Letter from R. J. Heisenbottle Architects PA
~
2199
PONCE
DE LEON
BOULEVARD
SUITE 400
CORAL
GABlES
FLORIDA
33134
305.+16.7799
305.446. 9213 FAX
HEISENBOTTLE
ARC HIT E C T 5
www.rjha.net
A Professional Association
AACOO1513
July 14, 2008
Mr. Wayne Wells, Planner II
City of Clearwater Planning Department
Municipal Services Building
100 South Myrtle Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
RE: Belleview Biltmore Cabana Club
FLD2008-02002 - 1590 Gulf Boulevard
Response to DRC Comments of July 3, 2008
Dear Mr. Wells:
On behalf of our Client, Legg Mason Real Estate Investors (Legg Mason), I am
pleased to submit the enclosed information for the above referenced project in
response to the review comments received at the City of Clearwater Development
Review Committee (ORC) meeting of July 3, 2008. We understand that this
application will be scheduled for review by the Community Development Board on
August 19, 2008.
Enclosed please fmd the following documents to comprise a complete application:
1. Flexible Development Application, 15 copies.
2. Exhibits to Application including General Applicability Responses,
Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project Responses, Recorded Deed and
Fire Flow Calculations Worksheet.
3. Reduced Color Building Elevations and Renderings, 15 copies.
4. Reduced Color Landscape Plan, 15 copies.
5. Comprehensive Landscape Program Application and Responses, 15 copies.
6. Resort Cabanas manufacturer's cut sheet, 15 copies.
7. Site Plan, 15 copies each of Civil, Architectural and Landscape Plans.
8. Boundary Survey, 15 copies.
To facilitate your review, the comments are restated below (in bold) followed by our
responses:
GENERAL ENGINEERING:
Comment No.1:
Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit:
1.
Separate taps on the existing water main shall be
provided for potable, Ure and irrigation water
connections.
The City of Clearwater will provide water tap,
(Clearwater Code of Ordinances Section .32.095),
set the water meter (Clearwater Code of
Ordinances Section 32.096) and set the B.F.P.D.
(back flow preventor device). The applicant is
responsible for the water main extension from the
2.
,
Mr. Wayne Wells, Planner IT
July 14, 2008
Page 2
Response No.1:
tap to the device. Applicant is also responsible for all
associated fees and all other installation fees.
3. The applicant proposes to cut and cap at the
property line a 6-inch water main that terminates in
the applicant's property at a Fire Hydrant Assembly
(FHA). Rather than . cut and cap this water line
applicant shall instead install either a FHA or a
permanent blow-off assembly at the property line to
facilitate flushing of the line to prevent stagnation.
Applicant shall coordinate all activities related to the
shortening of this water main with the Public
Utilities Department prior to any work taking place.
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy:
1. Applicant shall submit 5 sets of as-built drawings
that are signed and sealed by a professional
registered in the State of Florida. The Construction
Services Inspector will field inspect as-built drawings
for accuracy.
Note: Reclaimed water is not presently available to
this site.
General Note: DRC review is a prerequisite for
Building Permit Review; additional comments may
be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit
Application.
1.
Comment acknowledged. At the time of Construction
Plan preparation, separate taps will be provided for the
domestic water service, the building fire service, the
irrigation service, and the fire hydrant service.
2. Comment acknowledged. At the time of Construction
Plan preparation, a note will be added to the plans
stating, "The City of Clearwater will provide the water
taps, set the water meter, and set the BFPD (back flow
preventor device). The Developer / Applicant
acknowledges responsibility for the remainder of the
installation and all applicable fees.
3. Comment acknowledged. At the time of Construction
Plan preparation, a Permanent Blow-Off will be added
to the existing watermain at the property line so that the
line can be flushed to prevent stagnation. See Sheet C-
2.
1. Comment acknowledged and as-built plans will be
Mr. Wayne Wells, Planner II
July 14, 2008
Page 3
ENVIRONMENTAL:
Comment No. 1:
Response No.1:
FIRE:
Comment No.1:
Response No.1:
HARBOR MASTER:
Comment No.1:
Response No.1:
Response No.1:
provided.
Prior to building permit, provide a copy of the approved
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP)
permit for construction beyond the Coastal Construction
Control Line (CCCL). COMMENT ACKNOWLEDGED
6/11/08.
Prior to building permit, provide outdoor lighting
specifications that will protect the sea turtle nesting beach
from light pollution, according to Ord. No. 6928-02.
COMMENT ACKNOWLEDGED 6111/08.
Comment acknowledged. These items will be addressed prior
to issuance of the building permit.
No Issues
No further response required.
No issues.
No further response required.
Raised/elevated cabana area shall not block or impede
Perpetual Public Easement Area for Pedestrian Passage.
No structure, landscaping, or other site improvement shall
block, obstruct, or impede access to any easement existing
on the subject property.
The temporary cabana area (area west of the Coastal
Construction Control Line (CCCL)) will be left generally at its
current elevation. The previously shown stairs and elevated
area has been removed from all of the plan sheets (Civil,
Architectural, Landscape Architectural); Therefore, there are
no impediments to the Perpetual Public Easement Area for
Pedestrian Passage. See the enclosed Site Plans.
~
Mr. Wayne Wells, Planner IT
July 14, 2008
Page 4
LAND RESOURCES:
Comment No.1:
Response No.1:
Comment No.2:
Response No.2:
LANDSCAPING:
Comment No.1:
Response No.1:
Comment No.2:
Response No.2:
Comment No.3:
Response No.3:
4/23108-Show all trees with their canopies, on all of the civil
plans prior to CDB.
