Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
FLS2006-07044
Clearwater Planning Department 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 Telephone: 727-562-4567 Fax: 727-562-4865 CASE #: RECEIVED BY (staff initials): DATE RECEIVED: SUBMIT ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION SUBMIT 14 COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION - Plans and application are required to be collated, stapled, and folded Into sets SUBMIT APPLICATION FEE $_476.00 NOTE: 15 TOTAL SETS OF INFORMATION REQUIRED (APPLICATIONS PLUS SITE PLAN SETS) FLEXIBLE STANDARD DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION (Revised 04/28/2006) PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT A. APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND AGENT INFORMATION: (C4 APPLICANT NAME: Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. MAILING ADDRESS: 2001 SE 10th Street, Bentonville, AR 72716 PHONE NUMBER (479) 273-4000 CELL NUMBER: PROPERTY OWNER(S): Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. List ALL owners on the deed AGENT NAME: MAILING ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER: CELL NUMBER: CPH Engineers, Inc. 3277A Fruitville Road, Sarasota, FL 34237 (941) 365-4771 FAX NUMBER: 941 365-4779 E MAIL ADDRESS: B. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION: (Code Sect! PROJECT NAME: Wal-Mart Supercenter STREET ADDRESS 23106 U.S. Hwy 19N PARCEL NUMBER(S): 062916524130000010 PARCEL SIZE (acres): 16.5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (See Attached) PROPOSED USE(S): Wal-Mart DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Specifically identify the request (include number of units or square footage of non-resldential use and all requested code deviations; e.g. reduction in required number of parking spaces, specific use, etc.) PROJECT VALUATION: $ 11,700,000.00 PARCEL SIZE (square feet): 718,740 with Garden Center Expand existing 119,530 s.f. Wal-Mart Division 1 store to a Wal-Mart SuDercenter with Garden Center of approximately 157,990 s.f. Page I of7 OCT 0 2 2006 f PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER a s DOES THIS APPLICATION INVOLVE THE TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR), A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, OR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED (CERTIFIED) SITE PLAN? YES _ NO _x (if yes, attach a copy of the applicable documents) C. PROOF OF OWNERSHIP: (Code Section 4-202.A.5) SUBMIT A COPY OF THE TITLE INSURANCE POLICY, DEED TO THE PROPERTY OR SIGN AFFIDAVIT ATTESTING OWNERSHIP (see page 7) D. ?dl 1. WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 3-913.A) Provide complete responses to the six (6) GENERAL APPLICABILITY CRITERIA- Explain how each criteria is achieved, in detail: 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 expansion of the current Wal-Mart Division 1 store to a Supercenter is in harmony with the character of the surrounding area. During the permitting of the site in 1995, a future 30,000 s.f. expansion of the store was shown. The site was designed for this use and Intensity. With the 45,818 s.f. expansion, the site will be within allowable FAR, Impervious surface area ratio and open space requireme 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 not discourage development of adjacent lands. The site is bound by a power easement to the west, an existing multi-family development to the north, US 19 to the east and an existing multi-family development to the south. This proposal provides for the redevelopment of the entire development and will be an asset in this community. 3. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety or persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. The proposed development will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons within the neighborhood. The site will be designed to meet all state, federal and local requirements. ADA accessible parking and travel routes have been provided on the proposed site plan. 4. The proposed development is designed to minimize traffic congestion. The proposed development has been designed to minimize traffic congestion. As part of this proposal, two access aisles will be relocated to provide for better traffic circulation into the site. Additionally, all Interior drive aisles have been designed to allow for free turning movements that will not hinder motorists. 5. The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The proposed development is consistent with the community character. During the design process, pictures of the surrounding developments as well as recent projects within the City of Clearwater were taken. The building facade was designed based on these projects and is consistent with projects within the community. 6. The design of the proposed development minimizes adverse effects, including visual, acoustic and olfactory and hours of operation Impacts, on adjacent properties. The site has been designed to minimize impacts to surrounding properties. All mechanical, storage, and refuse areas will be screened from public view. A 6 foot screen wall is proposed along the entire western property line to help with screening of the building. Page 2 of 7 WRITTEN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Flexibility Criteria) I ? Provide complete responses to the applicable flexibility criteria for the specific Use as listed in each Zoning District to which the waiver is requested (use separate sheets as necessary) - Explain how each criteria is achieved, in detail: E STORMWATER PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (City of Clearwater Stonn Drainage Design Criteria Manual and 4-202.A.21) A STORMWATER NARRATIVE MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH ALL APPLICATIONS. All applications that involve addition or modification of Impervious surface, Including buildings, must include a storrwater plan that demonstrates compliance with the City of Clearwater Storm Drainage Design Criteria manual. A reduction in impervious surface area does not qualify as an exemption to this requirement. ? If a plan is not required, the narrative shall provide an explanation as to why the site is exempt. At a minimum, the STORMWATER PLAN shall include the following; Existing topography extending 50 feet beyond all property lines; Proposed grading including finished floor elevations of all structures; All adjacent streets and municipal storm systems; Proposed stormwater detention/retention area including top of bank, toe of slope and outlet control structure; A narrative describing the proposed stormwater control plan including all calculations and data necessary to demonstrate compliance with the City manual. Proposed stormwater detention/retention area including top of bank, toe of slope and outlet control structure; Signature and seal of Florida Registered Professional Engineer on all plans and calculations. COPY OF PERMIT INQUIRY LETTER OR SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SWFWMD) PERMIT SUBMITTAL (SWFWMD approval is required prior to issuance of City Building Permit), if applicable ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF STORMWATER PLAN REQUIREMENTS (Applicant must initial one of the following): D- l- Stormwater plan as noted above is included Stomnwater plan is not required and explanation narrative is attached. At a minimum, a grading plan and finished floor elevations shall be provided. CAUTION - IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A STORMWATER PLAN AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR. If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the Cfty Public Works Administration Engineering Department at (727) 562-4750. F. SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Code Section 4201A) lX SIGNED AND SEALED SURVEY (Including legal description of property) -One original and 14 copies; K TREE SURVEY (including existing trees on site and within 25' of the adjacent site, by species, size (DBH 4" or greater), and location, including drip lines and indicating trees to be removed) -please design around the existing trees; TREE INVENTORY; prepared by a "certified arborist", of all trees 8" DBH or greater, reflecting size, canopy (drip lines) and condition of such trees; y`l LOCATION MAP OF THE PROPERTY; PARKING DEMAND STUDY in conjunction with a request to make deviations to the parking standards (is. Reduce number of spaces). Prior to the submittal of this application, the methodology of such study shall be approved by the Community Development Coordinator and shall be in accordance with accepted traffic engineering principles. The findings of the study will be used in determining whether or not deviations to the parking standards are approved; X GRADING PLAN, as applicable; ? PRELIMINARY PLAT, as required (Note: Building permits will not be issued until evidence of recording a final plat is provided); ? COPY OF RECORDED PLAT, as applicable; RECEIVED Page 3 of7 OCT p 2 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER w • G. SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4202.A) SITE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24" x 361: Index sheet referencing individual sheets included in package; North arrow; Engineering bar scale (minimum scale one inch equals 50 feet), and date prepared; All dimensions; Footprint and size of all EXISTING buildings and structures; Footprint and size of all PROPOSED buildings and structures; All required setbacks; All existing and proposed points of access; _ All required sight triangles; Identification of environmentally unique areas, such as watercourses, wetlands, tree masses, and specimen trees, Including description and location of understory, ground cover vegetation and wildlife habitats, etc; Location of all public and private easements; Location of all street rights-dvay within and adjacent to the site; Location of existing public and private utilities, including fire hydrants, storm and sanitary sewer lines. manholes and lift stations, gas and water lines; All parking spaces, driveways, loading areas and vehicular use areas; Depiction by shading or crosshatching of all required parking lot Interior landscaped areas; / Location of all solid waste containers, recycling or trash handling areas and outside mechanical equipment and all required screening V (per Section 3-201(D)(i) and Index #701); Location of all landscape material; Location of all onsite and offslte stormwater management facilities; Location of all outdoor lighting fixtures; and Location of all existing and proposed sidewalks. SITE DATA TABLE for existing, required, and proposed development, in written/tabular fonm: Land area in square feet and acres; Number of EXISTING dwelling units; Number of PROPOSED dwelling units; ?W( l_°l EXISTING REQUIRED Gross floor area devoted to each use; Parking spaces: total number, presented in tabular form with the number of required spaces; Total paved area, including all paved parking spaces & driveways, _ expressed in square feet & percentage of the paved vehicular area; Official records book and page numbers of all existing utility easement; Building and structure heights; Impermeable surface ratio (I.S.R.); and Floor area ratio (F.A.R.) for all nonresidential uses. REDUCED COLOR SITE PLAN to scale (8 %X 11); Ilq?S d s ? 35o??a? SF PROPOSED -7 7 s = G.S I IQ__ I?D?O a°?o s FOR DEVELOPMENTS OVER ONE ACRE, provide the following additional information on site plan: One-foot contours or spot elevations on site; Ofrsite elevations if required to evaluate the proposed stonmwater management for the parcel; All open space areas; Location of all earth or water retaining wails and earth berms; Lot lines and building lines (dimensioned); 7 Streets and drives (dimensioned); Building and structural setbacks (dimensioned); LZ Structural overhangs; ORIGINAL Page 4 of 7 OCT 0 2 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER ? f H. LANDSCAPING PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-1102.A) LANDSCAPE PLAN with the following information (not to exceed 24" x 36"): All existing and proposed structures; Names of abutting streets; Drainage and retention areas including swales, side slopes and bottom elevations; Delineation and dimensions of all required perimeter landscape buffers; Sight visibility triangles; Delineation and dimensions of all parking areas including landscaping islands and curbing; Existing trees on-site and immediately adjacent to the site, by species, size and locations, including driplines (as indicated on required tree survey); Location, size, and quantities of all existing and proposed landscape materials, indicated by a key relating to the plant schedule; Plant schedule with a key (symbol or label) indicating the size, description, specifications, quantities, and spacing requirements of all 1- existing and proposed landscape materials, including botanical and common names; Typical planting details for trees, palms, shrubs and ground cover plants including instructions, soil mixes, backfilling, mulching and protective measures; Interior landscaping areas hatched and/or shaded and labeled and interior landscape coverage, expressing in both square feet and percentage covered; kd f 1?Conditlons of a previous development approval (e.g. conditions imposed by the Community Development Board); ' - `Irrigation notes. REDUCED COLOR LANDSCAPE PLAN to scale (8'/ X 11); K COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM application, as applicable. Landscape associated with the Comprehensive Landscape Program shall exceed minimum Code requirements to offset the areas where minimum Code will not be met. 1. BUILDING ELEVATION PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: (Section 4-202.A.23) BUILDING ELEVATION DRAWINGS -with the following information: All sides of all buildings; 7 Dimensions: 3 Colors (provide one full sized set of colored elevations); and Materials. REDUCED BUILDING ELEVATIONS - same as above to scale on 8'/v X 11. J. SIGNAGE: (Division 19. SIGNS 1 Section 3-180$) All EXISTING freestanding and attached signs; Provide photographs and dimensions (area, height, etc.), indicate whether they will be removed or to remain. All FROPOSED freestanding and attached signs; Provide details including location, size, height, colors, materials and drawing; freestanding signs shall include the street address (numerals) Comprehensive Sign Program application, as applicable (separate application and fee required). Reduced signage proposal (8 %X 11) (color), if submitting Comprehensive Sign Program application. ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 0 2 2006 Page 5 of 7 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 0 0 K. TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY: (Section 4202.A.13 and 4-801.C) X Include K required by the Traffic Operations Manager or his/her designee or if the proposed development: ¦ Will degrade the acceptable level of service for any roadway as adopted in the Comprehensive Plan. ¦ Will generate 100 or more new vehicle directional trips per hour and/or 1000 or more new vehicle trips per day. • Will affect a nearby roadway segment and/or intersection with five (5) reportable accidents within the prior twelve (12) month period or that is on the City's annual list of most hazardous intersections. Trip generation shall be based on the most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Trip General Manual. The Traffic Impact Study must be prepared in accordance with a "Scoping Meeting" held with the Traffic Operations Manager and the Planning Department's Development Review Manager or their designee (727-5624750) Refer to Section 4-801 C of the Community Development Code for exceptions to this requirement. Acknowledgement of traffic impact study requirements (Applicant must initial one of the following): Traffic Impact Study is included. The study must include a summary table of pre- and post•development levels of service for all QM roadway legs and each turning movement at all intersections identified in the Scoping Meeting. ? - Traffic Impact Study is not required. CAUTION - IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR. If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Public Works Administration Engineering Department at (727) 562- 4750. L. FIRE FLOW CALCULATIONS/ WATER STUDY: Provide Fire Flow Calculations. Water Study by a FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEER to assure an adequate water supply Is available and to determine if any upgrades are required by the developer due to the impact of this project. The water supply must be able to support the needs of any required fire sprinkler, standpipe and/or fire pump. If a fire pump is required the water supply must be able to supply 150% of its rated capacity. Compliance with the 2004 Florida Fire Prevention Code to include NFPA 13, MFPA 14, NFPA 20, NFPA 291, and MFPA 1142 (Annex H) is required. ) I( Acknowledgement of fire flow calculations/water study requirements (Applicant must initial one of the following): C)M -a-- - Fire Flow Calculalions/Water Study is included. Fire Flow Calculations/Water Study is not required. CAUTION - IF APPLICATION REVIEW RESULTS IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR A FIRE FLOW CALCULATIONS/ WATER STUDY AND NONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED, APPLICATION MUST BE RESUBMITTED AND SIGNIFICANT DELAY MAY OCCUR. If you have questions regarding these requirements, contact the City Fire Prevention Department at (727) 562-4334. M. SIGNATURE: I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all representations made in this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and authorize City representatives to visit and photograph the property described in this application. Signature of property owner or representative RECEIVED STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PIN Syvo& nd subs 'bed before me this ll??ttll A.D.20 ......y Nuvi,.., I My commission expires: ? U Page 6 of7 OCT 0 2 2006 day of to me and/or by aWe-known has e ANDREA VIGIL • IOU fa"? ComrtO 637 Expires 916120 9/8/2009 Bonded thru (800)432-4254: • i,, Florida Notary Assn.. Inc >to ..................••.... I...............L PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER K AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHORIZE AGENT: 1. Provide names of all property owners on deed - PF;UNT full names: wawart stores, Inc 2. That (I am'we are) the owner(s) and record title holder(s) of the following described property (address or general location): 23105 US Hwy 19 N Clearwater, FL 3. That this property constitutes the property for which a request for e: (describe request) Flexible Standard Development Application 4. That the undersigned (haslhave) appointed and (does/do) appoint: CPH Engineers, Inc Ruden h4cClosky Smith Schuster & Russel, P.A. to (his/thelr) agent(s) to execute any petitions or other documents necessary to affect such petition; 6. That this affidavit has been executed to Induce the City of Clearwater, Ftorxda to consider and sot on the above described property; 8. That site visits to the property are necessary by City representatives In order to process this application and the owner sufhoraes City ropresentathrea to visit and photograph the property described In this appik009; 7. That (Uwe), the undersigned authority, hereby oartiy that the Property er Property Owner Property Owner rope er A ?iLuxnsA g STATE OF fir, COUNTY OF R#MttdtS- (3¢v.-h?!1 A Before me the undersigned, an officer duly commissloned by a laws of the State of FierM,, on this day of r,?[?fZl G Person*appsared who having been first duly sworn Deposes and says that he/she rusty understands the contents of the afldavlt that-helshe signed. LJES SICA JEFFLI S NOTARY PUBLIC' Arkansas, Benton County No ry ub c Signature mission Expires 513112015 Not ?• ` My Commission Expires: (?5 rv r7??? ORIGINAL RECEIVED Page 7 of 7 OCT 0 2 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER ....„,. LL 0? } C?arwater U Planning and Development Services 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 Telephone: 727-562-4567 Fax: 727-562-4576 ? SUBMIT ORIGINAL SIGNED AND NOTARIZED APPLICATION O SUBMIT 1 COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION including folded site plans case V: DATE RECEIVED: RECEIVED BY (staff initials): ATLAS PAGE #: ZONING DISTRICT: LAND USE CLASSIFICATION: ZONING & LAND USE CLASSIFICATION OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES: NORTH: SOUTH: WEST: EAST: COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS NAME: Clearwater Wal-Mart #2081-05 Expansion ADDRESS: 23106 US Highway 19 North The landscaping requirements of Article 3 Division 12 may be waived or modified as a part of a Level One or Level Two Approval, as the case may be, if the application for development approval includes a Comprehensive Landscape Program, which satisfies the following criteria. The use of landscape plans; sectionsielevations, renderings and perspectives may be necessary as supplementary information in addition to the information provided on this worksheet: Architectural Theme. a. The landscaping in a Comprehensive Landscape Program shall be designed as a part of the architectural theme of the principal buildings proposed or developed on the parcel proposed for the development. OR b. The design, character, location and/or materials of the landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program shall be demonstrably more attractive than landscaping otherwise permitted on the parcel proposed for development under the minimum landscape standards. The design character and location of the proposed landscape materials demonstrate an attractive appearance through flowering trees palms evergreens colorful shrub material and the designated hibiscus shrub which is identified for usage by the City of Clearwater. . r 2. Lighting. Any lighting proposed as a art of a Comprehensive Landscape Progras automatically controlled so that the lighting is turned off when the business is closed. All lighting for this site will be monitored and controlled by store personnel There are no proposed landscape lighting features for this project Community Character. The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program will enhance the community character of the City of Clearwater. The proposed landscape design will enhance the current property and views from neighboring businesses roadways and utility areas. 4. Property Values. The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program will have a beneficial impact on the value of the property in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development. The proposed landscape will have a beneficial impact on the value of the property and the immediate vicinity of the parcel due to existing trees to be retained and the quality and palette of the new material to be installed 5. Special Area or Scenic Corridor Plan. The landscape treatment proposed in the Comprehensive Landscape Program is consistent with any special area or scenic corridor plan which the City of Clearwater has prepared and adopted for the area in which the parcel proposed for development is located. The proposed landscape design is consistent with the Scenic Corridor Plan for this parcel. Please return checklist for review and verification. Date: '/Z 7,10 6 (Signature of applicant) ORIGINAL. RECEIVED OCT 0 2 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER S: application forms/development review/comprehensive landscape program application.doc I* 0 u --wwlF- Z OD W U 0 o a o-f-a e W W Z c N 00 LU W CQ U O ? z0 C?a z;I_%: ?a g - AL ?W i s`: ,e e 1 110 W =0I 0 5; OZ z I G) O C-) .? O iID IIIIIIII? ? ,?1 / PLANT L19T _i d 00, / ®c?rowxae. T ,r ?., ........r..??.o .?.. w..or TA'4-- F aW 9 C? 0 sn..i No. L-1 0 • WAL*MARTn SUPERCENTER EXPANSION TER, F #2081 ?I Front FOR CLIENT APPROVAL ONLY Buildirq images shawnare an artistic repreuntation t - MtheAevgnInwnt Actual color or materials may vary 9 0 RECEIVED OCT 2 4 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CLI9 OF CLEARWAM 0 0 WAL*MART? SUPERCENTER EXPANSION ? LL^f\V V'/-, l LR, F #2081 loom ir'21a!ia?- W!! g. i .-Aw >?'; ?.& r. Arm- r 'N . - 71 ?a f ON 01 Y APPAOVAI ONLY luddmg-gessh-. anartn[K rtprcsen?twn i oohed-g-mem naual;akrormaterah maywry from throe h- due to hnaldngn deWLng Nut FUUCUNSIRUCTKA 0 0 RECEIVED OCT 2 4 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CRY OF CLEARWATER PARKING GENERATION STUDY Wal-Mart Expansion at CPH Engineers, Inc. NW Quadrant of US 19 & NE Coachman Road CPH Project No. W13454 City of Clearwater, Florida December 2006 The following Parking Generation Study has been conducted for the proposed expansion of the existing Wal-Mart from 119,500 s.f. (square foot) to 157,990 s.f. and supports the variance request for a reduction of the required number of parking spaces. Per the current development criteria in the City of Clearwater Code, the project requires 790 parking spaces based on the gross floor area of the proposed building (5.0 spaces/1,000 square feet (ksf) of gross floor area). The existing parking lot contains 648 parking spaces and it is proposed to provide 757 parking spaces as opposed to the 790 parking spaces as required per the City of Clearwater Code. However, due to the geometry, layout, and existing encumbrances, site layout accommodates a maximum of 757 parking spaces (4.79 spaces/ksf gross floor area), which is sufficient to accommodate the peak parking demand. The supporting analysis follows: The proposed parking supply versus demand was evaluated based on existing parking demand determined using parking lot count collected on Friday, September 8, 2006 during the hours of 11:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. for every thirty (30) minutes and on Saturday, September 9, 2006 during the hours of 10:30 A.M. to 4:30 P.M for every 15 minutes. The maximum count of 306 occupied parking spaces was observed on Saturday during the time of 1:00 - 1:15 P.M. The count dataset is attached as a reference with this document. The peak period parking demand rate per 1,000 s.f. of GFA (Gross Floor Area) for the existing Wal- Mart was determined using the following formula for the maximum occupied spaces as observed on Saturday, September 9, 2006 between 1:00 and 1:15 P.M. and existing Wal-Mart Square Footage as input. Peak period parking Demand Rate= Highest Observed Occupied Parking Spaces * 1,000 s.f. Development Square Footage L 306 spaces 1,000 s.f. 119,500 s.f. * 1 k.s.f =1,000 s.f. = 2.56 Parking Spaces / k.s.f * To determine the highest peak period parking demand rate over the year a scale factor was applied to the observed September 9, 2006 Peak period parking demand rate. The scale factor was calculated based on the highest number of transactions on a day for the year, i.e. 7799 transaction for December 23, 2005, and compared to the 5638 transactions on September 9, 2006 obtained from Wal-Mart. Based on information obtained a scale factor, was calculated as following: Scale Factor = Highest number of transactions on a day Number of transactions on September 9, 2006 2131mM21`d31? 30 Ally 1N3W1?JVd30 9NINN Id 7799 5638 43AI3038 =1.38 WNIE R1Q J:\ Transportation General\Jobs\ W13454-Clearwater\Analysis\Parking Generation\W13454 - Parking Analysis - Revised 12.21.06.doc Page 1 of 2 0 0 to The highest peak period parking demand rate was calculated as the product of peak period parking demand rate for September 9, 2006 and the Scale Factor. This resulted in an increase of 1.38 from the September 9, 2006 peak period parking demand rate, calculated as follows: = Peak Parking Demand Rate * Scale Factor = 2.56 parking spaces/k.s.f * 1.38 = 3.53 parking spaces/k.s.f Based on the above determined peak day of the year peak period parking demand rate of 3.46 parking spaces/k.s.f, the proposed expansion of the store to 160,000 s.f. would result in a maximum peak period demand of: _ (3.53 parking spaces/k.s.f) * (157.99 k.s.f) = 558 spaces In addition, the proposed parking space/k.s.f was compared against the rates for Land Use Code 815 (Reference 2, Pages 187 & 188) Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, 2004 as summarized in Table 1. Table 1: Parking Generation Comparison Supply Calculated Parking Space/ k.s.f ITE Parking Spaces/ ksf Parking Spaces Scale of the Development ITE Avg. Supply 5.0 790 157,990 s.f. City of Clearwater Requirement 5.0 790 157,990 s.f. Proposed Supply 4.79 757 157,990 s.f. Weekday Demand Average Size of Stud Sites 112,000 s.f. Avg. Peak Period Parkin Demand 3.81 602 157,990 s.f. Saturday Demand Avg. Peak Period Parkin Demand 4.47 706 157,990 s.f. Maximum Calculated Demand 3.53 558 157,990 s.f. The average peak period demand for the free standing discount store studied is estimated to be 3.81 spaces/ksf on weekdays and 4.47 spaces/ksf on Saturdays. Using these ratios, the peak period demand for the proposed project on weekdays and Saturdays are estimated to be 602 and 706 parking spaces respectively for a gross floor area of 157,990 s.f. As a result, the average peak to compare is to 4.47. For a free standing discount store with 157,990 s.f., the proposed provision of 757 parking spaces results in a parking supply rate of 4.79 parking spaces/ k.s.f which is 36% and 199 spaces higher than the maximum calculated demand, for this site i.e. peak time peak day of the year demand of 558 parking spaces/k.s.f. Therefore, the supply of 757 spaces, and the resultant supply rate of 4.79 parking spaces/k.s.f are adequate to meet the demand. d31VMdV310 3011110 1N3VYIdVd3Q 9NINNVld Prepared by: Jackeline Toledo, P.E. Florida P.E. No. 64104 CPH Engineers, Inc. December 28, 2006 9002 8 Z: 03AI303ZI WNIONO J:\Transportation General\Jobs\ W13454-Clearwater\ Analysis\ Parking Generation\ W13454 -Parking Analysis- Revised 12.21.06.doc Page 2 of 2 Land Use: 815 Free-Standing Discount Store Average Peak Period Parking Demand vs: 1,000 sq. ft. GFA On a: Weekday (December) 01r 0w Peak Period , 10:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m.; 2:00-3.00 p.m.; 8:00-9:00 . M. Number of Stud Sites 3 Average Size of Stud Sites 112,000 s . ft. GFA Average Peak Period Parkin Demand 3.81 vehicles per 1,000 s g. ft. GFA Standard Deviation 0.41 -; 'Coefficient of Variation 11% ' `.Ran a 3.37-4.19 vehicles per 1,000 s q, ft. GFA 85th Percentile 4.09 vehicles per 1,000 s q. ft. GFA 33rd Percentile 3.70 vehicles per 1,000 s q. ft. GFA • Actual Data Points ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 0 2 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Parking Generation, 3rd Edition i i.l Land Use: 815 Free-Standing Discount Store Average Peak Period Parking Demand vs: 1,000 sq. ft. GFA On a: Saturday (December) ` 5 Peak Period 3:00-4:00 .m. Number of Stud Sites 7 Average Size of Stud Sites 96,000 s q. ft. GFA Average Peak Period Parkin Demand 4.47 vehicles per 1,000 s q. ft. GFA Standard Deviation 1.4 Coefficient of Variation 32% Range 2.08-5.71 vehicles per 1,000 s q. ft. GFA 85th Percentile 5.54 vehicles per 1,000 s q. ft, GFA 33rd Percentile 3.94 vehicles per 1,000 s q. ft. GFA Saturday December Peak Period Parking Demand 600 500 400 300 200 a n 100 a 0 0 50 100 150 x = 11000 sq. ft. GFA • Actual Data Points rnsnmce or iransportanon engineers 188 ORIGINAL RECEIVED 0, CT 0 2 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Parking Generation, 3rd Edition *king Lot Occupancy Study 4' Clearwater Wal-Mart US 19 & NE Coachman Road Total Parking Spaces = 648 Friday, September 8, 2006 Saturday, September 9, 2006 Occupied % Parking Occupied % Parking Parking Lot Parking Lot Time Spaces Occupied Time Spaces Occupied 11:00 AM 191 29% 10:30 AM 211 33% 11:30 AM 163 25% 10:45 AM 202 31% 12:00 PM 157 24% 11:00 AM 200 31% 12:30 PM 150 23% 11:15 AM 216 33% 1:00 PM 181 28% 11:30 AM 240 37% 1:30 PM 177 27% 11:45 AM 277 43% 2:00 PM 194 30% 12:00 PM 287 44% 2:30 PM 179 28% 12:15 PM 284 44% 3:00 PM 179 28% 12:30 PM 293 45% 3:30 PM 179 28% 12:45 PM 282 44% 4:00 PM 170 26% 1:00 PM 306 47% 4:30 PM 163 25% 1:15 PM 292 45% 5:00 PM 149 23% 1:30 PM 250 39% 5:30 PM 160 25% 1:45 PM 262 40% 6:00 PM 184 28% 2:00 PM 282 44% 6:30 PM 186 29% 2:15 PM 286 44% 7:00 PM 173 27% 2:30 PM 283 44% 7:30 PM 180 28% 2:45 PM 299 46% 8:00 PM 157 24% 3:00 PM 287 44% 3:15 PM 266 41% Max Demand 194 3:30 PM 272 42% 3:45 PM 250 39% 4:00 PM 223 34% 4:15 PM 240 37% 4:30 PM 245 38% Max Demand 306 ORIGINAL RECEIVED L J 0 2 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 3277A Fruitville Road Sarasota, Florida 34237 Phone: 941.365.4771 Fax: 941.365.4779 June 29, 2006 www.cphengineers.com Mr. David Kramer, P.E. Southwest Florida Water Management District 7601 Highway 301 North Tampa, FL 33637-6759 Phone: 813-985-7481 Fax: 813-987-6746 RE: Project Name: Wal-Mart Supercenter #2081-05 Expansion ERP Submittal Parcel #: 06/29/16/52413/000/0010 Jurisdiction: Clearwater Sec/Twp/Rge: 6/29S/1 6E Dear Mr. Kramer: Regarding the project referenced above, we respectfully request an ERP permit for the portion of the site which will be redeveloped. The project is located at the northwest corner of Northeast Coachmen Road and US 19 in the City of Clearwater. The total area of this site is approximately 16.50 acres. This permit request is for 2.35 acres at the northwest portion of the site as shown on the attached plans. There is currently an existing Wal-Mart store with approximately 119,530 SF and associated parking and utilities within the property limits. There are no SWFWMD permits that exist for the site. The site was previously under Pinellas County's jurisdiction for ERP permits. Under this permit we are developing the vacant land directly north of the existing Wal-Mart building and providing additional parking to serve the building. The remainder of the site has been submitted to your office for which we are requesting a permit exemption. The stormwater runoff from the 2.35 acre site will be treated in two ponds and discharged into the existing wetland after meeting the existing condition peak flow rate. Please review the enclosed documents. In support of this submittal please find the following items enclosed: 1. Five (5) sets of completed and signed ERP applications. 2. Five (5) sets of signed and sealed plans (Applicable sheets). 3. Three (3) sets of signed and sealed stormwater reports. If you have any questions or comments please contact us at 941-365-4771. Sincerely, Dan Moyer CPH Engineers, Inc. I- z? td LL LU I.- < o ce L U N g > 0 C C ? O 2 0 - z it SU a. 3277A Fruitville Road Sarasota, Florida 34237 Phone: 941.365.4771 Fax: 941.365.4779 June 29, 2006 www.cphengineers.com Mr. David Kramer, P.E. Southwest Florida Water Management District 7601 Highway 301 North Tampa, FL 33637-6759 Phone: 813-985-7481 Fax: 813-987-6746 RE: Project Name: Wal-Mart Supercenter #2081-05 Expansion- ERP Permit Exemption Request Parcel #: 06/29/16/52413/000/0010 Jurisdiction: Clearwater Sec/Twp/Rge: 6/29S/1 6E Dear Mr. Kramer: Regarding the project referenced above, we respectfully request a permit exemption for the portion of the site which will be redeveloped with a net reduction in impervious area in the post- development condition. The project is located at the northwest corner of Northeast Coachmen Road and US 19 in the City of Clearwater. The total area of this site is approximately 16.50 acres. This permit exemption request is for 14.15 acres of the site as shown on the attached plans. There is currently an existing 112,172 SF Wal-Mart store with and associated parking and utilities on the site. There are no SWFWMD permits that exist for the site. The site was previously under Pinellas County's jurisdiction for ERP permits. Under this permit exemption we are redeveloping the existing Wal-Mart building and parking lot which results in a reduction of impervious area. No additional square footage to the existing building is proposed under this permit exemption request. A general ERP application will be submitted for the remaining 2.35 acres. The proposed construction will reduce the impervious area of the 14.15 acre site by approximately 0.08 acres as shown in the table below: Proposed vs. Existina Impervious Calculations Pre-Development Drainage Areas Site Total Area Ac. 14.15 Impervious Area Ac. 11.88 Pervious Area Ac. 2.27 Post-Development Draina a Areas Site Total Area Ac. 14.15 Impervious Area Ac. 11.80 Pervious Area Ac. 2.35 ORIGINAL RECEIVED JUL 05 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Please review the enclosed documents. In support of this submittal please find the following items enclosed: 1. Existing Conditions Exhibit showing the limits for the permit exemption request. 2. Proposed Conditions Exhibit showing the limits of the permit exemption request. If you have any questions or comments please contact us at 941-365-4771. Sincerely, Dan Moyer CPH Engineers, Inc. ORIGINAL RECEIVED Jul. 05 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER r/ - OIITPARCEL/ - ? Or A.C PF?OJECT Ll (NOT /PART OF DEVELOP Y IMITS OF w ETLANDS 1, r / Y 236 AC,JO BEEI'll TEO UNDER( SEPA T, RP//,?C A // ??'. •. r.' ??- 1717 _ -J L. / OUT PARCEL , 0.88 A.C I (NOT PA T.OF,DEVELOPMENT)i WAL*MART / 'OUTPARCEL 16 o6!.Mp -061AD (NOT PART-OF DEVELOPMENT) a, - - , -- - i' - PE OW -ooo TOTAL AREA 14.15 AC. IMPERVIOUS AREA 11.88 AC. PERVIOUS AREA 2.27 AC. cph .WNa? E?glnem Pivixov Lvndfmpf AncM1l4?h .ne?ro,n,e,wtsda,mn cw?feti?xq, Mvnvgmenf m LL w OCm z 0 ati? F m„ z UQ ILd" 0 Qa W 3?u x w Sheet No. 1OF2 Zae LD LM H ? Q 23 N < LL! a Q : ?u 0 9 0 LLJ 0 z gU (NC PROJECT LIMITS ' x x, f }LIMITS OF - WETLANDS OUT'ARC L / 0.76 A.C. r ' /r 9 TOTAL AREA 14,15 AC. IMPERVIOUS AREA 11,80 AC, PERVIOUS AREA 2.35 AC. ? i OUT RCE - f'A ' ti`.,'/ 0.88 A.C. (NOT PART OF DEVELOPMENT)'. / /i/ WA!* MART r OUPAR EL /CEL (i f i s. 0.61 A.C. w NOT PART OF DEVELOPMENT) zl/l ft: cph vnAr..ibin.•^xa.e m AwaoKwsn,.im.u .wa Englnem Sureyon AmAibN PbMm taw.mo..w,ibm Embammbi5tlmtbb Manugowit n?