" '.. ~...'..... 'I t -.. ") , ~' .I, ! ~ .. ',- '~ "l 11.r . J." t.,. ';__ "... I. .... ~l .;)_ .;;, t;.,' '';; ~( ,t- ~ -I ofIt'I<,.. " , .,\.... ,.t ...:\,~ ~.:. 1-, ''''';1d · '-, , ., ,~ Q~ .::. ::.. l' ''I'v:.'' \ \' \ , ,\ ~ :~ .. ,'" fl ' I \\:1 -", ''''''''~ \~.1'~ r . .....,1 ':....~., Jq~~Jlf,'pt, L..,t1 _/_ t ,Jt<.'r._ !;\."l ''''l.\....'i Il IJ,~, i;\';'I'<~/';~~ If:"~' t t; A,11111,IJ;".~'!Y"1'" A~~ ~~'I1J, .. ~ . ...-'.... "lIoa"";i~~~ III 'q~1 ! /. ~ ftt~ j~~j. ,1<Yi1~ ~l \ I". !'I k,,,c',; Il,i '. ".",.1' ,t ,\ r (~ , ;J";"'i'~. t,' , ,,,t t ~ .1; .t.;I~;; . J,,'j~Ii!~~1 ij it, J . '"- .. III 't W"rr. l ' ~~'ll'll~"'L"./' , n ~ ~1 ~ft .f.,!i, ,/ .'.' I '.. .). ~ I" . \, . ,f!... , . . " I I, "l ~, ~7;~J~ \?i.. :'~'.-; f!;'l~ii,,, \\''4~~" r."fJtj~' "e,S · rl" "". J . I' ' . \1, -AO It U'I :..I' I ~p.:.. ""r' . . J ;,'p r~,," 1'/ I- , " ""'IJf'\i.i;~,,\~,~' .'" ,'r . ,,', 'f' v)" ,.ll ;: i . j. ""~l,~~;(~:,;{~1'~:t;ii~~11 i~i --7' "j'''fV!'~I'''~'j'''I:,l:!'''' t\1 ;i~~\",) -p.... , '1"~~II,~",t!'I'''1 i ~ __--4 , " ,d~,l~)-llnl "/'r:i~~ ;'i~ '. 'I" ...- ' ~IT_, \, \~VJ41~~~..'fh~~Vr' ,,,;y. ,- - ~ "'......jl':l' ',r\t"'li~,I~;:.1'~',~ \'.. . I l . <. \ " I'''' e" ~ .. ,~. < _ I . . dn,:Ati1.,1~1u~~',.;\l;f~~~TII'-" , :....... [" ..C'.'. I, '.If "-,.f' Of ! I ,. t~ ~J't\:1jj! 'I. : I' '- I, ,~, ~" t If " ,~ "1_' ~:. I~J .'.; ,,~f: ~! F,-':-, ." '.' ....,.~ It l"'/! ~~~"J, ~fl \". f \ 'A I 1I~'4II~1,,~'\. "If 't... '!/ '.-f ~J11:'J ' :II ' ,II! ,/ .. , " I . '': / , t ~~ - ii, :Ylqe"eA V b\do:) t~ '- '." , .. '\ ... ~, .~t' '~;-~t ~, \~~.. aBq~I!~^"'l :' Itdo::) ~saa ,:~ '" ' ,'" ~,~;" ;'~'~~;:~"';::':':~:~,~~~T:'ji-~~~~;,~~r;~~~~:,:;,r::i~~:~:: ::: 7~' ":;1; , 'I~/ '..., , "'41 "'^ ,. '- .:-;:, ~ ~ t., ~, '.:', }.,~~l .~, 1,1, 1, ,I " 'f ,.':111 '. '"" ..., ~. :. '!' f' ',-t ,"" T, \ \ \ \ 7.'I'i ~ltIl~~l"~k ,1,':""I,t!\ \:i\t~~'~' 'l~ ~ ,\\;,;\;&~"", ',I' ~( \\~/,::,..;!:~?j'\- ..... \ \ ,r I ~,l'l L r~. 0, "'11'", ,',,, .-.....' ~ 1~, I, .' 'r" ~ " . t" , ~f:; . \ ". ~''i'' , 1 . t.I .: -',; ~1.~;rJ",,;,.1:~ ",'" ,I '"~ "''''''L. ""i t\'o " t..... ~ ~. .If " ,~I , 'lItJ!' 'j :..? t.t 'l'i'~~9:'i :' l~ ~ ~C~~{.'>':;lt7tf:r::r ~ r ;- 't .... " ~ i r~... I I I I ~j '~" \\ \- ~r, - ,~.,,: - . - - --, t'.o.~_t1~_~ ,', ~r' " {1fl \\ "V ~'^ I ~ . :",_ ...._~ 1('1 I' ,~~ _ ~;.. n__ _ .1 '.\.... d t: .u~ '_ .:. <7'nun-::! ' t.J"., "I ~ - ~ ~ ~ - .~ - - - "1 I, .....J" ~ r~ :J _, Ill), _ ,; .. __ _ ~ · ;0, I! - - .. - - . -A co 1~" J .J, ...-d:---=:::1 ~, --L---l~ ort nr. .. . - ,_u III "/~'" . ..' I' -., ;; (( -1 l) ;~. . ..I.d;Cc::~rf..l;;lIf ;: ,;; ,~I J " /, I III II frl -.-.. -.. -... . - II...J ..... L I. ._1 l,j . ~ fI alqel!eA V A~Q)~ ;n.sa(8j "n '0 rn It> CJ 1/' . ) - 1_ _. 7 ... \ . , , -e.." In response to a question, Mr. Caruso said the applicants are is in discussion with the manager of the Wilder Building regarding parking on that property. He stated the applicants are in the process of obtaining insurance to cover patron parking on the office building property to meet the property owner's concerns. It was recommended board approval be delayed until negotiations related to increasing patron parking are finalized. Mary Carotenuto reported Maurice Wilder, owner of the Wilder Building property, had requested she address the board. She stated no negotiations are underway related to nightclub patron parking on the Wilder property. She stated property management opposes the proposed use out of concern for tenant security, noting patrons of the previous business often had strewn trash and glass on the Wilder property. In response to a question, Mr. Browder said staff had not made any recommendations related to upgrading the appearance of the subject property, stating the use will improve a vacant property. He suggested the applicants may be able to reach agreement with a nearby property owner to provide the additional parking necessary to meet Code. It was stated patrons could not cross Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard to reach parking spaces. It was felt the applicant should have the ability to try to locate additional parking. Planning Director Ralph Stone said staff had recommended to the property owners options for the property, such as office or retail, which conform with code. It was noted adequate landscaping would require a reduction in the number of onsite parking spaces. Member Gildersleeve moved to continue Item #B2 to January 23, 2001. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Development Review Manager Lisa Fierce recommended continuing the item to February tOJlrovide the applicants adequate time to submit an amended site plan. It was noted issues related to grandfathering a previous use need taToo reviewed. Consensus was to continue Item #B2 to February 20, 2001. Item #B3 - (Coned from 11/21/00) - 7 Rockaway Street: Charalampos & Sevasti Alexiou (Kirk Construction) - Owner/Applicant. Request Flexible Development to reduce the front setback from 10ft to 0 ft, reduce the rear setback from 10ft to 0 ft and reduce the required number of parking spaces from 71 spaces to 1 3 parking spaces, reduce required number of handicap spaces from 6 to 1, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project at Miller's Replat. Lots 2, 3 & vacated Beach Dr. on West. FL 00-07-29 Member Mazur reported he had a conflict of interest and left the dais. mcd1200 4 1 2/12/00 .. ~. '" Mr. Parry reviewed the request. This case was continued from the November 21, 2000 COB (Community Development Board) meeting after a lengthy