All existing trees and their canopies were previously shown on
the Existing Conditions Plan. See Sheet C-2. All existing trees
to remain and their canopies have been added to all of the Civil
and Landscape Architectural plan sheets. See enclosed Site
Plans.
Show the condition rating of the trees on the spreadsheet
prior to building permit.
Comment acknowledged.
Sheet C-3 - Dimension the width of the interior landscape
area west of Space #12.
The width of the interior landscape area west of parking space
#12 has been dimensioned. See Sheet C-3.
Sheet L-6.02 - Plant Schedule must be revised to indicate the
caliper of the GT and MG trees at a minimum 2.5" caliper
and the palms must be noted that the size (height) is "ct"
(clear trunk).
On Sheet L-6.02, the plant schedule has been revised to
indicate the GT and MG trees at a minimum of 2.5" caliper and
palm heights are noted as C.T. (clear trunk).
6/25/08 - WW
It is our determination that the foundation planting area
and location for the "little gem" magnolias trees proposed is
inadequate for these trees and either accent or palm trees
should rather be used (see comment below). The area south
of the garage entrance between the accessible path sidewalk
and the trash staging area also qualifies as a foundation
planting area where the required trees can be planted. The
trees added at the rear of the building adjacent to the
Cabana Club Condos is not a foundation planting area, but
rather a perimeter buffer area. Revise.
The "little gem" magnolias have been replaced with groupings
of Sabal palms for a total of 12 palm trees to fulfill the
requirement for foundation landscaping. The heights of the
~
Mr. Wayne Wells, Planner II
July 14, 2008
Page 5
Comment No.4:
Response No.4:
Comment No.5:
Response No.5:
Comment No.6:
Response No.6:
palms have been specified at different heights on the plan.
Sheet C-3 - Cannot count perimeter buffers or foundation
landscape areas also as interior landscape area (no double
counting; I may have misled you on prior comments for the
northeast side of the building). The area on the northwest
side of the restaurant portion of the building does not
count as interior landscape area, as well as the east and
south perimeter buffers. Cannot count area west of the
building as interior landscape area. Revise crosshatching on
this sheet and revise calculations on Sheet C-l.
The Interior Landscaped Areas have been revised pursuant to
the above comment. Areas that are considered Perimeter
Buffers and Foundations Landscaping have been removed
accordingly. See Sheet C-3 and the Land Use Data table on the
Cover Sheet, for revised area calculations.
Sheet C-3 - Dimension the width/depth of the foundation
landscape area, on either side of the porte cochere and on the
south side of the entrance to the garage (next to trash staging
area) (Code requirement is five feet; any reduction must be
requested as part of a Comprehensive Landscape Program).
Dimensions have been added to the foundation landscape areas
in front of the proposed building entrance and adjacent to the
entrance to the covered parking area. The foundation
landscaping has been revised to meet the City's requirements.
See Sheet C-3.
6125/08 - WW
The planting areas/islands next to Space #1 will still need to
be planted with either accent or palm trees (two accent = one
shade; three palms = one shade) to count as interior
landscape area. The planting areaslislands next to Space #23
(formerly #28) is only indicated on Sheet L-6.02 to have one
palm (not two as indicated in your response letter). It must
contain three palms (planted outside the visibility triangle).
The planting area next to space #1 has been planted with 3
Sabal palms. The planting area next to space #23 has been
planted with 3 Sabal palms and the location for future signage
moved to accommodate them.
PARKS AND RECREATION:
Comment No.1:
The Public Art and Design Impact Fee is due and payable
on this project prior to issuance of building permit. This fee
~
Mr. Wayne Wells, Planner IT
July 14, 2008
Page 6
could be substantial and it is recommended that you
contact Chris Hubbard at 727-562-4837 to calculate the
assessment.
Response No.1:
Comment acknowledged. The Public Art and Design Impact
Fee will be paid prior to the issuance of the building permit.
Comment No.2:
Open spaceJrecreation impact fees are due prior to the
issuance of building permits or final plat (if applicable)
whichever occurs first. These fees could be substantial and
it is recommended that you contact Art Kader at 727-562-
4824 to calculate the assessment.
Response No.2:
Comment acknowledged. The Open Space / Recreation Impact
Fees will be paid prior to the issuance of the building permit.
STORMWATER:
Comment No.1:
Below comments were acknowledged in writing on 6/11/08.
The following shall be addressed at Building Permit
Application.
1. Provide a copy of the approved SWFWMD permit.
2. Provide a copy of the approved permit from Pinellas
County to tie into their drainage system for Gulf
Boulevard (C.R. 183).
3. Provide a specification supporting the permeability
rate K in the draw down analysis.
4. Show how the roof runoff will be directed to the
proposed vault.
5. Include in the drainage report the maintenance plan
for the on-site stormwater facility.
6. Provide the design elevations of all storm structures
in feet, not in Lat + Long format.
7. Show pipe sizes, slopes, and type of pipe material is
to be used.
8. Identify all storm structures depicted on the plan
and provide a detail for each type of structure to be
used.
Response No.1:
1.
Comment acknowledged. At the time of Construction
Plan preparation, a SWFWMD ERP will be applied for.
A copy of the approved SWFWMD Permit will be
provided upon receipt, prior to issuance of the building
permit.
2. Comment acknowledged. At the time of Construction
Mr. Wayne Wells, Planner II
July 14, 2008
Page 7
Plan preparation, a Pinellas County Right-of- Way
Permit will be applied for. A copy of the approved
Permit will be provided upon receipt, prior to issuance
of the building permit.