/eau 0 F _m S s z OCw ti o CWT °z 04 0 Wn D aa= N Jz ul 0 u a 0 a CL Sheet No. 20f2 WAL'MART WATER SUPPLY SITE Q_RVEY WAL'MART STORE #2081 23106 U.S. HWY. 19 NORTH CLEARWATER, FL 33765 TEST DATE: 04/11/06 SUMMARY STATEMENT This report provides the current available water supply for Wal-Mart #2081 located at 23106 U.S. Hwy. 19 North in Clearwater, FL. This facility has a FFE of 58.0 ft AMSL. Required fire sprinkler supply for this 143 prototype is 1600 gpm @ 47 psig. Required domestic water supply is 129 gpm @ 45 psig. SUMMARY OF RESULTS (As Designed) Fireline static pressure at Finish Floor Elevation (FFE): 57.57 psig Fireline residual pressure at FFE: 49.35 psig @1600 gpm Assumed Fireline FFE: 58.0 ft. AMSL Safety Factor Used in Minimum Target Demands: 5.0 psig Backflow Preventer: 8" Ames 3000SS, outside above ground Domestic Base of Riser (BOR) static pressure at FFE: 58.57 psig Domestic BOR residual pressure at FFE: 47.78 psig @ 129 gpm Backflow Preventer: Existing 2" Hersey Double Detector Check, outside above ground. SUMMARY OF RESULTS (FIRE FLOW REQUIREMENTS) Code Basis for Design 2004 Florida Building Code Required Fire Flow at 20 psi and Duration 1600 gpm for 4 hour(s) Available Fire Flow at 20 psi and Duration (@ Test Hydrant) 5736 gpm for 4 hour(s) CONTACT INFORMATION Backflow Prevention Contact Fire Department Contact Water Department Contact Name: Leonard Rickard Name: Leonard Rickard Name: Jerry Wells Title: Assistant Fire Marshal Title: Assistant Fire Marshal Title: Public Utilities Address: 610 Franklin Street Address: 610 Franklin Street Address: 1650 N. Arcturas Ave. #C Clearwater, FL 33756 Clearwater, FL 33756 Clearwater, FL 33765 Phone: (727) 562-4327 Phone: (727) 562-4327 Phone: (727) 562-4960 City Representative conducting test: Name: Joe Assad Title: Utilities Inspector Please consult with the Fire Protection Engineer-of-Record to discuss design options prior to site layout. REGISTRATION STATEMENT I, Ricky N. Terrell, a registered Professional Engineer in the State of Florida, do hereby certify that this water flow test has been completed in accordance with NFPA 291 and is a true and correct survey for the project location for the date and time of the testing. It is understood that the water supply information supplied in this report will become the design basis for the water based fire suppression systems (fire sprinkler and hose station). ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 0 2 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Z /1 re,41a JU 0 8 ,2006 WAL*MART WATER SUPPLY SITEORVEY ORIGINAL WAL*MART STORE #2081 RECEIVED 23106 U.S. HWY. 19 NORTH CLEARWATER, FL 33765 OCT 0 2 2006 TEST DATE: 04111106 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Site The site is located in Clearwater Florida along the West side of Highway 19 between Stag Run Blvd. and Northeast Coachman Road. Water is brought to the site through an 8" water main loop that connects to the Stag Run Blvd. Water Main and runs around the building reconnecting to the Stag Run Blvd Main. The arrangement of these lines in the immediate vicinity of the property are illustrated on Attachment #1. The existing sprinkler protection lead-in line for this facility is an 8" Ductile Iron pipe, the domestic water lead-in line is a 2" Copper pipe, both services are supplied from the 8" Ductile Iron water loop running around the facility, as detailed on Attachment #1. Water System The Clearwater area water system is pressurized using four 5.0 million gallon ground water storage tanks/direct pumping stations located periodically throughout the water grid system for a total capacity of 20 million gallons. The pumping stations for the ground water storage tanks are all equipped with a backup power supply. The Clearwater area also has seven water interconnections with the Pinellas County water distribution system. The flows and pressures available in the Clearwater area can be considered consistent and reliable with little or no fluctuations due to seasonal changes or water levels. WATER FLOW TEST RESULTS Flow for the test was made utilizing two hydrants located on the front left corner of the facility and the front right corner of the facility. Static and residual pressures were taken at the hydrant centrally located at the back of the facility, see Attachment #1 for clarity. One 2-1/2" outlet per hydrant was utilized with a 0.9 coefficient to produce pitot readings of 45 psi for the front right hydrant and 44 psi for the front left hydrant. This resulted in a total flow of 2238 gpm at a residual pressure of 53 psi. Static pressure before and after testing was 60 psi. The static and residual pressures were taken at an elevation of 57.0 ft. AMSL, which is F below the planned finish floor elevation of the store (58.0 ft. AMSL). Please see enclosed Attachment #2 and #3 for a graphical representation of this test and for necessary calculations. HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS When determining fire hydrant flow rates in accordance with the 2004 Florida Building Code, the site hydrant must be capable of providing a flow rate at 20 psi equivalent to the worse case inside sprinkler demand. Based on this, the flow rate required is 1600 gpm at 20 psi from the remote hydrant on the property for a duration of 4 hours. This site meets the current requirements of the 2004 Florida Building Code. The city system can be considered a reliable supply, with respect to Wal-Mart duration requirements. This acceptability is based on the system capability to meet the calculated base of riser supply of 1600 gpm for the design 120 minute fire flow duration. For domestic calculation purposes, 129 gpm a 45 psi demand requirements were used. In addition, loss through an existing 2" Neptune compound water meter was used and illustrated on Attachment #3. Pipe lengths used in the calculations include equivalent lengths of fittings. Calculations are based on a preliminary utility layout provided by CPH dated May, 2006 and shown in Attachment 91. BACKFLOW PREVENTION REQUIREMENTS Fireline: Ames 3000SS backflow preventer is required to be installed outside the building above ground. Domestic: Hersey RPZ backflow preventer is required to be installed outside the building above ground. CONCLUSIONS FIRE WATER SUPPLY: The available public water supplies combined with the existing 8" fire protection lead-in sizing and arrangement as shown on Attachment #1, should yield a base of riser supply, downstream of an 8" Ames 3000ss backflow preventer of 57.57 psi static with 1600 gpm flowing at 49.35 psi residual. This meets the target demand of 1600 gpm flowing at 47 psi. Minimum required demands include a 5 psig safety factor. See Attachment 92 for a graphical representation and necessary calculations. WAL*MART WATER SUPPLY SITEORVEY • WAL*MART STORE #2081 23106 U.S. HWY. 19 NORTH CLEARWATER, FL 33765 TEST DATE: 04/11106 DOMESTIC SUPPLY: The available public water supplies combined with an existing 2-1/2" domestic water lead-in sizing and arrangement as shown on Attachment 91, shall yield a domestic supply at the stub-up above the finish floor downstream of a 2-1/2" Hersey Double Detector Check backflow preventer and a 2" Neptune compound water meter of 58.57 psi static and 129 gpm flowing at 47.78 psi residual. This meets the target demand of 129 gpm at 45 psi. See Attachment 93 for a graphical representation and necessary calculations. INFORMATION REQUIRED IN SITE WATER FLOW TEST AND REPORT This checklist is provided to assure that the site water flow test report includes all Wal-Mart required information and must be included in the Water Report. (X) Wal-Mart store and project number (X) Seal and signature of the Professional Engineer supervising the test (X) The test must be conducted in conformance with NFPA 291. (X) Sprinkler contractor cannot conduct test. (X) The City Fire Marshal or another city representative was present during test. (X) Pressure test hydrant separate from flowing hydrant. (X) Date and time of test provided. (X) Water main size shown. (X) Water main pipe type shown. (X) Hydrant butt diameter shown. (X) Pitot pressure shown. (X) Hydrant coefficient shown. (X) Hydrant elevation shown. (X) Building pad elevation shown (X) Static pressure shown. (X) Residual pressure shown. (X) Statement provided as to any proposed improvements to City's water system and date. (X) Complete calculations, including water system model calculations (if applicable). (X) Complete N - 1.85 Graph. (X) Provide sketch of area showing all water lines, project building, test location with test and flowing hydrants identified. (X) Cover page certification. (X) Cover page summary statement. (X) Fire Department Contact, Water Department Contact, and Cross Connection Control (Backflow Prevention) Authority contact name and phone number (if applicable). (X) Local jurisdiction sprinkler design safety factor indicated (if applicable). (X) This Checklist completed and included in report. Checked By: ?k Signature Bobby D. Hill 6-8-06 Date ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 0 2 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER MATCH LINE SEE PREVIOUS SHEET B p , R LINE d , EEP EVIOUSSHEET I 4 i C ? ' f EXISTING EASEMENT FLGRI?TRANS OMPANY { EXISTINGA"WATERMAIN. ;t apEW } ^"' a 3277AAa/tvBleROad S. Ph- - 9F49a291 F- 941.365.4779 . ' cRPerprate Of III ..._... ... p I .I I , 1 •/ . //???r 1 " ? " r ?,? Authors@2006 NO. 9213 I I ? '? 4 SEE BLOW UP'C' . THIS SHEET L + , ? l ? '? BLOW UP "K SE Engineers Su f a ey " A chit t A .._....... • ........... .... ... a ' I r_ THIS SHEET M \•, / / ??.., - / r ,.\ . 1A r ec s Piannen Landsmpe ArehltMB Enofrommmtal SelenNBb I i Y I I „ *O,n t .I l' ... . q ` f ' ` ?? .I k i ' Construction Management Desk/Build x _ `EXISTING 10 GTEEASEMENT-? ," _._' I ., " ,.'P v"Y' •, I r I frEXISTING B"WATERMAIN II $ Ile 7x I , IJ / o ?- t ?L1. ?.' m ?Y SCALE 1'•AO 1001, " " U B SEE BLOW P ? THIS SHEET ' ;. .. • fir` ? ? ,,,f?/ /? 9 [ f /l i1 ? l1./J?? a m m A Y ) lool o< 'o"'oooloo _1 / r '' r r /r / 'z II W 0 CONNECT TO ICUSTING WAVER W.INW LEE A VALVE FOUD VERIFY . TAPPING VALVE O ATI.N AFTER EO-BIIN . WATER MAIN, ALVE. DDISAF MAIN, TAPPING VALVE ONLY . XLYAFTEA OISAFFERIONTESRNOAND fOEPCLEARANLE ? O ? O 0 U CL Q ? N m m Z -01 L EGEND: EA3TIN. FIRE HY.AANT R HOSE RE GARDE : GA- Ca I'UTILIIYBOLLARD CIIRBB GUTTER WATER BERWI1Z,?LINEI CIIYREGUME-S\ i \ EL ? VIATEFI PVC -•var.:,'maxx. EX-NO STORM PIPE / I IAROHYDF N I GRATEINLET 11 F /? ?(~ 9ANITARYBEYIE0.L1FA14LUV -B- EASTINO SANITARY SEWERUE -,:x- WATERMMN TA I•REDUCER _ • \ EA 1 1 \? TERMAI •\\ 1 1, w.LrERYAw \\ -A I'GARDENCENTER / WATER SFAVICEMNE WARERMAIN Z L J LL L F ,••? o -e_ PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINE -W- PR-EDWATER MAIN _ "WATER METER EOUIPPEI WrtN AN ELEC.METER \ tV Q PROPOSEDIFLFPNONECONOUR9 -E- PRO. ... UADEIECTRICeEAVICEC11111 APPROVE. BY GTY. I•R.P.-F.P.PEA CIEARWAT6V I CNY REONREMENTS 8'•1'AEDUCEP W I PROPOSED r IRRIG. WATER LINE PAR0EN CENTER) -O 1111 ED III P CONOM3 FOR REMOTE {WRDEN CENIEW I UiilIIY00WR.P0VEP \ \ ?8.OAVEVAl1E U5 O O Ld Q E PROPDEED ELECTRIC 1RANBiORMEA NOTE'. - 3•r 3' TEE THIS DETAIL IS NOT TO SCALE. SIZES AND TYPES OF METERS. BACNFLOW PFEVENTEpS ETC. MAY YARY DEPENDING ON TYPE AND MODEL REQUIRED F 0 V Z U Q OA SkNITARYSMMSERMCEOCNNECTION W 1W6WAY MEAN OUT ®A°MOX W. Elc^/. • a43 . Qox1RACTOR TO VERIFY THAT ALL ITEMS REQUIRED CAN BE INSTALLED WTHIN AREA SHOWN. DW CW m F O MO LP.•W PVC GRAVITY SEWER LINE ®1.00% © R°. SI.BE ?R MANHOLE -0.65 "BLOW UP A" 'BLOW-UP B,, "BLOW UP CFE 81W.-IB90 N. N.;W. INJ=IA,A N.r.s. x.T.B, N 1 S Sheet No. . . C-9A LEGEND; SAY SEWER SCHEDULE iS• EXISTNG FIRER- ESXI?ST EXIS,INGSWITARY SEWER MANHOLE E3 SANITMYSEWER MANHOLE RIM ELEV.=55M RIM SIEV.=0 40 ElOSiw0 910RM PIPE . N, INV.. N.8B N. INV.=46.11 9, INV.= 45.12 (To BE REMOVED) S INV =4518 E . . . GRATE IMET PROPOSED • •_ SSS NLF - W SANITARY SEWER LINE ®0 40% •'.. __ ._._ ..... „..... ...__ ....,. .. . . 9INaARY SEY.EA LLEANdUT BS-7 EMSnNG S.NRARr ,B LF.-1'SANITARY SEWER LINE ®0.40% BSS SAMTMY SEWER MANHOLE - ^-- . -' 3=]7A P-ialeRoad 5amwtq FL 39=3] Phonc 941 sEV.Ea LINE SS-2 RIM ELEV.=56.50 SAN MY SEWER MANHOLE ., NW INJ • 15.38 -ON- WATFRMAIN RIM ELEV.=55.44 ,. {I.. '.:•1..t;. ' _. -.. ,.... - t,A ... - F- 991355.9779 INJ.=15.48 9, -9- PROPOSED SANITARY SEVER LINE NE. IW..=44.84 N.INV.= 4545(TOBE REMOVED) _. ,r. CoNJimh J Aaho zaNon No 3215 -W- PROPOSED WATER MAIN $$3 47 LF.-W SANITARY SEWER LINE ®BAD% SS7 flEMOVEE%ISiING 02 L.F. -"C . 02006 -T-- PROPOSED TELEPHONE 00-ITS B' SANITARY SEWER LINE ' .' •'"?"•.."` -E- PROPOSED - ELECTRIC SERE CON15W9 ?DWL- PaOPOSEO}ARp. WATERLINE S)ARDFNLEMERI GE PR PoSED - O DM . , .,.. it u" .. . c... i Surve- ? ? O 0)1 C N S FOR FEMGTE IDAROENCEMERI OTNTY BOLARD POWER FE PROPOSED ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER f " A ? Y ' ' Ia11h[}9 E r Y " , .-' it .. ..... .... .... ..... 4 ? LaruL9L'ape ArrhiteeN E-i-MIta!$dmNsts Convtruction Managemerct o a Eo nEDALE: I ID' Design/Build 1 G / I \ EXISTING SS PARKING SANITARY SEWER 7 I I 7 AND CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT - \ - 7- 7 ?EASEMENT OIL GAS MI' RA 1 EXISTING SANITARY EXIST _SEWERMpNHDLE STAG RUN BOULEVARD / - , .. _ _ ..._ ... F -' I I "?. ' -- TN RAINAGEA DL,1T IIY€ASEMEN7 ?..;... .?..g?? 777 m -- R I i 1 1 1 441 .. J{J 1 9 t 9 I REMOVE EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT 55-0'` I {.: _'. r ASSEMBLY AND LATERAL 1t $&7 s+ DrM Has'-:-:.Y?^wR*+' x..r 95.5 :I t"{.:• ?n I1U11 EXISTING S"WATERMAIN 6 ? " ACCES .. . .. r' I' :. 1, BAREA Y I ... o A/' c o a tt PROPOSED FIRE SSS r. i YDRANTASSEMBIL H IRRIGATION WELL EXISTING 9 n . 1l= i 9 r -i ,, j ? '' .r I ? ?? a "y s k A _t f? yyyy ii I F I m d PROPOBEDOREASETRAPS l i 111 l ?' 4 z S z , NETTRAPS LI Y SA . h I' x, ` ?. IP I I _.. __._..._.... _ I { . I ' LI AND SEWER NITAR ` ; " 1 .9 u , , z Z :, .. • .„. r. , IF .. L. W ° i V . z m ' m O i U , N Q 9 D C ?-•EXISTING EASEMENT OIL; GAS MINERAL AND 1 O Of Q N O pp ' . n AND STA TE ROAD RIGHT,"OFWAY a L) S r 1 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF P OF WATER MAIN ACCESS .?.? ' 1 l ? i ? 1_ 1 o- c -._ - ? ' TOSUILDING ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER JRENBE\^n 1 R. E ` `k- /1 ,A' . I. (TO REMAIN) l grams u' , d I Z LL ii U'E 4cFN r? 1 s - I 1 I' I I ORIGINAL RC . Q z J .. 1 I .... _..?. I I ..., E C-143-SGL-NO _ EXISTING STORE (NOT INCL. GARDEN CENTER). 112,172 &F. (NOT07 1>lCL GpRCEN CtN7E• ° i : .,.. ^' , ` L +V3W 1 I W EXISTING W WATERMAIN ` ' :, EC?NE? I ? F D P ROPOSED GROSS S,F (NOT INCL GARDEN CENTER) - t152.494 S.F. /? _ { I , PROPOSED GROSS 9F=+157990 SF. APPROX F.FE.-SEGO h,I b 0 d it V?? ? 4N 1 W, j Or2.--.- L OCT Y (n 0 W 0 Z O Q EPARTME ARINATER "'f 0 v rc I EXISTING EASEMENT FLORIDA POWER COPORATION f ! I i r s i ? ( ?ii .1 ? @. ., ? Wf '.?r f I I ,. a ?LIf; } ) 3 d ! ,?. ---- Sheet No. ?- r MATCH LINE SEE SUBSEQUENT SHEET I 4L / f 1 q ' t •' ',I ! ° MATCH LINE EE SUSSEI]UENTSHEET ' '' ? : f ATTACHMENT # 2 • WATER SUPPLY FLOW =TEST ,For:' Wal-Mart #2081 Expansion PIPE Ll N E Location: Clearwater, FL Static: 60.0: . psi Residual: 53.0 psi Date: 04/11/06 Pitot: 1.0 psi, •? Flow: 2238 gpm ` Time:, 11:55 am EST Nozzle: :. (2) - 2-1/2" Outlets Gd: 0.9 Gauge Hydrant,Location: ,Located at rear of facility. Flow Hydrant Location: Two hydrants located at the front left and right corners Hydranf Elevation: `. 57.00 Ft: AMSL"."' . (FFE).Elevation: 58.00 Ft.'AMSL .: '. Test. Performed By Mark Sockrider Company: Paul C. Parks Engineering Backflow Preventer Size /.Mfq `/Model: 8" Ames 3000ss Type.: Double Detector Check Backflow Preventer Location Located outside above ground s I . Base of Riser (BOR) Calculations TARGET,DEMANDS wx ^. Static . Residual Residual 1.-:Tar et-Demand,Flow:: m y N 0. 1.600 .1600" 7> 2. Available: Fressure"at Tar et Demand Flow. si ; As..:_r•{.. °. `60.00 56.24 56.24 3 .Elevation"Ad'ustment BOR el.;,H del: x ."433 si 0.43' =0.43 0.43 <? 4 Friction"Loss in.Pi in .to;BOR si .."See,Attached Calcs" 0.00 -2.95 -2.95 5 Base of. Riser. Su " I ': U stream'of Backflow: P.reventer si '2 <- ? -:: 59.57 a ° •52:85 6_ Backflow;.P,rdVehtdr Loss'and,Preload, (psi) -2.00 -3.50 -3.50 7 Base`of;Riser.Su l 'zDownstreatn;of Backflow,Preventer. si : .;57.57.: a?:' 49.35 :• 49:35 ;;" 8.;Low Tan,k=Level/sCity,".Pressure Adjustment:(psi);.?'rutrti 0.00 0.00 0.00 9. Pressure:Available:'at Base of Riser Su I si T +t, xs,, :' '57 57.:. :49.35 > -49.35-.' 4 1 e i 7 F a 1 lid ? ti}t$ .. r' - # . ' ryt .•^ 4 , r ti .'WATER FLO "XVAILABLE AT A'MINIMUM PRESSURE OF:20 PSI: -5736 ? ' gpm ' .. ... J„'..fir. ? ?r ..r,'•.l .. 150 140 DESIRED DEMAND NOTES: 130 47 si 1600 m t D d T 120 p gp @ eman : arge 110 100 90 ?- 80 Cn 70 m 60 N Flow Test 5o n - 40 #9 Above 30 47 si at 1600 m 20 10 0 500 700 900 1100 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 Flow (GPM) Graph X 1.85 ORIGI Paul C. Parks Engineering 121 West Walnut Rogers AR 72756 F Office: (479) 636-5004 Fax: (479) 636-9687 OCT 0 2 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER General Calculation Program Job - Date - 06/07/06 File - G:\104\10411\Fire\Water Flow Report\Calcl600.WXFTime - 16:24:42 AREA CALCULATED - HEAD FLOW SUMMARY Actual Req. Delta Actual Req. Delta ID K-Factor Flow Flow Flow. Press. Press. Press BOR n/a 1600.00 1600.00 0.00 1.000 Pt 1.000 0.000 Total K Factors. . . . 0 Total Fixed Flows. . . 1 Sum Actual Flow. . . . 1600.00 Sum Required Flow. . . 1600.00 Sum Delta Flow . . . . 0.00 Max Delta Flow . . . . 0.00 Max Delta Pressure . . 0.000 AREA CALCULATED - COMPLETE SUMMARY Start Finish Diam. Start Normal Pf Elev/Fixed Flow Vel Point Point Pres. Pres. Pres. BOR <- SRC 8.270 1.000 1.953 0.000 1599.99 9.56 System Demand Pressure . . 2.953 = Fp,(C-T-10N LOSS Safety Margin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53.284 Total Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1600.000 Water Supply Summary @ Point SRC Total Flow From Water Supply Curve . . . . . . . . 1600.000 Pressure From Water Supply Curve . . . . . . . . . 56.237 System Pressure Demand At Total Flow . . . . . . . 2.953 Safety Margin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53.284 ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 0 2 2[06 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 6 Fittings Us Summary Paul C. Parks Engineering Page 1 Date Fitting Legend Abbrev. Name '/2 % 1 1'/4 1'/2 2 2'/z 3 3'/z 4 5 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24 E 90' Standard Elbow 2 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 12 14 18 22 27 35 40 45 50 61 G Generic Gate Valve 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 13 T 90' Flow Thru Tee 3 4 5 6 8 10 12 15 17 20 25 30 35 50 60 71 81 91 101 121 i • n? Z Z O n 0 00 C-) m0 ;O O Pa M D ? rn O r K ? rt m ? Z Pressure / Flow Summary - STAND • Paul C. Parks Engineering Page 2 Date Node Elevation K-Fact Pt Pn Flow Density Area Press io Actual Actual Req. BOR 0.0 1.0 na 1600.0 SRC 0.0 2.95 na The maximum velocity is 9.56 and it occurs in the pipe between nodes BOR and SRC ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 0 2 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER e Final Calculations - Hazen-William Paul C. Parks Engineering Page 3 Date Hyd. Qa Dia. Fitting Pipe Pt Pt Ref. 11C11 or Ftng's Pe Pv "** Notes **"** Point Qt Pf/UL Eqv. Ln. Total Pf Pn BOR 1599.99 8.27 1 E 28.468 50.000 1.000 Qa = 1600 to 140 1G 6.326 90.148 0.0 SRC 1599.99 0.0139 1T 55.354 140.148 1.953 Vel = 9.56 0.0 1599.99 2.953 K Factor = 931.08 F ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 0 2 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER %A I:_JL_- I.11I Ifn A A15M0? ATTACHMENT #3 WATER SUPPLY FLOW TEST For: Wal-Mart#2081 Expansion D'O 0E S`T`I C;'L l'N E Location:' Clearwater, FL Static: 60.0 psi Residual: 53.0 psi Date: 04/11/06 Pitot. 1.0 psi Flow: z, 2238 gpm Time: 11:55 am EST Nozzle (2) - 2-1/2" hydrant outlets Cd: 0.9 Gauge ,Hydrant Location: Located at the rear of the facility. F16W:Hydrant Location Located at the front left and right corners of the facility. Hydrant Elevation.;., 57.00 Ft.kAMSL (FFE) Elevation 58.00 Ft AMSL Test Performed By: Mark Sockrider Company: Paul C Parks Engineering EacWlow P,reventer Size./ Mfg: / Model: 2" Hersey (existing) Type Double Detector Check Meter;Size'l;Mfg /,Model: 2" Neptune T e Compound Backflow,Prey enter /:Meter Location:`.', Located outside above ground. ,.TARGET,. DEMANDS r t4:1Base of Riser (BOR) Calculations .L Static" Residual Residual 1:::Tar et DemandF..,low.; m 0 129 129. 2 Availei ble`Pressure:at vTar et Demand Flow (Psi) r.. _ : 60.00:. 59.96 =0.43 _0.43 ,` x;,=0 43, ;. 3:Elevation"Ad'ustment' F.FE e1:=?H d,:el: x :`433 si k-:4: 7 4 Friction'"Loss<iniPi `in to`FFE` si # See°AttacHe.d Calcs'? ?:° 7 0.00 -4.75 -4.75 54.78 = s: x;tM54.78 k-,., 5:-F,FE.,Su l :.U stream'of;Backflow';PreventerT.Meter. si 6Ba"ckflow<Preventer;Loss:and'Preload si M r? ..:.. !s? t- ,: -1.00 -4.00 -4.00 7:AMeterFL'o"ss andPreload• si 0.00 -3.00 -3.00 8.,;FF,E',Su pl Downstream'of Backflow'Preventer/;Meter: si 58.57,'-" Y,. -' 47.78 A :x47.78;<; 9 ;;Low';Tank,,Level'l City;Pressure.°Adjustmerit.(psi); - ? 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 10 Pressu-re'Available-at'F.FE Su I " si ;•: 4 .. " :`'58.57+ 47.78 fi{:7 ;:*47.78 : " 80 ORIGI AL 150 190 DESIRED DEMAND NOTES: 130 129 gpm @ 45 psi 120 110 100 90 a 70 Flow Test d 60 N r` 50 #10 Above ° - 40 30 20 A 10 45 s atl m 0 200 300 400 500 Flow (GPM) Graph X 1.85 Paul C. Parks Engineering 121 West Walnut Rogers AR 72756 Office: (479) 636-5004 Fax: (479) 636-9687 GCT 0 2 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT GlTV OF CLEARWATER General Calculation Program Job - Date - 06/07/06 File - G:\104\10411\Fire\Water Flow Report\Calc129.WXFTime - 16:41:44 AREA CALCULATED - HEAD FLOW SUMMARY Actual Req. • Delta ID K-Factor Flow Flow Press DOM n/a 129.00 129.00 0.000 Total K Factors. . . . 0 Total Fixed Flows. . . 1 Sum Actual Flow. . . . 129.00 Sum Required Flow. . . 129.00 Sum Delta Flow . . . . 0.00 Max Delta Flow . . . . 0.00 Max Delta Pressure . . 0.000 Delta Actual Req. Flow. Press. Press. 0.00 1.000 Pt 1.000 AREA CALCULATED - COMPLETE SUMMARY Start Finish Diam. Start Normal Pf Elev/Fixed Flow Vel Point Point Pres. Pres. Pres. DOM <- SRC 2.435 1.000 3.751 0.000 128.99 8.89 System Demand Pressure . . 4 .751 = F21Cn0N L055 Safety Margin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46.967 Total Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129.000 Water Supply Summary @ Point SRC Total Flow From Water Supply Curve . . . . . . . . 129.000 Pressure From Water Supply Curve . . . . . . . . . 51.717 System Pressure Demand At Total Flow . . . . . . . 4.751 Safety Margin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46.967 ORIGINAL, RECEIVED OCT 0 22006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Fittings Us )ummary Paul C. Parks Engineering Page 1 Date Fitting Legend I Abbrev. Name '/2 1'/z 2 2'/2 3 3'/z 4 5 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24 E 90' Standard Elbow 2 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 12 14 18 22 27 35 40 45 50 61 G Generic Gate Valve 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 4 5' 6 7 8 10 11 13 T 90' Flow Thru Tee 3 4 5 6 8 10 12 15 17 20 25 30 35 50 60 71 81 91 101 121 • -v n5; Z Q _ 0 C) mO m M D i? m? m - 4 C= > m M Z Pressure / Flow Summary - STAND Paul C. Parks Engineering Page 2 Date Node Elevation K-Fact Pt Pn Flow Density o. Actual Actual DOM 0.0 1.0 na 129.0 SRC 0.0 4.75 na The maximum velocity is 8.89 and it occurs in the pipe between nodes DOM and SRC Area Press Reg. ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 0 2 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 0 n .. ?._..a__ ^----.....,. ?... i i..?_,.a..,. ?.... 0....a., 4 4 4 %A/;-AL--- Ki u i icn neno? Final Calculations - Hazen-Williams. Paul C. Parks Engineering Page 3 Date Hyd. Qa Dia. Fitting Pipe Pt Pt 'Ref. 'IC11 or Ftng's Pe Pv Notes Point Qt Pf/UL Eqv. Ln. Total Pf Pn DOM 128.99 2.435 1 E 7.459 50.000 1.000 Qa = 129 to 140 1G 1.243 23.620 0.0 SRC 128.99 0.0510 1T 14.918 73.620 3.751 Vel = 8.89 0.0 128.99 4.751 K Factor = 59.18 ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 0 2 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 1.nA I??l llla ?f I . 4 0 FLS2006-07044 23106 US HIGHWAY 19 N Date Received: 07/14/2006 WALMART STORES ZONING DISTRICT: C LAND USE: CL ATLAS PAGE: 263B PLANNER OF RECORD: WW ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 0 2 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER CLWCoverSheet t Line Items: Receipt #: 1200600000000007210 Date: 07/14/2006 7/14/2006 4:22:07PM Tran Code Description Revenue Account No Amount Paid FLS2006-07044 03 Flex Std-Commercial 010-341262 475.00 Line Item Total: $475.00 Payments: Method Payer Initials Check No Confirm No How Received Amount Paid Check CPH ENG INC 0' R_D 149344 THIS IS NOT A PERMIT. This is a receipt for an application for a permit. This application will be reviewed and you will be notified as to the outcome of the application. Page 1 of 1 In Person Payment Total: $475.00 C s LU > Q o N ?t a Q L a W O Q OCm LL. ZO ? z aU cReceipt.rpt w IiD PL ?o 3131 FLS2006-07044 23106 US HIGHWAY 19 N Date Received: 07/14/2006 WALMART STORES ORIGINAL RECEIVED JUL 05 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT ZONING DISTRICT: C CITY OF CLEARWATER LAND USE: CL ATLAS PAGE: 263B PLANNER OF RECORD: NNs NTERED overSheet CLWC d3lVMd'9 a i„ JO ALIO N3Wl4Vcf3CI JNIUMa 9002 0 100 U C]3/113?32? Tvwlelao v 3 9 P Y NY ?[ii? ? I 0 N c II w a nr 8 0 y ?' n \ \ \\ (ULS i \ O n D r o 8 1 L!j PARKING GENERATION STUDY Wal-Mart Expansion at CPH Engineers, Inc. NW Quadrant of US 19 & NE Coachman Road CPH Project No. W13454 City of Clearwater, Florida September 2006 The following Parking Generation Study has been conducted for the proposed expansion of the existing Wal-Mart from 122,000 s.f. (square foot) to approximately 160,000 s.f. and supports the variance request for a reduction of the required number of parking spaces. Per the current development criteria in the City of Clearwater Code, the project requires 790 parking spaces based on the gross floor area of the proposed building (5.0 spaces/1,000 square feet (ksf) of gross floor area). The existing parking lot contains 648 parking spaces and it is proposed to provide 766 parking spaces as opposed to the 790 parking spaces as required per the City of Clearwater Code. However, due to the geometry, layout, and existing encumbrances, site layout accommodates a maximum of 766 parking spaces (4.79 spaces/ksf gross floor area), which is sufficient to accommodate the peak parking demand. The supporting analysis follows: The proposed parking supply versus demand was evaluated based on existing parking demand determined using parking lot count collected on Friday, September 8, 2006 during the hours of 11:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. for every thirty (30) minutes and on Saturday, September 9, 2006 during the hours of 10:30 A.M. to 4:30 P.M for every 15 minutes. The maximum count of 306 occupied parking spaces was observed on Saturday during the time of 1:00 - 1:15 P.M. The count dataset is attached as a reference with this document. The peak period parking demand rate per 1,000 s.f. of GFA (Gross Floor Area) for the existing Wal- Mart was determined using the following formula for the maximum occupied spaces as observed on Saturday, September 9, 2006 between 1:00 and 1:15 P.M. and existing Wal-Mart Square Footage as input. Peak period parking Demand Rate = Highest Observed Occupied Parking Spaces * 1,000 s.f. Development Square Footage 306 spaces 1,000 s.f. 122,000 s.f. * 1 k.s.f =1,000 s.f. = 2.51 Parking Spaces / k.s.f * To determine adjust the collected demand to the highest peak period parking demand rate over the year, a scale factor was calculated based on the highest number of transactions on a day for the year, i.e. 7799 transaction for December 23, 2005, and compare to the 5638 transactions on September 9, 2006 obtained from Wal-Mart. Based on information obtained a scale factor, was calculated as following: Scale Factor = Highest number of transactions on a day ORIGINAL Number of transactions on September 9, 2006 RECEIVED 7799 OCT 0 2 2006 5638 = 1.38 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER J:\Transportation General\Jobs\W13454-Clearwater\Analysis\Parking Generation\W13454 -Parking Analysis.doc Page 1 of 2 A • The highest peak period parking demand rate was calculated as the product of peak period parking demand rate for September 9, 2006 and the Scale Factor. This resulted in an increase of 1.4 from the September 9, 2006 peak period parking demand rate, calculated as follows: = Peak Parking Demand Rate * Scale Factor = 2.51 parking spaces/k.s.f * 1.4 = 3.46 parking spaces/k.s.f Based on the above determined peak day of the year peak period parking demand rate of 3.46 parking spaces/k.s.f, the proposed expansion of the store to 160,000 s.f. would result in a maximum peak period demand of: = (3.46 parking spaces/k.s.0 * (160 k.s.f) = 554 spaces In addition, the proposed parking space/k.s.f was compared against the rates for Land Use Code 815 (Reference 2, Pages187 & 188) Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition, 2004 as summarized in Table 1. Table 1: Parking Generation Comparison Supply Calculated Parking S ac k.s.f ITE Parking Spaces J . ksf . Parking Spaces Scale of the" Development ITE Avg. Supply 5.0 800 160,000 s.f. City of Clearwater Requirement 5.0 800 160,000 s.f. Proposed Supply 4.79 766 160,000 s.f. Weekda r Demand Average Size of Stud Sites 112,000 s.f. Avg. Peak Period Parkin Demand 3.81 610 160,000 s.f. Saturday Demand Avg. Peak Period Parkin Demand 4.47 715 160,000 s.f. Maximum Calculated Demand 3.46 554 160,000 s.f. The average peak period demand for the free standing discount store studied is estimated to be 3.81 spaces/ksf on weekdays and 4.47 spaces/ksf on Saturdays. Using these ratios, the peak period demand for the proposed project on weekdays and Saturdays are estimated to be 610 and 715 parking spaces respectively for a gross floor area of 160,000 s.f. As a result, the average peak to compare is to 4.47. For a free standing discount store with 160,000 s.f., the proposed provision of 766 parking spaces results in a parking supply rate of 4.79 parking spaces/ k.s.f which is 38% and 212 spaces higher than the maximum calculated demand, for this site i.e. peak time peak day of the year demand of 554 parking spaces/k.s.f. Therefore, the supply of 766 spaces, and the resultant supply rate of 4.79 parking spaces/k.s.f are adequate to meet the demand. Prepared by: Jackeline Toledo, P.E. Florida P.E. No. 64104 CPH Engineers, Inc. September 29, 2006 ORIGINAL RECEIVED CST 0 2 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER J:\ Transportation General\Jobs\W13454-Clearwater\Analysis\Parking Generation\W13454 - Parking Analysis.doc Page 2 of 2 61 v 0 0 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 5:07 PM To: 'Usunobun Osagie' Cc: dmoyer@cphengineers.com; Lopez, Michael Subject: 23106 US Highway 19 N, Clearwater, FL - Walmart* Usunobun - I have reviewed your revised elevations with my management and the revisions are acceptable. These revised elevations will need to be submitted as revisions to Building Permit #BCP2007-11185. As I mentioned earlier, I am unclear whether the proposed elevation revisions affect the civil site and landscape plans, and, if so, revisions to the civil site and landscape plans will need to also be submitted. Additionally, signage is handled separately and, based on the signage shown on the plans, the approval of signage will need to be submitted and approved through the Comprehensive Sign Program through the Planning Department. Wayne -----Original Message----- From: Usunobun Osagie [mailto:UOsagie@RHAAIA.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 2:13 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: dmoyer@cphengineers.com; Lopez, Michael Subject: RE: 23106 US Highway 19 N, Clearwater, FL - Wal-Mart* Attached is our solution to your concerns. We have extended the canopy to where the light beige trespa meets the salmon color. We have also added pilasters on either side of the brand wall. The asymmetrical color fields on the brand wall are part of Wal-Mart's new brand and we want to leave it that way. Please let me know if you have any other questions or, concerns. Thanks, Usunobun A. Osagie -----Original Message----- From: Wayne.Wells@myClearwater.com [mailto:Wayne.Wells@myClearwater.com] Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 8:56 AM To: Usunobun Osagie Cc: dmoyer@cphengineers.com; Michael.Lopez@myClearwater.com Subject: 23106 US Highway 19 N, Clearwater, FL - Walmart* Mr. Osagie - I apologize for not getting back to you earlier regarding the change to the facade and color scheme for this Walmart* project. I have talked to my management and we have the following comments regarding the new building elevation drawings. you left with me: 1. Canopy over the Market & Pharmacy entrance to the center area of the building where the main Walmart* sign is located - The canopy located within the center area of the building ends at an odd location. It would be better to either end the canopy at the end of the center area closest to the Market & Pharmacy entrance or it needs to extend to the other end of the center area closest to.the Home & Living entrance. 2. The center area of the building where the main Walmart* sign is located - This center area lacks definition, different than the current 1 r , approved elevation, and coul0be improved through the use o 0lasters at each end of this center area. Additionally, the thespa panels (stone beige in color) on either side of the thespa panels (salmon in color) are not symmetrical in width, making this center area look odd. The Walmart* sign is off-center in the salmon-colored area. 3. Proposed colors - The proposed new color scheme is acceptable.. If necessary, call me to discuss our concerns outlined in #1 and #2 above. The proposed revisions to the elevations will require building plans to be resubmitted to Development Services for additional review under Building Permit #BCP2007-11185. I am unclear whether the proposed elevation revisions affect the civil site and landscape plans, and, if so, revisions to the civil site and landscape plans will need to also be submitted. Wayne M. Wells, AICP Planner III City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756-5520 Phone: 727-562-4504 Fax: 727-562-4865 2 i 0 0#4 Walmart.. SUPERCENTER EXPANSION ' CLEARWATER, FL #2081 me,; Front Elevation - So nl ` t f f V ®? t 1 is Rear Elevation - North APPROVAL ONLY 00?d"nimimt Act r IXr w' mnwws -' vary Page 1 of 1 0 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 7:18 AM To: 'RAL2000@aol.com' Subject: Looking for an Update Gloria - I am not aware of any wetland issues. For my reviews, I am down to the colors of the building correct. There are revisions that have been submitted that I need to see if they affect my reviews. There has been an issue with the FDOT and what they are requiring. Rick Albee is still reviewing tree impacts, primarily due to FDOT comments. Otherwise, the permit should be ready to be issued. Wayne -----Original Message----- From: RAL2000@aol.com [mailto:RAL2000@aol.com] Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 8:23 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Looking for an Update Hi Wayne: Hope you enjoyed your Labor Day weekend. The Coachman Ridge Homeowners Association is gearing up again and I am checking with you to see if Wal-Mart has moved forward with any of their expansion plans? Have they pulled any permits? I heard a rumor that the expansion is on hold due to the wetlands area. Hopefully you can give me an update. Thanks. Gloria Losi It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal here. 9/2/2008 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 S. MYRTLE AVENUE, 2'D FLOOR CLEARWATER, FL 33756 PHONE: 727-562-4567; FAX: 727-5624865 • KEN BURKE, CLERK OF COURT PINELLAS COUNTY FLORIDA INST# 2008114770 04128/2008 at 10:32 AM OFF REC BK: 16232 PG: 2192-2184 DocType:AGM RECORDING: $27.00 DECLARATION OF UNM OF TITLE Property Owner. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Property Address: 23106 US Highway 19 N, Clearwater rL 33765 KNOW OF ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that prstiant to the ordinances of the City of Clearwater pertaining to the issuance of building permits and regulating land development activities, the undersigned, being the fee owner (s) of the following described real property (legal description) situated in the City of Clearwater, County of Pinellas and State of Florida, to wit: (See attached Exhibit "A° for legal description) do hereby make the following declaration of conditions, limitations and restrictions on said lands, hereafter to be known and refereed to as a DECLARATION OF UNITY OF TITLE, as to the following particulars: 1. That the aforesaid plot or combination of separate lots, plots, parcels, acreage or portions thereof, shall hereafter be regarded as and is hereby declared to be unified under one tale as an indivisible building site. 2. That the. said property shall henceforth be considered as one plot or parcel of land, and that no portion thereof shall be sold, assigned, transferred, conveyed or devised separately except in its entirety, as one plot or parcel of land. 3, That this Declaration of Unity of Title shall constitute a covenant to rum with the land, as provided by law, and shall be binding upon the undersigned, and the heirs, successors and assigns of the undersigned, and all parties claiming under them until such time as the same may be released in writing under the order of the City Manager of the City of Clearwater. The undersigned also agree(s) that this iIIstr invent shall be recorded in the public records of Pinellas County, Florida. Signed, sealed, witnessed and acknowledged this day of r/- 20 vb , at Clearwater, Florida. WITNESSES: ?` - ST OF ARKANSAS COLiNTY OF BENTONVILLE OWNER (S): Wal-Mart Stores, IX BY: THE FOREGOING was acknowledged before me this LL day of? 2008 by J. Chris Callaway, Regional Vice President of WAL-MART STORES, INC., a Delaware corpo on, on behal of the corporation. He is personally known to me. ^ Q Signature of Notary Public, State of Ark sas "NOTARY SEAL" ? Trina L Brown, Notary Public 4_-,_d ? 1 . (3 f ?