discussion. The COB voted 3:2 to approve the application. As 4 votes are needed to take action, the item was continued. Minor changes to the staff report reflect the design change for the south elevation. The proposal also includes the requisite handicap parking space. The 0.38-acre site, fronting the Gulf of Mexico and Rockaway Street, features a 6,723 square-foot, restaurant and 210 square-foot storage building, which is 3.7 feet from the south rear property line and 2.5 feet from the east side property line. The restaurant sits on the rear property line and is 1.7 feet from the front property line. The parking lot, on the east property line, has 1 3 parking spaces. The site is in a desirable commercial neighborhood. The restaurant's entrance, a covered, wood deck with ramp on the north side of the building, encroaches 5.3 feet into the public right-of-way. A partially covered wood deck is attached to the building, approximately 20 feet from the west property line. To improve customer s,ervice, the business owners wish to expand the restaurant by adding a 3,487 [square-foot, second story with approximately 1,200 square-feet of open deck and 2,300 square-feet of enclosed space. Both sections will accommodate bar patrons and diners; the enclosed portion will include bar seating. The addition will accommodate 92 diners and 32 bar patrons and increase the building's size to 10,210 square-feet and the total number of seats to 372. The applicants also propose to remove and replace the storage room. The second-floor addition and replaced storage room will occupy the current foundation. The project also will renovate and improve the restaurant's interior and exterior. An eight-foot extension of a stucco parapet wall on the south side of the building, as measured from the finished floor of the new second story, has been added to buffer impacts to the abutting Clearwater Beach Hotel to the south. The existing sign will be removed during constru.ction but later reattached. The applicants have not proposed additional signage. .--~ The applicants request reducing the required front and rear setbacks from 10 feet to zero feet and the number of required parking spaces from 71 to 1 3 spaces. The restaurant currently is required to have 47 parking spaces. The proposed addition will require an additional 24 spaces. The on-site parking lot will be restripped to include the required handicap space, as required by Code. Before the parking analysis was done, staff concurred with its methodology. Florida Design Consultants has submitted a parking analysis, which includes a survey of 100 Frenchy's customers, and a parking accumulation study performed on a Friday and Saturday between 11 :00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. of Frenchy's parking lot Municipal Lots #36 and 38, on-street parking along Bay Esplanade, on Mandalay Avenue between Baymont Street and Bay Esplanade and along Rockaway Street. mcd1200 5 1 2/1 2/00 , . J ", ~' The study indicated 309 parking spaces are within 1,000 feet of the restaurant and that at least 45 parking spaces are available within the study area at any given time, including peak times. The study also indicates that the majority of restaurant patrons use the City-owned, metered parking immediately to the north. This parking lot serves beach visitors and patrons of other area businesses. Of the 100 customers surveyed, 49 stated their primary destination was the beach and that eating at Frenchy's was a secondary purpose. This data indicate dual reasons for restaurant patrons to visit the area and that the use of shared parking is valid for this business. The DRC reviewed the application and supporting materials on August 10, 2000. Staff recommends approval. Ms. Fierce stated the site only requires one handicap parking space. The applicants restriped the lot to meet that requirement. Harry Cline, representative for the Hunter family, owners of the Clearwater Beach Hotel, said upon further review of the plan, he opposed the proposed expansion. In response to a question from Mr. Cline related to the City's land use plan, Mr. Parry stated the western portion of the subject property is designated recreation open space. Mr. Gildersleeve moved to accept Mr. Cline's copy of the City's land use plan into the record. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Mr. Stone said the PPC (Pinellas Planning Council), not staff, interprets fine lines related to open space. ~ In reference to minimum parking space requirement for this expansion project, Mr. Cline said staff had based that figure on the scale minimum for parking requirements for this type of beach business. He said the scale maximum would have more than doubled the number of parking spaces required. Mr. Parry stated staff had based the parking requirement on the restaurant's pedestrian oriented location. In response to questions from Mr._Cline, Mr. Parry said the applicants plan improvelJlentsto the building's architecture and exterior and wiih to 'expand to better serve the community and tourists. He knew of no greater parking variance request since he began his employment with the City. Robert Pergolizzi, representative for the applicant, said staff had approved the methodology used to conduct the study of parking withm 1,000 feet of the restaurant, which was done on August 25 - 26, 2000, between 11 :00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. He said traffic in August is well above the annual average, but below the peak in late March. In response to questions from