3. Comment acknowledged. At the time of Construction
Plan preparation, the proposed Stormwater
Management System will be designed with the use of
information provided by a geotechnical firm. This
information will be provided With the Construction Plan
submittal.
4. Comment acknowledged. At the time of Construction
Plan preparation, the roof drains will be shown tying
directly into the proposed Stormwater Management
System.
5. Comment acknowledged. At the time of Construction
Plan preparation, a proposed Maintenance and
Operation Checklist will be provided directly to the
Developer. A copy of the Checklist will be included in
the proposed Stormwater Management Report.
6. Comment acknowledged. At the time of Construction
Plan preparation, all design elevations for the
Stormwater Management System structures will be
provided in feet.
7. Comment acknowledged. At the time of Construction
Plan preparation, all pipe sizes, slopes, and type of
material will be shown.
8. Comment acknowledged. At the time of Construction
Plan preparation, all storm structures shown will have a
detail provided.
Comment
General Note:
1. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit
Review; additional comments may be forthcoming
upon submittal of a Building Permit Application.
Response:
1.
Comment acknowledged.
SOLID WASTE:
Comment No.1:
No issues.
Mr. Wayne Wells, Planner II
July 14, 2008
Page 8
Response No.1:
No further response required.
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING:
Comment No.1:
Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit:
1.
Include with plans FDOT INDEX 304, (page 6 of 6)
depicting "Truncated domes for ramps" .
Response No.1: 1.
Plans. See Sheet C-8.
FDOT Index 304 (page 6 of 6) has been added to the
Comment:
Response:
PLANNING:
Comment No.1:
Response No.1:
Comment No.2:
General Note(s):
1. Applicant shall comply with the current
Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and pay the
required fee, if any, prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.).
2. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit
Review; additional comments may be forthcoming
upon submittal of a Building Permit Application.
1.
Comment acknowledged. The Transportation Impact
Fee will be paid prior to the issuance of the Certificate
of Occupancy (C.O.).
2. Comment acknowledged.
7/2/08 - WW
Please add as a note on Sheet C-6.
4/29/08 - WW
Per Section 3-911, all electric and communication lines on-
site must be placed underground.
A note has been added to the plans stating, "All electronic and
communication lines on-site must be placed underground."
See Sheet C-6.
7/2108 - WW
While we continue to receive many emails from concerned
citizens, please specifically address through the application
materials (written material and/or drawings) recently
submitted emails from Todd Pressman (June 15th and June
25th) and Cynthia Remley (July 1st, including the
attachments).
DRCAd:km.Ap:nal.1
cM~~ q//I,)Og----ulu__pa)~a8-o~oo:2.. ~
~ U Mr. Wayne Wells, Planner II / __. ~6<> { CQ
~ July 14, 2008 f_ (-tY-Y.u ~ n _" ". ~S;
iOtldlrtJ5/rItL11 Page 9 ~
Response N~essman E-m~!e!L__une 15"-:0 .
Conservation Element, Objective 25.6 and Policies 25.6.3,
25.6.4 and 25.6.6
Comment: It is critical to note that a formal City public
sidewalk access lies abutting along this entire project site
on the South.
f~
~
Response: The sidewalk referenced in this comment is located
almost totally on the property to the south, Dan's Island
Condominium. In addition, the sidewalk is within and subject
to a public access easement dedicated by the developer of
Dan's Island, which easement is totally located within the
Dan's Island property. The Cabana Club project will not have
any effect on the public access easement since this easement is
completely located outside of the project's property boundary.
Conservation Needs Summary
Comment: I believe this ties into again the desire to further
intensify-by many fold- a Commercial operation on what is
designated a non-commercial corridor. Some scenic non-
commercial corridors on the main land in the County and
City have not remained in this director character~
However, this area of Gulf Blvd. is solely residential.
Response: According to the adopted Pinellas County
Countywide ScenicINon-Commercial Corridor Master Plan
published by the Pinellas Planning Council and dated August
16, 1994, Gulf Boulevard is NOT a designated Scenic/Non-
Commercial Corridor. Therefore, the comment is inapplicable
to the project. In addition, it should be noted that the comment
is excerpted from an introductory section of the Conservation
Element, NOT the adopted Goals, Objectives and Policies
section that governs land use decisions.
Future Land Use
Comment on Policy 1.1.1: I rmd it personally objectionable
that it appears that the applicant may be seeking to not
include improvements past approximately 49' from the
CCCL line in all plans submitted to the City. It appears to
me that the City has a right to review, comment and make
a recommendation of those plans. Further, it is believed
that the requested 0' set back appears to not be in line with
this element.
Response: The Applicant acknowledges that the City has a
right to review, comment and make a recommendation on the
improvements seaward of the CCCL. The Applicant has also
Mr. Wayne Wells, Planner II
July 14, 2008
Page 10
acknowledged previously and continues to state that he is
aware that these improvements require a permit approved by
the State Department of Environmental Protection. We believe
that these improvements will not have any negative impact on
any surrounding properties and will only serve to enhance the
project by providing a shaded area for the hotel guests.
Based on our research, we have identified improvements
seaward of the CCCL on other properties located on Sand Key;
therefore, the City has recognized that these improvements are
consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Land
Development Code.
Comment on Policy 3.2.3: The project is not located as
indicated above. It is not located at any intersection. The
obvious purpose of this element, in my mind, is that more
impacting uses are located at points that can support the
use and not be harmed by their activities. Further, the
concern of commercial impacts is a serious liveable issue to
this residential neighborhood, as supported by the recent
City Commission vote not allowing higher hotel density
specifically on Commercially zoned parcels. These
concerns are further raised by the applicant seeking
significantly more impacts to the site, including an
approximate 137 seat restaurant, 38 room hotel, bus and
boat shuttles, the approximately 260% increase in height
(and use...) and strong attractions for the general public
above and beyond hotel guests. What is planned for the
site far exceeds any ability whatsoever, in my opinion, to
minimize any intrusions.