`"? Benton County, State of Adeansas Print/Type Name of Notary Public My Commission Expires N9AW12 23106 US HIGHWAY BCP2007-11185 WAL-MART STORES Zoning: C 19N atlas# 263B EXHIBIT "A" Parcel 1: A portion of Lots 1 and 2 of LOEHNLANN'S PLAZA according to the map or plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 93 page 63, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. Being more particularly described as follows: Commence at the Southeast corner of Section 6, Township 29 South, Range 16 East, Pinellas County, Florida; thence North 89°48' 11" West, 100.01 feet, thence North 01°08'45" East, 10.15 feet, to the Point of Intersection of the West right-of-way line of U.S. Highway 19 and the North right-of-way line of Northeast Coachman Road - State Road No. 590. Thence South 58°21' 12" West, 178.44 feet, along said North right-of- way line to the Point of Beginning; thence continue South 58°21' 12" West, 722.03 feet; thence leaving said line North 31°38'48" West, 150.00 feet; thence North 89°01'57" West, 171.85 feet to a point of the East right-of:way line of a certain Florida Power Corporation right-of-way as recorded in Official Records Book No. 1466 pages 156 and 157, of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida; thence along said East right-of- way line, North 00°58'03" East, 596.80 feet; thence North 01 °12'20" East, 216.55 feet to a point on the South right-of-way line of Stag Run Boulevard, thence, leaving the aforementioned East line, South 88°43' 14" East, 310.72 feet, along said South right-of- way line, thence continuing along said South right-of-way line, along a curve to the left that has a radius of 470.00 feet, and arc length of 247.19 feet, a chord length of 244.35 feet, a chord bearing of North 76°12'46" East; thence North 61 °08'45" East, 147.05 feet; thence along a curve to the right that has a radius of 475.00 feet, an are length of 183.50 feet, a chord length of 182.37 feet, a chord bearing of North 72012'48" East; thence leaving said line South 01 °08'45" West, 195.53 feet; thence South 88°51' 15" East, 165.00 feet, to a point on the West right-of-way line of U.S. Highway No. 19; thence South 01°08'45" West, 320.62 feet, along the West right-of-way line of U.S. Highway No. 19; thence leaving said line North 88°51' 15" West, 150.00 feet; thence South 01°08'45" West, 226.64 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Excepting that portion of the above described land as conveyed to Dana Point Investments, Inc., a Florida corporation, by Corporation Deed recorded December 20, ' 1996, in Official Records Book 9559 page 1041, of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, more fully described as follows: A parcel of land being a portion of Lot 1 of LOEHMANN'S PLAZA REPLAT, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 109 pages 13 and 14, of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, lying within Section 6, Township 29 South, Range 16 East and being more particularly described as follows: Commence at the Northeast boundary comer of LOEHMANN'S PLAZA REPLAT, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 109 pages 13 and 14, of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida; thence South 01 °08'45" West along the East boundary line of said LOEHMANN'S PLAZA REPLAT (being basis of bearings for this description). Same also being the West right-of-way line of U.S. Highway No. 19 (State Road No. 55), for 310.00 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence continue South 01 °08'45" West along said East boundary line of LOEHN ANN' S PLAZA REPLAT, for 210.62 feet to a Southeast boundary corner of Lot 1 of said LOEBNL NN'S PLAZA REPLAT, same also being the Northeast boundary corner of Lot 2 of said LOEHMANN'S PLAZA REPLAT; thence leaving said East boundary line of said LOEHMANN'S PLAZA REPLAT, North 88°5l'1 5" West along a Southerly boundary line of said Lot 1 and its Westerly extension, same also being the North boundary line of said Lot 2 and its Westerly extension, for 177.49 feet; thence North 01°11'48" East, for 110.04 feet; thence North 16'46'19" West, for 47.90 feet; thence North 00°51'57" East, for 55.01 feet to the Point of Intersection with a lines 10.00 feet South of and parallel with a Northerly boundary line of aforesaid Lot 1, same also being a line 110.00 feet South of and parallel with the South boundary line of Lot 3 of aforesaid LOEHMANN'S PLAZA REPLAT; thence South 88°51' 15" East along said line 110.00 feet South of and parallel with a Northerly boundary line of Lot 1, for 192.40 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Parcel 2: Non-exclusive easements for ingress and egress and over sidewalks, service lanes, parking aisles, driveways, streets and parking areas for the benefit of Parcel 1 as granted by Memorandum of Lease recorded January 9,1985, in Official Records Book 5911 page 1749, as amended by Subordination and Non-Disturbance Agreement recorded July 31, 1985, in Official Records Book 6044 page 1055, and assigned to JIFFY LUBE INTERNATIONAL OF MARYLAND, INC., a Maryland corporation by Assignment and Assumption Agreement and Memorandum of Lease recorded January 11, 1988, in Official Records Book 6660 page 189, all of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. • Page 1 of 2 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 5:01 PM To: 'Polo Eusebio' Cc: 'slatimer@cphengineers.com; 'dmoyer@cphengineers.com' Subject: FLS2006-07044 - 23106 US Highway 19 N - Wal-Mart Supercenter Polo - I have shown the three color schemes to my Planning Director. Understanding the comment regarding green and blue not being an option, of the three new options we prefer the middle option using the "canyon clay" color behind the "Wal-Mart" sign and on the sunscreens over the two window areas. Please reflect these color changes on the appropriate construction drawing sheets under Building Permit #BCP2007-11185. Thanks. Wayne -----Original Message----- From: Polo Eusebio [mailto:PEusebio@RHAAIA.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 10:04 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: FLS2006-07044 - 23106 US Highway 19 N - Wal-Mart Supercenter Hi Mr. Wells, regarding the color scheme please see email below as well as the pdf of optional color scheme. Please free feel to call me and discuss. Thanks and look forward to your comments/suggestions. Eusebio Padilla (Polo) office: 214-749-0626 direct: 214-290-7062 peusebio@rhaaia.com From: Gregg Oltman Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 5:48 PM To: Polo Eusebio; Usunobun Osagie Subject: #2081 Clearwater, FL Polo, The reason we changed the colors on the Clearwater Wal-Mart expansion is because green and blue are no longer acceptable colors in the Wal-Mart palette. We do however want to work with the city to replace the previously shown "green" colored elements with more 5/28/2008 • • Page 2 of 2 "earthtone" colors. I've put together an exhibit of 3 different color schemes that I'd like you to send to the city for their input. If the city would like to see other schemes, we're open to discussion, however green and blue are no longer viable options. Wal-Mart as a company is getting away from these colors of the past. The earthtone palette better reflects the new Wal-Mart brand. I look forward to the city's comments and/or suggestions. Thanks, 5/28/2008 # -- glow I ?iUVE RED AJlNiNG PAINT SW6 A'CA NYON CLAY' ?I 4t '! ' Color Scheme C LOWERED AWNING PAINT SW 61AS"OOYERWHRE' LIFS PMN SWW CANYONC,AY" l EIFS PAINT SW 2. •RIRDSEW MAPLE Lt,UVLREU AWNiNU PNNi SV/A1V'ARMAGNAC' LOWERFO AWNING PAINT SW 054 "CANYON CLAY" 1 i. ' UVCREO AWN - -PAINT SW 61R5'OOWER WHITE' POW WAL*MARTV )r Scheme Options Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 5:56 PM To: 'Latimer, Sandra' Cc: Moyer, Daniel; Delk, Michael; Clayton, Gina Subject: FLS2006-07044 - 23106 US Highway 19 N - Wal-Mart Supercenter Sandy - The revised color scheme has been discussed with Planning staff: 1. The proposed signage changes will need to be addressed as part of the Comprehensive Sign Program (the changes simplifying the signage are an improvement). 2. Regarding the color changes, it was noted that Wal-Mart wants a more earth tone color scheme. The only changes I can see comparing the elevations and colors approved under FLS2006-07044 and that recently submitted under BCP2007-1185 is: a. Change the Priviledge Green behind the main "Wal-Mart" sign generally in the center of the building to Roycroft Rose; b. Change the sunscreens over the windows on either side of the building entrances from Priviledge Green to what appears to be Renwick Beige; and c. Change the pilasters on either side of the main "Wal-Mart" sign in the center of the building and at the base of the building at the building entrance areas from Fiery Brown to Canyon Clay. The Planning Department prefers to retain the Priviledge Green in the locations above over the proposed earth tone changes listed above in "a" and "b". The change in "c" above is acceptable. I have added the above comments in to the review of BCP2007-11185. Should you have additional questions, feel free to contact me. Wayne -----Original Message----- From: Latimer, Sandra [mailto:slatimer@cphengineers.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 10:39 AM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Moyer, Daniel Subject: FW: FLS2006-07044 - 23106 US Highway 19 N- Wal-Mart Supercenter Wayne, Please see below for an explanation of the color scheme revisions. Let me know if you have any questions or need further clarification. Thank you, Sandy Latimer, E.I. CPH Engineers, Inc. Ph: 941-365-4771 Fx: 941-365-4779 -----Original Message----- From: Polo Eusebio [mailto:PEusebio@RHAAIA.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 10:33 AM To: Latimer, Sandra Cc: Moyer, Daniel 1 Subject: FW: FLS2006-07044 -0106 US Highway 19 N - Wal-Mart. Supercenter The color and sign revisions were made as part of Wal-Mart's decision to make their stores' colors more "earthtone" in value and to incorporate their new signage package. The new signage package uses signs that clearly direct the customer to the different entrances of the building. Ambiguous signs such as "Always" have been eliminated. The first file shows a Green color used on the building that Wal-Mart is trying to get away from. This file also shows a number of superfluous signs that Wal-Mart has decided to eliminate. The second file shows the earthtone color scheme as well as the new, cleaner signage package. We all feel this new look is a big improvement over the former. Eusebio Padilla (Polo) office: 214-749-0626 direct: 214-290-7062 peusebio@rhaaia.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Wells, Wayne > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 2:23 PM > To: 'dmoyer@cphengineers.com' > Cc: Lopez, Michael > Subject: FLS2006-07044 - 23106 US Highway 19 N - Wal-Mart Supercenter > Dan - > Revisions were just submitted today by Sandra Latimer for Building Permit #BCP2007-11185 for the Wal-Mart Supercenter at 23106 US Highway 19 N. One of the Planning comments related to changes to the exterior colors of the building. As part of the resubmission was a revised color scheme rendered elevations and a check for $400 for a Minor Revision to the color scheme approved under FLS2006-07044. So as to completely understand the revisions and ensure no misunderstandings, could you please submit either a letter or an email explaining what specific revisions were made (are requested) on the plans and the reasoning for such? Thanks. > Wayne M. Wells, AICP > Planner III > City of Clearwater > 100 South Myrtle Avenue > Clearwater, FL 33756-5520 > Phone: 727-562-4504 > Fax: 727-562-4865 2 0 0 WAL*MART`J SUPERCENTER EXPANSION CLEARWATER, F#2081 H2008 .r I Rear Elevation • North Ap 11 1w P ?i ? ?AAY iWlaM1?. :? n.a aunoiwc rw x b. y_?" [MUAMf ? ,? --T .1 1. 1. 1,.' ?.f J: 'O'n ^ .Q I I FOR RL6ULATOPn APPROVAL ONLY Building images shown are riatlstic representation of the design intent. Actwl cola or maRroh may vary Lam those shown dw to final design cletalling NUI fUh i,!NSI RUC PION 0 E Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 2:56 PM To: 'dmoyer@cphengineers.com' Cc: Lopez, Michael Subject: FLS2006-07044 - 23106 US Highway 19 N - Wal-Mart Supercenter Dan - Upon further review, there is no fee in our Code for this Minor Revision, so I am sending the check back to you. I will process your request once I receive the email/letter explaining the request. Thanks. Wayne -----Original Message----- From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 2:23 PM To: 'dmoyer@cphengineers.com' Cc: Lopez, Michael Subject: FLS2006-07044 - 23106 US Highway 19 N - Wal-Mart Supercenter Dan -. Revisions were just submitted today by Sandra Latimer for Building Permit #BCP2007-11185 for the Wal-Mart Supercenter at 23106 US Highway 19 N. One of the Planning comments related to changes to the exterior colors of the building. As part of the resubmission was a revised color scheme rendered elevations and a check for $400 for a Minor Revision to the color scheme approved under FLS2006-07044. So as to completely understand the revisions and ensure no misunderstandings, could you please submit either a letter or an email explaining what specific revisions were made (are requested) on the plans and the reasoning for such? Thanks. Wayne M. Wells, AICP Planner III City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756-5520 Phone: 727-562-4504 Fax: 727-562-4865 0 9 Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 9:15 AM To: 'Moyer, Daniel' Cc: Porter, Jim; Latimer, Sandra; Elbo, Bennett; Patni, Himanshu; Thompson, Neil Subject: Meeting to discuss FDOT R/W taking issues Dan - Next Thursday, February 28, 2008, at 1:00 pm in our offices works for me, Bennett Elbo and Himanshu Patni. See you then. Wayne -----Original Message----- From: Moyer, Daniel [maiIto: dmoyer@cphengineers.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 4:43 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Porter, Jim; Latimer, Sandra Subject: Meeting to discuss FDOT R/W taking issues Wayne, we are available anytime next Thurs Feb 28 after 1:00. Please let us know if you and Ben Elbo (or anyone else that should be there) are available to meet. Thank you. Dan Moyer Project Manager CPH Engineers, Inc. 3277A Fruitville Road Sarasota, FL 34237 Office: 941-365-4771 Fax: 941-365-4779 Cell: 813-841-5851 2/21/2008 •• 4rE1++ PLANNING DEPARTMENT 0 0 CITY OF C LEARWATER POST OFFICE BOX 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAX (727) 562-4865 October 31, 2007 Daniel Moyer, E.I. CPH Engineers, Inc. 3277A Fruitville Road Sarasota, FL 34237 RE: Development Order for Case No. FLS2006-07044 23106 US Highway 19 N Dear Mr. Moyer: This letter constitutes a Development Order pursuant to Section 4-202.E of the Community Development Code. On November 16, 2006, the Development Review Committee (DRC) reviewed your application for Flexible Standard Development approval to permit the expansion of an existing 119,530 square-foot retail sales and services use (Wal-Mart) to a Wal-Mart Supercenter with and expanded Garden Center of a total of 157,990 square feet in the Commercial District with a reduction to the side (east and north) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to existing pavement), reductions to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to 5.09 feet (to existing pavement) and to 5.49 feet (to proposed pallet and cardboad bale storage area) and a reduction to required parking from 790 spaces (five spaces per 1,000 sf GFA) to 766 spaces (4.848 spaces per 1,000 sf GFA), under the provisions of Section 2-703.R, and a reduction to the side (east and north) landscape buffer from five feet to zero feet (to existing pavement), as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3- 1202.G. The DRC recommended approval of the application with the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Conditions of Approval: Findings of Fact: 1. That the 16.5 acres is located on the west side of US Highway 19 N between NE Coachman Road and Stag Run Boulevard and is zoned Commercial District; 2. That the property is currently developed with a Wal-Mart retail sales store of 119,530 square feet (including the garden center); 3. That the proposal is for a 38,460 square-foot addition to the north side of the existing building, converting the store to a Wal-Mart Supercenter (retail sales), of a total square footage of 157,990 square feet (including the garden center); 4. That the existing driveway with its median on US Highway 19 N will remain in its present location, but be modified to provide a wider turning radius for ingress to the property, which exceeds the Code vehicle stacking requirements; 5. That the eastern driveway on NE Coachman Road will remain in its present location, exceeding the Code vehicle stacking requirements; 6. That the western driveway on NE Coachman Road will be relocated slightly eastward and is designed to exceed the Code vehicle stacking requirements; FRANK HIBBARD, MAYOR JOHN DORAN, COUNCILMEMBER J.B. JOHNSON, COUNCILMEMBER BILL JONSON, COUNCILMEMBER ® CAREEN A. PETERSEN, COUNCILMEMBER "EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER" October 31, 2007 Moyer - Page 2 7. That existing cross accesses with the outparcels on US Highway 19 N and with the outparcel at the southeast corner of the property are being maintained; 8. That the parking areas east and south of the building are primarily being maintained in their current location, but being modified to meet Code requirements and to meet proposed design parameters; 9. That setback and landscape buffer reductions on the north and east sides are adjacent to the Wendy's and Jiffy Lube properties and are for existing pavement conditions to remain; 10. That setback reductions on the west side adjacent to the Progress Energy power line right-of-way are to existing pavement on the south side, are to accommodate required drive aisle widths for existing and proposed compactor dumpsters on the west side of the building and are to a necessary proposed pallet and cardboard bale storage area at the northeast corner of the building; 11. That the proposed pallet and cardboard bale storage area will provide a required storage area away from the building to meet Fire Code requirements, will screen stored items from public view by walls and fences and stored materials will be restricted to be no higher than the surrounding walls/fence; 12. That the proposal includes a reduction to required parking from 790 spaces (five spaces per 1,000 sf GFA) to 766 spaces (4.848 spaces per 1,000 sf GFA), which has been justified through a parking reduction study; 13. That the proposal complies with landscape buffer requirements, as modified through the Comprehensive Landscape Program; 14. That required foundation landscaping is being provided; 15. That the applicant has worked with the detached dwelling neighborhood to the west and staff regarding tree and vegetation preservation along the west property line to ensure existing tree canopy and vegetation will continue to screen views of the building and vehicular use areas on the west side of the building and/or be augmented to aid in such continued screening; 16. That the proposed building addition and existing fagade of the building will be upgraded to a higher quality with exterior colors of roycroft rose (primary color), birdseye maple, privilege green and renwick beige; 17. That the proposed building addition height will match that of the existing building; 18. That existing signage (freestanding and attached) must be brought into conformance with Code requirements and will be handled under Comprehensive Sign Program #SGN2006-07010; 19. That the proposal is consistent and compatible with surrounding commercial development. Conclusions of Law: 1. The proposal complies with Retail Sales and Services criteria under Section 2-703.R; 2. The proposal complies with General Applicability criteria under Section 3-913; 3. The proposal complies with the Comprehensive Landscape Program criteria of Section 3-1202.G; and 4. The proposed expansion is compatible with the surrounding area. Conditions of Approval: 1. That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to and approved as part of Case FLS2006-07044; 2. That a Declaration of Unity of Title document be recorded in the public records prior to the issuance of any permit; 3. That a vinyl windscreen shade cloth or other material acceptable to the Planning Department providing 100 percent opacity, of a color the same as the building (roycroft rose) or black, located on the fencing along the east, west and south elevations of the garden center be maintained in a clean and attractive appearance and shall be in good repair at all times; 4. That the storage of materials within the enclosed garden center, including the racks, not be visible above any fencing, walls or other screening, and not exceed 15 feet in height; October 31, 2007 Moyer - Page 3 5. That the height of items stored in the pallet/bale storage area not exceed the height of the surrounding wall/fence; 6. That the management of the store fully enforce the requirements/limitations of this Development Order at all times; 7. That no outdoor storage or display of materials/goods be located beyond the limits of the approved garden center (e.g. in the parking lot, drive aisles, etc.), except as may be permitted through approved Temporary Use Permits; 8. That, prior to the issuance, of any permits, the landscape plans be amended to include the following: a. a continuous hedge along the property lines of the outparcel in the southwest corner of the site; b. upgrading the interior islands south/southwest of the garden center with shrubs and groundcovers; c. upgrading the new interior islands north of the building with shrubs and groundcovers; d. indication that the crape myrtle and tree ligustrum be two-inch average caliper; e. to gain greater diversity of tree species, replacement of oaks (live and/or high rise) with magnolias or other shade trees acceptable to the Planning Department; and f, provision of dahoon holly trees every 30 - 35 feet along Stag Run Boulevard west of the driveway; 9. That, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy/Completion for the addition, landscaping along the west portion of the property provide a continuous buffer/screen for the residential area to the west (including shade or accent trees every 35 feet), acceptable to the Planning Department, and that the owner maintain this landscape area; 10. That, prior to the issuance of any permits, plans be amended to include the following: a. site data to accurately show proposed parking spaces at 766 spaces; b. provision of wheel stops at handicap parking spaces for the protection of handicap signage; c. chain link fencing along the south edge of Pond #1 and the pre-treatment area east of the driveway to Stag Run Blvd. be green or black vinyl coated; d. design of the recycling dumpster area in the southeast corner of the property in accordance with Solid Waste Department requirements; e. since the retention pond has been modified, a revised drainage report reflecting the proposed changes, including documentation that the required volume is still met; and f. traffic lanes separator flex-posts be setback 25 feet from the front property line at the US Highway 19 N driveway; 11. That signage for the property be brought into compliance with Code requirements under the Comprehensive Sign Program #SGN2006-07010; 12. That plans to be submitted for the site development building permit include all plan sheets indicated with an asterisk (not included in this set) for this Flexible Standard Development application; and 13. That, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Completion, the developer satisfy the requirements of the Public Arts Ordinance (Clearwater Ordinance No. 7489-05); I concur with the findings of the Development Review Committee and, through this letter, APPROVE your application for Flexible Standard Development with the above 13 conditions. The approval is based on and must adhere to the site plan and application dated received September 13, 2007. Pursuant to Section 4-303, an application for a building permit shall be made within one year of Flexible Standard Development approval (October 31, 2008). All required certificates of occupancy shall be obtained within two years of the date of issuance of the building permit. Time frames do not change with successive owners. The issuance of this Development Order does not relieve you of the necessity to obtain any building permits or pay any impact fees that may be required. In order to facilitate the issuance of any permit or license October 31, 2007 Moyer - Page 4 affected by this approval, please bring a copy of this letter with you when applying for any permits or licenses that require this prior development approval. In addition, in accordance with Section 4-502.A, please be aware that an appeal of a. Level One approval (Flexible Standard Development) may be initiated by the applicant or a property owner abutting the property (which is the subject of the approval) within seven days of the date the Development Order is issued. The filing of an application/notice of appeal shall stay the effect of the decision pending the final determination of the case. The Community Development Board (CDB) would hear an appeal application. The appeal period for your case will expire on November 8, 2007. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call Wayne M. Wells, AICP, Planner III, at 727-562-4504. You can access zoning for parcels within the City through our website: www.myclearwater.com. Sincerely, Michae De k, A Planning Director S: (Planning DepartmentIC D BIFlex Standard (FLS)Unactive or Finished Casesl US Hwy 19 N 23106 Wal-Mart (C) - Approvedi US Hwy 19 N 23106 FLS2006-07044 Development Order.doc MEMORANDUM DATE: October 31, 2007 RE: Responses to Letter of Objection from Steve Sarnoff Parking Objection I Response: The methodology to conduct the Parking Demand Study was determined at a meeting of the applicant's consultants and the Traffic Engineering Department and Planning Department staff. Parking Objection 2 Response: The methodology to conduct the Parking Demand Study was determined at a meeting of the applicant's consultants and the Traffic Engineering Department and Planning Department staff. Parking Concern 1 Response: Wal-Mart consultants have worked with Planning Department staff to retain to the greatest degree possible the existing parking lot layout and existing, healthy trees in their current location and island configuration. New islands have been added where mutually agreed. Where trees have died or are not healthy, new trees within existing islands are proposed to be planted. Parking Concern 2 Response: While the approved plan indicates the provision of 759 parking spaces, Planning Department staff counts 766 parking spaces. A condition of approval requires updating the site data prior to the issuance of any permit. Parking Objection 3 Response: The parking calculations on Sheet C-4 include the garden center, as well as the analysis under the Parking Demand Study for a parking reduction. The garden center is calculated at the retail sales parking rate of five spaces per 1,000 square feet. The shared parking is not applicable. Parking Objection 4 Response: The approved plan indicates parking stalls to meet width and length requirements, as well as drive aisle widths meeting Code requirements. Parkin Concern 3 Response: When this application was first submitted, there were many truck trailer bodies/container units on the property being used as storage units for products. Those truck trailer bodies have been removed. The parking of truck trailers for the loading or unloading of products is permitted by the Code. Future truck trailers being used for Page 1 of 6 • • storage would constitute a violation of City Code and enforcement actions would be initiated at that time. Parking Concern 4 Response: The site plan provides for two loading spaces each at the northwest and southwest corners of the building, meeting the required numbers of loading spaces. There are also other areas available on the south side of the building where loading could occur that will not interfere with vehicular maneuvering through these areas and will not interfere with parking spaces. Flexible Development Standards Concern 5 Response: The height of the building is measured to the top of the flat roof. The top of the existing flat roof is at a height of 22'-4 %z" and the top of the proposed roof addition is at a height of 21'-2", both of which are below the 25-foot height. The Flexible Development Standards provide a height of between 25 - 35 feet. The additional height above the top of the roof is for parapets. Fences Objection 5 Response: Pond #1 has been redesigned and is no longer enclosed by a fence. A fence is only being located on the south side of the pond, where vertical walls are proposed and the fence if required from a safety standpoint. The front slope of the pond at 4:1 does not require any fencing adjacent to the Stag Run Blvd. right-of-way line. The closest the fence will be to Stag Run Blvd. is 28.7 feet. The chain link fence is being required to be black or green vinyl coated. Fences Objection 6 Response: See response to Fences Objection 5. Lighting Concern 6 Response: Plans submitted (Sheets C-15 and C-15A) have indicated the height of the light poles, that the lights are at a 90-degree angle to the ground and the illumination levels on the site based on the lighting design. Revised Sheets C-15 and C-15A will need to be submitted for the site development building permit. Outdoor Retail Sales Displays and Storage Objection 7 Response: The Pallet/Bale Storage Area and the Garden Center have been considered as part of this review. The Pallet/Bale Storage Area is being required to be screened from view by walls with opaque gates, and such storage cannot be stacked higher than the height of the wall/fence. The Garden Center is also being required to be upgraded with columns and vinyl windscreen shade cloth or other material acceptable to the Planning Department providing 100 percent opacity, of a color the same as the building (roycroft rose) or black, located on the fencing along the east, west and south elevations of the Garden Center. Further, the approval of this request is being conditioned with the following: "storage of materials within the enclosed garden center, including the racks, not be visible above any fencing, walls or other screening, and not exceed 15 feet in height." The reduction to the required side setback to the Pallet/Bale Storage Area is Page 2 of 6 being handled through the approval of the request and is within the setback range allowed under the Retail Sales and Services use (required buffer is not being reduced at this location). Landscaping Objection 8 Response: Landscape plans indicate trees at Code required sizes or the approval is being conditioned on the landscape plans be revised to indicate such prior to the issuance of the site development building permit. Landscaping Objection 9 Response: The number of trees indicated on the landscape plans add up to that indicated in the plant list. The Development Order includes a condition of approval to provide greater diversity of tree species on the landscape plan prior to the issuance of a site development building permit. Landscaping Concern 7 Response: The consultant has worked with Rick Albee to retain as many trees as possible in their present location. This revised number of trees to be removed has been accepted by Rick Albee. Public Art Concern 8 Response: The applicant has had discussions with Christopher Hubbard, Public Art Specialist, and compliance with the requirement is anticipated and is also a condition of approval in the Development Order. Traffic Impact Study Objection 1 Response: Himanshu Patni responded to Mr. Sarnoff on January 12, 2007, with the following: "This point is debatable and I do not feel that this lightly utilized access point/intersection will change the overall impact of the surrounding roadways if you analyze it as an intersection versus an access point." Traffic Impact Study Concern 1 Response: Himanshu Patin responded to Mr. Sarnoff on January 12, 2007, with the following: "Data and LOS for this segment has been provided and it is my understanding that CPH Engineers had the data to begin with and simply did not furnish it with the original report." Traffic Impact Study Concern 2 Response: Himanshu Patni responded to Mr. Sarnoff on January 12, 2007, with the following: "I do not believe this to be true based on discussions with CPH Engineers on the phone and in person we were informed that in a meeting we had analyzed the entire intersection. However, the revised study's Figure 2 only shows the SB Frontage Road along US 19 and not the other two southbound thru lanes that were present during construction in 2006." Mr. Patni followed up in an email to Mr. Sarnoff on January 29, 2007. stating the following: "The labeling of US 19/Frontage Road includes the thru lanes of US 19 & frontage roads that are under construction. It has been confirmed with Page 3 of 6 • • CPH that the entire intersections were studied and this can be seen in the turning movement count figures and the appendices at the back of the report." Traffic Impact Study Objection 2 Response: Himanshu Patni responded to Mr. Sarnoff on Jan uary 12, 2007, with the following: "This can be misleading but this cannot be the case and must be an error in writing since CPH Engineers used turning movement counts at all intersections we asked them to analyze and the data in the appendices shows uneven splits in NB and SB traffic during the PM peak as it should." Traffic Impact Study Objection 3 Response: Himanshu Patni responded to Mr. Sarnoff on January 12, 2007, with the following: "Traffic Ops. does not require a written letter from Wal-Mart regarding overpass completion. Based on the latest FDOT schedule and our road closure schedule the overpasses will be completed by December 2007 so this assumption is valid and we agree with it." Traffic Impact Study Concern 3 Response: Himanshu Patni responded to Mr. Sarnoff on January 12, 2007, with the following: "This data has been provided with the revised study." Traffic Impact Study Concern 4 Response: Himanshu Patni responded to Mr. Sarnoff on January 12, 2007, with the following: "All data is provided in the figures and Figure 3 outlines the future background traffic volumes assuming that the Wal-Mart does not expand. If Wal-Mart does not expand then the left turn into the SW driveway won't exist and they are not required to provide this movement on Figure 3." Traffic hMpact Study Concern 5 Response: Himanshu Patni responded to Mr. Sarnoff on January 29, 2007, with the following: "This data is present in the latest report." Traffic Impact Study Objection 4 Response: Himanshu Patni responded to Mr. Sarnoff on January 12, 2007, with the following: "We did not have any copies of the FDOT, ITE, or Alachua county reports concerning Wal-Mart Supercenters prior to the impact study scoping meeting we had with CPH. It was at this time that the ITE land use codes were agreed upon and it would be unfair for us to ask CPH to redo the study with different land use codes. It is important to keep in mind that the Wal-Mart presently exists at this location and already generates a fair percentage of the trips mentioned in the studies & reports you attached. In addition, the proposed Supercenter will not be a typical full size Supercenter since it will not offer larger inventories of non-food items, a tire & lube shop, or a gas station so the trips generated should be less than those of the Supercenters mentioned in the reports (ex: US 19 in Pinellas Park or Dale Mabry Hwy. in Tampa).'' Page 4 of 6 • • Traffic Impact Study Objection 5 Response: Himanshu Patni responded to Mr. Sarnoff on January 29, 2007, with the following: "Once again the ITE land use codes were agreed upon during the methodology meeting and I feel it is fair to use ITE Land Use Code 815 (Free Standing Discount Store) for the existing store and ITE Land Use Code 813 (Free Standing Discount Superstore) for the expansion. The 28% pass-by rate was also agreed upon in the methodology letter and I feel this is a fair percentage to use for a Wal-Mart Supercenter." Traffic Impact Study Objection 6 Response: Himanshu Patni responded to Mr. Sarnoff on January 12, 2007, with the following: "Data in the tables and the appendix correspond with each other and are identical." Traffic Impact Study Objection 7 Response: Himanshu Patni responded to Mr. Sarnoff on January 29, 2007, with the following: "This is a valid statement since CPH used the trip generation & capture rates that we all agreed upon. If the rates were to be revised then we would of course expect different results." Traffic Impact Study Objection 8 Response: Himanshu Patni responded to Mr. Sarnoff on January 12, 2007, with the following: "Data in the appendix was taken into account in the HCS/Synchro analysis and shows all possible movements at these referenced intersections." Traffic Impact Study Objection 9 Response: Himanshu Patni responded to Mr. Sarnoff on January 12, 2007, with the following: "This is incorrect. The report mentions a new right turn lane at the SE driveway not the SW driveway." Traffic Impact Study Objection 10 Response: Himanshu Patni responded to Mr. Sarnoff on January 12, 2007, with the following: "I do not see where the congestion is mentioned as being minimal." Traffic Impact Study Objection I 1 Response: Himanshu Patni responded to Mr. Sarnoff on January 29, 2007, with the following: "I will let CPH comment on this one but the SB right turns off the US 19 access road will likely impact the AM peak only and not the PM peak since the dominant flow during the PM peak is northbound." Traffic Impact Study Objection 12 Response: Himanshu Patni responded to Mr. Sarnoff on January 12, 2007, with the following: "This is not present in the revised report as this segment was incorrectly presented in the first report and was never required to be analyzed." Page 5 of 6 I 1 0 0 Traffic Impact Study Objection 13 Response: Himanshu Patni responded to Mr. Sarnoff on January 29, 2007, with the following: "I cannot see how the 419 trips you mentioned are calculated? Perhaps CPH can comment on this one if they see something I don't." S: Planning Departmen6C D BTIex Standard (FLS) Unactive or Finished Cases l US Hwy 19 N 23106 Wal-Mart (C) - ApprovedMemorandum re Steve SarnoffLetter of Objection 10.31.07.doc Page 6 of 6 • • Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 7:29 PM To: 'dmoyer@cphengineers.com' Cc: Thompson, Neil; 'jim.porter@ruden.com' Subject: FLS2006-07044, 23106 US Highway 19 N, Wal-Mart Dan - Please find attached a number of draft documents: 1. Draft Development Order - Please review this document and, if acceptable (including conditions of approval), please let me know on Tuesday. If acceptable, as you can see by the date of the draft Order, I will have it signed on Tuesday. 