Mr. Cline, Mr. Pergolizzi said the football game In Tampa and 45-mlnute thunderstorm Saturday evening during the study did not affect the availability of parking. Roy Chapman, representative for the applicant, said he is a professional engineer and that the parking study IS complete and accurate. He recommended approval. Mr. Cline objected to Mr. Chapman's conclusions. mcd1200 6 1 2/12/00 . . , Ed Armstrong, representative for the applicant, said the applicant has demonstrated nearby parking is adequate for the expanded use. He said the applicant intends to honor conditions agreed to previously. Ken Hamilton, owner of the nearby Palm Pavilion restaurant, opposed the request. In response to questions, he said his observations on the beach parking situation since 1967 have been as a lay person, he had no hard evidence to refute the parking study, and he never had performed a scientific parking study. Discussion ensued regarding the weight of lay testimony. Larry Edger, representing the nearby Cooters restaurant, also opposed the request. Mr. Cline said when he previously had agreed to the expansion and related conditions, he had not yet seen drawings of the proposed expansion and was unaware of the vast scale of the project. He said the expansion is huge and would intrude on the Clearwater Beach Hotel with light, noise, and unpleasant visuals. He said the application is defective as no proof of ownership for the vacated roadway had been presented. He questioned the validity of the parking study and requested the board deny this request. Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides said the City's zoning atlas indicates the roadway is zoned "T." Reference to the vacation ordinance indicates the entire width of the roadway was vacated. Mr. Stone said the applicant is aware of the parking shortage on the beach. Discussion ensued regarding proposed parking garage projects. Staff has determined adequate shared parking is available within 1,000 feet of the restaurant. Mr. Stone said the study seems to indicate additional spaces will be available even if the expansion occurs. Mr. Armstrong stated the applicant had provided substantial competent evidence that enough parking is available to handle the proposed expansion. He said three exp~rt opinions recommended approval: 1) Mr. PergoUzzii..~2 Mr. Chapma[l; and 3) staff. Member Gildersleeve moved for the COB to approve the request for flexible development of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project to reduce the front setback from 10 feet to 0 feet, reduce the rear setback from 10 feet to 0 feet and reduce the required number of parking spaces from 71 spaces to 13 parking spaces at Sec 32-28-16, part of M&B 43.06. The motion was duly seconded. Members Gildersleeve, Petersen and Chair Figurski voted "Aye"; Members Johnson, Moran, and Plisko voted "Nay." Member Mazur abstained. Ms. Dougall-Sides stated the board's rules do not address tied votes. She recommended the COB follow Roberts Rules and construe a tie as a denial. Consensus was to follow Roberts Rule and construe the tie as a denial. Motion failed. mcd 1 200 7 12/12/00 . providing foreign currency exchange. He said he had based his analysis of services on the firm's other locations. In response to a question, he said he has an option to purchase the building. Mr. Pressman submitted firm marketing pieces. Member Gildersleeve moved for the COB to approve flexible development to to permit problematic use in Commercial District within a building which does not meet all current land development regulations and is within 500 feet of another problematic use, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, with Comprehensive Sign Program and Comprehensive Landscape Program at See 13-29- 15, M&B 32.04 with conditions: 1) limit signage to two attached signs, with no freestanding signs and 2) prohibit reference to problematic use, check cashing, on any signs visible from public right-of-way or adjacent properties. The motion was duly seconded. Members Gildersleeve, Johnson, Petersen, and Plisko and Chair Figurski voted "Aye"; Member Moran voted "Nay." Motion carried. The meeting recessed from 4:02 to 4:11 p.m. Item #09 - 880, 900 and 908 North Osceola Avenue: Jacinto Castellano & Elena Betes/Jim Dan Inc. (Florida Marine & Resort Developers, Inc.) - Owner/Applicant. Request flexible development approval to increase height of attached dwellings from 35 feet to 100 feet, reduce north side setback from 10 feet to 3 feet, and permit a non-residential parking lot within the MDR District, with a Comprehensive Landscape Program at J.A. Gorra's Sub, Blk 2, Lots 1-3, Sue Barco Sub, Lots 1, 13-14 & 22-23, and F.T. Blish's Sub, Lots 1-3 & 8-10 & triangle land to west. FLOO-' 0-46 Chair Figurski reported he had a conflict of interest and left the meeting. Mr. Givens reviewed the request. The 8.89-acre parcel, north of downtown Clearwater and abutting Clearwater Harbor, features approximately 4.5 acres of submerged land and 4.37 acres of upland. The north property line, bound by Nicholson Street, also extends approximately 170 feet north. North Osceola Avenue bisecls the property, dividing it into distinct parcels. ___ ~ - The property has an array of structures. A small wood-frame house and garage with a rental unit front Osceola along the northeast property line. Boat repair and storage bays occupy the north property line. The east end of the marina features a continuous line of open and covered boat slips. SunCruz, which leases the site for docking its charter boat, occupies a one-story, masonry building along the southern property line. A 2,000 square-foot bait shop is near the southwest corner of the property, adjacent to the public boat ramp. A two-story masonry bUilding, leased as apartments, IS between Osceola and North Ft. Harrison Avenue. The property is mostly covered with asphalt. Vegetation along 'Osceola is poorly maintained. The City's Penphery Plan targets for redevelopment this site, which has a poor overall appearance. mcd1200 18 1 2/1 2/00 _ " f "~ ;( THE TAMP A TRIBUNE Published Daily Tampa, HiIlsborough County, Florida ;:, ;j State of Florida County of HiIIsborough } ss. Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. Rosenthal, who on oath says that she is Classified Billing Manager of The Tampa Tribune, a daily newspaper published at Tampa in HilIsborough County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement being a LEGAL NOTICE PINELLAS EDITION in the matter of CITY OF CLEARWATER was published in said newspaper in the issues of FEBRUARY 3,2001 Affiant further says that the said The Tampa Tribune is a newspaper published at Tampa in said HiIlsborough County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said HiIlsborough County, Florida, each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Tampa, in said Hillsborough County, Florida for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that she has neither paid nor promised any person, this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. ~r-- ) 6 - Sworn to and subscribed by me, this. day FEBRUARY '01 ,A.D. 20_ of Personally Know~r Produced Identification_ Type ofIdentification Produced -L SUSIE LEE SLATON COMMISSION NUMElER CC639424 MY COMMISSION EXP. APRIL 16, Z001 '~J~_~~ ~"l Q) l;l.- O..Q o! .- *"ftS U) > \1)< 00 01) ~/i/ 'i ~ '" tJ.~ 00:0 om - """,'- (JJ~ e2< . ' .-. fI\" " ~\ CITY OF CLEARWATER NOTICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD PUBLIC HEARINGS The Community Development Board of the City of Clearwater, Florida, will hold public hearings on Tuesday, February 20,2001, beginning at 1:00 p.m., in the City Commission Chambers, in City Hall, 3rd floor, 112 South Osceola A venue, Clearwater, Florida, to consider the following requests: I 1. (cont. from 12/12/(0) Thanh Phuoc & Kimtruc Thi N2Uyen are requesting a flexible development approval of a nightclub within the Commercial District, with a redeuction in the required number of parking spaces from 20 spaces to 18 spaces, as a Comprehensive Inf1l1 Redevelopment Project with Comprehensive Landscape Program at 3006 Gulf-to-Bay Blvd., Bay View City Sub, Blk 8, Lots 8, 9, 10 & 1/2 of vac alley on N less Rd. right-of-way on S. FL 00-08-33 2. (cont. from 01/23/01) Karl N. & Ginny M. JuM/ Mark Maconi Homes of Tampa Bay, Inc. are requesting a flexible development approval to reduce the required rear (north) setback from 25 feet to 14 feet, as part of a Residential Inf1ll Project at 222 Palm Island SW, Island Estates of Clearwater Unit 6-A, Lof14. FL 00-11-59 3. (cont. from 01/23/01) E & A, Inc. / Louis Anastasopoulos are requesting a flexible development approval to permit a restaurant in the Tourist District and to reduce the front (east) setback from 10 feet to 1.6 feet (along Clearwater Pass Avenue), reduce the required number of parking spaces from 105 spaces to 70 spaces, as part of a Comprehensive Inf1l1 Redevelopment Project at 731 BayWay Blvd., Bayside Shores, Blk C, Lots 1 thru 10. FL 00-11-49 G)(cont. from 1/31/01) A1-Nayem International Incorporated & Kandiah P. Thavabalasin2am (Clearwater Seashell Resort LLC) are requesting (a) Flexible Development approval, as part of a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project, with an increase in height from 35 feet to 150 fee~ increase from 65 rooms to a minimum of 250 rooms and a maximum of 300 rooms, reduction in front setback along South Gulfview Boulevard from 10 feet to zero feet, reduction in front setback along Coronado Drive from 10 feet to zero feet, reduction in side (north) setback from 10 feet to zero feet, and reduction in side (south) setback from 10 feet to zero feet; (b) Review of, and recommendation to the City Commission on, a request to vacate Third Street right-of-way from South Gulfview Boulevard to Coronado Drive; (c) Review of, and recommendation to the City Commission on, a request to vacate the eastern 35 feet of South Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way (beginning approximately 130 feet north of the centerline of Third Street and ending approximately 150 feet south of the centerline of Third Street, totaling approximately 250 linear feet of South Gulfview Boulevard right-of-way); and (d)Reviewof, and recommendation to the City Commission on, a development agreement between Clearwater Seashell Resort LLC and the City of Clearwater at 229 & 301 S. Gulfview Blvd. and 230,300 & 304 Coronado, Lloyd-White-Skinner Sub, Lots 57- 59, 104-106 and part of Lots 56, 103 & 107. FL 01-01-01/ DA 01-01-01 5. Wilfred & Muriel Pina are requesting a flexible development approval to reduce the rear setback from 25 ft to zero ft as part of a Residential Inf1l1 Project at 2408 Shelley St., Gulf to Bay Acres 1st Add, Blk E, Lot 13. FL 00-10-45 6. David R. Little (Barry Barringer, dba Key Largo Bar & Grill) is requesting a flexible development approval to reduce the rear (east) setback from 10 ft to zero ft and reduce the side (north) setback from 10 ft to zero ft, as part of a Comprehensive Inf1l1 Redevelopment Project at 333 S. Gulfview Blvd., Lloyd-White-Skinner