Response: The site's existing Comprehensive Plan Category is
General Commercial and the existing zoning is Commercial.
The Applicant has not requested an amendment of either the
existing Plan Category or the zoning district. The Applicant
has the right to request development of this permitted use
within the existing zoning district.
It should also be noted that this comment does not accurately
reflect the entirety of the Policy in the context of the Future
Land Use Element. Goal 3 of the Future Land Use Element to
which Policy 3.2.3 is subordinate reads as follows:
"A sufficient variety and amount of future land use
categories shall be provided to accommodate public
demand and promote infill development."
The plain reading of Goal 3 and Policy 3.2.3 makes it clear that
Mr. Wayne Wells, Planner II
July 14, 2008
Page 11
these statements provide guidance to the City when an
amendment to a site's Future Land Use Plan category is
requested, which is clearly not the case for this application.
Therefore, this comment misstates the meaning of Goal 3 and
Policy 3.2.3. as applied to this site and the cited Goal and
Policy have no bearing on this application.
Coastal Management Element
Comment on Policy 23.1.2: I have been informed by Nicole
Elko, in the Pinellas County's Coastal Management
Department, that the CCCL line is located 20' Gulfward of
the U1timar project (to the North of the project site and
Cabana Condo's) and 10' Gulfward of the Dan's Island
project (to the South of the project site). She
communicated that before the last beach renourishment,
waves were hitting against the Dan's Island CCCL line. It
appears that the proposal by Legg Mason would obviously
have problems with that circumstance. The proposed zero
foot setback, and the approximately 49' Gulf ward
proposal, and as I understand, a then proposed elevated
structure, would literally be, in my opinion, so out of
character, so far beyond what is present on Sand Key and
that it could literally be termed a monstrosity.
Response: This comment is misleading since it references a
situation that occurred prior to the beach renourishment and
that renourishment has actually occurred. Most importantly,
the project will comply with all local and state building
requirements and will only build the improvements seaward of
the CCCL upon approval by the City and the State Department
of Environmental Protection.
The comment is further misleading since the specific Policy
23.1.2 states that: ''Development applications shall be reviewed
to ensure that proposed new development or redevelopment
will not encroach on or remove wetlands or beaches..." The
site does not contain any wetlands and the Project will not
encroach on or remove beaches, as demonstrated in the
application materials.
If the proposed 6- story hotel with 3 8 rooms is a "monstrosity"
according to the writer, I wonder how the writer would
characterize the 21-story The Grande Condominium, the 20-
story Meridian on Sand Key, the 18 -story Landmark Towers
One, the 17-story Harbour Light Towers, the 18-story
Lighthouse Towers, two condominiums at the 17-story
Crescent Beach Club One and Two, the two condominiums of
Mr. Wayne Wells, Planner II
July 14, 2008
Page 12
19-story Ultimar Two and Three, and the ll-story Dan's
Island, and the 16-story Isle of Sand Key (in which the writer
owns a non-homestead unit).
B. Todd Pressman E-mail dated June 25. 2008
Comment on General Applicability Criteria Item 1:
Response: We stand by our analysis in the narrative and
believe that the project is in harmony with the adjacent
properties as demonstrated by the submitted plans and
narrative.
Comment on General Applicability Criteria Item 2:
Response: The project that was previously denied on this site
was a Future Land Use Plan amendment from Commercial to
High Density Residential and a related site plan for residential
use. These two applications are not the same request nor does
it request the same proposed use, as the writer incorrectly
states.
We stand by our analysis in the narrative discussing the various
Commercial uses that are permissible in the Commercial
zoning district as compared to the proposed hotel. The
narrative describes in detail how the other permissible
commercial uses in the district woUld be more intrusive, more
intensive and generally out of character with the area. In
comparison, the proposed boutique hotel will have only
minimal impact.
Comment on General Applicability Criteria Item 4:
Response: The City Code requires one parking space per hotel
room and the project is providing 56 parking spaces, in excess
of the code requirement. The City has confirmed previously
that the parking calculation for the project is correct and
therefore, no revisions are necessary.
With regard to the accessory restaurant, the restaurant by its
function, location and design will be accessory to the hotel.
The restaurant may only be accessed through the hotel lobby
and will not have any exterior signage. The Applicant requests
the ability to operate an accessory restaurant within the hotel
the same as the City has approved accessory restaurants at
many other hotels throughout the City.
Comment on General Applicability Criteria Item 6:
Response: We stand by our analysis in the narrative that the
Mr. Wayne Wells, Planner II
July 14, 2008
Page 13
project complies with the Criterion requiring that the project
"minimizes adverse effects.. ,," We also stand by our analysis
that the setbacks proposed are consistent with the immediately
surrounding area as well as the entirety of Sand Key. We think
it is disingenuous and inaccurate to state that this proposal is
inconsistent with the height of the immediate area and Sand
Key in general when the proposed building is 6 stories in
height as compared to the typical height on Sand Key of 17-22
stories. As we have demonstrated, the project at 6 stories is
lower in height than all adjacent properties including Cabana
Club Condominium at 8 stories, The Harbour at 7 stories,
Dan's Island at 11 stories and the Isle of Sand Key at 16
stories.