2. Draft Memorandum of Responses to Letter of Objection from Steve Sarnoff. Please review this memorandum for any errors you may see. 3. Draft letter to Steve Sarnoff regarding his letter of objection. My intentions are to issue the Development Order and the letter to Mr. Sarnoff on October 30, 2007. My intention is to also advise by email on October 30, 2007, Gloria Losi with the Coachman Ridge neighborhood association to the west of Wal- Mart of the issuance of the Development Order (attaching a copy of the Development Order for her information and records). I am on vacation Monday, October 29, 2007, but will be back in the office on Tuesday, October 30th. If there are any suggested changes in any of the above draft documents, please let me know by email or by phone (727-562-4504). Once the Development Order is issued, applications for a site development building permit and/or a building permit to construct the building may be submitted. Wayne US Hwy 19 N Letter to Steve Memorandum J6 FLS2006-076arnoff 10.30... Steve Sarnoff L s INAL IVED SEP 13 2007 September 12, 2007 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 3277 A Fnutville Road Sarasota, Florida 34237 Phone: 941.365.4771 Fax: 941.365.4779 Wayne Wells, Planner City of Clearwater Planning Dept. 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 Ph: (727) 562-4567 Project Name: Case #: County: Subject: CPH Project No.: Clearwater Wal-Mart Supercenter Store #2081 FLS2006-07044 Pinellas ERP Permit Application W1 3454 www.cphengineers.com CPH Engineers, Inc. has received your letter dated April 2, 2007 for additional information to the previous submittal regarding the subject project. The following are the responses to-your comments: LAND RESOURCES Comment: 1. 10/13/06-Show all trees with their canopies, on all of the civil plans prior to D.O. Additional comments may be forthcoming once this data is received and reviewed. 1/10/07-Show all trees with their canopies, on ALL of the civil and landscape plans prior to D.O. 8/24/07-Some tree canopies are still missing from the Landscape plans. Response: Tree canopies for all trees are now shown. Comment: 2. 8/24/07-The PRESERVATION PLAN needs to show root prune requirements where grade cuts occur under the canopies of trees to be preserved such as the curbs at trees #248 and #133 &132, 124-127, 101-103 and the top of bank at trees #249-250. Verify that all of the above requirements are met. Response: All trees are now shown on the tree preservation. There are shrubs along the north side of the proposed pond, but not trees larger than 4". Engineers • Surveyors • Architects (AA26000926) • Planners • Landscape Architects • Environmental Scientists • Construction Management • DesignIBuild ORIGINAL RECEIVED SEP 13 2001 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Comment: 3. 8/24/07-It still appears that the tree survey is incomplete. There are some trees east of trees #245-248 and between trees #249 and 250. Verify that ALL trees are surveyed and inventoried and shown on ALL plans prior to D.O. Response: We have verified that all trees are shown on the plans. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING Comment: 1. Increase curb radius from 35 feet to 50 feet on NE driveway & US 19 South frontage road to allow for easier turns and less median conflicts. This median shall remain and not be demolished. 1/2/07 - MET - MEDIAN REMOVED.----- NOT MET 8/23/2007 B -E Response: Change has been made per our discussions. It is not possible to provide a larger radius on the south since the property is not controlled by the applicant. Comment: 2. Widen driveway on NE corner & US 19 South frontage road to be a minimum of 12 feet wide on both sides of the driveway median. 112/07 - MEDIAN REMOVED ----- NOT MET 8/23/2007 B -E Response: Change has been made as requested. Comment: 3. Handicapped parking spaces do not comply with the current Florida Building Code Chapter 11 Section 11-4.6.2. Accessible route shall be designed such that users are not compelled to walk or wheel behind parked vehicles. NOT MET 8/23/2007 B_E Response: Site has been redesigned as requested to comply with the FBC. Comment: 4. Provide rationale as to why landscape island changed for the SW driveway on NE Coachman Road. NOT MET 8/23/2007 B_E Response: The plan has been revised as requested. LANDSCAPING Comment: 1. 8/22/07 - WW Revised plans have eliminated most wheel stops from parking spaces adjacent to landscape areas. Revise Sheets C4 & C4A to install wheel stops for ALL parking spaces that are adjacent to landscape areas. . . • URI INY4. RECEIaY: Response: Wheel stops have been added as requested. SEP 13 2007 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Comment: _08/22/08 - WW No "Note" is found on the plans, regardless of the response sheet submitted. Plans need to show how gaps in the landscaping will be filled in. With the construction of the pallet/bale storage area, landscaping in this area will be wiped out. Need a continuous hedge along this western area with trees at least every 35 feet. On the west side of the pallet/bale storage area, accent trees need to be planted to aid with this screening/buffering. This will ALSO be condition of approval for compliance prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy/Completion. 4/1/07 - WW Sheets L-2 and L-3 - Need to include a "Note" along the west side regarding the preservation of existing landscaping for screening purposes (to meet neighborhood's desire to retain such) and may need to fill in gaps. Technically, there should be a hedge along this west side. Response: Note has been added to the plans and revisions have been made. Comment: d 3. 8/22/07 - WW Somehow the translation of the comments below were expanded from the Wal-Mart site to where the Wendy's and Jiffy Lube sites area now shown to be landscaped, which are outparcels not part of this application. Remove all proposed landscaping from the Wendy's and Jiffy Lube sites and recalculate the quantities of landscape materials being provided. Review the comments below to ensure compliance with what was intended. 4/1/07 - WW Sheets L-2 and L-3 - Enhance existing or new landscape islands where new trees are proposed to be planted with shrubs and groundcover in the following locations: a. west and north of Wendys (L-2); b. north of building (L-2); c. west side of Jiffy Lube on both sides of the cross-access driveway and the island west of the Jiffy Lube cross-access driveway (L-3); d. east of the garden center (eastern end) )L-3); and e. islands south and southwest of the garden center (L-3). Response: Landscaping has been revised as requested. Comment: 4. 8/22/07 - WW Ensure the quantities of landscape materials in the Plant List on Sheet L-4 are accurate. Additionally, on Sheets L-2 & L-3, include the number of all trees being planted in the particular locations on the plan. Counting of such tree and landscape plant numbers should add up to the cumulative number in the plant legend. 4/1/07 - WW Sheets L-2 & L-3 - Identify on the plan the pink trumpet trees and the number of such where planted. QECEWf_r SEP 13 2007 Response: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Landscape plans have been revised as requested. CItYOF CLEARWATER Comment: 5. Sheet L-1 & L-2 - Spacing of the live oak trees along the south and east edge of the wetland area have been revised with this submission. This spacing is too tight. Code spacing is generally 35 feet. Could go down to 30 feet spacing. Revise. If you are putting in more trees due to a deficit, then consider planting some cypress or maple trees within the wetland area. Additionally, the dahoon hollys proposed along Stag Run Boulevard west of the driveway are spaced too tightly. See suggested spacing above. Response: Landscape plans have been revised as requested. / Comment J 6. Code requirement for interior landscaping is 10% of the vehicular use area. Sheets C-4 and C-4A crosshatch the areas you are counting as interior landscaping, but Sheet L-1 indicates proposed interior landscaping is only 6.6%. There are other areas on Sheets C-4 and C-4A that can be counted toward interior landscaping that aren't crosshatched. Let's get together to identify those additional areas so that Code required 10% can be provided. Revise interior landscape area square footage and % provided on Sheets C-4 and L-1. Response: Plans have been revised to be consistent. J Comment: 7. Additionally, on Sheet C-4A the pavement areas shown to be striped out southwest of the garden center should be converted to landscape islands and appropriately landscaped with trees, shrubs and groundcover (Sheet L-3). Response: The plans have been revised as requested. ZONING Comment: ?D 8/22/07, 8/14/07 & 4/2/07 - WW Provide responses to the Memorandum of opposition submitted by Steve Sarnoff at the DRC meeting. (Note: I have spoken to Jim Porter and he will be helping me with the responses for a letter I will send to Mr. Sarnoff.) Response: Responses were provided during our previous meeting. i. • • ORIGINAL RECEIVED SEP 13 2007 Comment: 2. 8/14/07 - WW PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OFCLEARWATER Response says Sheet C-4 was changed, but the following revisions don't appear on Sheet C-4. 3/30/07 - WW Sheet C-4 - Revise Site Data to indicate proposed setbacks as follows: Front: NE Coachman : 31 feet (to pavement) US 19: 43.1 feet (to pavement) Stag Run Blvd: 28.7 feet (to pavement) Side: East: Zero feet (to pavement) North: Zero feet (to pavement) West: 5.09 feet (to pavement) Response: Plans have been revised as requested. J Comment: 3. 8/14/07 - WW Response says C-4A was changed, but I don't see any change. 4/1/07 - WW Sheet C-4A - Dash stripe the outparcel in the southwest corner similar to that shown for the outparcels along US 19 on Sheet C-4. Response: Plans have been revised as requested. Comment: 48/14/07 - WW Relocated Recycling Dumpsters are now shown within a landscape area, whereas before they were shown to be placed within a new paved area. Need to show placement of these dumpsters within a paved area (as before), as they will not function well within a landscape area. Landscape plans don't even recognize the Recycling Dumpsters at this location. Revise all appropriate sheets. 4/1/07 - WW Sheets C-4 & C-4A - Revise "Existing Recycling Dumpsters" to either "Proposed Recycling Dumpsters" or "Relocated Recycling Dumpsters", as they presently are located on the west side of the eastern driveway on NE Coachman Rd. 11/12/06 - WW Sheet C-4A - Show the recycling dumpsters in the southeast portion of the parking lot (takes up three parking spaces). Response: A concrete pad is proposed for the recycling bins. Plans have been revised. Comment: J 5. Sheet C-4 - Dimension the width of the existing landscape area parking row divider east of the proposed grocery store entrance. Response: The dimension has been provided. RECEIVED ECENEQ SEP 13 2007 Comment: PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6. Sheet C-4 & C-4A - I count 767 parking spaces. Parking information on Sheet C-4 CITY OF CLEARWATER only indicates 757 spaces. Recount parking rows, as the plan indicates mis-counts in row counts. Revise total number of spaces being provided. Parking demand study validates 757 spaces minimum being provided. Because of this, additional landscape islands can be installed to break up existing parking rows that exceed 15 spaces in a row by removing one nine-foot wide space somewhat in the middle of the parking row: a. row of 20 spaces facing NE Coachman Rd. between the two driveways; and b. row of 22 spaces adjacent to the wetland area on the north side. Response: Parking counts have been revised. We are proposing 759 parking spaces. As part of this submittal, please find enclosed: 1. Three (3) sets of construction drawings If you have any questions or comments please contact us at 941-365-4771. Sincerely, CPH Engineers, Inc Dan Moyer Project Manager From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 2:15 PM To: 'dmoyer@cphengineers.com' Cc: 'Jim.Porter@ruden.com'; Elbo, Bennett; Albee, Rick Subject: FLS2006-07044, 23106 US Hwy 19 N, Wal-Mart Dan - We are meeting at 2:00 pm on Monday, August 27th in our office. So that you know what the issues are that are still outstanding in order to gain a Development Order, below are the review comments that still need to be addressed: Land Resources (Rick Albee, 727-562-4741 1. 10/13/06-Show all trees with their canopies, on all of the civil plans prior to D.O. Additional comments may be forthcoming once this data is received and reviewed. 1/10/07-Show all trees with their canopies, on ALL of the civil and landscape plans prior to D.O. 8/24/07-Some tree canopies are still missing from the Landscape plans. 2 10/13/06-Provide a Tree Preservation Plan prepared by a certified arborist, consulting arborist, landscape architect or other specialist in the field of arboriculture. This plan must show how the proposed building, parking, stormwater and utilities impact the critical root zones (drip lines) of d? trees to be preserved and how you propose to address these impacts i.e.; crown elevating, root pruning and/or root aeration systems. Other data required on this plan must show the trees canopy line, actual tree barricade limits (2/3 of the drip line and/or in the root prune lines if required), and the tree barricade detail. And any other pertinent information relating to tree preservation. Provide prior to building permit. 1/10/07-The PRESERVATION PLAN needs to show root prune requirements where grade cuts occur under the canopies of trees to be preserved such as the curbs at trees #248 and #235-243, and the top of bank at trees #249-250. Verify that all of the above requirements are met. Provide the Preservation Plan prior to building permit. 8/24/07-The PRESERVATION PLAN needs to show root prune requirements where grade cuts occur under the canopies of trees to be preserved such as the curbs at trees #248 and #133 &132, 124-127, 101-103 and the top of bank at trees #249-250. Verify that all of the above requirements are met. 3. 10/13106-The tree survey is incomplete, noticed that some trees are missing. All trees, with their actual canopies, on and within 25' of the property must be shown on the plans. Additional comments may be forthcoming once this data is received and reviewed. 1/10/07-The tree survey is still incomplete. There are some trees east of trees #245-248 and between trees #249 and 250. Verify that ALL trees are surveyed and inventoried and shown on ALL plans prior to D.O. 8/24/07-It still appears that the tree survey is incomplete. There are some trees east of trees #245-248 and between trees #249 and 250. Verify that ALL trees are surveyed and inventoried and shown on ALL plans prior to D.O. Traffic Engineering (Bennett Elbo, 727-562-4775) 1. Increase curb radius from 35 feet to 50 feet on NE driveway & US 19 South frontage road to allow for easier turns and less median conflicts. demDlshed- 1/2/07 - MET - MEDIAN REMOVED.----- NOT MET 8/23/2007 B_E 2. Widen driveway on NE corner & US 19 South frontage road to be a minimum of 12 feet wide on both sides of the driveway median. 1/2/07 - MEDIAN REMOVED ----- NOT MET 8/23/2007 B_E 0 0 3. Handicapped parking spaces do not comply with the current Florida Building Code Chapter 11 Section 11-4.6.2. Accessible route shall be designed such that users are not compelled to walk or wheel behind parked vehicles. NOT MET 8/23/2007 B_E 4. Provide rationale as to why landscape island changed for the SW driveway on NE Coachman Road. NOT MET 8/23/2007 B_E Landscaping (Wavne Wells, 727-562-4504) 1. 8/22/07 - WW Revised plans have eliminated most wheel stops from parking spaces adjacent to landscape areas. Revise Sheets C4 & C4A to install wheel stops for ALL parking spaces that are adjacent to landscape areas. 2/16/07 - WW Sheets C4 & C4A - Wheel stops are still necessary in the following locations: 1) the easternmost space in a row of five spaces due east of the garden center; and 2) the easternmost space in the third row south of the wetland/stormwater pond, west of Wendy's. Additionally, when the foundation landscaping is shown along the northern side of the building, the adjacent parking spaces will need wheel stops. 10/26/06 - WW Sheet C-4 and C-4A - Wheel stops are required adjacent to all landscape areas, including landscape islands and parking row dividers. 2. 8/22/08 - WW No "Note" is found on the plans, regardless of the response sheet submitted. Plans need to show how gaps in the landscaping will be filled in. With the construction of the pallet/bale storage area, landscaping in this area will be wiped out. Need a continuous hedge along this western area with trees at least every 35 feet. On the west side of the pallet/bale storage area, accent trees need to be planted to aid with this screening/buffering. This will ALSO be condition of approval for compliance prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy/Completion. 4/1/07 - WW Sheets L-2 and L-3 - Need to include a "Note" along the west side regarding the preservation of existing landscaping for screening purposes (to meet neighborhood's desire to retain such) and may need to fill in gaps. Technically, there should be a hedge along this west side. 3. 8/22/07 - WW Somehow the translation of the comments below were expanded from the Wal-Mart site to where the Wendy's and Jiffy Lube sites area now shown to be landscaped, which are outparcels not part of this application. Remove all proposed landscaping from the Wendy's and Jiffy Lube sites and recalculate the quantities of landscape materials being provided. Review the comments below to ensure compliance with what was intended. 4/1/07 - WW Sheets L-2 and L-3 - Enhance existing or new landscape islands where new trees are proposed to be planted with shrubs and groundcover in the following locations: a. west and north of Wendys (L-2); b. north of building (L-2); c. west side of Jiffy Lube on both sides of the cross-access driveway and the island west of the Jiffy Lube cross-access driveway (L-3); d. east of the garden center (eastern end) )L-3); and e. islands south and southwest of the garden center (L-3). 4.8/22/07 - WW Ensure the quantities of landscape materials in the Plant List on Sheet L-4 are accurate. Additionally, on Sheets L-2 & L-3, include the number of all trees being planted in the particular locations on the plan. Counting of such tree and landscape plant numbers should add up to the cumulative number in the plant legend. 0 0 4/1/07 - WW Sheets L-2 & L-3 - Identify on the plan the pink trumpet trees and the number of such where planted. 5. Sheet L-1 & L-2 - Spacing of the live oak trees along the south and east edge of the wetland area have been revised with this submission. This spacing is too tight. Code spacing is generally 35 feet. Could go down to 30 feet spacing. Revise. If you are putting in more trees due to a deficit, then consider planting some cypress or maple trees within the wetland area. Additionally, the dahoon hollys proposed along Stag Run Boulevard west of the driveway are spaced too tightly. See suggested spacing above. 6. Code requirement for interior landscaping is 10% of the vehicular use area. Sheets C-4 and C- 4A crosshatch the areas you are counting as interior landscaping, but Sheet L-1 indicates proposed interior landscaping is only 6.6%. There are other areas on Sheets C-4 and C-4A that can be counted toward interior landscaping that aren't crosshatched. Let's get together to identify those additional areas so that Code required 10% can be provided. Revise interior landscape area square footage and % provided on Sheets C-4 and L-1. Additionally, on Sheet C-4A the pavement areas shown to be striped out southwest of the garden center should be converted to landscape islands and appropriately landscaped with trees, shrubs and groundcover (Sheet L-3). Zonina (Wavne Wells. 727-562-4504 1. 8/22/07, 8/14/07 & 4/2/07 - WW Provide responses to the Memorandum of opposition submitted by Steve Sarnoff at the DRC meeting. (Note: I have spoken to Jim Porter and he will be helping me with the responses for a letter I will send to Mr. Sarnoff.) 2. 8/14/07 - WW Response says Sheet C-4 was changed, but the following revisions don't appear on Sheet C-4. 3/30/07 - WW Sheet C-4 - Revise Site Data to indicate proposed setbacks as follows: Front: NE Coachman : 31 feet (to pavement) US 19: 43.1 feet (to pavement) Stag Run Blvd: 28.7 feet (to pavement) Side: East: Zero feet (to pavement) North: Zero feet (to pavement) West: 5.09 feet (to pavement) 3.8/14/07 - WW Response says C-4A was changed, but I don't see any change. 4/1/07 - WW Sheet C-4A - Dash stripe the outparcel in the southwest corner similar to that shown for the outparcels along US 19 on Sheet C-4. 4. 8/14/07 - WW Relocated Recycling Dumpsters are now shown within a landscape area, whereas before they were shown to be placed within a new paved area. Need to show placement of these dumpsters within a paved area (as before), as they will not function well within a landscape area. Landscape plans don't even recognize the Recycling Dumpsters at this location. Revise all appropriate sheets. 4/1/07 - WW Sheets C-4 & C-4A - Revise "Existing Recycling Dumpsters" to either "Proposed Recycling Dumpsters" or "Relocated Recycling Dumpsters", as they presently are located on the west side 0 0 of the eastern driveway on NE Coachman Rd. 11/12/06 - WW Sheet C-4A - Show the recycling dumpsters in the southeast portion of the parking lot (takes up three parking spaces). 5. Sheet C-4 - Dimension the width of the existing landscape area parking row divider east of the proposed grocery store entrance. 6. Sheet C-4 & C-4A - I count 767 parking spaces. Parking information on Sheet C-4 only indicates 757 spaces. Recount parking rows, as the plan indicates mis-counts in row counts. Revise total number of spaces being provided. Parking demand study validates 757 spaces minimum being provided. Because of this, additional landscape islands can be installed to break up existing parking rows that exceed 15 spaces in a row by removing one nine-foot wide space somewhat in the middle of the parking row: a. row of 20 spaces facing NE Coachman Rd. between the two driveways; and b. row of 22 spaces adjacent to the wetland area on the north side. I think we are close on these plans, such that hopefully with the next submission we could issue a Development Order. See you on Monday. Have a great weekend!! Wayne Wells, ?Vayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 2:15 PM To: 'dmoyer@cphengineers.com' Cc: 'Jim.Porter@ruden.com'; Elbo, Bennett; Albee, Rick Subject: FLS2006-07044, 23106 US Hwy 19 N, Wal-Mart Dan - We are meeting at 2:00 pm on Monday, August 27th in our office. So that you know what the issues are that are still outstanding in order to gain a Development Order, below are the review comments that still need to be addressed: Land Resources (Rick Albee, 727-562-4741) 1. 10/13/06-Show all trees with their canopies, on all of the civil plans prior to D.O. Additional comments may be forthcoming once this data is received and reviewed. 1/10/07-Show all trees with their canopies, on ALL of the civil and landscape plans prior to D.O. 8/24/07-Some tree canopies are still missing from the Landscape plans. 2. 10/13/06-Provide a Tree Preservation Plan prepared by a certified arborist, consulting arborist, landscape architect or other specialist in the field of arboriculture. This plan must show how the proposed building, parking, stormwater and utilities impact the critical root zones (drip lines) of trees to be preserved and how you propose to address these impacts i.e.; crown elevating, root pruning and/or root aeration systems. Other data required on this plan must show the trees canopy line, actual tree barricade limits (2/3 of the drip line and/or in the root prune lines if required), and the tree barricade detail. And any other pertinent information relating to tree preservation. Provide prior to building permit. 1/10/07-The PRESERVATION PLAN needs to show root prune requirements where grade cuts occur under the canopies of trees to be preserved such as the curbs at trees #248 and #235-243, and the top of bank at trees #249-250. Verify that all of the above requirements are met. Provide the Preservation Plan prior to building permit. 8/24/07-The PRESERVATION PLAN needs to show root prune requirements where grade cuts occur under the canopies of trees to be preserved such as the curbs at trees #248 and #133 &132, 124-127, 101-103 and the top of bank at trees # 249-250. Verify that all of the above requirements are met. 3. 10/13/06-The tree survey is incomplete, noticed that some trees are missing. All trees, with their actual canopies, on and within 25' of the property must be shown on the plans. Additional comments may be forthcoming once this data is received and reviewed. 1/10/07-The tree survey is still incomplete. There are some trees east of trees #245-248 and between trees #249 and 250. Verify that ALL trees are surveyed and inventoried and shown on ALL plans prior to D.O. 8/24/07-It still appears that the tree survey is incomplete. There are some trees east of trees #245-248 and between trees #249 and 250. Verify that ALL trees are surveyed and inventoried and shown on ALL plans prior to D.O. Traffic Engineering (Bennett Elbo, 727-562-4775) 1. Increase curb radius from 35 feet to 50 feet on NE driveway & US 19 South frontage road to allow for easier turns and less median conflicts. This median shall remain and not be demolished. 1/2/07 - MET - MEDIAN REMOVED.----- NOT MET 8/23/2007 B_E 2. Widen driveway on NE corner & US 19 South frontage road to be a minimum of 12 feet wide on both sides of the driveway median. 1/2/07 - MEDIAN REMOVED ----- NOT MET 8/23/2007 B_E 3. Handicapped parking spaces do not comply with the current Florida Building Code Chapter 11 Section 11-4.6.2. Accessible route shall be designed such that users are not compelled to walk or wheel behind parked vehicles. NOT MET 8/23/2007 B_E 4. Provide rationale as to why landscape island changed for the SW driveway on NE Coachman Road. NOT MET 8/23/2007 B_E Landscaping (Wayne Wells, 727-562-4504) 1. 8/22/07 - WW + Revised plans have eliminated most wheel stops from parking spaces adjacent to 01andscape areas. Revise Sheets C4 & C4A to install wheel stops for ALL parking spaces that are adjacent to landscape areas. 2/16/07 - WW Sheets C4 & C4A - Wheel stops are still necessary in the following locations: 1) the easternmost space in a row of five spaces due east of the garden center; and 2) the easternmost space in the third row south of the wetland/stormwater pond, west of Wendy's. Additionally, when the foundation landscaping is shown along the northern side of the building, the adjacent parking spaces will need wheel stops. 10/26/06 - WW Sheet C-4 and C-4A - Wheel stops are required adjacent to all landscape areas, including landscape islands and parking row dividers. 2. 8/22/08 - WW No "Note" is found on the plans, regardless of the response sheet submitted. Plans need to show how gaps in the landscaping will be filled in. With the construction of the pallet/bale storage area, landscaping in this area will be wiped out. Need a continuous hedge along this western area with trees at least every 35 feet. On the west side of the pallet/bale storage area, accent trees need to be planted to aid with this screening/buffering. This will ALSO be condition of approval for compliance prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy/Completion. 4/1/07 - WW Sheets L-2 and L-3 - Need to include a "Note" along the west side regarding the preservation of existing landscaping for screening purposes (to meet neighborhood's desire to retain such) and may need to fill in gaps. Technically, there should be a hedge along this west side. 3. 8/22/07 - WW Somehow the translation of the comments below were expanded from the Wal-Mart site to where the Wendy's and Jiffy Lube sites area now shown to be landscaped, which are outparcels not part of this application. Remove all proposed landscaping from the Wendy's and Jiffy Lube sites and recalculate the quantities of landscape materials being provided. Review the comments below to ensure compliance with what was intended. 4/1/07 - WW Sheets L-2 and L-3 - Enhance existing or new landscape islands where new trees are proposed to be planted with shrubs and groundcover in the following locations: a. west and north of Wendys (L-2); b. north of building (L-2); c. west side of Jiffy Lube on both sides of the cross-access driveway and the island west of the Jiffy Lube cross-access driveway (L-3); d. east of the garden center (eastern end) )L-3); and e. islands south and southwest of the garden center (L-3). 4. 8/22/07 - WW Ensure the quantities of landscape materials in the Plant List on Sheet L-4 are accurate. Additionally, on Sheets L-2 & L-3, include the number of all trees being planted in the particular locations on the plan. Counting of such tree and landscape plant numbers should add up to the cumulative number in the plant legend. 4/1/07 - WW Sheets L-2 & L-3 - Identify on the plan the pink trumpet trees and the number of such where planted. 5. Sheet L-1 & L-2 - Spacing of the live oak trees along the south and east edge of the wetland area have been revised with this submission. This spacing is too tight. Code spacing is generally 35 feet. Could go down to 30 feet spacing. Revise. If you are putting in more trees due to a deficit, then consider planting some cypress or maple trees within the wetland area. Additionally, the dahoon hollys proposed along Stag Run Boulevard west of the driveway are spaced too tightly. See suggested spacing above. 6. Code requirement for interior landscaping is 10% of the vehicular use area. Sheets C-4 and C-4A crosshatch the areas you are counting as interior landscaping, but Sheet L-1 indicates proposed interior landscaping is only 6.6%. There are other areas on Sheets C-4 and C-4A that can be counted toward interior landscaping that aren't crosshatched. Let's get together to identify those additional areas so that Code required 10% can be provided. Revise interior landscape area square footage and % provided on Sheets C-4 and L-1. Additionally, on Sheet C-4A the pavement areas shown to be striped out southwest of the garden center should be converted to landscape islands and appropriately landscaped with trees, shrubs and groundcover (Sheet L-3). Zoning (Wayne Wells, 727-562-4504) 0 0 1. 8/22/07, 8/14/07 & 4/2/07 - WW Provide responses to the Memorandum of opposition submitted by Steve Sarnoff at the DRC meeting. (Note: I have spoken to Jim Porter and he will be helping me with the responses for a letter I will send to Mr. Sarnoff.) 2.8/14/07 - WW Response says Sheet C-4 was changed, but the following revisions don't appear on Sheet C-4. 3/30/07 - WW Sheet C-4 - Revise Site Data to indicate proposed setbacks as follows: Front: NE Coachman : 31 feet (to pavement) US 19: 43.1 feet (to pavement) Stag Run Blvd: 28.7 feet (to pavement) Side: East: Zero feet (to pavement) North: Zero feet (to pavement) West: 5.09 feet (to pavement) 3. 8/14/07 - WW Response says C-4A was changed, but I don't see any change. 4/1/07 - WW Sheet C-4A - Dash stripe the outparcel in the southwest corner similar to that shown for the outparcels along US 19 on Sheet C-4. 4.8/14/07 - WW Relocated Recycling Dumpsters are now shown within a landscape area, whereas before they were shown to be placed within a new paved area. Need to show placement of these dumpsters within a paved area (as before), as they will not function well within a landscape area. Landscape plans don't even recognize the Recycling Dumpsters at this location. Revise all appropriate sheets. 4/1/07 - WW Sheets C-4 & C-4A - Revise "Existing Recycling Dumpsters" to either "Proposed Recycling Dumpsters" or "Relocated Recycling Dumpsters", as they presently are located on the west side of the eastern driveway on NE Coachman Rd. 11/12/06 - WW Sheet C-4A - Show the recycling dumpsters in the southeast portion of the parking lot (takes up three parking spaces). 5. Sheet C-4 - Dimension the width of the existing landscape area parking row divider east of the proposed grocery store entrance. 6. Sheet C-4 & C-4A - I count 767 parking spaces. Parking information on Sheet C-4 only indicates 757 spaces. Recount parking rows, as the plan indicates mis-counts in row counts. Revise total number of spaces being provided. Parking demand study validates 757 spaces minimum being provided. Because of this, additional landscape islands can be installed to break up existing parking rows that exceed 15 spaces in a row by removing one nine-foot wide space somewhat in the middle of the parking row: a. row of 20 spaces facing NE Coachman Rd. between the two driveways; and b. row of 22 spaces adjacent to the wetland area on the north side. I think we are close on these plans, such that hopefully with the next submission we could issue a Development Order. See you on Monday. Have a great weekend!! Wayne _ ? • Page 1 of 2 Wells, Wayne From: Moyer, Daniel [dmoyer@cphengineers.com] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 1:30 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Jim.Porter@ruden.com; Albee, Rick Subject: RE: Wal-Mart @ US 19 & Coachmen Rd Thank you. We will also have our landscape architect there as well to answer any questions you may have. Dan Moyer CPHEngineers, Inc Phone: 941-365-4771 From: Wayne.Wells@myClearwater.com [maiIto: Wayne.Wells@myClearwater.com] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 11:44 AM To: Moyer, Daniel Cc: Jim.Porter@ruden.com; Rick.Albee@myClearwater.com Subject: RE: Wal-Mart @ US 19 & Coachmen Rd Dan - Monday at 2 pm is fine. By this email, I am inviting Rick to attend. Wayne -----Original Message----- From: Moyer, Daniel [mailto:dmoyer@cphengineers.com] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 11:39 AM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Porter, Jim Subject: RE: Wal-Mart @ US 19 & Coachmen Rd Wayne: Lets plan on meeting Monday afternoon at 2:00 to discuss. See you then. Will Rick Albee be at the meeting as well? I think that may be helpful to take care of any landscape issues. Dan Moyer CPHEngineers, Inc Phone: 941-365-4771 From: Wayne.Wells@myClearwater.com [mailto:Wayne.Wells@myClearwater.com] Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 11:31 AM To: Moyer, Daniel Subject: RE: Wal-Mart @ US 19 & Coachmen Rd Dan - Left you a voicemail. Monday afternoon or anytime Tuesday works for me. I have finished my review; Rick Albee still needs to review; and I have Traffic Engineering looking at it right now. Wayne 8/23/2007 1 .1 . Page 2 of 2 -----Original Message----- From: Moyer, Daniel [mailto:dmoyer@cphengineers.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 4:57 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Porter, Jim Subject: Wal-Mart @ US 19 & Coachmen Rd Wayne: Can we please set up a meeting in the coming week to discuss any site plan comments or any other concerns you may have. Can you please advise on your ability the following days: Thurs, Aug 23 Mon, Aug 27 Tue, Aug 28 Thanks! Dan Moyer Project Manager CPH Engineers, Inc 3277A Fruitville Road Sarasota, FL 34237 Phone: 941-365-4771 Fax: 941-365-4779 Cell: 813-841-5851 www.cphengineers.com 8/23/2007 ?u July 2, 2007 Wayne Wells, Planner City of Clearwater Planning 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 Ph: (727) 562-4567 Project Name: Case #: County: Subject: CPH Project No.: 3277 A Fruitville Road Sarasota, Florida 34237 3 2007 I 1 Phone: 941.365.4771 ??IJJJ Fax: 941.365.4779 ?t PLANNING & SERVICES DEVELOPMEN uQY. iteers.com C" OF CLEARWATER JUL 0 2 2007 Pl.PsNNIN-fi?TMENT CITY Of C-LUKWATEP Clearwater Wal-Mart Supercenter Store #2801 FLS2006-07044 Pinellas ERP Permit Application W1 3454 CPH Engineers, Inc. has received your letter dated April 2, 2007 for additional information to the previous submittal regarding the subject project. The following are the responses to your comments: LANDSCAPE (Wayne Wells) Comment: 1. 2116107 - Sheets C-4 & C-4A- Wheel stops are still necessary in the following locations: 1) the easternmost space in a row of five spaces due east of the garden center; and 2) the easternmost space in the third row south of the wetland/stormwater pond, west of Wendy's. Additionally, when the foundation landscaping is shown along the northern side of the building, the adjacent parking spaces will need wheel stops. 10126106 - Sheets C4 and C4A- Wheel stops are required adjacent to all landscape areas, including landscape islands and parking row dividers. RESPONSE: Wheel stops have been added to the areas requested in your comment. Comment: 2. 411107 - Need to center the dahoon hollys within the larger/wider planting areas along this west side. 11113106 - Due to existence of overhead utility lines along the west property line, unless shade trees can be planted approximately 20 feet from these overhead lines, need to plant accent trees. Recommend Engineers • Surveyors • Architects (AA26000926) • Planners • Landscape Architects • Environmental Scientists • Construction Management • DesignlBuild • planting heavily within this western side with trees to reduce views of the ORIGINM building by the single family neighborhood to the west. RCC?lwD RESPONSE: (J,? 2007 Acknowledged. The trees have been modified as requested. PLANNING fii MENT Comment: CITY OF CLEfMATER 3. 411107 - Coordinate the crosshatching shown on Sheets C-4 and C-4Awith the indicated in the smaller inset plan on Sheet L-1. Not all shown on Sheet L-1 is indicated on Sheets C-4 and C-4A. 11113106- Sheets C-4 and C-4A-Need crosshatch all of the interior landscape areas. Some areas are crosshatched, others not. Need to recalculate the interior landscape area when all changes are done on the plans. Need to discuss what areas are counted toward interior landscape area RESPONSE: Crosshatching shown on sheets C-4 and C-4A now match L-1. Please refer to sheet C-4 for changes. Comment: 4. 