Sub, Lot 67. FL 00-12-62 7, Robert Schoeller is requesting a flexible development approval to increase the height of a tower as part of a mixed use development from 50 to 66 ft and to reduce the number of required parking from 91 spaces to 21 spaces, as part of a Comprehensive Inf1l1 Redevelopment Project at 623 Drew St., Jone's Sub of Nicholson's Addition to Clearwater Harbor, Blk7, Lots 1-3. FL 00-11-57 8. RB-3 Associates, Randall Benderson 1993-1 Trust, and WR-l Associates are requesting a flexible development approval to provide direct access to a major arterial street for a proposed overnight accommodation ~,- l' establishment, as part of a Comprehensive InfIll Redevelopment Project at 3070 Gulf to Bay Blvd., Sec. 16-29- 16, M&B 23.02. FL 00-12-64 Interested parties may appear and be heard at the hearings or file written notice of approval or objection with the Planning Director or City Clerk prior to the hearings. Any person who decides to appeal any decision made by the Board, with respect to any matter considered at such hearings, will need a record of the proceedings and, for such purpose, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based per Florida Statute 286.0105. All individuals speaking on public hearing items will be sworn in. Five days prior to the meeting, staff reports and reconunendations on the above requests will be available for review by interested parties between the hours of8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., weekdays, at the City of Clearwater, Planning Department, 100 S. Myrtle Ave., Clearwater, FL 33756, or call 562-4567. Lisa ,Eierce Planning Department Cynthia E. Goudeau, CMC City ClerK ,/ j City of Clearwater P'.O. Box 474a, Cleanyater, FL 33758-4748 ;; .~.. '.., , ~""'- ' NOTE: Applicant or representative must be present at the hearing. YOU ARE BEING SENT THIS NOTICE IF YOU ARE THE APPLICANT OR OWN PROPERTY WITHIN 500 Fr. OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. A COPY OF THIS AD IN LARGE PRINT IS AVAILABLE IN THE CITY CLERK DEPT. ANY PERSON WITH A DISABILITY REQUIRING REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING SHOULD CALL THE CITY CLERK DEPT WIm THEIR REQUEST AT (727) 562-4090. Ad: 02/03/01 CITY CLERK P.O. BOX 4748 CLEARWATER, FL 33758-4748 FORWARDING & RETURN i .~; POSTAGE GUARANTEED - , ... I I, .....~~"(:_\l~;,::~..~, , /i/<'..J '(\ ~.~ 'j . t , II'J ( '(J... \ - \/~ 1 ,~ ~ RECEIVED FE B 0 6 2001 BRZEZNY~ KRYSTYNA 6625 BAY ST ST PETE BEACH FL 33706 2125 CITY CU=I1K DEPARTMENT I IMPORTAN.l:LCi.ty i "'''''''~ 11,1111111111111,1,1,1,,1,.11.11'111.11111.,1111'1'11,,1,1,1111 I I I I I I I' I' I I I I I I I I ,I I ,I Clearwater Seashell Resort Planning Analysis Prepared by Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. 5444 Bay Center Drive, Suite 122 Tampa, FL 33609 I ~ I , , , , , I . I . I J ,I J I I J J ,I ,I ~ ENGELHARDT, HAMMER & ASSOCIATES Urban Planning ServIces February 28, 2001 City Commission City of Clearwater Clearwater, FL 33758 Re: Clearwater Seashell Resort Dear Commission Members: Our firm has been retained to review and evaluate the proposed Clearwater Seashell Resort, and determine its compliance and consistency with the City of Clearwater Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the recently adopted Beach by Design plan, and the City of Clearwater Community Development Code. The attached analysis is included for your review and consideration relative to your deliberations on the proposed project. Sincerely, ~~ Ethel Hammer Principal 5444 Bay CenJer Drive. Suite 122, Tampa, FL 33609. Telephone 813 282-3855, Fax 813 286-2308 I I I I, I I I I' I I I -, J :1 I ~I _I I ,I Analysis of Project Inconsistencies with Beach By Desiqn Standards Policy Statements Page 2-Gulfview/Coronado Hotel/Retail Development "The design of buildings in this area should allow greater height while maintaining human scale at pedestrian level and maintaining light, air and view corridors." Light, air and view corridors are not maintained with the proposed building design. These aspects of site design are not possible with 0' setbacks on all property boundaries, and with the proposed vacation of Third Street. With no replacement of the Third Street right-of-way, air, light and view perspectives for the general public have been eliminated. A. Density The gross density of residential development shall not exceed 30 dwelling units per acre, unless additional density is transferred from other locations Clearwater Beach. Ordinarily, resort density will be limited to 40 units per acre. However, additional density can be added to a resort either by transferred development rights or if by way of the provisions of the community redevelopment district (CRD) designation. Nonresidential density is limited by Pinellas County Planning Council intensity standards. The proposed density of the project IS 153 units per acre, assuming the vacation of Third Street. (If Third Street IS not vacated, the proposed denSity of the project IS 250 Units per acre) ThiS denSity exceeds the denSity permItted under the Resort Faclhlies High comprehensive land use plan category, and It exceeds the denSities referenced In the Beach by DeslQn guidelines According to Beach by Deslon, the density for a project can be Increased through transfer of development rights or by deSignation of the site as a Community Redevelopment District (CRD) There has been no proposal for transfer of development rights to this sIte from any other Site, nor has the site been deSignated as a CRD through the