Comment on General Applicability Criteria Item 6C:
Response: Our response to Criterion 6c is extensive, detailed
and documents that the design, scale and intensity of the
proposed development supports the established or emerging
character of an area (Le., the Sand Key area in which the .
project is located).
Comment on General Applicability Criteria Item 6d:
Response:. The writer's statement on the purpose of the roof
design is inaccurate. The clear and obvious purpose of the roof
design was to be consistent with the Cabana Club
Condominium design to the north and to replicate the
architectural features of the historic Belleview Biltmore Hotel,
both of which have the same pitched roof design. We disagree
with the writer's statement that the roof design provides an
opportunity to gain extra height to which the project is not
entitled. The roof is designed to provide aesthetic and
architectural consistency, not to add height for the sole sake of
adding height.
C. Cynthia Remlev E-mail dated Julv 1. 2008
Comment 1: Boat Dock-Comment No.6: with respect to
Legg Mason's purported right to use a dock, please see the
attached memo from Alan Zimmet.
Response 1 : We have removed all references in the narrative
to the boat dock located on the east side of Gulf Boulevard. It
should be noted that while our legal counsel disagrees with Mr.
Zimmet's opinion regarding the dock, we are not responding to
his opinion due to the fact that we have removed all references
to the dock. Due to community concerns, we are evaluating
Mr. Wayne Wells, Planner II
July 14,2008
Page 14
other options at this time. We reserve our right to bring this
issue back to the City in the future after we have completed our
assessment of the available alternatives.
Comment 2: Traffic, parking, Comprehensive InfiIl
Redevelopment Criteria, Height, Coastal Construction
Control Line and Public Access Easement- Please see the
attached ''LM Issues" document.
1. Traffic:
It appears that the City should be requiring a Traffic
Impact Study for this proposed project since it appears to
generate in excess of 1,000 vehicle trips/day. Using ITE 7th
Edition, motel rooms general 9.11 trips a day/room and a
high turnover sit down restaurant generates 127.15 vehicle
trips a day/l,OOO sf. Or 6.21 trips/seat on Saturdays. Based
on this, 38 motel rooms generate 346.18 trips a day and a
125 seat restaurant generates 776.25 trips a day for a total
of 1122 vehicle trips a day.
Additionally, the information from the applicant indicates
that their guests will be dropped off on the opposite side of
Gulf Blvd. and will have to cross Gulf Blvd. The applicant
has not addressed any safety issues regarding this plan.
Response 1: The City has determined that a traffic study is not
required for this project. The method of calculating the trips
for the hotel is inaccurate as stated above since a hotel, by City
definition, may include accessory uses such as a restaurant.
The City does not calculate the trip generation for accessory
uses in addition to the hotel.
The Applicant has removed all references to the boat dock
from the narrative. However, it should be noted that residents
on the east side of Gulf Boulevard currently cross this street to
walk along the public access easement and reach the beach. If
there are existing safety issues for residents, the residents
should pursue this concern with the City.
2. Parking:
H the restaurant is going to be open to the public, it should
provide parking in addition to the motel guest parking to
accommodate these patrons. Section 1401(C) of the City
land development regulations allow the Community
Development Director to require a Parking Demand Study.
It seems appropriate to request this study from the
Mr. Wayne Wells, Planner II
July 14, 2008
Page 15
applicant given the apparent shortage of spaces for both a
restaurant and a hotel.
Under Section 1405 of the City development regulations, a
matrix is provided for the percentage of parking for
different land use types need during different times of the
day. This is provided to show that shared parking can
accommodate the site's needs. Based on that matrix, both
restaurants and overnight accommodations need 100
percent of their required number of spaces in the evenings,
which implies that the proposed number of spaces is
insufficient to meet the anticipated demand.
Under the City's Comprehensive lniill Redevelopment
Project criteria, the Development Coordinator at the City
decides upon the required number of parking spaces based
on either lTE or the specific uses.
Response 2: This comment is inaccurate and is not consistent
with the City's code and policies on the method of calculating
parking spaces. As stated in the response to Comment 1 above,
the City does not require additional parking for accessory uses
in a hotel. The Code requires one space per hotel room, which
is 38 spaces for the proposed project. The project proposes to
construct a total of 56 parking spaces, which exceeds the code
requirement.
3. Comprehensive lniill Redevelopment Criteria:
The development code states that in order to qualify as a
Comprehensive Inf"ill Redevelopment Project, the project
must meet certain specific criteria. There are criteria that
state that the proposed project must provide
redevelopment in an area characterized by other similar
developments. It also requires that setback, lot width, and
height variances must support the established or emerging
character of the area. Since the site is a commercial site in
an otherwise exclusively residential area, it cannot meet the
setback, lot width requirements or the height limitations,
and the proposed development does not appear to meet
these criteria.
Response 3: The writer misstates the Comprehensive Inftll
Redevelopment Project criteria above. The Criteria that
references the "established or emerging character of the area"
is Criterion 6c and is quoted below:
"Flexibility with regard to use, lot width, required setbacks,
Mr. Wayne Wells, Planner II
July 14, 2008
Page 16
height and off-street parking are justified based on
demonstrated compliance with all of the following design
objectives:
c. The design, scale and intensity of the proposed development
supports the established or emerging character of an area."
Our response to Criterion c is extensive, detailed and
documents that the design, scale and intensity of the proposed
development supports the established or emerging character of
an area (i.e., the Sand Key area in which the project is located).
4. Height:
While the applicant is providing the height of the proposed
building as dermed in code, they have yet to provide a real
beight for the project. It would be beneficial and
enlightening to know exactly how high the building will be,
as measured from existing rmished grade to the peak of the
highest roofline. That is the only way that the height can be
meaningfully measured relative to other structures in the
area.