04101107- Sheet L-1 and L-2 - The pre-treatment pond has been reshaped with this submittal. The vertical wall paralleling the relocated driveway to Stag Run is only partially shown. Revise RESPONSE: The retaining wall has been shown as requested in this submittal. Comment: 5. 04101107- Sheets L-1 and L-2- With the reshaping of the Pre-treatment pond next to the relocated driveway to Stag Run Blvd. a vertical wall is being installed east of the driveway. The landscape area between the pavement curbing and the vertical retaining wall is approximately seven feet in width. Three live oaks are indicated to be planted within this seven foot area, which is insufficient planting area. Revise these three live oaks in this area to six accent trees (tree ligustrum or dahoon holly) RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The trees have been revised as requested. Comment: 6. 04101107 - Sheets L-2 and L-3- Identify on the plan the pink trumpet trees and the number of such where planted. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. These trees are now identified. • • Comment: 7. 04101107 - What appears to be foundation landscaping areas indicated along the east front of the building on Sheets C-4 and C-4 A are not so indicated/coordinated on Sheets L-1, L-2 and L-3, as the areas between the grocery store entrance and the regular store entrance and south of the regular store entrance to the corner of the building are not shown to be IOMNAt. landscaped along the building. Revise/Coordinate. RECEND RESPONSE: ? ! 0 2 2007 Acknowledged. This area has been revised on the landscape plans. „?EtVT ?LpNN1N ? C11Y OF ?;,LF.??'tZWATER Comment: 8. 04/01/07 - Sheets L-2 and L-3- Enhance existing or new landscape islands were new trees are proposed to be planted with shrubs and groundcover in the following location: West and North of Wendys (L-2); North of building (L-2) West side of Jiffy Lube on both sides of the cross-access driveway and the island west of the Jiffy Lube cross-access driveway (L-3) East of the garden center (eastern end) L-3, and Island south and southwest of the garden center RESPONSE: Acknowledged. These areas have been revised per our discussion. Comment: 9. 04/01/07 - Sheet L-2-Plant shrubs VO along edge of pavement from west end of shrubs planted around pond #1 (north of building) to the pallet/base storage area. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. This plant material is now provided. Comment: 10. 04/01/07 - Sheets L-2 and L-3- Need to include a "note" along the west side regarding the preservation of existing landscaping for screening purposes (to meet neighborhood's desire to retain such) and may need to fill in gaps. Technically, there should be a hedge along this west side. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. This area has been noted as requested. • • Comment: 11. 04/01/07 - Sheet L-2 Enhance the landscaping along US 19 frontage with shrubbery and groundcovers similar to that along NE Coachman Rd. RESPONSE: ORIGIM Acknowledged. These areas have been updated. RE PAD `' . 0 2 2007 Land Resource Condition (Rick Albee) pEANNINO DffAWMENT Comment: +CITy OF OLFi4RWATER 12. 10113106 - Revise the retention pond top of bank to be outside the tree canopy of tree #248, 249 and 250 prior to D.O 1/10/07-The pond was modified at tree ##248, however, the top of bank is still too close to trees #249 and 250. Typically, cuts should not occur within '/2 of the trees canopy line. Revise the retention pond top of bank prior to D.O RESPONSE: Retention pond has been revised in order save tree #248, 249 and 250. Please refer to landscape and tree retention plans for changes. Comment: 13. 10113106- Justify the reasoning for renovating the existing parking lot and removing the trees from modifications to the islands. Revise plans prior to D.O. J 1/10/07- Justify why the parking islands are being modified. Is the parking lot not function adequately? The minor modification of island curbs, such as those trees growing in landscape islands reach the curbs the roots will turn and run parallel to the curb. So moving the curbs just a few inches can eliminate a good percentage of the tree's roots. Recommend leaving the parking lot the way it is except for the areas requiring major modifications. Justify or modify plans prior to D.O. RESPONSE: The plan has been modified to minimize any changes to the existing parking lot as much as possible. Comment: 14. 10113106 - Provide a Tree Preservation Plan prepared by a certified arborist, consulting arborist, landscape architect or other specialist in the field of arboriculture. This plan must show how the proposed building, parking, stormwater and utilities impact the critical root zones (drip lines) of trees to be preserved and how you propose to address these impacts i.e.; crown elevating, root pruning and/or root aeration systems. Other data required on this plan must show the trees canopy line, actual tree • • barricade limits (2/3 of the drip line and/or in the root prune lines if required), and the tree barricade detail. And any other pertinent ORIGINAL informatio relating o tree 'preservation. Plan prior to building permit. RECEPAD RESPONSE: J ) 2007 The TRP is provided as requested. DEfWrAENT Comment: -)V,-LEkRWA1ER 15. 10113106- Show all trees with their canopies, on all of the civil plan prior to D.O. Additional comments may be forthcoming once this data is received and reviewed. 1/10/07- Show all trees with their canopies, on ALL of the civil and I nd@ scape plans prior to D.O. _ RESPONSE: All trees are shown with their canopies/drip line radius on the plans as requested. Comment: 16. 10/13106- The tree inventory shall utilize the following rating system. All trees rates 2 or below shall be removed from the site. Revise inventory prior to D.O. 0. A dead tree 1. A tree that is dying, severely declining, hazardous, harboring a communicable disease or a tree designated by the State of Florida's Exotic Pest Plant Council as a category #1 ecological pest i.e., Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius). A tree with a rating of 1 should be removed as it is beyond treatment and is a threat to cause personal injury or proposed damage. 2. A tree exhibiting serious structural defects such as condominant stems with included bark at or near the base, large cavities, large areas of decayed wood, crown dieback, cracked/split scaffold branches, etc. In addition, a tree with health issues such as low energy, low live crown ratio, serious disease or insect problems, nutritional deficiencies or soil pH problems. A tree with a rating of #2 should be removed unless the problem(s) can be treated. 5. A tree with very high live crown ratio and exceptional structure and systemic heath and virtually free of insect of disease problems or nutritional deficiencies. A tree in this category should species that possesses characteristics inherent to longevity and withstanding construction impacts. A tree with #5 rating lends considerable value to the site and should be incorporated into the design. A tree with a #5 rating is worthy of significant site plan modification to ensure its preservation. 6. A specimen tree. A specimen tree is a tree that possesses a combination of superior qualities in regards to systemic health, structural • • strength, crown ratio, form (balanced made to preserve a specimen tree including shifting structures that would adversely impact the tree. In addition, a specimen tree should have an undisturbed area equal to its dripline(equal to the branch spread to grow in. Only an experienced and competent International Society of Arboriculture (I.S.A.) Certified Arborist should be allowed to work on a specimen tree. 1/10/07- Show all #1 and 2 rated trees to be removed and insure that all ORI(;IML #4 and 5 rated trees are preserved prior to D.O. RECEIND 10 P. 2007 RESPONSE: Acknowledged. This system has been utilized. ?GANNINGBOART'r TENT CITY OF ICLE4WATER Comment: 17. 10113106- The tree survey is complete, noticed that some trees are missing. All trees, with their actual canopies, on and within 25' of the property must be shown on the plans. Additional comments may be forthcoming once this data is received and reviewed. 1/10/07- The tree survey is still incomplete. There are some trees east of trees # 245-248 and between trees #249 and 250. Verify that ALL trees are survgyed a0 inventoried and shown on ALL plans prior to D.O. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. All trees are now accounted for and shown on the plans. Parks & Recs Condition (Debbie Reid) Comment: 18. 11116106 - Public Art requirements may need to be met if the construction value is over $5,000,000 and the building is not secured within 6 months of application. Contact Christopher Hubbard, Public Art Specialist, at 727- 562-4837 or Christopher. hubbard@amyclearwater.com. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. We will coordinate with Christopher Hubbard during final site plan permitting. Zoning Condition (Wayne Wells) /Comment: ?l 19. 02115107 - Plans are still unclear for all these sheets. Foundation landscaping is required on this side of the building, but the landscape 9 0 plans do not show any landscaping. Revise to show foundation landscaping 10125106 - Sheets C-4, C-7, C-9, L-1 and L-2-Plans are unclear as to whether the north side of the building has a sidewalk between the building and parking or foundation landscaping (as required by code)(concrete stoop outside door on north side tends to lead one to believe it is a landscaped area, but the landscape plan doesn't show any landscaping). Dimension the width of this area (should be at least five feet in width). Revise. RESPONSE: There is now foundation landscaping proposed for the north side of the proposed building as requested. JComment: 0 2/16107 -1 am confused by the plans and response. The response is the pallat and bale storage are will be screened by an "aesthetically pleasing fence", while on sheet C-4, Key not #20 indicates a six foot high screen wall, with the finish/color to match the building's exterior and Key Note #40 refers to the pallat and bale storage area with "metal decorative fence (Opaque long front gates)". Is it (a) a wall on three sides and a metal, opaque fence on the east side or (b) a fence all the way around? Prefer (a). If (a), need more detail as to the metal, opaque fence on the east side and where gates will be. Items stored within this area would not be allowed to be stacked higher than the wall/fence. 10126106 - Sheet C-4 - Key Legend #40 (pallat and bale storage area) - Must be screened from view by a six-foot high solid wall, finished on the outside similar to the building, with opaque gates. Items stored within this area would not be allowed to be stacked higher than the wall. Also, unclear why this storage area must occur at this location rather than farther south out of plain view of Stag Run Blvd. Revise RESPONSE: The pallat and bale storage will be screened with a wall on three sides and a metal decorative fence (Opaque front gates)". Please refer to sheet C-4 for changes. mment: 1. 2116107 - Want to further discuss prior to approving the plan to ensure the neighborhood's desire is being met (keeping existing landscaping). May need to look to fill in gaps of landscaping along this west side (need to show Sheets L-2 and L-3). May also desire to discuss a six -foot high solid fence in lieu of the wall, as a potential means of screening views. 10126106 - Sheet C-4 and C-4A - Key Legend #20 indicates there is a six foot high wall intended to be constructed along the west property line. c? .? Show on Sheets C-4, C-4A, L-2 and L-3 the wall. The wall within the front setbacks of Stag Run Blvd cannot exceed three feet in height. Suggest a detail of the proposed wall (cross sections). Wall needs to be finished and painted the same as the building. Revise. RESPONSE: Existing islands are being kept as much as possible. As per our meeting with Wayne Wells and Rick Albee, the six-foot high solid fence in lieu of the wall will not be placed along the west property line; it has been replaced with additional landscape. Comment: 22. 411107 - Still unclear why islands are being reshaped. Need to meet with Rick Albee and myself to discuss. 11112106 - It is unclear why existing landscape islands are being rebuilt/reshaped or why row dividers are being widened, as well as movement of parking spaces and parking rows, when there is limited improvement to the parking lot and traffic flow. Recommend keeping parking lot as is to a great amount but, adding parking islands to better break up the sea of asphalt. Should set up a separate meeting with Rick Albee and myself to discuss specific locations on the site. RESPONSE: Meeting was held on April 16, 2007 with Rick Albee and Wayne Wells. Not all islands have been reshaped just islands that required major changes. Please refer to sheet C-4 for changes. Comment: 23. 411107 - Sheets C-4 & C-4A - Revise "Existing Recycling Dumpsters" to either "Proposed Recycling Dumpsters" or "Relocated Recycling Dumpsters", as they presently are located on the west side of the eastern driveway on NE Coachman Rd. 11112106 - Sheets C-4A - Show recycling dumpsters in the southeast portion of the parking lot (takes up three parking spaces). RESPONSE: Existing Recycling Dumpsters have been changed to "Relocated Recycling Dumpsters". Please refer to sheet C-4 for changes. Comment: 4 4/1/07 - Response of "acknowledged" is inadequate. Please respond to twX the question posed below. 11112106 - Site inspection reveals many truck trailer bodies being used for the storage of good for sale in the store. With the additions and remodeling of the store, coupled with the elimination of Wal-Mart's layaway program, will ALL of these trucks trailer bodies be removed prior to the issuance of the certificate of Occupancy? RESPONSE: All truck trailers will be removed from the site prior to CO. The elimination of the layaway program along with the expanded stock room will allow the site to operate without having to store merchandise in truck trailer bodies. Comment: +- J 55. 411107 & 11113107 - Condition of approval to be included in the UJ LU Development Order: a That the storage materials within the enclosed garden center, includinga the racks, not be visible above any fencing, walls or other screening, and not exceed 15 feet in height. 0 ? e . z Z0 RESPONSE: Z v Acknowledge. The storage materials within the enclosed garden center, ?- including the racks, will not be visible above any fencing, walls or other screening, and not exceed 15 feet in height. Comment: J 6 411/07 & 11113107 - Condition of approval to be included in the Development Order: That a vinyl windscreen shade cloth or other material acceptable to the Planning Department providing 100 percent opacity located on the fencing along the east, west and south elevations of the garden center be maintained in a clean and attractive appearance and shall be in good repair with the color the as the building (roycroft rose) or black, at all times. RESPONSE: Acknowledge. omment: 1 27. 4/1/07 & 11113107 - Condition of approval to be included in the Development Order: That no outdoor storage or display of materials/good be located beyond the limits of the approved garden center (e.g. in the parking lot, drive aisles, etc.), except as may be approves through approved Temporary Use Permits. RESPONSE: Acknowledge. No outdoor storage or display of materials/good will be located beyond the limits of the approved garden center (e.g. in the parking lot, drive aisles, etc.), except as may be approved through approved Temporary Use Permits. Comment: 28 4/1/07 & 11113107- Condition of approval to be included in the Z a Development Order: Z That the management of the store fully enforces the I requirements/limitations of this Development Orders at all times. V LU 0 Ij- RESPONSE: O W tl: z 20 Acknowledge. The management of the store will fully enforce the ? ?: requirements/limitations of this Development Orders at all times. 9.0 omment: 29. 4/1/07- Response sheet indicates the minimum width of the foundation landscaping provided will be five feet, but neither Sheets C-4, C-4A, L-1, L-2 or L-3 provide such dimensions. Revise 11113106 - Dimension the width of the foundation landscape areas on the east side of the building (all areas along the building face) on either Sheets C-4 and C-4A or L-2 and L-3. Needs to be a minimum width of five feet. RESPONSE: The minimum width of the foundation landscaping is five feet and is shown on the plans. Please refer to.sheet C-4 for changes. Comment: J.0. 411107 & 11113106 - Condition of approval to be included in the Development Order: That a Declaration of Unity of Title document be recorded in the public records prior to the issuance of any permit. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The Declaration of Unity of Title document will be recorded in the public records prior to issuance of any permit. Comment: f 31 3130107 - Sheet C-4 - Revise site data to indicate proposed setbacks as follows: Front: NE Coachman: 31 feet (to pavement) US 19: 43.1 feet (to pavement) Stag Run Blvd: 28.7 feet (to pavement) 9 0 t Side: East: Zero feet (to pavement) North: Zero feet (to pavement) West: 5.09 feet (to pavement) RESPONSE: The site data has been revised. Please refer to sheet C-4 for changes. Comment: 32. 411107 - Elevations on Sheet A2 - Garden center pilasters and fencing are not shown (for Clarity of the Wal-Mart building). Provide elevations of the garden center so that we can see what it is proposed to look like. Provide as much detail as possible. The color elevations help, but it is still hard to decipher. Provide as much detail as to any shade cloth or other devices to be used to provide 100 percent opacity to obscure views of the material stored in the garden center racks. RESPONSE: Additional elevations and plans from the architect is included in this submittal. J Comment: 33 411107 - Condition of approval to be included in the Development Order: That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to and approved as part of Case FLS2006-0700 RESPONSE: Acknowledged. The final design and color of the building will be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to any approved as part of Case FLS 2006-0700 1 Comment: 34 411107 - Sheet C-4A - Dash strip the outparcel in the southwest corner similar to that shown for the out parcels along US 19 on Sheet C-4. RESPONSE: The outparcel in the southwest corner has been striped out as requested. Please refer to sheet C-4 for changes. Comment. 35. 411107- Sheets C-15 and C-15A are missing from the resubmittal plan WA W o ?Q N CV tt?u J ?a package. Please resubmit (revised as necessary due to revised site design) RESPONSE: Sheets C-15 and C-1 5A are included in the submittal. Comment: UZ 412107 - If six-foot high wall is to be removed, need to revise the response to General Application criteria #6 on Page 2 of the application to talk about landscape screening on the west side. RESPONSE: As per our meeting with Wayne Wells and Rick Albee on April 16, 2007, the six-foot high solid fence in lieu of the wall will not be placed along the west property line; it has been replaced with more landscaping material. f Comment: 3 412107 - Provide responses to the Memorandum of opposition submitted by Steve Sarnoff at the DRC meeting. RESPONSE. Response to the memo will be provided under separate cover. As part of this submittal, please find enclosed: 1. Five (5) sets of construction drawings 2. Five (5) copies of Garden Center Floor Plan Elevations and Detail If you have any questions or comments please contact us at 941-365-4771. C? Sincerely, CPH Engineers, Inc Darinka Butirich Project Engineer 5- a w w cat ` S4 PRECAST COIC CAP WALL LINE CMU PkASTER MASONRY ANCHORS AT 16' GC } MAX I 12 GAUGE 6'C6'KI91-8' GALY 111 METAL aoSURE ANGLE WiN 5/16' x I' 9.OTTFD HOES AT 16' OC. PAINT i0 MATCH ADJAGENI CNU. I 5 CLOSURE 2?PLATE KEYNOTES ccon-xn 2.04 ORNAMENTAL METAL FENCING WITH SHADE CLOTH. REF SPECS 3.20 A' PRECAST CONCRETE CAP. 1.06 6'D M 6'H M 16'W SPLIT FACE GNU. 406 B'D l 6"H % 16'W SMOOTH FACE CMU. 5.D2 PANTED 6' PIPE BOLLARD. BD2 HOLLOW METAL DOOR AND FRAME i5P PAINTED. RACK BEAM HEIGHT SCHEDULE c\GCO10-RBS( ACK DESIGNATION NUMBER OF BEAMS HEIGNTS s m CI 2 IG'-p" I6'-0' C2 2 B'-0' 6'-0' C} 5 5'-2" IS' 8' C4 4 a'-a' B'-0' 2'_0' i -0' COLOR LEGEND 9A02o- P} BLUE Pis BEIGE PS SAFETY YELLOW P90 BEIGE PB WHITE P91 GREEN Pl} WHITE P92 DARN BROWN P18 DARN TAN p9} TAN P]9 UG11T TAN P9M CREME PAD GARDENIA p95 BROWN REF SPECIFICATIONS ]-GC1 75'_ _1 • 79'-y I'_I . (a TO CL OF RACKS) 23'-9' 21'-2' II-SP2A M P 502 _ _ PS r : A - RACK CLOSURE 1T-?---- R 9 REF i-GC5- d I `--uDOLLAR RACK CCS it (L J SYSTEM UY ?SN GICD \ I1- A BY OYMER AND _ INSTALLED BY CC W p, I I P C D CI I A I I°I tI 11 ?' l i i { ? J { I II"l SLOPE 1% 'I I ?I I OUT90E ' BAG 00005 :. l p , 502 :I ° f I , !I s Eh? I $ II$t I ? ? O I 1 ?'•'? MOOULAR RACK ^ w ? SYSTEM FURNISHE21 BY OWNER AND t ' ..II i 1 1 INSTALLED BY GC EAST OAERHEAO J OWR ?A ?SECDOIAL Ir F l l i u I I I GNU PRASIEA I 1 ? iI , IA II ? I CC5 4- L I -SP21 SIN ?I 1 I I n--- Ps I* I-?, av xT 4?-- ------ - 2' '-- - 2' 21. ACK CL09JRE 2-9 OO'-2' 7 }'-Ij-REF 7-GC5 (a TO a OF RACKS) }6'-0}' E ER 2-CO n 1'•10'- GARDEN CENTER FLOOR PLAN I 0' 10]10} GC-02 ?R6 2?d Ba u "affi ? g6g ??pe 4tlC€€?? 5W 2e ?ea???3 d dKg y9[ ?e ? F?d$ed6? 686a . r2Nr_ W LLL....?..777 Q 0 a wWn xE"? u '^C6?oa c-D Q S n?i W ~ ? ISAIE CLAN( OCOt[0 fir LC CLAM OW Mm,, 50 TI[ MME: GCI mDm naE: aze0s GOOI2EX1 OAT[: CB/a/p6 TGARDEN] ER FLPLELEVATIONS AND DETAIL SHEE1: GC1 KAGK FtNla tLtVAIIUN 4 1/C•I'-0' 052]09 9c01O-OOL ELEM r I?AGK / F tNI;L LLLVA I IUN p52Rp5 Gc010-002 ELEM r1 RACK ^/ FENCE ELEVATION L I/5'•I'-0' W2105 9c01O-002 ETEY ?J C ?J3lHN?t y?7 ioAlIJ 1N-M--WidO JN[NNH7e Looz 4 ,. 7bN1?1?A z Florida Department of Transportation CHART Ir. GRIST 605 Suwannee Street GOVERNOR Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 July 20, 2007 Mr. Daniel P. Moyer C.P.H. Engineers 3277 A. Fruitville Road Sarasota, FL 34237 RE: Permit No: 2006-A-799-48, Section 15050, SR 590 Project: Walmart SR 590 (NIP response review) Dear Mr. Moyer: s,rEPHA1IE KOPELOUSOS SECRETARY JUL 2 4 2007 r DEVf LOlvt NT CITY OF CLEARWAT" R The Department has received your response dated July 3, 2007 to the Notice of Intent to Permit (N.I.P.). The following items have not been addressed to satisfy the N.I.P. Item 1. We requested that you provide a letter of local government site plan approval for the proposed development. Based on your response; please forward the local government approval once received to complete the processing of your request. Item 2. The Department requested that you provide a copy of the letter issued by the District Seven Drainage Engineer either approving a connection or exemption. Based on your response; please forward a copy of the referenced letter to complete the processing of your request. Item 4. We requested that you provide a profile through the center line of all proposed access connection points from the center line of the adjacent State Road to 50 ft from the edge of the travel lane, showing all existing and proposed elevation break points. The revised plans did not include a cross section for the access being modified along the US Highway 19 frontage road. The cross sections appear to violate the requirements of FDOT Standard Index # 515 with regard to cross slope through the sidewalk section. Please correct the cross slope to comply with A.D.A. & State requirements. 6 I 110 ?? ??lf I L u ; } Mr. Dan Moyer July 20, 2007 JUL 24 2007 Page 2 DEVI.L0i N12i SERVI`,`', Cny t,),F CLEARIWA 7? Item 13. The Department requires that an Engineer's Certified Cost Estimate be provided for all proposed work within the State Right of Way. The comment provided is acceptable; please submit the above stated estimate once all design corrections have been addressed. Item 14. The notice requested that you provide 4 copies of the Engineer's Certification for Access Connections. The comment provided is acceptable; please forward the requested items once they have been prepared. Mr_ Chris Gregory is available to answer any questions at (727) 570-5101. /Sincerell. Bennett, P.E. Pinellas Maintenance Engineer BAB/CG cc: D. Olson, N. Lataille, City of Clearwater Development Review, File C • 3277 A Fruitville Road Sarasota, Florida 34237 Phone: 941.365.4771 Fax: 941.365.4779 July 6, 2007 0PJC71% www.cphengineers.com RMSD, JUL 0 6 2007 Y Wells, Planner City of Clearwater Planning Dept. 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 Ph: (727) 562-4567 p1 A C11y Of A ER Project Name: Clearwater Wal-Mart Supercenter Store #2801 Case #: FLS2006-07044 County: Pinellas Subject: Site Plan Review CPH Project No.: W13454 Per my voicemail on July 6th, please find enclosed two sets of plans to replace the previous submittal. If you have any questions or comments please contact us at 941-365-4771. Sincerely, CPH Engineers, Inc r Dan Moyer Project Manager Engineers • Surveyors • Architects (AA26000926) - Planners • Landscape Architects • Environmental Scientists • Construction Management • Design/Build 11 • STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 850-040.24 PROPOSED STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS CONNECTION SYSIEMSPIAN0 06 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE PERMIT Important: This Notice does not authorize construction to begin and is not a final permit. ALSO NOTE: THIS NOTICE OF INTENT IS ONLY VALID FOR 1 YEAR FROM SIGNING DATE IN PART 6. 1 PART 1: APPLICANT INFORMATION APPLICATION 2006-A-799-48 ORIGINAL ICE D Project Name: Wal-Mart SR 590 State Road Name/Number. 590 I? h,?R 2 U 2007 Section Number: PLANNING DEPARTMENT 15050 CITY OF CLEARWATER Maintenance Office: Pinellas Maintenace Brian A. Bennett, P.E. Permit Staff Representative Applicant Wal-Mart Stores East L.P. Responsible Office: J. Chris Callaway Mailing Address: 2001 S.E. 10th Street Bentonville AR 72716 nee City ate zip Telephone: (479) 273-4000 I PART 2: NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE PERMIT I YOU ARE HEREBY ADVISED: The Florida Department of Transportation has completed its review of the subject connection permit Application received 02/22/2007 for consistency with Rule Chapters 14-96 and 14-97, F.A.C., and current Department spacing, location, and design criteria and hereby issues this "Notice of Intent" to: ? Issue the subject permit consistent with the permit Application. ® Issue the subject permit consistent with the permit Application and "subject to the attached provisions. IMPORTANT This notice of intent to issue a permit does NOT constitute Department permit issuance. The permit will be issued after the permittee shows proof that a valid local govemment development approval or development order has been given to the sites served by the connection and special provisions of the approval consistent with the permit applications and conditions previously noted. No connection work on the right of way shall be initiated until the Department permit is actually issued. Any changes to the site(s) plan will require re-evaluation of the connection(s). This notice is valid for one year, from the date of issuance, and can only be extended with approval by the Department for problems outside the control of the applicant pursuant to Rule Chapter 14-96, F.A.C. This Notice of Intent is transferable as specified only in Rule Chapter 14-96, F.A.C. Continued next page • 850-040-24 SYSTEMS PLANNING 06*6 PART 3: CONDITIONS Conditions to be met before Permit will be issued: Standard: 1. Development approval from the appropriate local government consistent with the Notice of Intent to Permit; 2. Assurance of performance pursuant to Section 334.187, Florida Statutes (if required); 3. Notification of all known right of way users affected by the connection(s); 4. Compliance with drainage requirements in Rule Chapter 14-86, F.A.C. Other Conditions: *See Attached* Use additional sheet if necessary Continued next page • • 856-040.24 SYSTEMS PLANNING 06/06 I PART 4: NOTICE OF DEPARTMENT AUTHORITY I 1. All approved connection(s) and turning movements are subject to the Departments continuing authority to modify such connection(s) or turning movements in order to protect safety and traffic operations on the state highway or State Highway System. 2. Transportation Control Features and Devices in the State Right of Way. Transportation control features and devices in the Departments right of way, including, but not limited to, traffic signals, medians, median openings, or any other transportation control features or devices in the state right of way, are operational and safety characteristics of the State Highway and are not means of access. The Department may install, remove, or modify any present or future transportation control feature or devices in the state right of way to make changes to promote safety in the right of way or efficient traffic operations on the highway. PART 5: DEPARTMENT CONTACT NAME: Chris Gregory, Senior Permit Coordinator ADDRESS: 5211 Ulmerton Road Clearwater FL 33760 PHONE: (727)570-5101 PART 6: SIGNATURE OF DEPARTMENT AUTHORITY SIGNATURE OF DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: %)A• /> PRINT OR TYPE NAME: Brian A. Bennett P.E. PRINT OR TYPE POSITION: Pinellas Maintenance Engineer DATE: 04/18/2007 PHONE: (727) 570-5101 Continued next page • • 850-040-24 SYSTEMS PLANNING 06" PART 7: APPEAL PROCEDURES You may petition for an administrative hearing pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. If you dispute the facts stated in the foregoing Notice of Intended Department Action (hereinafter Notice), you may petition for a formal administrative hearing pursuant to section 120.57 (1), Florida Statutes. If you agree with the fads stated in the Notice, you may petition for an informal administrative hearing pursuant to section 120. 57(2), Florida Statutes. You must file the petition with: Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Bums Building 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399.0458 The petition for an administrative hearing must conform to the requirements of Rule 28-106201(2) or Rule 28-106.301(2), Florida Administrative Code, and be filed with the Clerk of Agency Proceedings by 5:00 p.m. no later than 21 days after you received the Notice. The petition must include a copy of the Notice, be legible, on 81/2 by 11 inch white paper, and contain: 1. Your name, address, telephone number, any Department of Transportation identifying number on the Notice, N known, the name and identification number of each agency affected, if known, and the name, address, and telephone number of your representative, I any, which shall be the address for service purposes during the course of the proceeding. 2. An explanation of how your substantial interests will be affected by the action described in the Notice; 3. A statement of when and how you received the Notice; 4. A statement of all disputed issues of material fad. If there are none, you must so indicate; 5. A concise statement of the ultimate fads alleged, including the specific facts you contend warrant reversal or modification of the agency's proposed action, as well as an explanation of how the alleged fads relate to the specific rules and statutes you contend require reversal or modification of the agency's proposed action; 6. A statement of the relief sought, stating precisely the desired action you wish the agency to take in respect to the agency's proposed action. If there are disputed issues of material fact a formal hearing will be held, where you may present evidence and argument on all issues involved and conduct cross-examination. If there are no disputed issues of material fad an infommai hearing will be held, where you may present evidence or a written statement for consideration by the Department. Mediation, pursuant to section 120.573, Florida Statutes, may be available if agreed to by all parties, and on such terms as may be agreed upon by all parties. The right to an adminstrative hearing is not affected when mediation does not result in a settlement. Your petition for an administrative hearing shall be dismissed if it is not in substantial compliance with the above requirements of Rule 28-106.201(2) or Rule 28-106.301(2), Florida Administrative Code. If you fail to timely file your petition in accordance with the above requirements, you will have waived your right to have the intended action reviewed pursuant to chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and the action set forth in the Notice shall be conclusive and final. End • • Notice of Intent to Permit Comments for 2006-A-799-48 Comments By: Pinellas Permits (Chris Gregory) Provide a letter of Local Government site plan approval. 2. Provide a copy of the letter recommending drainage approval provided by the District Seven Drainage Engineer. 3. The plans provided are not consistent with the Department's request that"the frontage along State Road 590 be converted to a curb and gutter urban design, please revise the proposed plans to reflect this request. 4. Provide a profile through the center line of all proposed access connection points from the center line of the adjacent State Road to 50 ft from the edge of travel lane showing all existing and proposed elevation break points. 5. Provide a phased maintenance of traffic plan that will be utilized while working within the State Right of Way. The plan shall be signed and sealed by a State of Florida Professional Engineer that is Advanced M.O.T. certified. 6. Place notation on the plans that prior to removal of any material from the right of way the edge of travel lane shall be saw cut. 7. The proposed work within the State Right of Way shall be performed between the hours of 8:OOPM - 5:OOAM. 8. All concrete placed within the State Right of Way shall be Class-I non-structural 3,000 PSI. 9. Sidewalks shall comply with F.D.O.T. Standard Index 304 & 310 and be a minimum of 4" thick. 10. All curbing shall comply with F.D.O.T. Standard Index 300. 11. All traffic separators shall comply with F.D.O.T. Standard Index 301 & 302. 12. Plot the movements of the maximum design vehicle that will be utilizing the site on a regular basis, plots shall be provided from outside curb lanes. 13. The Department requires that an Engineer's certified cost estimate be provide for all proposed work within the State Right of Way. 14. Provide 4 copies of the Engineer's Certification for Access Connections: Notice of Intent to Permit Comments for 2006-A-799-48 14. Prior to commencing work within the State Right of Way the Permittee / General Contractor shall provide a performance bond for the amount identified within the Engineer's certified cost estimate, naming the State of Florida Department of Transportation as the insured. 15. A traffic impact study is required by State Rule Chapter 14-96 for this project. Comments By: District 7 Traffic Operations (Debra Kennaugh) Remove the striping symbol "ONLY" from all turn lanes on State Road 590, as the arrow symbol will suffice. 2. Extend the on site traffic separator at the driveway located along the US Highway 19 frontage road driveway to beyond the out parcel cross connection. Comments By: District 7 Roadway Design (Britton Hardy) The Access Management Classification for the SR 590 (NE Coachman Road) is Class 7 and changes to Class 5 east of SR 55 (US 19) 2. The stationing for the right turn lane shown on sheet C-11B for SR 590 (NE Coachman Road) appears incorrect and the lane length appears to not meet criteria for turn lane length. See Standard Index 301, minimum turn lane length is 185'. 3. The "jug handle" u-turn design shown near Station 12+00 will not be permitted on SR 590. 4. The Straight line diagram indicates there are 4' paved shoulders (likely covered by vegetative growth). The proposed right turn lane must include the bike lane between the travel lane and right turn lanes as shown on Standard Index 17346. 5. The Flexible Pavement Construction Paving Details indicate a proposed pavement design unacceptable to the Department. As a minimum, 12" of Type B stabilization (LBR 40), Optional Base Group (OBG) 6 (see Std. Index 514, 8" of granular base or 5" of Type B-12.5), 3" of SP-Traffic Level C, and 1 '/Z" FC-6 will be required for all roadway construction within the FDOT right of way for SR 590 (NE Coachman Road). Paved shoulder construction requires minimum of 12" of Type B stabilization (LBR 40), OBG 1, and 1 '/z" FC-6. 9 • The taper at the dual left turn lanes must be 100' minimum per F.D.O.T. Standard Index # 301. Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 1:14 PM To: 'dmoyer@cphengineers.com' Subject: FLS2006-07044, 23106 US Hwy 19 N - WalMart Dan - Attached are the DRC comments still needing to be addressed, based on the submitted revised plans. Call or email me with any questions. Wayne x -its case conditions on resubmittal... ' t?r?"r'ri. ? • Conditions Associated With FLS2006-07044 23106 US HIGHWAY 19 N -?? T? rR' Landscape Wayne Wells, AICP 727-562-4504 10/26/2006 2/16/07 - WW Sheets C4 &,C4A - Wheel stops are still necessary in the following locations: 1) the easternmost space in a row of five spaces due east of the garden center; and 2) the easternmost space in the third row south of the wetland/stormwater pond, west of Wendy's. Additionally, when the foundation landscaping is shown along the northern side of the building, the adjacent parking spaces will need wheel stops. 10/26/06 - WW Sheet C-4 and C-4A - Wheel stops are required adjacent to all landscape areas, including landscape islands and parking row dividers. 11/13/2006 4/1/07 - WW Need to center the dahoon hollys within the larger/wider planting areas along this west side. 11/13/06 - WW Due to the existence of overhead utility lines along the west property line, unless shade trees can be planted approximately 20 feet from these overhead lines, need to plant accent trees. Recommend planting heavily within this western side with trees to reduce views of the building by the single family neighborhood to the west. 11/13/2006 4/1/07 - WW Coordinate the crosshatching shown on Sheets C-4 and C-4A with that indicated in the smaller, inset plan on Sheet L-1. Not all shown on Sheet L-1 is indicated on Sheets C-4 and C-4A. 11/13/07 - WW Sheets C-4 and C-4A - Need to crosshatch all of the interior landscape areas. Some areas are crosshatched, others not. Need to recalculate the interior landscape area when all changes are done on the plans. Need to discuss what areas are counted toward interior landscape area. 04/01/2007 Sheet L-1 & L-2 - The Pre-treatment pond has been reshaped with this resubmittal. The vertical wall paralleling the relocated driveway to Stag Run is only partially shown. Revise. 