appropriate governmental procedures B. Height One hundred feet (100') is the maximum permissible building height, except that the height limitation may be increased to one hundred fifty feet (150') if: The proposed bUilding deSIgn exceeds the maximum bUIlding height of 150 feet The Clearwater Community Development Code speCifIes that height must be measured from existing grade to the midline of the roof, therefore, the height of the bUIldIng from eXistIng grade to the midline of the highest roof IS approximately 168 feet I I I I I ,I I' I I I I I I I I I I I I 1. additional density is allocated to the development either by transferred development rights or with bonus hotel units pursuant to the CRD desig!1ation; Additional density has not been allocated to this project through the transfer of development rights nor has a Community Redevelopment District been . , established through the appropriate governmental procedures. 2. portions of any structures which exceed one hundred feet (100') are spaced at least one hundred feet (100') apart (with no more than two (2) structures which excE"ed one hundred feet (100') within five hundred feet (500') or four (4) structures which exceed one hundred feet (100') within eight hundred feet (800') so long as the elevations of all structures which exceed one hundred feet (100') when such structures are viewed from the east do not occupy a total of forty percent (40%) of a north south vertical plane which is parallel to the alignment of Coronado and North Mandalay of the building envelope above one hundred feet (100'); The project, as designed, does not meet this height standard (Exhibit A). Most of the building cross section is designed to exceed 100 feet in height The two main towers exceed 100 feet, but the portion of the bUilding separating the towers also exceeds 100 feet in height This IS not permiSSible under the Code. 3. the floorp/ate of any portion of a building that exceeds forty-five feet (45') in height is limited as follows: a. between forty-five feet (45') and one hundred feet (100'), the f100rplate will be no greater than 25,000 square feet except for parking structures open to the public; The applicant, In the project submittal documents, states U[t]hls design constraint cannot be accommodated in the subject parcel due to the establishment of parking on levels 2 through 7 of the structure" No waiver or vanance to this requirement was requested by the applicant as part of the site plan review process before the Community Development Board (COB). The entire parking structure is not open to the public b. between one hundred feet (100') and one hundred fifty feet (150'), the f1oorp/ate will be no greater than 10,000 square feet; The project design does not meet this reqUIrement. The applicant stated in their application that the bUilding would have varying floor plates above the seventh level According to the building floorplans, the floor plates between the seventh floor and the eleventh floor are each over 30,000 square feet, which substantially exceeds the 10,000 square foot standard. Those floors (7-11) are located between 100 feet and 150 feet, and therefore, the bUilding does not comply with the adopted design requirements. -_._------ Ji1 X I CD -4 ~ --------.- ,) .... . ~ ..J - -~ . .. 168' 54' _L -1l CORONADO AVENUE ELEVATION ENGELHARDT, HAMMER & ASSOCIATES Urban PlannIng Services , - " , - I I , , , , I ~ J , I I I I I C. Design, Scale and Mass of Buildings 3. At least sixty percent (60%) of any elevation will be covered with windows or architectural decoration. For the purpose of this standard, an elevation is that portion of a building that is visible from a particular point outside the parcel proposed for development. The building design, as shown in the applicant's elevations, does not meet this requirement on either the north or south sides of the proposed building. -- 4. No more that sixty percent (60%) of the theoretical maximum building envelope located above forty-two feet (42') will be occupied by a building. For the purpose of this standard, theoretical maximum building envelope is the maximum permitted building volume that could be theoretically occupied by a building and occupied by a building includes any portion of the maximum possible building envelope that is not visible from a public street. The building design does not meet this standard. The building occupies almost 80% of the bUIlding envelope above 42 feet, as shown on Exhibit B. Because Beach by Desiqn limits the building to 60% of the building envelope at thiS level, the building design does not comply with thiS standard. There is nothing In the Beach by Desiqn standards that suggests that only levels above the parking garage should be calculated in this analysis. ~... ~_ 1-._ ~ .... 42' m X I OJ -i OJ ___ t__ .... 'UJ~ l ~- :....~L -0-- a o n n n ~j ,:!~~ ~'""-~1 CORONADO AVENUE ELEVATION ENGELHARDT, HAMMER & ASSOCIATES Urban PlannIng Services I J , , ,- - J J I j - - - -- J J J ,I . J il ! I Analysis of Project Inconsistencies with City of Clearwater Future Lar.d Use Element of Comprehensive Plan A. Inconsistent with Standards for Property Plan Classification of Resort Facilities High (RFH) 1. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Standard. The Land Use Element establishes a maximum FAR for the Resort Facilities High (RFH) land use category of 1.2. The FAR calculation for thIS project, excluding the parking garage, is approximately 3.6, approximately three times the allowable intensity in the land use category. 2. Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR) Standard. The Land Use Element establishes a maximum ISR for the RFH land use category of 095 The proposed project has an ISR of 1.0, which exceeds the maximum permIssible within the land use category. 3. Overniqht Accommodation Density Standard. The Land Use Element establishes a maximum density for hotel rooms of 50 unIts per acre. The proposed project has a densIty of 153 units per acre, assuming the vacatIon of ThIrd Street. (If Third Street IS not vacated, the density would be 250 units per acre) 8. Inconsistent with Adopted Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element 1. Goal - The City of Clearwater shall continue to protect natural resources and systems throughout the City and ensure that these resources are successfully integrated into the urban environment through land development regulations, management programs, and coordination with future land use intensities and categories. (pg A-3) View corndor of the Gulf can be deemed as being a natural resource. Vacating without relocating Third Street and allOWing setbacks of 0' along the interior SIde yards eliminates the view from Coronado Street. ThIS resource IS therefore not protected. 2.2 Objective - The City of Clearwater shall continue to support innovative planned development and mixed land use development techniques in order to promote infill development that is consistent and compatible with the surrounding environment. (pg. A-5) , , , , , J J' , , - a - J I I I I 1 4. Goal - The City of Clearwater shall ensure that all development or redevelopment initiatives meet the safety, environmental, and aesthetic needs of the City through consistent implementation of the Community Development Code. (pg. A-11) A view corridor to the Gulf of Mexico would definitely be considered an aesthetic need of the City. Setbacks of 0' eliminate this view corridor and do not further this goal. Recreation and Open Space Element Policy 24.1.7 - Preserve beach accessways through development control an_d preservation of accessible street ends. The request proposes to vacate Third Street (without relocation), thereby eliminating a public right-of-way, which IS a view corridor to the Gulf of Mexico. II I - - - , , , ,- I r I J I " , , , I I , I I I I Analysis of Project Inconsistencies with City of Clearwater Community Development Code A. General Standards for level one and level two approval conditions 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. A 150' tall structure, most particularly the portion of the structure which is seven stories at a 0' interior side setback, is not in harmony with the character and scale of surrounding properties. None of the properties in the immediate vicinity are of a scale and height comparable to the proposed project. 2. The proposed development will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings or significantly impair the value thereof. The proposed development will most definitely hinder the appropriate development of adjacent land. "Beach by Design" states that one its purposes is to encourage design of buildings at Gulfview/Coronado that allows greater height while maintaining human scale at pedestrian level and maintaining light, air and view corridors. Not only does the proposed project not retain any light, air and view corridors on that property, but it also negatively Impacts the light, air and view corridors on all adjacent properties. With the proposed zero setback, this development is "wall to wall" from a view corridor perspective on Coronado and Gulfview. This is a small property that is proposed for development too intensive for the site, setting a negative precedent for inappropriate overdevelopment along the entire Clearwater Beach Gulf frontage. The fact that the proposed project has two portions of the building taller than 100' located on each end of the site serves to severely restrict development taller than 100' on adjacent properties. The allotment of two towers to this property gives an undue allotment to one property owner, and again restncts the deSign, scale and height of development on adjacent properties. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. See #1. - - , , , I J , I I , , I , I I I I I I I 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including vi~ual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation impacts, on adjacent properties. The design of the development does not meet this standard. One of the design guidelines in "Beach by Design" is to "avoid further "walling off' of the Gulf of Mexico and the Intracoastal Waterway with "rows" of high rise buildings." Approving this project, with 0' setbacks and the vacation of Third Street (with no replacement of the Third Street view corridor) creates the wall that the design guidelines specify should be avoided. Affording every redevelopment project along the heach the amount of setback variation and right-of-way vacation proposed in this instance would result in a solid wall of development on the east side of Gulfview. B. Flexibility Criteria For Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Projects 1. The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use, intensity and development standards; Although it is understandable that some deviations from the standards of the district are appropriate to develop this site for a resort project, the degree to which the standards are being waived is extreme. To approve a project that has an Impervious Surface Ratio of 1.0, no setbacks from any property boundary, and a height, in the form of towers, that usurps development options on adjacent properties is, in a word, unreasonable. Development on this site would be practical, and possible, with smaller, and more reasonable deviations from the development standards. 