Response 4: The height of the proposed building is shown
consistent with the City Code method of measuring height;
therefore, no revisions are required.
5. Coastal Construction Control Line
The applicant claims that the proposed CCCL setback is
the same as the adjoining properties, but that is
questionable based on looking at the existing building line.
It would be appropriate for the applicant to provide a plan
view drawing of the site plan with the Coastal Construction
Control Line shown so that it is clear what portions of the
development are seaward of that line. It would also be
beneficial to have a drawing that shows the proposed site
plan and the existing adjacent buildings and show the
CCCL along all of these to show that the setbacks are
identical, as stated by the applicant.
Response 5: The drawing suggested by the writer is not a City
application requirement. The location of the CCCL on the
project site is clearly shown on the survey and all plans.
We stand by the statement in our narrative that "The two
adjacent neighboring residential buildings are also located on
or within close proximity to the Coastal Construction Control
Mr. Wayne Wells, Planner II
July 14, 2008
Page 17
or within close proximity to the Coastal Construction Control
Line (CCCL) which is also consistent with the pattern of
construction of the other buildings along Sand Key as
previously documented" (General Applicability Criteria No.1,
page 5-6). This statement is based on our aerial photography
interpretation.
6. Public Access Easement
When questioned about the blockage of the existing public
access easement, the applicant responded that break-away
structures would be in there. Breakaway is not the same
thing as clear passage. The applicant needs to address
where they infringe upon the public access easement by
showing it on the site plan, along with the CCCL line.
Response 6: The plans have been clearly revised to eliminate
any trees, shrubbery or cabanas from the public easement along
the seawall. Therefore, there is no infringement or blockage
within this public access easement.
Comment 3: Restaurant size- We believe that the Applicant
should provide the square footage of the proposed new
restaurant, calculated as the City does, to include restrooms
and all kitchen, preparation, lobby, storage and service
areas.
Response 3: We have confIrmed with the City as to the proper
method of calculating the size of the accessory restaurant. The
size of the restaurant is 4,981 square feet and is clearly shown
on the architectural plans.
Comment 4: Adverse Effects on Adjacent Properties with
respect to Visual, Acoustic, Olfactory and Hours of
Operation-Exhibit B, Criteria and Response No.6: The
comments completely omit any mention of the Isle of Sand
Key Condominium Building which is adjacent to the asset
and south of the proposed development. The applicant has
not accurately commented on the adverse impact, especially
visual, to all of the surrounding and adjacent properties.
Response 4: We stand by our analysis in the narrative and
believe that we have documented that the project will minimize
impacts on the surrounding area.
Comment 5: Turtle Nest-CMA has identified 3 Sea Turtle
Nests on Sand Key, one of which is located near this
property. It is not clear how the Applicant's proposed plans
Mr. Wayne Wells, Planner IT
July 14, 2008
Page 18
will protect and preserve the habitat of sea turtles and
other wild life.
Response 5: The project will absolutely comply with all
requirements regarding sea turtle habitat. The writer states that
the nest is "located near this property." If the writer can
provide more detailed information about the specific location
of the nest, the Applicant will investigate its location to
evaluate it and insure compliance.
Comment 6: Public Access Easement OR6848-We do not
understand how the City can allow this easement to be
obstructed in any manner.
Response 6: The Applicant has responded to this issue several
times in this letter. The plans have been revised to clearly
show that there will not be any trees, shrubbery or cabanas
within the public access easement; therefore, there will not be
any obstruction located in the easement area.
Comment 7: Meetings with Adjacent Property Owners:-
Comment No. 44: Applicant's representations concerning
past meetings and current discussions, is not accurate.
There have been only two public presentations by the
applicant to all Sand Key residents (1) February 4th,
Banquet Room on the 3rd Floor of the Cabana Club
Restaurant; and (2) March 5th at a public meeting of the
SKCA held at the Clearwater Sailing Center located on
Sand Key. Presentations were conducted before the
Applicant had completed and disclosed its development
plan included the area up to and seaward of the CCCL.
The applicant has refused the request of the residents'
attorney to conduct another public meeting on Sand Key to
support the greatest attendance possible by the residents
who will be impacted by this proposed development.
Response 7: The comment regarding the timing of the
presentation with regard to completing the development plan is
inaccurate. Legg Mason submitted its original application to
the City of Clearwater on February 1, 2008 which preceeds
both public presentations mentioned by the writer. The
original submittal and all subsequent revised plans have clearly
shown that non-habitable improvements were proposed
seaward of the CCCL.
The comment with regard to another public meeting is also
completely inaccurate. The actual situation is that Applicant's
attorney initiated a discussion with the residents' attorney to
Mr. Wayne Wells, Planner II
July 14, 200S
Page 19
invite the residents to a meeting to discuss the project. This
meeting was held on July S, 200S, a date selected by the
residents, and was attended by approximately 24 persons,
exclusive of the Legg Mason team in attendance.
Comment 8: Cabana Club Condominium Board-Applicant
represents in Exhibit A, Comment 1, p. 2 and in Exhibit B,
Comment 1, p.ll, "... that the Cabana Club Condominium
Board has stated in writing that they are in favor of the
proposed hotel and its deSign.: We believe tha.t there is no
document supporting the inference and claim that the
Board voted upon and put into writing, favorable approv3.1
of the ''proposed hotel and its design." Numerous Cabana
Club Condominium residents have expressed their
opposition in petitions and donations to the leg3.1 fund of a
neighborhood group that opposes the plans and seeks
redevelopment of this site without variances.