04/01/2007 Sheets L-1 and L-2 - With the reshaping of the Pre-treatment pond next to the relocated driveway to Stag Run Blvd a vertical wall is being installed east of the driveway. The landscape area between the pavement curbing and the vertical retaining wall is approximately seven feet in width. Three live oaks are indicated to be planted within this seven foot area, which is an insuffient planting area. Revise these three live oaks in this area to six accent trees (tree ligustrum or dahoon holly). Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met 04/01/2007 Sheets L-2 & L-3 - Identify on the plan the pink trumpet trees and the number of such where Not Met planted. 04/01/2007 What appears to be foundation landscaping areas indicated along the east front of the building on Not Met Sheets C-4 and C-4A are not so indicated/coordinated on Sheets L-1, L-2 and L-3, as the areas between the grocery store entrance and the regular store entrance and south of the regular store entrance to the corner of the building are not shown to be landscaped along the building. Revise/coordinate. 04/01/2007 Sheets L-2 and L-3 - Enhance existing or new landscape islands where new trees are proposed to Not Met be planted with shrubs and groundcover in the following locations: a. west and north of Wendys (L-2); b. north of building (L-2); c. west side of Jiffy Lube on both sides of the cross-access driveway and the island west of the Jiffy Lube cross-access driveway (L-3); d. east of the garden center (eastern end) )L-3); and e. islands south and southwest of the garden center (L-3). 04/01/2007 Sheet L-2 - Plant shrubs VO along edge of pavement from west end of shrubs planted around Not Met Pond #1 (north of building) to the pallat/bale storage area. CaseConditons Print Date: 04/02/2007 Page 1 of 6 • • FLS2006-07044 23106 US HIGHWAY 19 N Landscape Wayne Wells, AICP 727-562-4504 04/01/2007 Sheets L-2 and L-3 - Need to include a "Note" along the west side regarding the preservation of Not Met existing landscaping for screening purposes (to meet neighborhood's desire to retain such) and may need to fill in gaps. Technically, there should be a hedge along this west side. 04/01/2007 Sheet L-2 - Enhance the landscaping along the US 19 frontage with shrubbery and groundcovers Not Met similar to that along NE Coachman Rd. Land Resource Condition Rick Albee 727-562-4741 10/13/2006 10/13/06-Revise the retention pond top of bank to be outside the tree canopy of tree #248,249 Not Met and 250 prior to D.O. 1/10/07-The pond was modified at tree #248, however, the top of bank is still too close to trees #249 and 250. Typically, cuts should not occur within 1/2 of the trees canopy line. Revise the retention pond top of bank prior to D.O. 10/13/2006 10/13/06-Justify the reasoning for renovating the existing parking lot and removing the trees from the existing landscape islands. These are all healthy trees and shall be preserved in place with no modifications to the islands. Revise plans prior to D.O. 1/1 0/07-Justify why the parking islands are being modified. Is the parking lot not functioning adaquately? The minor modification of island curbs, such as those at trees #207-215, can damage the trees root systems. As the root systems of trees growing in landscape islands reach the curbs the roots will turn and run parallel to the curb. So moving the curbs just a few inches can eliminate a good percentage of the tree's roots. Recommend leaving the parking lot the way it is except for the areas requiring major modification. Justify or modify plans prior to D.O. 10/13/2006 10/13/06-Provide a Tree Preservation Plan prepared by a certified arborist, consulting arborist, landscape architect or other specialist in the field of arboriculture. This plan must show how the proposed building, parking, stormwater and utilities impact the critical root zones (drip lines) of trees to be preserved and how you propose to address these impacts i.e.; crown elevating, root pruning and/or root aeration systems. Other data required on this plan must show the trees canopy line, actual tree barricade limits (2/3 of the drip line and/or in the root prune lines if required), and the tree barricade detail. And any other pertinent information relating to tree preservation. Provide prior to building permit. 1/10/07-The PRESERVATION PLAN needs to show root prune requirements where grade cuts occur under the canopies of trees to be preserved such as the curbs at trees #248 and #235-243, and the top of bank at trees #249-250. Verify that all of the above requirements are met. Provide the Preservation Plan prior to building permit. Not Met Not Met 10/13/2006 10/13/06-Show all trees with their canopies, on all of the civil plans prior to D.O. Additional Not Met comments may be forthcoming once this data is received and reviewed. 1/10/07-Show all trees with their canopies, on ALL of the civil and landscape plans prior to D.O. 10/13/2006 10/13/06-The Tree Inventory shall utilize the following rating system. All trees rates 2 or below Not Met shall be removed from the site. Revise inventory prior to D.O. 0. A dead tree 1. A tree that is dying, severely declining, hazardous, harboring a communicable disease or a tree designated by the State of Florida's Exotic Pest Plant Council as a category #1 ecological pest i.e., Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius). A tree with a rating of 1 should be removed as it is beyond treatment and is a threat to cause personal injury or property damage. 2. A tree exhibiting serious structural defects such as condominant stems with included bark at or near the base, large cavities, large areas of decayed wood, crown dieback, cracked/split scaffold branches, etc. In addition, a tree with health issues such as low energy, low live crown ratio, serious disease or insect problems, nutritional deficiencies or soil pH problems. A tree with a rating of #2 should be removed unless the problem(s) can be treated. A tree with a #2 condition Print Date: 04/02/2007 CaseConditons Page 2 of 6 0 0 FLS2006-07044 23106 US HIGHWAY 19 N Land Resource Condition Rick Albee 727-562-4741 rating will typically require a considerable amount of maintenance to qualify for an upgrade of the condition rating. 3. A tree with average structure and systemic health and with problems that can be corrected with moderate maintenance. A tree with a codominant stem not in the basal area that will be subordinated or cabled and braced or a codominant stem that will soon have included bark can be included as a #3. A tree with a rating of #3 has average appearance, crown density and live crown ratio and should be preserved if possible. 4. A tree with a rating of 4 has good structure and systemic health with minor problems that can be easily corrected with minor maintenance. The tree should have an attractive appearance and be essentially free of any debilitating disease or insect problem. The tree should also have above average crown density and live crown ratio. Mature trees exhibiting scars, old wounds, small cavities or other problems that are not debilitating can be included in this group particularly if they possess unique form or other aesthetic amenities relating to their age. A tree with a rating of 4 is valuable to the property and should be preserved. 5. A tree with very high live crown ratio and exceptional structure and systemic health and virtually free of insect of disease problems or nutritional deficiencies. A tree in this category should have a balanced crown with exceptional aesthetic amenities. A tree in this category should be of a species that possesses characteristics inherent to longevity and withstanding construction impacts. A tree with a #5 rating lends considerable value to the site and should be incorporated into the site design. A tree with a #5 rating is worthy of significant site plan modification to ensure its preservation. 6. A specimen tree. A specimen tree is a tree that possesses a combination of superior qualities in regards to systemic health, structural strength, crown density, live crown ratio, form (balanced crown), overall aesthetic appeal, size, species, age and uniqueness. A great effort should be made to preserve a specimen tree including shifting structures that would adversely impact the tree. In addition, a specimen tree should have an undisturbed area equal to its dripline (equal to the branch spread to grow in. Only an experienced and competent International Society of Arboriculture (I.S.A.) Certified Arborist should be allowed to work on a specimen tree. 1/10/07-Show all #1 and 2 rated trees to be removed and insure that all #4 and 5 rated trees are preserved prior to D.O. 10/13/2006 10/13/06-The tree survey is incomplete, noticed that some trees are missing. All trees, with their Not Met actual canopies, on and within 25' of the property must be shown on the plans. Additional comments may be forthcoming once this data is received and reviewed. 1/10/07-The tree survey is still incomplete. There are some trees east of trees #245-248 and between trees #249 and 250. Verify that ALL trees are surveyed and inventoried and shown on ALL plans prior to D.O. Parks & Recs Condition Debbie Reid 562-4818 11/16/2006 Public Art requirement may need to be met if the construction value is over $5,000,000 and the Not Met building permit is not secured within 6 months of application. Contact Christopher Hubbard, Public Art Specialist, at 727-562-4837 or christopher.hubbard@myclearwater.com. Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727-562-4504 10/25/2006 2/15/07 - WW Not Met Plans are still unclear for all these sheets. Foundation landsaping is required on this side of the building, but the landscape plans do not show any landscaping. Revise to show foundation landscaping. 10/25/06 - WW Sheets C-4, C-7, C-9, L-1 and L-2 - Plans are unclear as to whether the north side of the building has a sidewalk between the building and parking or foundation landscaping (as required by Code) (concrete stoop outside door on north side tends to lead one to believe it is a landscaped area, but the landscape plan doesn't show any landscaping). Dimension the width of this area (should be at CaseConditons Print Date: 04/02/2007 Page 3 of 6 • • FLS2006-07044 23106 US HIGHWAY 19 N Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727-562-4504 least five feet in width). Revise. 10/26/2006 2/16/07 - WW Not Met I am confused by the plans and response. The response is the pallat and bale storage area will be screened by an "aesthetically pleasing fence", while on Sheet C-4, Key Note #20 indicates a six-foot high screen wall, with the finish/color to match the building's exterior and Key Note #40 refers to the pallat and bale storage area with "metal decorative fence (opaque long front gates)". Is it (a) a wall on three sides and a metal, opaque fence on the east side or (b) a fence all the way around? Prefer (a). If (a), need more detail as to the metal, opaque fence on the east side and where gates will be. Items stored within this area would not be allowed to be stacked higher than the wall/fence. 10/26/06 - WW Sheet C-4 - Key Legend #40 (pallat and bale storage area) - Must be screened from view by a six-foot high solid wall, finished on the outside similar to the building, with opaque gates. Items stored within this area would not be allowed to be stacked higher than the wall. Also, unclear why this storage area must occur at this location rather than farther south out of plain view of Stag Run Blvd. Revise. 10/26/2006 2/16/07 - WW Not Met Want to further discuss prior to approving the plan to ensure the neighborhood's desire is being met (keeping existing landscaping). May need to look to fill in gaps of landscaping along this west side (need to show on Sheets L-2 and L-3). May also desire to discuss a six-foot high solid fence in lieu of the wall, as a potential means of screening views. 10/26/06 - WW Sheet C-4 and C-4A - Key Legend #20 indicates there is a six-foot high wall intended to be constructed along the west property line. Show on Sheets C-4, C4A, L-2 and L-3 the wall. The wall within the front setback of Stag Run Blvd. cannnot exceed three feet in height. Suggest a detail of the proposed wall (cross section). Wall needs to be finished and painted the same as the building. Revise. 11/12/2006 4/1/07 - WW Not Met Still unclear why islands are being reshaped. Need to meet with Rick Albee and myself to discuss. 11/12/06 - WW It is unclear why existing landscape islands are being rebuilt/reshaped or why parking row dividers are being widened, as well as movement of parking spaces and parking rows, when there is limited improvement to the parking lot and traffic flow. Recommend keeping parking lot as is to a great amount but adding parking islands to better break up the sea of asphalt. Should set up a separate meeting with Rick Albee and myself to discuss specific locations on the site. 11/12/2006 4/1/07 - WW Not Met Sheets C-4 & C-4A - Revise "Existing Recycling Dumpsters" to either "Proposed Recycling Dumpsters" or "Relocated Recycling Dumpsters", as they presently are located on the west side of the eastern driveway on NE Coachman Rd. 11 /12/06 - WW Sheet C-4A - Show the recycling dumpsters in the southeast portion of the parking lot (takes up three parking spaces). 11/12/2006 4/1/07 - WW Not Met Response of "acknowledged" inadequate. Please respond to the question posed below. 11/12/06 - WW Site inspection reveals many truck trailer bodies being used for the storage of goods for sale in the store. With the additions and remodeling of the store, coupled with the elimination of Wal-Mart's layaway program, will ALL of these truck trailer bodies be removed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy? Print Date: 04/02/2007 CaseConditons Page 4 of 6 FLS2006-07044 23106 US HIGHWAY 19 N Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727-562-4504 11/13/2006 4/1/07 & 11/13/07 - WW Not Met Condition of approval to be included in the Development Order: That the storage of materials within the enclosed garden center, including the racks, not be visible above any fencing, walls or other screening, and not exceed 15 feet in height; 11/13/2006 4/1/07 & 11/13/07 - WW Not Met Condition of approval to be included in the Development Order: That a vinyl windscreen shade cloth or other material acceptable to the Planning Department providing 100 percent opacity located on the fencing along the east, west and south elevations of the garden center be maintained in a clean and attractive appearance and shall be in good repair with the color the as the building (roycroft rose) or black, at all times; 11/13/2006 4/1/07 & 11/13/07 - WW Not Met Condition of approval to be included in the Development Order: That no outdoor storage or display of materials/goods be located beyond the limits of the approved garden center (e.g. in the parking lot, drive aisles, etc.), except as may be approved through approved Temporary Use Permits; 11/13/2006 4/1/07 & 11/13/07 - WW Not Met Condition of approval to be included in the Development Order: That the management of the store fully enforce the requirements/limitations of this Development Order at all times; 11/13/2006 4/1/07 - WW Not Met Response sheet indicates the minimum width of the foundation landscaping provided will be five feet, but neither Sheets C-4, C-4A, L-1, L-2 or L-3 provide such dimensions. Revise. 11 /13/07 - WW Dimension the width of the foundation landscape areas on the east side of the building (all areas along the building face) on either Sheets C-4 and C-4A or L-2 and L-3. Needs to be a minimum width of five feet. 11/13/2006 4/1/07 & 11 /13/07 - WW Not Met Condition of approval to be included in the Development Order: That a Declaration of Unity of Title document be recorded in the public records prior to the issuance of any permit. 03/30/2007 Sheet C-4 - Revise Site Data to indicate proposed setbacks as follows: Not Met Front: NE Coachman : 31 feet (to pavement) US 19: 43.1 feet (to pavement) Stag Run Blvd: 28.7 feet (to pavement) Side: East: Zero feet (to pavement) North: Zero feet (to pavement) West: 5.09 feet (to pavement) 04/01/2007 Elevations on Sheet A2 - Garden center pilasters and fencing are not shown (for clarity of the Not Met Wal-Mart building). Provide elevations of the garden center so that we can see what it is proposed to look like. Provide as much detail as possible. The color elevations help, but it is still hard to decipher. Provide information as to any shade cloth or other devices to be used to provide 100 percent opacity to obscure views of the materials stored in the garden center racks. 04/01/2007 Condition of approval to be included in the Development Order: Not Met That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to and approved as part of Case FLS2006-07044; 04/01/2007 Sheet C-4A - Dash stripe the outparcel in the southwest corner similar to that shown for the Not Met outparcels along US 19 on Sheet C-4. 04/01/2007 Sheets C-15 and C-1 5A are missing from the resubmittal plan package. Please resubmit (revised Not Met CaseConditons Print Date: 04/02/2007 Page 5 of 6 FLS2006-07044 23106 US HIGHWAY 19 N Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727-562-4504 as necessary due to revised site design). 04/02/2007 If six-foot high wall is to be removed, need to revise the response to General Applicability criteria Not Met #6 on Page 2 of the application to talk about landscape screening on the west side. 04/02/2007 Provide responses to the Memorandum of opposition submitted by Steve Sarnoff at the DRC Not Met meeting. Print Date: 04/02/2007 CaseConditons Page 6 of 6 • • Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 9:04 PM To: 'dmoyer@cphengineers.com' Subject: FLS2006-07044, 23106 US Hwy 19 N - WalMart Dan - I am not quite complete. Need to do some counts and read the letter of "objection" sent in. Will have the list to you tomorrow. Wayne 0 0 Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 4:50 PM To: 'Moyer, Daniel' Subject: RE: Clearwater Wal-Mart @ US19 and NE Coachmen Rd Dan - As I called today and left a voice message, I am not totally done yet. I will finish on Sunday and email any comments to you then. Thanks. Wayne -----Original Message----- From: Moyer, Daniel [mailto:dmoyer@cphengineers.com] Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 3:27 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Clearwater Wal-Mart @ US19 and NE Coachmen Rd Wayne: We sent you revised documents and a complete comment/response letter on December 29, 2006. To this point we have not received any comments from the City. When do you estimate we will be receiving comments? We are looking forward to receiving comments or DO approval in order to get this project moving along again. If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me. Thanks. Dan Moyer CPH Engineers, Inc 3277A Fruitville Road, Suite 2 Sarasota, FL 34237 Ph: 941-365-4771 Fx: 941-365-4779 3/30/2007 y Y I J December 29, 2006 0 Wayne Wells, Planner City of Clearwater Planning Dept. 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 Ph: (727) 562-4567 !1 Project Name: Clearwater Wal-Mart Supercenter Store #2801 Case #: FLS2006-07044 County: Pinellas Subject: ERP Permit Application CPH Project No.: W13454 3277 A Fruitville Road Sarasota, Florida 34237 Phone: 941.365.4771 Fax: 941.365.4779 www.cphengineers.com ORIGINAL. RECEIVED v 2 8 2006 Dear Mr. Wells: PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER In response to your review of the completeness review, the following are the responses to the comments issued on November 16, 2006: GENERAL ENGINEERING: (Prior to issuance of a building permit) COMMENT: 1. Applicant shall provide a copy of an approved right-of-way permit from D.O.T. RESPONSE: We are currently in the process of obtaining permits from FDOT. The permit will be provided prior to building permit issuance. COMMENT: 2. Pay the sanitary sewer and water impact fees as may be required if an increase in water meter sizing is proposed. RESPONSE: The sanitary sewer and water impact fees will be determined prior to building permit issuance, and any resulting fees will be paid. COMMENT: 3. The City of Clearwater, at the applicant's expense, will remove/relocate any/all water meters that has to be relocated as part of this development, including reclaim water meters. (No meters shall be located within any impervious areas). RESPONSE: Acknowledged. Engineers • Surveyors • Architects (AA26000926) • Planners • Landscape Architects • Environmental Scientists • Construction Management • DesignMuild COMMENT: 4. 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. (backflow preventor device.) The applicant is responsible for the water main extension from the tap to the device. Applicant is also responsible for all associated fees and all nthPr inctMIntinn fPPs RESPONSE: Acknowledged. ORIGINAL RECEIVED C Sr 2 8 20061 COMMENT: PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 5. Applicant shall install a gate valve on both sides of proposed backflow device(s). RESPONSE: A gate valve has been added to the plans, please refer to the Composite Utility Plan. COMMENT: 6. Provide a note or dimension on the plan indicating that the Fire Department Connection (FDC) shall be installed at least 15-feet from the face of building. RESPONSE. A note has been added to the plans, please refer to sheet C-9. COMMENT: 7. Provide a note or dimension on the plan indicating that the Fire Department Connection (FDC) shall be located no further than 40-feet from the nearest Fire Hydrant Assembly (FHA). RESPONSE: A note has been added to the plans, please refer to sheet C-9. COMMENT: 8. A double detector check valve with bypass meter shall be required for any internal fire protection line. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. COMMENT: 9. Ductile iron pipe shall be installed between any tap and water meter. Ductile iron pipe must be installed between any tap and backflow preventor device. At least one joint of ductile iron pipe shall be installed on the service side of any backflow preventor device meters. (No meters shall be located within any impervious areas) RESPONSE: 0 0 Please refer to Blow Up B on sheet C-9A where the revision has been made. COMMENT: 10. Fire hydrant lines/fire sprinkler lines shall be constructed of ductile iron pipe. RESPONSE. Please refer to sheet C-9 where the fire hydrant line has been revised. COMMENT: ORIGINAL RECUVED r r?C 2 $ 2000 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 11. Show on the plan a clean-out for the sanitary sewer lateral and include Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards Detail #305, pg. 1/3. RESPONSE: The Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards Detail #305 has been added to sheet C-10. COMMENT: 12. The exterior and interior of all PRECAST manholes shall be coated with at least 15 mils dry thickness of PROCO EP-214-351 Epoxi-Mastic as manufactured by Protective Coatings, Inc. per City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards, Part "B", Technical Specifications, Section IV, Article (13)(E). RESPONSE. There are no longer any proposed sanitary manholes in this project. COMMENT: 13. Provide a detail of the proposed doghouse manhole. RESPONSE. The doghouse manhole is no longer used for this project. COMMENT: 14. Show sanitary mains connecting grease traps - these pipes need to be coated with Protecto 401 (from the manufacturer.) RESPONSE Please refer to sheet C-9 where the grease trap lines have been shown to be coated with Protecto 401. COMMENT: 15. If the proposed project necessitates infrastructure modifications to satisfy site-specific water capacity and pressure requirements and/or wastewater capacity requirements, the modifications shall be completed by the applicant and at their expense. If underground s • water mains and hydrants are to be installed, the installation shall be completed and in service prior to construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. ORIGINAL RECEIVED RESPONSE: ?K 2 8 2006 Acknowledged. PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMENT: CITY OF CLEARWATER 16. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. COMMENT: 17. Depict by shading or crosshatching all parking lot interior landscaped areas. RESPONSE: All parking lot interior landscape islands are now depicted with a crosshatch. ENVIRONMENTAL: (Prior to DO) COMMENT: A vegetative buffer shall be provided on all lands within 25 feet of any property designated on the Zoning Atlas as preservation (P), or any property determined to be wetlands under the jurisdiction of the State of Florida ("jurisdictional wetlands"); and all lands within 15 feet of the top of the bank of any creeks, channels, or related waterways which contain jurisdictional wetlands. "Top of the bank" is that point on the slope at which the side slope becomes flatter than one foot vertical to four feet horizontal. (Section 3-907) This applies to the west side of the wetlands, please revise the plans. RESPONSE: The west side of the wetlands is considered by SWFWMD to be a pretreatment area, not .a wetland area. The eastern portion of the area is considered a wetland; however we are not proposing any modifications of the existing parking lot area. Please refer to the attached drawings for limits of wetlands. COMMENT: In accordance with the City Storm Drainage Design Criteria, Page 7: Vertical walls in retention pond #1 are not permitted adjacent to street rights-of-way, along the boundaries of adjacent properties, or on more than two sides of the pond. RESPONSE. Retaining walls have been removed that were adjacent to right of ways and/or boundary lines. Please see the revised drawings and stormwater design report for further detail. Please note that in order to meet water discharge requirements, a portion of the existing • • pre-treatment area will be modified to provide for additional stormwater attenuation. We have spoken to the SWFWMD and this is acceptable to them. COMMENT: 3. Submit a detailed planting plan for the wet pond to include at least 35% coverage under normal conditions. RESPONSE. The revised stormwater design utilizes a dry retention pond therefore a littoral zone is not provided. FIRE: COMMENT: 1. Does the building contain a fire pump? RESPONSE. The building does not contain a fire pump. COMMENT: ORIGINAL RECEIVED CSC 2 8 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 2. Building is greater than 250' in length, must comply with Ordinance No. 7617-06 Radio . System Regulations for Buildings. Acknowledge PRIOR to D.O. RESPONSE. Acknowledged. COMMENT: 3. FDC is required, and shall be a minimum of 15' from building and shall have a fire hydrant within 40'. Hydrant shall not be located on same main as Fire Sprinkler and must be on supply side of double detector check valve. PRIOR to D.O. RESPONSE: Please refer to the note added on the Composite Utility Plan C-9. COMMENT: 4. Where underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, they shall be installed, completed, and in service prior to construction as per NFPA-241. A hard road surface able to support the weight of Fire Apparatus prior to any building construction being started. Acknowledge PRIOR to D.O. RESPONSE. Please refer to the note added on the Composite Utility Plan sheet C-9. COMMENT: 5. Entry on US Hwy 19 N (East Side Drive) sheet C-4A shows a drive aisle with a 'RAISED- ISLAND' at 24 feet, remove the ISLAND to allow fire entry from US Hwy 19. PRIOR to D.O. RESPONSE. Please refer to the Site Dimension Plan C-4A where a note has been added to rreRm o e the raised island median. N? RECEIVED LAND RESOURCES: C K 2 8 2066 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER COMMENT: 1. Revise the retention pond top of bank to be outside the tree canopy of tree #248,249, and 250 prior to D.O. RESPONSE: The retention pond top of bank has been revised to be outside the tree canopy of tree #248,249, and 250. COMMENT: 2. Reroute the sanitary from under tree #248 prior to D. 0. RESPONSE: The existing sanitary sewer line will no longer be modified, due to the revisions of the stormwater ponds. COMMENT: 3. Justify the reasoning for renovating the existing parking lot and removing the trees from the existing landscape islands. These are all healthy trees and shall be preserved in place with no modifications to the islands. Revise plans prior to D.O. RESPONSE: The existing parking lot has been redesigned to maintain as much of the existing landscape islands where possible to preserve the healthy trees. Please refer to the attached drawings. COMMENT: 4. Provide a Tree Preservation Plan prepared by a certified arborist, consulting arborist, landscape architect or other specialist in the field of arboriculture. This plan must show how the proposed building, parking, stormwater and utilities impact the critical root zones (drip lines) of trees to be preserved and how you propose to address these impacts i.e., crown elevating, root pruning and/or root aeration systems. Other data required on this plan must show the trees canopy line, actual tree barricade limits (2/3 of the drip line s 0 and/or in the root prune lines if required), and the tree barricade detail. And any other pertinent information relating to tree preservation. Provide prior to building permit. RESPONSE: A tree preservation plan with the above information has been provided as requested. COMMENT: 5. Show all trees with their canopies, on all of the civil plans prior to D.O. Additional comments may be forthcoming once this data is received and reviewed. RESPONSE. All trees with their canopies have been shown on the tree preservation plan. COMMENT: 6. The Tree Inventory shall utilize the following rating system. All tree rates 2 or below shall be removed from the site. Revise inventory prior to D.O. RESPONSE. The tree preservation plan now reflects the rating system as requested. COMMENT: 7. The tree survey is incomplete, noticed that some trees are missing. All trees, with their actual canopies, on and within 25' of the property must be shown on the plans. Additional comments may be forthcoming once this data is received and reviewed. RESPONSE: ORONAL The tree survey is now complete and shows the above information. QFCENED --C 2 8 2006 LANDSCAPING: OLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER COMMENT: 1. Show the sight visibility triangles per Clearwater Code on the Landscape Plans. RESPONSE. The sight visibility triangles have been added to the landscape plans. COMMENT: 2. Sheet L-2 - Landscape Terminal Island at the northeast corner of the building should have a sidewalk going through it continuing out to Stag Run Blvd. Revise. RESPONSE: This terminal island has been revised. 0 0 COMMENT: 3. Sheet C-4 and C-4A - Wheel stops are required adjacent to all landscape areas, including landscape islands and parking row dividers. RESPONSE. Refer to sheet C-4 and C-4A where whee/stops have been added adjacent to all landscape islands and parking row dividers. ORIGINAL COMMENT: RECEIVED 4. Sheets L-1 - L-4 - Revise laurel oaks to live oaks. n -C 28 2006 RESPONSE: PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER All laurel oaks have been revised to live oaks as requested. COMMENT: 5. Coordinate outdoor lighting locations, as well as freestanding signs, with proposed landscaping to ensure that proposed lights and signs will not be shielded by existing or future tree canopies and other landscape materials. Show outdoor lighting locations on Sheets L-1 - L-3. RESPONSE: There should be no conflict with lighting and the future of the proposed canopy trees. Lights have been relocated to not be within landscape islands. COMMENT: 6. In order to provide maximum planting area for tree root growth, to the greatest degree possible move underground water and utility lines to the edges of islands or into paved areas (example: Sheet C-9A, Blowup B.) RESPONSE: Underground utility lines have been placed in islands where above ground appurtenances are necessary. COMMENT: 7. Sheets L-2 and L-3 - Revise to include tree types and numbers labeled on the plans (just like shrubs and groundcovers.) Do also for sweet viburnam shrubs. Difficult to add numbers up absent this information. RESPONSE: This information has now been provided. COMMENT: 8. Sheet TR-1 and L-2 indicate that tree #119 (24" DBH oak) is proposed to be saved, but it is adjacent to the proposed building. Unclear how this tree will be saved, due to the height of the building (?). s • RESPONSE. This tree is no longer indicated to be saved. COMMENT: 9. Sheet L-1 - L-3 - There is a number of interior islands large enough that should be planted with shade trees (oaks) that are rather being proposed for cabbage palms r D ink trumpet trees. Suggest revising. ORIGINAL RECEIVED RESPONSE. C K 2 8 2006 These trees have been replaced with live oaks. PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMENT: CITY OF CLEARWATER 10. Sheet L-4 - Revise Plant List - Shade trees minimize size = 10-foot height and 2.5-inch caliper; Accent trees minimum size = 8-foot tall and 2-inch caliper. RESPONSE. This specification has been revised to reflect these sizes. COMMENT: 11. Sheets L-1 - L-4 - Tree requirements in the Code are based on shade trees. Alternately, two accent trees = one shade tree; three palms (clustered) = one shade tree. Revise plan accordingly. RESPONSE. This has been revised to accommodate the code requirements. COMMENT: 12. Sheets L-1 - L-3 _ Plant trees within landscape area between parking and east property line adjacent to Jiffy Lube. RESPONSE. Trees have been planted within the landscape area. COMMENT: 13. To qualify as "interior landscape area", these areas must meet the following Code requirements: 1 Tree/island min. (unless existing trees are being preserved to meet interior tree requirement); 1 Tree/150 square feet of required greenspace; Shrubs: 50% required greenspace; Groundcover shall be utilized for required greenspace in lieu of turf. RESPONSE. These areas now satisfy the code requirements. ORIGINAL . RECEIVED CSC 2 V 2006 COMMENT: PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 14. Due to the existence of overhead utility lines along the west property line, unless shade trees can be planted approximately 20 feet from these overhead lines, need to plant accent trees. Recommend planting heavily within this western side with trees to reduce views of the building by the single family neighborhood to the west. RESPONSE: Low canopy trees have been provided in this area to screen neighboring views as well as stay below the power lines. COMMENT: 15. Sheets C-4 and C-4A - Need to crosshatch all of the interior landscape areas. Some areas are crosshatched, other not. Need to calculate the interior landscape area when all changes are done on the plans. Need to discuss what areas are counted toward interior landscape area. RESPONSE: The interior landscape areas have all been crosshatched per your request. LANDSCAPING: COMMENT: 1. 10/10/06 - FLS2006-07044: To determine whether open space impact fees apply to this project, further information is needed on existing floor area (building coverage.) Site data table need to be corrected to reflect on existing building coverage. RESPONSE. Refer to the site data table where the existing floor area ratio is now provided. COMMENT: 2. Public Art requirement may need to be met if the construction value is over $5,000,000 and the building permit is not secured within 6 months of application. Contact Christopher Hubbard, Public Art Specialist, at 727-562-4837 , or Christopher.hubbard@myclearwater.com. RESPONSE: Acknowledged. STORMWATER: (To be addressed prior to D.O.) COMMENT: 1. Redesign the pond to adhere to City of Clearwater Storm Design criteria page 7, which stated as follows, "...In no circumstance will vertical walls on detention ponds be permitted adjacent to rights-of-ways, along the boundary of adjacent parcels of land, on more than two sides of a detention pond, or any side of a pond serving only as a water quality facility." RESPONSE: The stormwater analysis has been revised to remove the vertical walls on two sides of the pond. COMMENT: 2. To be less confusing, it is recommended that S-1 to be labeled as "Control Structure" on the drainage plan and Storm Schedule. RESPONSE: The storm schedule has been revised to show S-1 as Control Structure. The following to be addressed prior to building permit: gECEr4ED COMMENT: F n}%, 8 Z??? 3. Provide a copy of an approved SWFWMD permit.tAINlNi3 DEPARTMENT C11y OF CLEARWATER RESPONSE: A copy of the approved SWFWMD permit will be provided as soon as it is obtained. COMMENT: 4. It is recommended to use a bigger size of orifice to reduce maintenance. RESPONSE. An orifice is no longer being proposed since a dry pond is being utilized. SOLID WASTE: COMMENT: 1. Please include Recycling Drop-off location on your plans (presently in South East Parking Lot.) RESPONSE: The recycling drop-off location is now shown on the plans and will remain in its current location. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING: COMMENT: 1. Provide rationale for"northbound stop sign to the west of parking aisle 6. RESPONSE: The stop sign is for westbound drivers on parking aisle 6 as there is a pedestrian crossing sign for northbound drivers. COMMENT: 2. Increase curb radius from 35 feet to 50 feet on NE driveway & US 19 South frontage road to allow for easier turns for less median conflicts. This median shall remain and not be demolished. RESPONSE: ORIGINAL RECEIVED Curb radius has been increased to 50 feet on NE driveway at US 19. 