2. The uses or mix,of uses within the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project are compatible with adjacent land uses; The intensity of this project is not compatible with surrounding land uses. This is the result of attempting to put too large ot a project on too small of a parcel of land, part of which is public right-ot-way to be vacated by the City. It IS the intensity of the proposal that makes this project incompatible. 3. Suitable sites for development or redevelopment of the uses or mix of uses within the Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project are not otherwise available in the City of Clearwater; Obviously there are other sites that may be more suitable, based upon their size, and the ability to develop a project without vacating a public street. 4. The design of the proposed Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment 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; I I I I I I I~ I I I I I I I I .1 I I 'I The design of the project will not enhance the community character, due to the combination of all the waivers that are being requested. In fact, this project sets a very negative precedent, in that it provides absolutely no green space, no setbacks, and eliminates the light. air and view corridors for the public along the project frontage. This is not a good statement for future projects along the beach frontage. 5. Flexibility with regard to lot width, required setbacks, height and off- street parking 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; Application of this goal must be done in concert with what is reasonable, and what is compatible with the character of the area and surrounding development. The degree to which the setbacks and the height have been flexed on this parcel would not be viewed as "benefits to the community character and the immediate vicinity". - - , , , I 'J I 1 I I I ~ , J J J I J .1 I I ~ ENGELHARDT, HAMMER & ASSOCIATES Urban PlannIng ServIces Ethel D. Hammer Ethel D. Hammer has over twenty-four years experience in the field of planning and public administration. Her experience as the Director of Planning for a pre-eminent land use law firm provides a practical as well as legal perspective to land use planning at Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc. Ms. Hammer was the Principal Planner in charge of short-range planning for Hillsborough County and was responsible for a staff of nine County employees. She also was the Chief Environmental Planner for Hillsborough County while employed at the Hillsborough County Planning Commission. Ms. Hammer has testified as an expert witness on land planning issues at the Circuit Court level in Florida. Ms. Hammer has superior writing and presentation skills and has made numerous public presentations before local and state government officials. Professional Experience President, Engelhardt, Hammer & Associates, Inc., Tampa, Florida-- Responsible for administration and management of consulting firm specializing in land planning, eminent domain consulting, zoning, permitting, appraisal support, and other land use-related services. Director of Planning, Taub & Williams, P.A., Tampa, Florida--Responsible for the coordination of all land use-related activities, including zoning petitions, site plans and Development of Regional Impact. Principal Planner and Senior Planner, Hillsborough County Department of Development Coordination, Tampa, Florida--Responsible for short- range planning in Hillsborough County. Supervised and coordinated the planning analyses of rezoning petitions, subdIvision plats, site plans, and other land development proposals. Supervised a staff of nine professional and technical employees. Environmental Planner, Hillsborough County Planning Commission, Tampa, Florida--Provided environmental review of applications for subdivisions, site plans, and rezoning petitions. Reviewed phosphate mining activities. Served as offiCial Development of Regional Impact Coordinator for the Planning Commission, and conducted environmental reviews of all DRI applications. 5444 Bay CenJer Dnve, Suite 122, Tampa, FL 33609, Telephone 813 282-3855. Fax 813 286-2308 I 3 - I . A I - I I I 1 , , , I J -I -" I I _I I I Ethel D. Hammer (page 2) Representative Proiects · Veterans Expressway, (Multiple Eminent Domain Planning Analyses), Hillsborough County, Florida · Florida Department of Transportation, (Multiple Eminent Domain Planning Analyses), Hillsborough, Pasco, Polk and Pinellas Counties, Florida · Florida's Turnpike, (Polk Parkway Eminent Domain Planning Studies and Expert Witness Testimony), Polk County, Florida · T. J. Maxx (Rezoning) Pasco County, Florida · CF Industries, (Rezoning/DRI/Plan Amendment), Hillsborough County, Florida · Luria's, Inc. (Rezoning), Tampa, Flonda · Chick-fil-A, Inc. (Rezoning), Hillsborough County, Florida · Operation PAR, Inc., (Rezoning), Plnellas County, Florida · Publix Supermarkets, Inc., (Rezoning), Tampa, Florida. Professional Credits Undergraduate Degree, Biology, Juniata College Graduate Degree, Environmental Planning, University of Pittsburgh Post-Graduate Studies, UniversIty of Pittsburgh Member, Hillsborough County Development Regulations Task Force Member, American Planning Association Member, League of Women Voters