Response S: This statement is misleading and inaccurate.
Please see the attached correspondence relating to this issue:
a. February 22, 200S Letter from George Mitrovich,
President, Cabana Club Condominiwn Association to
Owners of the Condominium asking them to vote on the
project. Also attached to the letter is the Cabana Club
Chronicles newsletter, the Belleview Biltmore plan and
several newspaper articles on the subject.
b. Undated Letter from George Mitrovich, President, Cabana
Club Condominium Association to the Owners reporting
the results of the vote.
c. July 14, Letter from Thomas Reynolds to Rosemary Keller,
President, Cabana Club Condominiwn Board.
To snmmarize the Cabana Club Condominium's position, the
undated Letter from George Mitrovich to the Owners with the
results of the vote stated as follows:
"The results of the vote are decisive.
I ACCEPT the Belleview Biltmore development plan as
currently presented. 74.2%.
I DO NOT ACCEPT the Belleview Biltmore
development plan as currently presented and I authorize
the Board to fight the development plan using
association funds and board time. 25. S %
The owners have mandated that the board will not use
association funds and or board time to fight the
development plan."
Mr. Wayne Wells, Planner II
July 14, 2008
Page 20
Comment No.3: 7/2108 - WW
Please expand discussion in the last paragraph of this
response (page 7 of 17) how this proposal is more similar in
characteristics to the surrounding residential properties,
different than other commercial uses permissible in the
Commercial District.
Response No.3: The response to General Applicability Criteria #2 has been
revised to respond to this comment.
Comment No.4: 7/2108 - WW
The proposal includes a 1.6-foot cap on the seawall,
necessitating the installation of steps on the north and south
sides of the property to access this proposed higher elevation
for the "temporary cabana structures", a concrete or paver
area for the "temporary cabana structures" and
landscaping. These improvements do appear to impede this
easement area (see also Legal comments).
Response No.4: The temporary cabana area (area west of the Coastal
Construction Control Line (CCCL) to the seawall) will be left
generally at its current elevation. The pr' s own . s
and elevated area have been re ed from all of the plan
sheets (Civil, Architectural, L dscape Architectural). The
only improvement within the blic Access Easement is grass,
to insure that there are no impe . entsto the public use of th
easement. See the enclosed Site P
Comment No.5: 7/2108 - WW
The westernmost stairs are shown to be demolished on
Sheet C-2. Plans still show the other stairs at the back of
the building close to the elevator that appear to be retained
(see Sheet C-3, C-4. C-6, C-7, L-6.03, A-6.02 and A-6.03
(stairs on L-6.03 & A-6.03 appear to be a rear exit from the
kitchen). H these stairs are to be retained (as it appears),
are these stairs a required egress per the Building and Fire
Codes? H a required egress, there must be an accessible
path to a public way, and as such, none is shown. H not a
required egreSs, all appropriate plans (including Sheet L-
6.02) must show the stairs and required landing.
Advise/revise.
Response No.5: The referenced westernmost stairs are not a required egress and
have been removed from all applicable plans.
Comment No.6: 7/2/08 & 4/29/08 - WW
Potential condition of approval:
Mr. Wayne Wells, Planner II
July 14, 2008
Page 21
Response No.6:
Comment No.7:
Response No.7:
That prior to issuance of permits for any proposed
structures west of the Coastal Construction Control Line
(CCCL), the applicant submit a copy of the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection approval for that
construction west of the CCCL.
Comment acknowledged. If there are any items located
westward of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL)
that are considered "proposed structures," a Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Permit will
be applied for. The Developer acknowledges that this may be
made a Condition of Approval.
7/2108 - WW
a. Plans indicate the cabanas as "temporary
structures" . Elaborate as to what is meant by
"temporary". Exhibit B indicates these cabanas as
"breakaway-style", which would appear to mean
more than "temporary". Will there be
"foundations" that the cabanas will be attached to?;
b. Response to prior DRC comments indicates there
will be no impervious surfaces west of the CCCL.
Last paragraph for Exhibit B under Request
indicates "hardscape" improvements planned west
of CCCL. Plans (civil, landscape and architectural)
are unclear as to the surface of the area surrounding
the cabanas, but appears to be paved/concrete
surfaces, much like other portions of the site. If sand
surface, indicate such on the plans; and
Co Building codes have seawall setbacks. Based on
discussion in "a" above, proposed cabanas may have
issues with seawall setbacks. Need to discuss type of
cabana structure (foundations?) with Development
Services.
a.
The attached Resort Cabanas manufacturer cut sheet
illustrates the style and temporary nature of the
proposed cabana structures. The cabanas are
constructed from flame retardant fabrics. Although the
cabanas can be designed for 80 mph winds, we expect
that the cabanas will be disassembled and removed
during hazardous weather conditions. The cabanas can
be installed with or without foundations; however, a
foundation with a sleeve is preferred and will be
utilized if found acceptable by the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection. See enclosed cut sheet
from Resort Cabanas and refer to manufacturer's web
site: www.resortcabanas.com.
Mr. Wayne Wells, Planner IT
July 14, 2008
Page 22
b. Exhibit B has been revised to eliminate any references
to "hardscape" which is consistent with the submitted
revised plans. As stated previously, the only
improvements west of the CCCL will be grass,
landscaping and the temporary cabanas.
c. We acknowledge the comment and will coordinate with
the Development Services Department regarding the
seawall setbacks.
Comment No.8:
7/2/08 & 4/29/08 . WW
Potential condition of approval:
That all applicable requirements of Chapter 39 of the
Building Code be met related to seawall setbacks;
Response No.8: The Developer acknowledges that this statement as a potential
Condition of Approval.
Comment No.9: 7/2108 . WW
Include as a condition of approval prior to the issuance of
the building permit.
4/29/08 . WW
Show the location of any outdoor electric meters and boxes
on the building. By Electric Code, these must be located
above BFE. Show any platforms providing ability of
Progress Energy employees to read the meters. Prior to the
issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, all such outdoor
boxes and other equipment on the building must be painted
the same color as the building.
Response No.9: The Developer acknowledges that this may be a Condition of
Approval.
Comment No. 10: 7/2/08. WW
It is unclear of the specific location of the dock that is owned
by the Biltmore across Gulf Blvd. from the subject
property. Such dock has not yet been determined to he a
nonconformity.
Response No. 10: We have removed all references in the narrative.to the boat
dock located on the east side of Gulf Boulevard. Please also
see Response No.1 to Ms. Remley's e-mail dated July 1,2008
on page 12 of this letter.
Comment No. 11: 7/2108-WW
The response to the prior DRC comments indicates valet
parking could be provided in peak periods to increase
Mr. Wayne Wells, Planner IT
July 14, 2008
Page 23
available on-site parking. Valet parking normally
anticipates parking vehicles in locations contrary to Code
provisions regarding required backup areas for each
parking space (i.e.: stacking). So far, the application is not
requesting to provide valet parking at peak periods and
the site has been designed to meet Code provisions. The
concern is not the hotel parking, but for the "accessory"
restaurant that appears larger than that "normal" for a 38-
room hotel. H the "accessory" restaurant has been sized to
accommodate not only the guests of the Cabana Club hotel
but also other hotel guests from the BeUeview Biltmore,
then potentially any approval of this application should be
conditioned. on the common marketing and operation of the
Cabana Club and the Biltmore together. Any future desire
to sell ofT this hotel from the Biltmore could require a
reduction to the size of the restaurant to a more
"normal" size, the provision of additional parking for a
non-accessory restaurant or a request to reduce such
required parking for a non-accessory restaurant
(commensurate with a Parking Reduction Study justifying
such reduction request).
Response No. 11:
All proposed parking within the project meets the City's codes
regarding dimensions and location. Upon peak visitation to the
hotel, the hotel operator may choose to utilize some or all of
the parking as a valet operation.
With regard to the connection between the Belleview Biltmore
and the Cabana Club, the Applicant states that both hotels will
be operated, managed and marketed by the same entity. There
is no intention to separate the two properties for separate
operation, management nor marketing.
To confIrm this intent, the applicant proposes the following
language as a condition of approval:
ore esort, located in e own
of Belleair, and the Cabana Club Hotel will be opera
and managed as one facility by the same hotel operator.
Should this common operation and management be
discontinued, the City may review the Cabana Clu
el for parking compliance."
-----------.--.------:..
Comment No. 12: Potential condition of approval:
That, prior to the issuance of any permits, a Declaration of
Unity of Title be recorded tying this property with the
Belleview Biltmore property in the Town of Belleair; (Note:
This condition may be expanded to address the issue of the
-~
Mr. Wayne Wells, Planner II
July 14, 2008
Page 24
Response No. 12:
Comment No. 13:
criteria #2 -
Response No. 13:
Comment No. 14:
Response No. 14:
OTHER:
Comment:
Response:
size of the "accessory" restaurant in relation to parking
requirements.)
Based on the proposed condition of approval discussed in
Response No. 12 above, the Applicant believes, and the City
staff agreed in concept at the July 3, DRC meeting, that the
need for a Unity of Title document is no longer necessary.
Response to Comprehensive Inf'ill Redevelopment Project
Erroneous comment. No response required.
Provide a drawing of a typical "temporary cabana
structure" in plan and elevation view. What type and color
of cover material will the cabana structure be made of and
what provisions are being made to remove these structures
in the event of a hurricane event? Will the cabanas have a
covering over the top and sides or only over the top?
The proposed cabanas will be consistent with the attached cut
sheet from Resort Cabanas. The cabanas are constructed from
flame retardant fabrics and the selected color will be
compatible with the colors of the hotel. Although the cabanas
can be designed for 80 mph winds, we expect that the cabanas
will be disassembled and removed during hazardous weather
conditions. The cabanas can be installed with or without
foundations; however, a foundation with a sleeve is preferred
and will be utilized if found acceptable by the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection. See enclosed cut
sheet from Resort Cabanas and refer to manufacturer's web
site: www.resortcabanas.com.
No Comments
No further response required.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact our office.
Very Truly Yours,
eisenbottle, F AIA
.r
Mr. Wayne Wells, Planner II
July 14, 2008
Page 25
Enclosures
c: Joseph Penner, Legg Mason Real Estate Investors, Inc., w/encl.
Thomas Reynolds, Rahdert, Steele, Bole and Reynolds, P.A., w/encl.
Octavio Cabrera, P,E., Florida Design Consultants, w/o encl.
Cynthia H, Tarapani, AICP, FOC, w/encl.
Jeffrey W. Denny, P,E., Florida Design Consultants, w/o encl.
Roy E. Chapman, P.E., Florida Design Consultants, w/o end
Ron Ham, Skanska USA, w/encl.
Gerry Marston, Wallace Roberts Todd, w/encl.
Mel Garcia, Gartek Engineering Corporation, w/encl.
Douglas Wood, Douglas Wood & Associates, w/encl.
:pcm
K:\Belleview Biltmore\CabaDa Club\Letters\we1Is.03.doc