8 2006 COMMENT: PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3. Widen driveway on SW corner & SR-590 to a minimum of 36 feet. OIL` OF CLEARWATER RESPONSE: Refer to sheet C-4A where the southwest driveway to SR 55 has been widened to 36 feet. COMMENT: 4. Widen driveway on NE corner & US 19 South frontage road to be a minimum of 12 feet wide on both sides of the driveway median. RESPONSE: The driveway at the NE corner at US 19 has been revised to remove the median therefore providing 24 feet in width. COMMENT: 5. Change the identification of US 19 from State Road 590 to State Road 55. RESPONSE: The identification of US 19 as SR 55 is now shown on the plans. COMMENT: 6. Remove the identification of NE Coachman Rd. as County Road 2. RESPONSE: The identification of NE Coachman Rd as County Road 2 has been removed. COMMENT: 7. Provide truck delivery route on the plan for a truck having a wheel base length of 46 feet. All of the above to be addressed prior to D.O. RECEIVED 2 8 2005 PLANNING DEPARTMENT RESPONSE: CITY OF CLEARWATER Refer to Sheet C-4B for the truck delivery route plan for the truck with a wheel base length of 50 feet. The following to be addressed prior to building permit: COMMENT: 1. Change "Left Turn Only" sign to "Right Turn Only" on north driveway & Stag Run Blvd. RESPONSE: The sign on the north driveway at Stag Run Blvd has been revised to show a right turn only. COMMENT: 2. Add painted-on two way directional arrows (item #39 on site plan) to the following parking areas: South of Pond #1, NE corner of property west of US 19 South frontage road, SW corner of property west of SW driveway & SR 590. RESPONSE: Directional arrows have been added to the requested locations on the plans. COMMENT: 3. Identify the sign on the north side of parking aisle 3. Install a stop sign that faces east at this location. RESPONSE: The sign on the north side of the pond has been identified on the Site Dimension Plan sheet C-4. COMMENT: 4. Identify how "Employee Only Parking" spaces shall be delineated. RESPONSE: The Associate Parking spaces will be delineated with a single yellow solid line 4" in width. COMMENT: 5. Change color of two-way directional arrows from yellow to white (item #39 on site plan) per MUTCD standards. RESPONSE. The color of the two way directional arrows have been revised to white. COMMENT: 6. Identify the purpose of 2' wide loading zones for all curbed parking spaces. VKIWINIAL RECEIVED • i C E-C 2 8 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER RESPONSE: The 2 foot wide loading zones are preferred by Wal-Mart to provide additional room for patrons while entering and exiting their cars. COMMENT: 7. Identify what the 18 inch solid yellow thermoplastic marking is referring to on sheet C-13. RESPONSE: It is referring to the stripes being extended in the median of NE Coachman Rd. COMMENT: 8. Repaint median on driveway located at NE corner & US 19 South frontage road. RESPONSE: Median is being removed per City of Clearwater request. COMMENT: 9. Install a "No Left Turn" sign on the second median to the west of the driveway on the SW corner & SR 590. RESPONSE: A Right Turn Only sign is proposed at the above location. COMMENT: 10. Change color of painted diagonal marking to yellow on the south side of the median cut which exists to the west of the driveway on the SW corner & SR 590. The marking shall be rounded on the end and not rectangular as indicated on the site plan. RESPONSE: Refer to the plans which have been revised per your request. COMMENT: 11. Flip the direction of white diagonal marking on the north side of the median cut which exists to the west of the driveway on SW corner & SR 590. RESPONSE. Please refer to the plans which have been revised per your request. COMMENT: 12. Relocate four median signs that exist for northbound traffic that is exiting the driveway that lies immediately west of the intersection of US 19 and SR 590. Signs shall be relocated to the west to align with the aforementioned driveway. i • RESPONSE: The above referenced signs will be relocated per your request. COMMENT: 13. Is concrete median in East entry drive to be removed? If concrete median is to remain, applicant shall paint nose of median with yellow thermoplastic and permanently attach a flex post at the ease end of the median. If concrete median is to be removed, a row of flex posts shall be utilized. Either design shall be subject to the approval by Clearwater Traffic Operations. RESPONSE: Concrete median at east entry drive is proposed to be removed and traffic delineators will be installed. COMMENT: 14. Applicant shall comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule and paid prior to a Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.). RESPONSE: Applicant will comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule and pay prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy. COMMENT: 15. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. RESPONSE. ORIGINAL Acknowledged. RECEIVED PLANNING: ? 8 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CJTY OF CLEARWATER COMMENT: 1. Sheet C-4 - Plans at the northeast corner of the building are incomplete. Landscape plan Sheet L-2 provides some detail as to location of landscape areas versus concrete/pavement. Revise. RESPONSE: Please refer to sheet C-4 and L-2 which have been revised to be consistent at the northeast corner of the building. COMMENT: 2. Sheets C-4, C-7, C-9, L-1, and L-2 - Plans are unclear as to whether the north side of the building has a sidewalk between the building and parking or foundation landscaping (as required by Code) (concrete stoop outside door on north side tends to lead one to believe • it is a landscaped area, but the landscape plan doesn't show any landscaping.) Dimension the width of this area (should be at least five feet in width.) Revise. RESPONSE: Please refer to sheet C-4, C-7, C-9, L-1, and L-2 which have been revised to be consistent at the northeast corner of the building. COMMENT: 3. Sheet C4 - Key note #8 - Unclear what this relates to, since the Landscape Plan doesn't acknowledge this ramp (Sheet L-2.) Unclear what the ramp is for? RESPONSE: Refer to the revised sheet C-4 and L-2 which have been revised. COMMENT: 4. Sheet C-4 - Key Legend #42 - Cannot find on plan, nor can I find a detail on it. RESPONSE: Refer to the revised legend on sheet C-4 which shows #42 as not being used. COMMENT: 5. :Delivery truck travel path(s) - It appears, based on a "NT" for "No Trucks" sign on Stag Run Blvd. (Sheet C-4), that trucks will need to enter the site off NE Coachman Road. Unclear of truck travel path(s) through the site leading to entrance (s) and exit(s). Provide a plan that shows truck travel paths(s). RESPONSE: Refer to sheet C-4B where the truck travel path is shown. ORIGINAL RECEIVED 29' 2 8 2006 COMMENT: PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATEP 6. C-4 -Unclear why Key Legend #12 and #17 are shown on the north side of Pond #1. RESPONSE: Refer to sheet C-4 where the pond has been revised. COMMENT: 7. Sheet C-4A - There are only three (not four) spaces in a parking row east of the garden center and crosswalk area (a cart corral is located within this row reducing the number of spaces.) Revise. RESPONSE: Parking count has been revised to reflect this revision. • ORIGINAL RECEIVED CS-C 2 8 2006 COMMENT: PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 8. Sheet C-4 - Site Data - Revise the number of parking spaces provided to 765 spaces. RESPONSE: The site data table has been revised per the parking space revisions to show a total of 757 spaces. COMMENT: 9. Parking Generation Study - Revise the number of parking spaces provided to 765 spaces. RESPONSE: The parking study has been revised according to the new number of parking spaces provided, 757. COMMENT: 10. Sheet C-4 - Key Legend #40 pallat and bale storage area) - Must be screened from view by a six-foot high solid wall, finished on the outside similar to the building, with opaque gates. Items stored within this area would not be allowed to be stacked higher than the wall. Also, unclear why this storage area must occur at this location rather than farther south out of plain view of Stag Run Blvd. Revise. RESPONSE: Refer to sheet C-4 which shows the pallet and bale storage area screened from view by an aesthetically appealing fence. COMMENT: 11. Sheet C-4 and C-4A - Key Legend #20 indicates there is a six-foot high wall intended to be constructed along the west property line. Show on Sheets C-4, C-4A, L-2, and L-3 the wall. The wall within the front setback of Stag Run Blvd. cannot exceed three feet in height. Suggest a detail of the proposed wall (cross section.) Wall needs to be finished and painted the same as the building. Revise. RESPONSE. The screen wall along the property line has been removed due to concerns from neighbors about the trees having to be removed. In order to put the screen wall in, we would have to remove a good amount of the existing vegetation. COMMENT: 12. Sheets C-4, C-4A, C-15, and C-15A - Coordinate the location of parking lot lighting with site landscaping to avoid shielding of lighting by existing or future tree canopy, generally by not placing site lighting within landscape islands. Revise. RESPONSE: The location of parking lot lighting has been revised per your request. ORIGINAL RECEIVED DEC 2 8 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMENT: CITY OF CLEARWATER 13. Sheet C-4 - Definition of "structure" includes pavement. "Setbacks" listed in the Commercial District are structure setbacks, not building setbacks. Revise Site Data to reflect correct proposed setbacks RESPONSE. The site data table has been revised to reflect the correct proposed structure setbacks. COMMENT: 14. It is unclear why existing landscape islands are being rebuilt/reshaped or why parking row dividers are being widened, as well as movement of parking spaces and parking rows, when there is limited improvement to the parking lot and traffic flow. Recommend keeping parking los as is to a great amount but adding parking islands to better break up the sea of asphalt. Should set up a separate meeting with Rick Albee and myself to discuss specific locations of the site. RESPONSE. Refer to the revised Site Dimension Plan where existing landscape islands have been maintained and modified where possible. COMMENT: 15. Sheet C-4A - Show the recycling dumpsters in the southeast portion of the parking lot (takes up three parking spaces.) RESPONSE. Refer to sheet C-4A where the recycling dumpsters are shown in the southeast portion of the parking lot taking up four parking spaces. COMMENT: 16. Site inspection reveals many truck trailer bodies being used for the storage of goods for sale in the store. With the additions and remodeling of the store, coupled with the elimination of Wal-Mart's layaway program, will ALL of these truck trailer bodies be removed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy? RESPONSE. Acknowledged. COMMENT: 17. Site inspection reveals there is a lot of outdoor storage of "landscape material and accessories" on the south side of the building within existing parking and landscape areas. It is the intent of this proposal to eliminate ALL of this outdoor storage in the existing parking and landscape areas and relocate it to the proposed garden center? Will all of the existing fencing in the parking lot south of the existing garden center be removed with the proposal? If so, it appears that a taller fenced in area is proposed. Is it the intent to add a rack system inside for the storage of the landscape accessories (stepping stones, edging, hoses, etc.) on the higher portions accessible only by forklift? Will products stored on the top rack be visible above the fence? Code limits maximum storage height to 15 feet. Staff would prefer a garden center that blends in better with the rest of the Wal-Mart store by having architectural columns matching the design and color of the walls with the fence material between, with a vinyl windscreen shade cloth providing 100 percent capacity to obscure views of the materials stored in the garden center racks. Revise. RESPONSE: All the outdoor storage in the existing parking lot will be eliminated. The existing fencing in the south parking lot will be removed. A taller fenced in area is not being proposed. Please refer to the building elevation and site plans for detail. COMMENT: 18. Condition of approval to be included in the Development Order: That the storage of materials within the enclosed garden center, including the racks, not be visibly above any fencing, walls or other screening, and not to exceed 15 feet in height; RESPONSE: Acknowledged. COMMENT: 19. Condition of approval to be included in the Development Order: That a vinyl windscreen shade cloth providing 100 percent opacity located on the fencing along the east, west and south elevations of the garden center be maintained in a clean and attractive appearance and shall be in good repair with the color as the building (roycroft rose) or black, at all times: RESPONSE: Any screen wall or fencing proposed shall match the proposed building finish. COMMENT: 20. Condition of approval to be included in the Development Order: That no storage or display of materials/goods be located beyond the limits of the approved garden center (e.g. in the parking lot, drive aisles, etc.); RESPONSE: No storage or display of materials or goods shall be located beyond the limits of the proposed garden center. COMMENT: 21. Condition of approval to be included in the Development Order: That the management of the store fully enforce the requirements/limitations of this Development Order at all times; RESPONSE: Acknowledged. ORIGINAL RECEIVED CEC 2 8 2006 PLANNING DEPARTrwr;w CITY OF CLEARW;VF:? COMMENT: 22. Planning Staff had previous concerns regarding the proposed color and architectural appearance of the building, desiring an "upgraded" appearance. To that end, based on revised elevations and renderings submitted at a meeting held on October 24, 2006, staff prefers these revised elevations and renderings using the more rich colors of roycroft rose (primary wall color), Renwick beige (wall accent), interface tan (front wall accent), Birdseye maple (secondary front wall color), privilege green (front wall accent) and hickory monierlife tile Saxony plit shake roof. RESPONSE: ORIGINAL RECEIVED Acknowledged. CEC 2 8 2006 COMMENT: PLANNING DEPARMENl 23. Sheet C-4 or C-4A - Unclear where key note #36 is located. Revise/advise. C17y OF CLEARWATEp RESPONSE. Refer to the revised Site Dimension Plan sheets C-4 and C-4A. COMMENT: 24. Have you done any research as to any Site Plan conditions from the past that would still be applicable to this proposal, such as hour's truck deliveries can occur, whether trucks are allowed to park behind the store with their engine running, hours for dumpster pick- up? RESPONSE: Truck delivery hours will remain consistent with the existing store. A previous plan had shown the store operating and delivery hours to be limited, however a revised plan was approved to allow the store to operate 24 hours. It is critical that delivery hours be consistent with operating hours from an operational standpoint. Trucks will not be permitted to park behind the store, all trucks will be located within the truck delivery areas as shown on the site plan. Dumpster pickup times are established by the solid waste provider and we have limited control over pickup times. Additionally, we are proposing that trucks exit the site onto Stag Run. Since this road no longer continues through the residential development, it is no longer applicable to restrict trucks onto Stag Run. COMMENT: 25. Sheets C-4 and C-4A - Provide dimensions from the edge of the proposed pavement (or pallet/bale storage area) on the west side to the property line wherever changes are proposed. RESPONSE: Refer to the revised Site Dimension Plan sheets C-4 and C-4A. COMMENT: 26. Provide responses as to HOW the proposal complies with the following Flexible Standard criteria for "retail sales and services": 0 0 1. Lot size and width: The parcel proposed for development was an existing lot of less than 10,000 square feet and was not in common ownership with any contiguous property on May 1, 1998. The proposed site is in excess of 10,000 s.f. and no common ownership exists with any of the adjacent properties. 2. Height: a. The increased height results in an improved site plan, landscaping areas in excess of the minimum required or improved design and appearance; The proposed building is consistent with that of the existing structure. Increases in portions of the building height are a result of the addition of architectural elements required by the City. b. The increased height will not reduce the vertical component of the view from any contiguous residential property. The height of the building is consistent with that of the existing structure. 3. Side and rear setback: a. The reduction in side and rear setback does not prevent access to the rear of any building by emergency vehicles; Emergency vehicles will have full access to the entire site and building. b. The reduction in side and rear setback results in an improved site plan, more efficient parking or improved design and appearance; The reduction of the rear setback will allow for safer access for • emergency vehicles and provide for a consistent driveway along the rear of the building. Existing vegetation will be preserved where possible and supplemented with new trees where needed. C. The reduction in side and rear setback does not reduce the amount of landscaped area otherwise required. Existing vegetation will be preserved where possible and supplemented with new trees where needed. We met onsite with the homeowner's association to the west. They requested that we keep the existing vegetation in place in lieu of a screen wall. The existing trees along the north property line are well established and provide much better screening than a 6 foot wall could. 4. Off-Street Parking: The physical characteristics of a proposed building are such that the likely uses of the property will require fewer parking spaces per floor area than otherwise required or that the use of significant portions of the building will be used for storage or other non-parking demand-generating purposes. A parking demand study has been provided to justify the decrease in proposed parking. 27. Dimension the width of the foundation landscape areas on the east side of the building (all areas along the building face) on either Sheets C-4 and C-4A or L-2 and L-3. Needs to be a minimum width of five feet. RESPONSE: A minimum width of five feet is provided along the foundation landscape areas. COMMENT: 28. A Comprehensive Sign Program (CSP) has been submitted under Case No. SGN2006- 07010 for the Super Wal-Mart proposal. While this appears premature, due to construction time for the building, comments for the CSP will be handled 6 t?I from this Flexible Standard Development application. RECEI?'NNI/EAADL DEC 2 8 2006 PIANNNG DEI-Akf??,, CRY OF C(EAl • s RESPONSE: Acknowledged. COMMENT: 29. Condition of approval to be included in the Development Order: That a declaration of Unity of Title document be recorded in the public records prior to the issuance of any permit. RESPONSE: A declaration of Unity of Title document will be recorded in the public records prior to issuance of any permit. COMMENT: 30. Sheets C-4 and C-4A - Unless there is a demonstrated need for more handicap parking spaces than required, reduce to the minimum handicap spaces required. RESPONSE: The minimum number of handicap spaces required is what will be provided. COMMENT: 31. Prior to issuance of a Development Order, submit four revised sets of application material addressing all DRC comments by May 16, 2007, or FLS will be void for failure to timely address DRC comments. RESPONSE. Acknowledged. In support of this submittal, please find enclosed: 1. Four (4) copies of the Parking Demand Study 2. Four (4) copies of the Traffic Impact Study 3. Two (2) sets of the revised stormwater report 4. Four (4) sets of reduced color site plans 5. Four (4) sets of reduced color building elevation plans 6. Four (4) sets of signed and sealed Construction Plans (applicable sheets) 7. Four (4) sets of landscape and tree retention plans 8. Four (4) sets of the building elevation drawings ORIGINAL Please do not hesitate to call us with any questions or comments. RECENED Sincerely, DEC 2 g 2006 CPH ENGINEERS, INC. PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Dan Moyer Project Manager 9 0 December 28, 2006 Mr. Himanshu Patni, E.I. Traffic Operations Municipal Services Building 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 500 North Westshore Boulevard Suite 760 Tampa, Florida 33609 Phone: 813.288.0233 Fax: 813.288.0433 www. cphengi nee rs. com RE: Proposed Wal-Mart Expansion Located on the Northwest Quadrant of the Intersection of US 19 & NE Coachman Road City of Clearwater, Florida Traffic Impact Study - Responses to Comments CPH Project Number: W13454 Dear Mr. Patni, This letter serves as a response to the initial review comments provided to CPH Engineers, Inc., via phone and at the meeting on October 24, 2006 for the proposed Wal-Mart expansion at US 19 & NE Coachman Road in the City of Clearwater, Florida. Attached is a revised traffic study report including all the comments addressed in this letter and an executive summary section. The revised parking generation study is also included with the revised traffic study report for your review. 1. Comment: Include Count Station Data from FDOT Station. Response: The count location identified in the report is inaccurate. The count station data from FDOT station no: 0042 was gathered to determine the growth rate using traffic trend analysis. Per the analysis, a growth rate of 2% was determined using historical data. Attached please find the result of the count data analysis for your review. This growth rate was applied onto the intersection count data and existing roadway segment count data to project future background traffic condition. A revision to the report for the same has been made in page 7. 2. Comment: Review and Revise Roadway Segment Analysis • The LOS and data for segment on SR 590 (NE Coachman Road) between Belcher & Old Coachman Road • Existing LOS conditions on segments on US 19. Response: A revised FDOT generalized roadway segment analysis for p.m. peak hour two way and p.m. peak hour peak directional volumes has been included with this response. The analysis takes into account the existing configuration of US 19-roadway segment for existing condition analysis and future configuration based on improvements for future background and future total conditions. An art plan analysis was conducted and reported in comparison to the 2005 Pinellas County MPO report for the failing roadway segments based on FDOT Generalized Roadway Segment Analysis: ORIGINAL RECEIVED DEC 2 8 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CHY OF CLEARWATER • US 19 in the existing condition; • NE Coachman Road from Belcher Road to Old Coachman Road; and • NE Coachman Road from Old Coachman Road to US 19. Preliminary art plan analysis evaluates the abovementioned NE Coachman Road roadway segments to be operating at LOS "F". The art plan analysis for NE Coachman Road roadway segment from Old Coachman Road to US 19 was revised and analyzed to take into account the exclusive left turn percentage as 50%u as observed from existing p.m. peak hour turning movement count data at US 19 & NE Coachman Road (the count data is attached as a reference with this response). Based on the revised art plan analysis NE Coachman Road from Old Coachman Road to US 19 is observed to operate at LOS B in the existing through future total traffic conditions. The art plan analysis evaluated the roadway segment of NE Coachman Road from Belcher Road to Old Coachman Road to operate at LOS F. A more detailed HCS arterial roadway segment analysis was conducted for the NE Coachman Road roadway segment from Belcher Road to Old Coachman Road to evaluate this condition. Traffic counts were conducted at the intersection of NE Coachman Road with Belcher Road and Old Coachman Road in support of this analysis and have been included with this response for your review. Based on the HCS arterial roadway segment analysis, the subject roadway segment is observed to operate above the adopted LOS Standard in the existing through future total traffic conditions. Included with this response is the revised traffic study, including detailed discussion on this analysis in the roadway analysis and conclusions section of the report and the results for the same attached in Appendix F of the report. 3. Comment: Conduct intersection analysis for NE Coachman Road & Town Place Apartments Response: This subject intersection was analyzed as a two way stop controlled intersection using the p.m. peak hour turning movement count data. The westbound left turn lane for vehicles entering into the apartment complex is observed to have a delay of 8.9 sec/veh and 95th percentile queue length of 0.15 or approximately. HCS analysis for the same is included with this response. Based on the HCS analysis the intersection is anticipated to operate well within the adopted LOS standards. Per our discussion in the meeting dated 10/24/06, appropriate bulb-outs for westbound left turning vehicles into the apartment complex would provide sufficient access into the site. 4. Comment: Confirm the US 19 northbound/southbound split at US 19 & NE Coachman Road and US 19 & Sunset Point Road. Per observation, the Northbound thru movement volume at US 19 & NE Coachman Road is approximately 1.5 times the southbound thru movements volume, where as the northbound US 19 thru movement volume is approximately 2.5 times the southbound US 19 thru movement volume at Sunset point road. Response: It is confirmed per our observation that the p.m. peak hour count data, the northbound thru movement at US 19 & NE Coachman Road is approximately 1.5 times the southbound thru movement, whereas at US 19 & Sunset point road, the northbound thru movement is 2.5 times the southbound thru movement. This would be primarily because of the high (approximately 200) eastbound left turning movements onto US 19 from NE Coachman Road observed during the existing p.m. peak hour conditions, which is approximately 50% of the eastbound approach volumes at US 19 & NE Coachman Road intersection. ORIGINAL RECEIVED l'?L 2 8 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Please feel free to contact us at (813) 288-0233 if you have any questions, comments or require additional information. Sincerely, CPH ENGINEERS, INC. (Certificate of Authorization No. 0003215) /ijay Si raman Traffic Analyst Attachments C. John Melendez, III Transportation Division Manager J:\Transportation General\Jobs\W13454-Clearwater\Correspondence\Sufficiency\Responses to 10.24.06 Comments\Response + Related Documents\Responses to Comments -12.28.06.doc ORIGINAL RECEIVED D E- C 2 81006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER TRAFFIC TRENDS US 19 -- Between Blackburn & Bermuda County: Pinellas Station #: 42 Highwa : US 19 90000 r----10bserved Count 80000 -Fitted Curve 0 70000 m n 60000 t 50000 40000 R 30000 m L > 20000 Q 10000 0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Year z 0 Z m 0 00 ? 0- M 0 0 M ;0 CS v r ?; 9 C" M M ;0 z --i Trend R-squared: 93.4% Trend Annual Historic Growth Rate: 2.060/0 Trend Growth Rate (2004 to Design Year): -0.31 Printed: 25-Oct-06 Traffic (AD T/AADT) Year Count* Trend** 2000 79000 82200 2001 82000 82200 2002 82500 82200 2003 83500 82300 2004 85500 82300 200 6 Opening Yea r Trend 2006 N/A 82300 2 Mid-Year 010 T rend 2010 N/A 82400 1 201 5 - Design Trend 2015 N/A 82600 TRAN PLAN Forecas ts/Trends *Axle-Adjusted U 0 ! • Print Date: June 01, 2006 Florida Department of Transportation Transportation Statistics Office 2004 Historical AADT Report County:15 - PINELLAS Site: 0042 Description: US 19/SR 55, BTWN BLACKBURN AND BERMUDA Year AADT Direction 1 Direction 2 K Factor D Factor T Factor 2004 S 85,500 N 43,500 -S 42,000 0.10 0.59 6.00 2003 F 83,500 N 42,500 S 41,000 0.10 0.56 6.00 2002 C 82,500 N 42,000 S 40,500 0.10 0.56 6.00 2001 C 82,000 N 40,000 S 42,000 0.10 0.52 4.70 2000 C 79,000 N 38,500 S 40,500 0.10 0.59 3.90 1999 C 82,000 N 39,000 S 43,000 0.10 0.53 9.00 1998 C 81,000 N 40,500 S 40,500 0.10 0.57 5.60 1997 C 74,000 N 36,500 S 37,500 0.08 0.60 4.30 1996 C 76,500 N 38,000 S 38,500 0.09 0.56 4.00 1995 F 72,500 N 36,500 S 36,000 0.11 0.58 3.60 1994 C 70,500 N 35,500 S 35,000 0.10 0.58 3.40 1993 C 77,500 N 38,500 S 39,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 1992 C 76,500 N 39,000 S 37,500 0.00 0.00 0.00 1988 91,482 N 44,769 S 46,713 0.00 0.00 0.00 1987 81,237 N 40,360 S 40,877 0.00 0.00 0.00 1986 63,061 N 31,323 S 31,738 0.00 0.00 0.00 1985 58,457 N 29,791 S 28,666 0.00 0.00 0.00 1983 59,466 N 30,464 S 29,002 0.00 0.00 0.00 1980 52,254 N 26,881 S 25,373 0.00 0.00 0.00 1979 59,704 N 30,530 S 29,174 0.00 0.00 0.00 1978 46,047 N 22,324 S 23,723 0.00 0.00 0.00 1977 45,232 N 22,247 S 22,985 0.00 0.00 0.00 1976 48,463 N 22,780 S 25,683 0.00 0.00 0.00 1975 0 N 0 S 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 1974 36,164 N 17,818 S 18,346 0.00 0.00 0.00 1973 30,271 N 15,211 S 15,060 0.00 0.00 0.00 1972 28,380 N 13,827 S 14,553 0.00 0.00 0.00 1971 24,053 N 11,501 S 12,552 0.00 0.00 0.00 1970 20,880 N 10,381 S 10,499 0.00 0.00 0.00 ORIGINAL RECEIVED DEC 2 8 2000 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATEIe AADT Flags: C = Computed; E =Manual Estimate; F= First Year Est; S =Second Year Est; T =Third Year Est; X = Unknown Page FnnT r:en H-d Ro.d- C--t r:anaeity Analvsis _ P M Peak Hour Two Wav Caoaeity Analvsis Pinellas County Peak Hour FOOT Us 79 Two Way Generalized Future LOS Future Future LOS Std D LOS Std D Existing Peak Std D Future Background Future Total Future Existing Service Peak Hour Two Hour Two Way Existing Capacity Background Peak Hour Background Peak Hour Total Project Roadway Segment ID Segment Daily Volume Way Capacity Volumes LOS Volumes • Growth Volumes LOS Volumes LOS Distribution Enter Exit Total Drew St to NE 4570 Coachman Rd. 69,703 2,512 5,080 6,622 F 9,840 268 6,890 C 6,902 C 23% 5 7 12 US 19 NE Coachman Rd. 4560 to Sunset Point Rd. 80,204 2,510 5,080 7,619 F 9,840 308 7,927 D 7,943 D 31% 6 10 16 Old Coachman Rd. NE Coachman 4260 to US 19 18,948 952 1,460 1,800 F 73 1.873 F 1.907 F 67% 13 21 34 Road Belcher Rd, to Old 4270 Coachman Rd. 22,520 965 1460 2,139 F 86 2,225 F 2,260 F 67% 13 21 34 Based on the US 19 improvements in progress, it is anticipated to operate as a 6 lane divided freeway with interchange spacing < 2miles apart in future conditions. Hence per FDOT Generalized LOS Table for such a facility located in an urbanized area , US 19 would have a LOS D peak hour two way ca acity of 9840 and is analyzed according) for future conditions. Net New P.M. Peak Hour Trips +Applied Factors Enter Exit Growth Rate K Factor D Factor 20 31 2% 0.095 0.55 Q 0 0 r D M 70 Z Z Z v M D M Z 4 r-: Q1 ;a S) m? m G? 0 r- '= v 7) • • i nat - _ Pxl P.- w.- Pea4 ni-inn Rnadw v ra .itv anatvc Pinellas County FDOT Future Peak Hour Generalized US 19 Background Future Total Two Way LOS Std D Existing Peak Future LOS Peak Hour Peak Hour EB LOS Std D Peak Hour Hour Peak Std D Future Peak Future Peak Future Entering Exiting Coachman/ EB Existing LOS Service Peak Direction Direction Existing Capacity Background Direction Background Direction Total Project Project NB US 19 Coachman/N Roadway Segment ID Segment Dally Std Volume Capacity Volumes LOS Volumes• Growth Volumes LOS Volumes LOS Distribution Distribution Enter BUS 19Exit Total Drew St to NE 4570 Coachman Rd. 69,703 D 2,512 2,790 3,642 F 5,410 147 3,789 C 3,790 C 3% 0% 1 0 1 US 19 NE Coachman Rd, to 1 4560 Sunset Point Rd. 80,204 0 2,510 2,790 4,191 F 5,410 169 4,360 D 4,364 0 0% 15% 0 5 5 Old Coachman Rd. to NE Coachman 4260 US 19 18,948 0 952 810 990 F 40 1,030 F 1,047 F 44% 26% 9 8 17 Road Belcher Rd. to Old 4270 Coachman Rd. 22,520 D 965 810 1,177 F 48 1,225 F 1,233 F 44% 0% 9 0 9 Based on the US 19 improvements in progress, it is anticipated to operate as a 6 lane divided freeway with interchange spacing < 2miles apart in future conditions. Hence per FDOT Generalized LOS Table for such a facility located in an urban¢ed area . US 19 would have a LDS U peak hour two way capacity of 5410, and is analyzed according for future conditions. Net New P.M. Peak Hour Trips Applied Factors Enter Exit - 'Years To Build Out Growth Rate K Factor D Factor 20 31 2 2% 0.095 0.55 0 0? _Z OZ c-) mp 00 7 m 4 m v 00 _ M v rn ml m Z P.M. Peak Hour, Peak Season Tra ffic Conditions Roadway FDOT Two- Future ; Future Segment LOS Way Service Existin Traffic Background Total Traffic Description Standard Volume Volume LOS Volume LOS Volume LOS US 19 from Drew 5,080 St to NE Coachman Road. D ("9840) 6,622 F 6,890 C 6,902 C US 19 from NE 5,080 Coachman Road. to Sunset Point D ('9840) 7,619 F 7,927 D 7,943 D NE Coachman from Belcher F Road to Old Coachman Road. D 1,460 1,800 (+C) +C +C Coachman from Old Coachman Road. F to US 19 D 1,460 2,139 ( B) B B Note: ' 9840 is the P.M. Peak hour two way service volume for six (6) lane divided freeway based on FDOT Generalized LOS Tables ^ PM Peak Hour Peak Direction LOS reported based on Art Plan analysis + PM Peak Hour Peak Direction LOS reported based on HCS Arterial analysis. Z r-y r nZ ?O f"D m0 mO n y ti C C=j D r- m ? CD2 Z F i u WkCEIVED Two-Way Stop Control • IT[& 2006 Page 1 of 2 PLANNING DEPARTNlEIv? CITY OF rt E?Gwc ,, TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst VS Agency/Co. CPH Engineer's Inc. Date Performed 712512006 Analysis Time Period 4-6 P.M. Intersection NE Coachman & Town Place A is Jurisdiction Pinellas County Analysis Year 2008 - Future Total Project Description W13454 - Clearwater/ US 19 East/West Street: NE Coachman Road North/South Street: Town Place Aptmts Driveway Intersection Orientation: East-West Stud Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 189 560 41 488 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh/h 210 622 0 45 542 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 2 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 1 0 1 1 0 Configuration L T L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 17 29 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h 18 0 32 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 2 0 2 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 1 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Len th, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound N orthbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L L LR (veh/h) 210 45 50 C (m) (veh/h) 1027 969 289 lc 0.20 0.05 0.17 95% queue length 0.77 0.15 0.61 Control Delay (s/veh) 9.4 8.9 20.0 LOS A A C file://C:\Documents and Settings\vsivaraman\Local Settings\Temp\u2k64.tmp 9/29/2006 Two-Way Stop Control • • Page 2 of 2 ORIGINAL RECEIVED DEC 2 8 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER file://C:\Documents and Settings\vsivaraman\Local Settings\Temp\u2k64.tmp 9/29/2006 Copyright © 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.2 Generated: 9/29/2006 12:57 PM Turning Movement Count Adams Traffic (813) 763-7763 City/County: Clearwater/Pinellas Weather: Clear File Name : us19&coachman Site Code : 00006186 Start Date : 6/15/2006 Page No : 1 ('mum Printed- PasSennPr Vehirles - Heaw Vehicles - l1-Turns us 19 NE COACHMAN ROAD us 19 NE COACHMAN ROAD Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right RTOR . Total Left Thru Ri ht RTOR App . Total Left Thru Right RTOR Ap p. Total Left Thru Right RTOR A . Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 10 261 0 0 271 19 59 6 20 104 21 497 27 0 545 32 37 0 0 69 989 04:15 PM 16 249 0 0 265 19 54 16 12 101 13 502 22 0 537 45 38 0 0 83 986 04:30 PM 8 264 0 0 272 18 42 16 19 95 15 446 26 0 487 47 43 0 0 90 944 04:45 PM 19 299 0 0 318 14 46 16 14 90 12 361 25 0 398 33 46 0 0 79 885 Total 53 1073 0 0 1126 70 201 54 65 390 61 1806 100 0 1967 157 164 0 0 321 3804 05:00 PM 11 316 0 0 327 13 54 20 14 05:15 PM 9 336 0 0 345 19 45 15 15 05:30 PM 20 274 0 0 294 9 40 10 6 05:45 PM 20 264 0 0 284 14 52 13 11 Total 60 1190 0 0 1250 55 191 58 46 Grand Total 113 2263 0 0 2376 125 392 112 111 Apprch % 4.8 95.2 0.0 0.0 16.9 53.0 15.1 15.0 Total % 1.5 29.4 0.0 0.0 30.9 1.6 5.1 1.5 1.4 101 14 455 25 0 494 47 35 0 0 94 9 490 23 0 522 49 43 0 0 65 12 393 14 0 419 52 56 0 0 90 15 457 23 0 495 41 38 0 0 350 50 1795 85 0 1930 189 172 0 6 740 111 3601 185 0 3897 346 336 0 0 2.8 92.4 4.7 0.0 50.7 49.3 0.0 0.0 1 9.6 1.4 46.8 2.4 0.0 50.6 4.5 4.4 0.0 0.0 82 1004 92 1053 . 108 886 682 7695 8.9 us 19 Southbound NE COACHMAN ROAD Westbound us 19 Northbound NE COACHMAN ROAD Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Ri ht RTOR . Total Left Thru Right RTOR App. Total Left Thru Right RTOR App. Total Left Thru Right RTOR App. Total NeaK Flour From U4:UU F'M to 0:0 vm - YeaK t of 1 Intersection 05:00 PM Volume 60 1190 0 0 1250 55 191 58 46 350 50 1795 85 0 1930 189 172 0 0 361 Percent 4.8 95.2 0.0 0.0 15.7 54.6 16.6 13.1 2.6 93.0 4.4 0.0 52.4 47.6 0.0 0.0 05:15 Volume 9 336 0 0 345 19 45 15 15 94 9 490 23 0 522 49 43 0 0 92 Peak Factor High Int. 05:15 PM 05:00 PM 05:15 PM 05:30 PM Volume 9 336 0 0 345 13 54 20 14 101 9 490 23 0 522 52 56 0 0 108 Peak Factor 0.906 0.866 0.924 0.836 Peak Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Pe ak 1 of 1 By Approach 04:45 PM 04:00 PM 04:00 PM 04:45 PM Volume 59 1225 0 0 1284 70 201 54 65 390 61 1806 100 0 1967 181 180 0 0 361 Percent 4.6 95.4 0.0 0.0 17.9 51.5 13.8 16.7 3.1 91.8 5.1 0.0 50.1 49.9 0.0 0.0 High Int. 05:15 PM 04:00 PM 04:00 PM 05:30 PM Volume 9 336 0 0 345 19 59 6 20 104 21 497 27 0 545 52 56 0 0 108 Peak Factor 0.930 0.938 0.902 0.836 ORIGINAL RECEIVED 2 8 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT C17Y OF CLEARWATER Int. Total 3891 1053 0.924 • Turning Movement Count Adams Traffic (813) 763-7763 City/County: Clearwater/Pinellas Weather: Clear Grouns Printed- Passenaer Vehicles File Name : us19&coachman Site Code : 00006186 Start Date : 6/15/2006 Page No : 1 us 19 NE COACHMAN ROAD us 19 NE COACHMAN ROAD Southbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right RTOR Ap p. Total Left Thru Right RTOR Ap p. Total Left Thru Right RTOR A . Total Left Thru Ri ht RTOR Ap p. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 10 255 0 0 265 16 57 6 20 99 15 492 27 0 534 31 37 0 0 68 966 04:15 PM 16 235 0 0 251 19 52 16 12 99 12 494 22 0 528 45 37 0 0 82 960 04:30 PM 8 259 0 0 267 18 41 16 19 94 15 438 26 0 479 47 42 0 0 89 929 04:45 PM 19 295 0 0 314 14 44 16 14 88 11 354 25 0 390 32 46 0 0 78 870 Total 53 1044 0 0 1097 67 194 54 65 380 53 1778 100 0 1931 155 162 0 0 317 3725 05:00 PM 11 309 0 0 320 13 54 20 14 05:15 PM 9 336 0 0 345 19 44 15 15 05:30 PM 20 272 0 0 292 9 40 10 6 05:45 PM 20 262 0 0 282 14 52 13 11 Total 60 1179 0 0 1239 55 190 58 46 Grand Total 113 2223 0 0 2336 122 384 112 111 Apprch % 4.8 95.2 0.0 0.0 16.7 52.7 15.4 15.2 Total % 1.5 29.4 0.0 0.0 30.8 1.6 5.1 1.5 1.5 101 13 450 25 0 488 47 35 0 0 93 9 486 23 0 518 48 43 0 0 65 10 386 13 0 409 52 55 0 0 90 14 450 22 0 486 41 38 0 0 349 46 1772 83 0 1901 188 171 0 0 729 99 3550 183 0 3832 343 333 0 0 2.6 92.6 4.8 0.0 50.7 49.3 0.0 0.0 9.6 1.3 46.9 2.4 0.0 50.6 4.5 4.4 0.0 0.0 82 991 91 1047 107 873 79 937 359 3848 676 7573 8.9 us 19 Southbound NE COACHMAN ROAD Westbound us 19 Northbound NE COACHMAN ROAD Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right RTOR App. Total Left Thru Ri ht RTOR App. Total Left Thru Right RTOR A . Total Left Thru Right RTOR App. Total reaK hour From u4:vu rm to uwto rm - reaK 1 of 1 Intersection 05:00 PM Volume 60 1179 0 0 1239 55 190 58 46 349 46 1772 83 0 1901 188 171 0 0 359 Percent 4.8 95.2 0.0 0.0 15.8 54.4 16.6 13.2 2.4 93.2 4.4 0.0 52.4 47.6 0.0 0.0 05:15 Volume 9 336 0 0 345 19 44 15 15 93 9 486 23 0 518 48 43 0 0 91 Peak Factor High Int. 05:15 PM 05:00 PM 05:15 PM 05:30 PM Volume 9 336 0 0 345 13 54 20 14 101 9 486 23 0 518 52 55 0 0 107 Peak Factor 0.898 0.864 0.917 0.839 Peak Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Pe ak 1 of 1 By Approach 04:45 PM 04:15 PM 04:00 PM 05:00 PM Volume 59 1212 0 0 1271 64 191 68 59 382 53 1778 100 0 1931 188 171 0 0 359 Percent 4.6 95.4 0.0 0.0 16.8 50.0 17.8 15.4 2.7 92.1 5.2 0.0 52.4 47.6 0.0 0.0 High Int. 05:15 PM 05:00 PM 04:00 PM 05:30 PM Volume 9 336 0 0 345 13 54 20 14 101 15 492 27 0 534 52 55 0 0 107 Peak Factor 0.921 0.946 0.904 0.839 ORIGINAL RECEIVED 2 8 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Int. Total 3848 1047 0.919 0 Turning Movement Count Adams Traffic (813) 763-7763 City/County: Clearwater/Pinellas Weather: Clear ('?rnijns Prinfpd- Heaw Vahirlae File Name : usl9&coachman Site Code : 00006186 Start Date : 6/15/2006 Page No : 1 us 19 NE COACHMAN ROAD us 19 NE COACHMAN ROAD S outhbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right RTOR App . Total Left Thru Ri ht RTOR Ap p. Total Left Thru Right RTOR Ap p. Total Left Thru Right RTOR Ap p. Total Int Total 04:00 PM 0 6 0 0 6 2 2 0 0 4 0 5 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 1 16 04:15 PM 0 14 0 0 14 0 2 0 0 2 1 8 0 0 9 0 1 0 0 1 26 04:30 PM 0 5 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 1 0 8 0 0 8 0 1 0 0 1 15 04:45 PM 0 4 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 2 0 7 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 1 14 Total 0 29 0 0 29 2 7 0 0 9 1 28 0 0 29 2 2 0 0 4 71 05:00 PM 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 12 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 1 6 05:30 PM 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 8 0 1 0 0 1 • 11 05:45 PM 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 10 Total 0 11 0 0 11 0 1 0 0 1 0 23 2 0 25 1 1 0 0 2 39 Grand Total 0 40 0 0 40 2 8 0 0 10 1 51 2 0 54 3 3 0 0 6 110 Apprch % 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 0.0 0.0 I 1.9 94.4 3.7 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 Total % 0.0 36.4 0.0 0.0 36.4 1.8 7.3 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.9 46.4 1.8 0.0 49.1 2.7 2.7 0.0 0.0 5.5 us 19 Southbound NE COACHMAN ROAD Westbound us 19 Northbound NE COACHMAN ROAD Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right RTOR App. Total Left Thru Ri ht RTOR App. Total Left Thru Right RTOR App. Total Left Thru Right RTOR App. Total Peak Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Intersection 04:00 PM Volume 0 29 0 0 29 2 7 0 0 9 1 28 0 0 29 2 2 0 0 4 Percent 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 0.0 0.0 3.4 96.6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 04:15 Volume 0 14 0 0 14 0 2 0 0 2 1 8 0 0 9 0 1 0 0 1 Peak Factor High Int. 04:15 PM 04:00 PM 04:15 PM 04:00 PM Volume 0 14 0 0 14 2 2 0 0 4 1 8 0 0 9 1 0 0 0 1 Peak Factor 0.518 0.563 0.806 1.000 Peak Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Pe ak 1 of 1 By Approach 04:15 PM 04:00 PM 04:00 PM 04:00 PM Volume 0 30 0 0 30 2 7 0 0 9 1 28 0 0 29 2 2 0 0 4 Percent 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 22.2 77.8 0.0 0.0 3.4 96.6 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 High Int. 04:15 PM 04:00 PM 04:15 PM 04:00 PM Volume 0 14 0 0 14 2 2 0 0 4 1 8 0 0 9 1 0 0 0 1 Peak Factor 0.536 0.563 0.806 1.000 ORIGINAL RECEIVED . -_;? 2 8 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Int. Total 71 26 0.683 0 Turning Movement Count Adams Traffic (813) 763-7763 City/County: Clearwater/Pinellas Weather: Clear Groups Printed- U-Turns File Name : us19&coachman Site Code : 00006186 Start Date : 6/15/2006 Page No : 1 US 19 NE COACHMAN ROAD US 19 NE COACHMAN ROAD S outhbound Westbound Northbound Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right RTOR Ap p. Total Left Thru Right RTOR Ap p. Total Left Thru Right RT- A . Total Left Thru Ri R RTOR Ap p. Total Int. Total 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 7 04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Total 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 8 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 05:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 Grand Total 0 0 0 0 01 1 0 0 0 1 I 11 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 Apprch % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 91.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 91.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 us 19 Southbound NE COACHMAN ROAD Westbound us 19 Northbound NE COACHMAN ROAD Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right RTOR App. Total Left Thru Ri ht RTOR App. Total Left Thru Right RTOR App. Total Left Thru Right RTOR App. Total reaK Hour from U4:UU I'M 10 U*A4 rM - reaK 1 OT 1 Intersection 04:00 PM Volume 0 0 0 0 Percent 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 04:00 Volume 0 0 0 0 Peak Factor High Int. 3:45:00 PM Volume 0 0 0 0 Peak Factor Peak Hour From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Pe ak 1 of 1 By Approach 04:00 PM Volume 0 0 0 0 Percent - - - - High Int. - Volume - - - - Peak Factor 0 1 0 0 0 1 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 1 0 0 0 1 04:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.250 7 0 0 0 7 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 3:45:00 PM 0 0 ORIGINAL RECEIVED 2 s 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY Of CLEARWATER 04:00 PM 6 0 0 0 6 0.292 04:00 PM 04:00 PM 04:00 PM 0 1 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 - - - - 04:00 PM 04:00 PM - 1 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 6 - - - - 0.250 0.292 0 1 09 2 1 4 12 Int. Total 8 7 0.286 -J 0 0 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 6:16 PM To: 'dmoyer@cphengineers.com' Cc: 'pcraddock@rhaaia.com ; 'RAL2000@aol.com' Subject: FLS2006-07044, 23106 US Hwy 19 N, Wal-Mart Dan - Attached are the Draft DRC comments for the November 16, 2006, meeting, which will be held in our offices at 2:30 pm. I am expecting some written comments/concerns from Skylar Ellis prior to or at the DRC meeting. You have previously been provided with a copy of the letter of concerns from Gloria Losi, with the Coachman Ridge Subdivision to the west of the Wal-Mart store. Many of these concerns are embodied in the attached Draft DRC comments. Again, this is not a public hearing but a public meeting. Wayne v draft 11.16.06 dre action agen... 0 . Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 6:23 PM To: 'Moyer, Daniel' Subject: Wal-Mart at US 19 Dan - I expect to send you the comments no later than Monday, November 13th. Friday the 10th is a holiday. By the way, Skyler Ellis called and has come in and received a copy of the Wal-Mart submittal. He is coming back in tomorrow to look again in the case file for emails regarding the traffic study. He is aware of the meeting on November 16th and may attend. Again, I do not know who he is or whom he represents, but I have reminded him that: 1. the DRC meeting is a public meeting, not a public hearing, and that anyone attending the meeting cannot speak unless spoken to; and 2. any objections or concerns would have to be in writing and would have to constitute substantial competent evidence that there is a problem with your application as to why it shouldn't be approved. Wayne -----Original Message----- From: Moyer, Daniel [maiIto: dmoyer@cphengineers.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 1:42 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Wal-Mart at US19 Wayne: When would you expect that we would receive comments for this site? Dan Moyer CPH Engineers, Inc 3277A Fruitville Road, Suite 2 Sarasota, FL 34237 Ph: 941-365-4771 Fx: 941-365-4779 11/8/2006 • • Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 5:25 PM To: 'DMoyer@cphengineers.com' Cc: 'pcraddock@rhaaia.com'; Watkins, Sherry Subject: FLS2006-07044, 23106 US Hwy 19 N Dan - We have rescheduled the DRC meeting for the above referenced case for Wal-Mart to Thursday, November 16, 2006, at 2:30 pm in our offices. I will send you the Draft DRC comments next week. Wayne 0 • Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Phil Craddock [PRCraddock@RHAAIA.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 2:54 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Watkins, Sherry; Thompson, Neil Subject: RE: [SPAM] Clearwater WalMart Supercenter Expansion - DRC Meeting Wayne, If we could make it at 1:00pm or later, that would work well with the flights. Phil Craddock, AIA (214) 749-0626 pcraddock(a-)rhaaia.com From: Wayne.Wells@myClearwater.com [mailto:Wayne.Wells@myClearwater.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 1:56 PM To: Phil Craddock Cc: Sherry.Watkins@myClearwater.com; neil.thompson@MyClearwater.com Subject: [SPAM] Clearwater WalMart Supercenter Expansion - DRC Meeting Phil - We start taking cases at 9:00 am and the meetings run until all cases have had their scheduled review. We generally break for lunch from 12 noon 'til 1:00 pm. Meetings scheduled in the afternoon run until done. If you have specific needs, since you are flying in for this meeting, such as an afternoon meeting time, let me know so we can try to meet your needs (if you desire a late morning meeting time so you can go to the beach in the afternoon, let me know). :>) am copying Sherry Watkins with this email, so that she will be aware of your needs also when settling up the DRC schedule for cases. Wayne -----Original Message----- From: Phil Craddock [mai Ito: PRCraddock@ RHAAIA.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 2:20 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Clearwater Supercenter Expansion - Comment Review Meeting Mr. Wells, Thanks for meeting with us yesterday regarding the Elevations. From our meeting I understand we should have comments by Monday and the DRC setup for the 2"d. I would like to go ahead and arrange flight times, so what is the typical meeting time for the DRC for planning purposes? Phil Craddock, AIA (214) 749-0626 pcraddock anrhaaia.com 10/27/2006 Clearwater October 02, 2006 Dan Moyer 3277a Fruitville Road Sarasota, F134237 CITY OF CLEORWATER PARTMENT PLANNING DE MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576 WW W.MYCLEARWATER.COM VIA FAX: 941-365-4779 RE: FLS2006-07044 -- 23106 US HIGHWAY 19 N -- Letter of Completeness Dear Dan Moyer : The Planning Staff has entered your application into the Department's filing system and assigned the case number: FLS2006-07044. After a preliminary review of the submitted documents, staff has determined that the application is complete. The Development Review Committee (DRC) will review the application for sufficiency on November 02, 2006, in the Planning Department conference room - Room 216 - on the second floor of the Municipal Services Building. The building is located at 100 South Myrtle Avenue in downtown Clearwater. You will be contacted by the Planning Department's Administrative Analyst within one week prior to the meeting date for the approximate time that your case will be reviewed. You or your representative (as applicable) must be present to answer any questions that the DRC may have regarding your application. Additional comments may be generated by the DRC at the time of the meeting. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 727-562-4504 or Wayne.Wells@myclearwater.com. Sincerely yours, At, /*f • [-?LW Wayne Wells, AICP Planner III Letter of Completeness - FLS2006-07044 - 23106 US HIGHWAY 19N Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 7:13 PM To: 'dmoyer@cphengineers.com' Subject: FLS2006-07044, 23106 US Hwy 19 N - WalMart Dan - Attached is a Letter of Completeness for the above referenced project. The original letter will be mailed to you, as well as a copy of the receipt. Wayne I P-- 11-1 11 L letter of mpleteness 10.2.06 9 0 September 27, 2006 Wayne Wells, Planner City of Clearwater Planning Dept. 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33756 Ph: (727) 5624567 Project Name: Clearwater Wal-Mart Supercenter Store #2801-95 Case #: FLS2006-07044 County: Pinellas CPH Project No.: W13454 Subject: ERP Permit Application Dear Mr. Wells: 3277 Fruitville Road Building A, Suite 2 Sarasota, Florida 34237 Phone: 941365.4771 Fax: 941.365.4779 www.cphengineers.com In response to your review of the completeness review, the following are the responses to the comments issued on August 2, 2006: COMMENT: 1. Provide on Page 1 of the application the Project Valuation. RESPONSE: Please refer to the revised Page 1 of the application with the amount of $11,700,000.00 as the project valuation. COMMENT: 2. Submit a TREE INVENTORY, prepared by a "certified arborist", of all trees 8" DBH or greater, reflecting size, canopy (drip lines) and condition of such trees. A tree survey has been submitted and a tree status plan (Sheet TR-1 - TR-3) with the existing trees numbered, with their type and caliper, has been submitted, but the drip line and condition of the trees has not been shown/submitted. RESPONSE: The tree inventory was prepared by a certified arborist and has been revised to show the drip lines and condition of the trees. This is shown on the Tree Retention Plan (TR-1). COMMENT: 3. Delineate and dimension all required perimeter landscape buffers. RESPONSE: The required perimeter landscape buffers have been dimensioned on the Landscape Plans (L-1-L-3) and the Site Dimension Plans (C-4-C-4A) per your request. COMMENT: 4. Civil and landscape plans must show the sight visibility triangles per Clearwater Code. RESPONSE: The site visibility triangle are shown per the Clearwater Code onINAL Landscape Plans (L-1- L-4) and Site Dimension Plan (C-4-C-4A) per your request. RECEIVED OCT 0 2 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Engineers • Surveyors • Architects (AA26000926) • Planners • Landscape Architects • Environmental Scientists • Construction Management • Design/Build COMMENT: 5. Provide irrigation notes on the landscape plans. RESPONSE: Irrigation notes have been provided on the Landscape Notes and Details Plan L-4 per your request. COMMENT: 6. Plans need to be dimensioned, including distances from all property lines to pavement and other structures, width of landscape islands and landscape parking row dividers, sidewalks, width of drive aisle on the west side of the building, loading areas/docks, width of drive aisle on the east side of the building, width of handicap parking spaces and adjacent access aisle, dumpster enclosures, etc. RESPONSE: The Site Dimension Plan (C-4-C-4A) shows the dimensions of the items requested above. COMMENT: 7. Landscape plans (Sheets L-2 & L-3) indicate the location of proposed landscape materials, but does not indicate the quantities of trees. RESPONSE: The Landscape PlansL-2 and L-3 have been revised to show the quantities of trees per your request. COMMENT: 8. Depict by shading or crosshatching all parking lot interior landscaped areas. RESPONSE. The interior parking lot landscape islands have been shaded on the Site Dimension Plan (C-4-C-4A) per your request. COMMENT: 9. Provide in the Site Data table the square footage of the vehicular use area (VUA), the square footage of interior landscaping area provided, the percentage of the interior landscape area provided in relation to the VUA (minimum of.10% of the VUA.) RESPONSE. The requested information above has been shown on the Site Dimension Plans per your request. COMMENT: 10. Must submit a COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM application, as minimum code is not being met at least for perimeter buffers (potentially interior landscaping and foundation landscaping), including the justification for the reductions requested. Landscape associated with the Comprehensive Landscape Program shall exceed minimum Code requirements to offset the areas where minimum Code will not be met. RESPONSE: A Comprehensive Landscape Program Application has been included in the submittal package per your request. ORIGINAL RECENED COMMENT: OCT 0 2 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 11. Provide on Sheet C-3 the dimensions of the lot lines. RESPONSE. The lot line dimensions have been provided on the Site Dimension Plan (C-4- C-4A). COMMENT: 12. Show the location of existing public and private utilities, including fire hydrants and water lines. RESPONSE: The location of the public and private utilities, including fire hydrants and water lines are shown on the Composite Utility Plan (C-9-C-9A). COMMENT: 13. Show or indicate through notes the location of outside mechanical equipment and all required screening (including a/c units). RESPONSE: The location of the outside mechanical equipment will be placed on the roof as noted on the Site Dimension Plan (C-4A) per your request. COMMENT: 14. Code Section 3-1202.E.2 requires a foundation landscape area of a minimum of five feet in width and must be planted in accordance with this Section. Proposed key legend #33 on Sheet C-3 indicates the provision of such foundation landscaping on the landscape plan, yet the landscape plan does not show such. RESPONSE: Foundation Landscaping areas are shown on the Landscape Plans (L-1 - L- 3) and referenced on the Site Dimension Plan (C-4-C-4A) per your request. COMMENT: 15. Indicate in the Site Data table on Sheet C-3 the total square footage of the paved area (vehicular use area) (existing and proposed.) RESPONSE. Existing and proposed VUA's are shown in the site data table on the Site Dimension Plan (C-4) per your request. COMMENT: 16. Building elevations need to indicate (dimension) the building height (to highest top of roof deck) and the height of all parapets and other wall extensions (from roof deck.) RESPONSE: Building elevation's indicating building height and the height of the all parapets and other wall extensions are included in the submittal package per your request. COMMENT: 17. As previously discussed with our Traffic Operations of our Engineering Department, a Traffic Impact Study is required to be submitted (Note: The line on the application where a study is not required is initialed, but is noted that "will be provided under separate cover.") RESPONSE. The Traffic Impact Study has been included in this submittal package IGINAL your request. RECEIVED OCT 0 2 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER COMMENT: 18. The application on Page 6 of 7 is signed by John E. Clarke, but the signature is not notarized (alternately, since Mr. Clarke, on behalf of Wal-Mart, the owner, has appointed CPH Engineers, Inc. as an agent, someone in CPH could sign the application on Page 6.) RESPONSE: Page 6 of the application has been signed by CPH per your request. In support of this submittal, please find enclosed: 1. Fifteen (15) copies of the Revised Application 2. Fifteen (15) copies of the Comprehensive Landscape Program Application 3. Fifteen (15) copies of the Traffic Impact Study 4. Fifteen (15) copies of the Parking Demand Study 5. Two (2) sets of the revised stormwater report and SWFWMD Permit Exemption 6. Three (3) copies of the fire flow calculations/water study 7. Fifteen (15) sets of reduced color site plans 8. Fifteen (15) sets of reduced color landscaspe plans 9. Fifteen (15) sets of reduced color building elevation plans 10. Fifteen (15) sets of signed and sealed Construction Plans (applicable sheets) 11. Fifteen (15) sets of landscape and tree retention plans 12. Fifteen (15) sets of the building elevation drawings Please call me with any questions or comments. Sincerely, CPH ENGINEERS, INC. Daniel P. Moyer Project Engineer Xc: File ORIGINAL RECEIVED OCT 0 2 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • 0 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 9:38 AM To: 'Moyer, Daniel' Subject: RE: FLS2006-07044, 23106 US Hwy 19 N, Wal-Mart Dan - Actually, the DRC meeting you are attempting to be scheduled for is November 2, 2006. Since you have already submitted an application and been deemed incomplete, what you are attempting to do is become complete by submitting.additional information not previously submitted or revising plans to show items not previously shown. As such, you have until 9:00 am on Monday, October 2, 2006, to resubmit to be deemed complete to be scheduled for the November 2, 2006, DRC meeting. Wayne -----Original Message----- From: Moyer, Daniel [mailto:dmoyer@cphengineers.com] Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 9:16 AM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Kragt, Nathan Subject: RE: FLS2006-07044, 23106 US Hwy 19 N, Wal-Mart Wayne: Can you please confirm the submittal deadlines for the upcoming Novemeber 4th DRC. Thanks! Dan Moyer CPH Engineers, Inc 941-365-4771 -----Original Message----- From: Wayne.Wells@myClearwater.com [mailto:Wayne.Wells@myClearwater.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 6:44 PM To: Moyer, Daniel Subject: FLS2006-07044, 23106 US Hwy 19 N, Wal-Mart Dan Attached is a Letter of Incompleteness for the above referenced project. The original letter will be mailed to you. I am also attaching a Comprehensive Landscape Program application, which I think you will need. I will fax you shortly the letter from the Coachman Ridge homeowners. Wayne Wells <<letter of incompleteness 8.2.06.pdf>> <<Comprehensive Landscape Program Application.doc>> 1 V* . . Pagel of 2 Wells, Wayne From: Patni, Himanshu Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 9:18 AM To: jtoledo@cphengineers.com' Cc: Wells, Wayne; Elbo, Bennett Subject: RE: Traffic and Parking Methodology - Wal-mart Clearwater Jackie, Traffic Operations and Planning have reviewed the methodology and don't see any issues with the defined scope. You may proceed with the traffic and parking study. Himanshu Patni, E.I. Traffic Operations City of Clearwater (727) 562-4560 -----Original Message----- From: Toledo, Jackie [mailto:jtoledo@cphengineers.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 11:36 AM To: Elbo, Bennett Subject: RE: Traffic and Parking Methodology - Wal-mart Clearwater Here is the attachment!! Jackie V. Toledo, P.E. CPH Engineers, Inc. 500 North Westshore Boulevard Suite 760 Tampa, FL 33609 Phone: 813-288-0233 Fax: 813-288-0433 From: Toledo, Jackie Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 11:31 AM To: 'bennett.elbo@myclearwater.com' Subject: Traffic and Parking Methodology - Wal-mart Clearwater Hi Ben, Attached you will find the revised traffic methodology based on the comments from the meeting on Friday, August 24, 2006. Also we have attached a parking methodology based on the Sam's Club parking study. have also included the trip generation and trip distribution based on existing count information. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Jackie Jackie V. Toledo, P.E. CPH Engineers, Inc. 500 North Westshore Boulevard Suite 760 Tampa, FL 33609 Phone: 813-288-0233 9/7/2006 ..., • • Page 2 of 2 Fax: 813-288-0433 9/7/2006 • Page 1 of 2 Wells, Wayne From: Toledo, Jackie Otoledo@cphengineers.com] Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 9:24 AM To: Patni, Himanshu Cc: Wells, Wayne; Elbo, Bennett; Melendez, John Subject: RE: Traffic and Parking Methodology - Wal-mart Clearwater Thanks, we will proceed as noted. Thanks for your prompt response. Jackie Jackie V. Toledo, P.E. CPH Engineers, Inc. 500 North Westshore Boulevard Suite 760 Tampa, FL 33609 Phone: 813-288-0233 Fax: 813-288-0433 From: Himanshu.Patni@MyClearwater.com [mailto:Himanshu.Patni@MyClearwater.com] Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 9:18 AM To: Toledo, Jackie Cc: Wayne.Wells@myClearwater.com; Bennett.Elbo@myClearwater.com Subject: RE: Traffic and Parking Methodology - Wal-mart Clearwater Jackie, Traffic Operations and Planning have reviewed the methodology and don't see any issues with the defined scope. You may proceed with the traffic and parking study. Himanshu Patni, E.I. Traffic Operations City of Clearwater (727) 562-4560 From: Toledo, Jackie Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 11:31 AM To: 'bennett.elbo@myclearwater.com' Subject: Traffic and Parking Methodology - Wal-mart Clearwater Hi Ben, Attached you will find the revised traffic methodology based on the comments from the meeting on Friday, August 24, 2006. Also we have attached a parking methodology based on the Sam's Club parking study. have also included the trip generation and trip distribution based on existing count information. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Jackie Jackie V. Toledo, P.E. CPH Engineers, Inc. 500 North Westshore Boulevard Suite 760 Tampa, FL 33609 9/7/2006 Page 2 of 2 Phone: 813-288-0233 Fax: 813-288-0433 9/7/2006 0 • Page 1 of 2 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 7:09 PM To: Patni, Himanshu Subject: RE: Traffic and Parking Methodology - Wal-mart Clearwater Looks like what we talked about. -----Original Message----- From: Patni, Himanshu Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 1:54 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: FW: Traffic and Parking Methodology - Wal-mart Clearwater Wayne, we are okay with the scoping letter presented but can you look over it as well. I'd like to know if Planning has any issues with the methodology. Thanks, Himanshu -----Original Message----- From: Elbo, Bennett Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 3:30 PM To: Patni, Himanshu; Bertels, Paul Subject: FW: Traffic and Parking Methodology - Wal-mart Clearwater FYI -----Original Message----- From: Toledo, Jackie [mailto:jtoledo@cphengineers.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 11:36 AM To: Elbo, Bennett Subject: RE: Traffic and Parking Methodology - Wal-mart Clearwater Here is the attachment!! Jackie V. Toledo, P.E. CPH Engineers, Inc. 500 North Westshore Boulevard Suite 760 Tampa, FL 33609 Phone: 813-288-0233 Fax: 813-288-0433 From: Toledo, Jackie Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 11:31 AM To: 'bennett.elbo@myclearwater.com' Subject: Traffic and Parking Methodology - Wal-mart Clearwater Hi Ben, Attached you will find the revised traffic methodology based on the comments from the meeting on Friday, August 24, 2006. Also we have attached a parking methodology based on the Sam's Club parking study. I have also included the trip generation and trip distribution based on existing count information. Let me know if you have any questions. 9/5/2006 • . Page 2 of 2 Thanks, Jackie Jackie V. Toledo, P.E. CPH Engineers, Inc. 500 North Westshore Boulevard Suite 760 Tampa, FL 33609 Phone: 813-288-0233 Fax: 813-288-0433 9/5/2006 • • TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY STATEMENT Proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter Expansion Store #2081-05, Clearwater Pinellas County, Florida Introduction This methodology statement outlines procedures and data that will be used to evaluate the projected traffic impacts of a proposed expansion of a Wal-Mart Store to a Wal-Mart Super center located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of US 19 and NE Coachman in Pinellas County. The project consists of an existing freestanding store of approximately 122,000 square feet. It is proposed to expand the existing store to freestanding discount superstore of approximately 160,000 square feet. This is a proposed increase of approximately 40,000 square feet. Future Analysis (Buildout) Year The future analysis (build out) year for the project will be assumed to be 2008. Trip Generation Trip generation potential for the proposed expansion will be based upon data collected at the existing stores' driveways (tube counts and turning movement counts) and applied towards the increase in proposed square footage. Out parcel trip generation will be determined by using the equations/rates documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE), Trip Generation, 7th Edition. The net change in external new trips will be the difference between the existing traffic volumes collected versus the traffic volumes projected using the abovementioned methodology. Pass-by rates will be determined based on those published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE), Trip Generation, 7th Edition for the corresponding land uses. For the existing traffic counts, internal capture will be accounted for and reflected in the existing, external driveway volumes. Trip Distribution Trip distribution of project traffic will be based upon the distribution of existing turning movement counts at study area intersections. Specific assignment of trips at the proposed project driveways will be based upon engineering judgment and the distribution of existing traffic volumes. Transportation Impact Study Area The study area is proposed to include the following study intersections (as identified in the attached site plan and site location map): • Sunset Point & US 19; • Stag Run Boulevard & SB Frontage Road; • NE Coachman Road & US 19; • US 19 & Drew St; • North Driveway & Stag Run Boulevard; • East Driveway & Southbound Frontage Road; • South East Driveway & NE Coachman Road; and • South West Driveway & NE Coachman Road. In addition, the following study roadway segments will be included: • US 19 from Sunset Point Dr. to NE Coachman; • US 19 from NE Coachman to Drew St; and • NE Coachman Road from Old Coachman Road to US 19. • NE Coachman Road from Old Coachman Road to Belcher Road Traffic Volume Conditions The p.m. peak hour, peak season existing traffic, project traffic, future background traffic, and future total traffic will be quantified and displayed in appropriate figures based upon the procedures described below. Existing Traffic Conditions Existing p.m. peak hour intersection turning movement volume counts will have been conducted within one year from the time the analysis is performed, and will be modified appropriately using the peak season adjustment factors for Pinellas County published by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to determine existing traffic conditions, unless alternative peak season adjustment factors are provided by Pinellas County. In addition, any current construction projects will be noted and the maintenance of traffic effect will be manually adjusted based upon engineering judgment. Future Background Traffic Conditions Future, non-project traffic volumes will be the sum of existing peak hour, peak season traffic volumes and background traffic. Background traffic will consist of a combination of background traffic growth and/or approved (vested) development traffic volumes as appropriate. The background traffic growth rate will be calculated based upon historical traffic counts published by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). Vested development traffic information will be provided by Pinellas County. If specific vested development turning movement volumes are unavailable, the agreed upon background traffic growth rate will be used. Future Total Traffic Conditions The future total traffic conditions will be the sum of existing traffic volumes, future non-project traffic volumes, and project traffic. It will be used to evaluate the impacts of the proposed development in the buildout year of the project. Roadway Network Improvements 0 9 Roadway and intersection improvements to be included in the analysis will be identified based upon discussions with Pinellas County staff and a review of the appropriate jurisdictional agency work programs. Analysis Scenarios The analysis period will be conducted for the p.m. peak hour (which generally occurs from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.). Three scenarios will be analyzed in this study: existing conditions, future background traffic, and future total (with project) traffic. Link Analyses The FDOT Generalized Level of Service Tables (2002) will be used to evaluate the study area roadway segments for the p.m. peak hour. For roadway segments found to be deficient based upon a generalized analysis, more detailed analysis shall be provided using the most recent Highway Capacity Software and/or Synchro traffic analysis software as appropriate. Intersection Analyses The analysis of study area intersections will be based upon the p.m. peak hour, and will be conducted utilizing the most recent Highway Capacity Software and/or Synchro traffic analysis software as appropriate. Report A traffic impact statement detailing the traffic impacts of the development, and appropriate mitigation improvements, if any, will be provided to Pinellas County for review. The statement will include: the level of service of study area intersections and roadways for the p.m. peak hour, peak season of existing, future background traffic, and total traffic conditions; a review of turn lane requirements at project driveways; and proposed mitigation improvements. Parking Study Methodology Proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter Expansion Store #2081-05, Clearwater Pinellas County, Florida Introduction Per the request of the City of Clearwater, CPH Engineers, Inc. will conduct a parking study in support of the proposed expansion of a Wal-Mart Discount Store to a Wal-Mart Supercenter located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of N. US Highway 19 and NE Coachman Road in Pinellas County. The project consists of an existing freestanding store of approximately 122,000 square feet. It is proposed to expand the existing store to freestanding discount superstore of approximately 160,000 square feet. This is a proposed increase of approximately 40,000 square feet. The methodology is based on the parking study done for Sam's Club located on the south side of Gulf to Bay Boulevard between N. US Highway 19 and Bypass Drive in Pinellas County. Data Collection A parking lot occupancy count will be conducted on a Friday during the usual peak times (11:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.) of the week and summarized for every 30 minute interval. A count will also be conducted on a Saturday (10:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) and summarized for every 15 minute interval. Analysis The data collected will be used to determine the parking demand for the peak period. The demand will be divided by the existing square footage to determine a parking demand ratio for the day counted. The sales for the corresponding day counted will be compared to the peak day sales and the parking demand ratio will be adjusted accordingly. A comparative analysis will be conducted against the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual, 3'd Edition, 2004. . Report A report documenting the data collection effort, analysis, and findings will be developed for review and sufficiency approval. 2006 Existing Land Use Trip Generation based on Driveway Counts P.M. Peak Hour Project Trip Generation E n Directional Gross (Driveway) Internal C t E Pass-By Net-New Project Traffic Existing Land Uses 9 ITE q Scale (X) Units Rate or Distribution Volumes ap ure Volumes xternal Traffic Volumes Traffic V l Volumes Code Equation o umes Rate Enter Exit Enter Exit Total (T) % Trips Enter Exit Total % Trips Enter Exit Total Free Standing Discount NA 1 1 St i i F 0 42% 58% 184 250 434 7.0% 30 171 233 404 17.0% 69 142 193 335 ore , ,r ._ Walk In Bank 911 33.15 6.5 k.s.f 33.15 50% 50% 108 108 215 6.0% 13 102 101 203 0.0% 0 102 101 203 Fast Food Restaurant w Drive Thru 934 34.64 2.5 k.s.f 34.64 52% 48% 45 42 87 25.0% 22 34 31 65 50.0% 33 17 15 32 Jiffy Lube 941 5.19 3 lanes T=13.86(X) 55% 45% 9 7 16 38,0% 6 6 4 10 0.0% 0 6 4 10 TOTAL 346 406 752 9.4% 71 313 369 682 15.0% 102 267 313 580 Notes: 1. ksf = 1000 square feet Rate determined based on 2006 Net (Walmart ) Driveway Trips obtained from Count Data 0 2008 Proposed Land Use Trip Generation based on Driveway Counts P.M. Peak Hour Project Trip Generation E n Directional Gross (Driveway) Internal C t E l T Pass-By Net-New Project Traffic ITE q Rate or Distribution Volumes ap ure xterna raffic Volumes Traffic Volumes Existing Uses g Code Scale (X) Units Equation Volumes Volumes Rate Enter Exit Enter Exit Total (T) % Trips Enter Exit Total % Trips Enter Exit Total Free Standing Discount NA ri o 42% 58% 239 331 570 6.0% 34 225 311 536 **28% 150 162 224 386 Superstore O I Walk In Bank 911 33.15 6.5 k.s.f 33.15 50% 50% 108 108 215 8.0% 17 99 99 198 0.0% 0 99 99 198 Fast Food Restaurant w Drive Thru 934 34.64 2.5 k.s.f 34.64 52% 48% 45 42 87 25.0% 22 34 31 65 50.0% 33 17 15 32 Jiffy Lube 941 5.19 3 lanes T=13.86(X) 55% 45% 9 7 16 38.0% 6 6 4 10 0.0% 0 6 4 10 TOTAL 401 487 888 8.9% 79 364 445 809 22.6% 183 284 342 626 Notes: 1. ksf = 1000 square feet Rate determined based on 2006 Net (Walmart ) Driveway Trips obtained from Count Data " Pass By Rate for Free Standing Discount Superstore based on ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition • • Trip Generation Summary Existing Trip Generation based on Driveway Volumes Eqn Directional Gross (Driveway) Volumes Internal Capture External Traffic Volumes Pass-By Traffic Net-New Project Traffic Land Use ITE Code Scale (X) Units Rate or Distribution Volumes Volumes Volumes Equation Rate Enter Exit Enter Exit Total ('? % Trips Enter Exit Total % Trips Enter Exit Total Free Standing NA . 5' w k p 11 .' k _ Dnv - I 15 42% 58% 184 250 434 7.0 % 30 171 233 404 17.0% 69 142 193 335 Discount Store _ ) -lT C w 1 Proposed Trip Generation based on Driveway Volumes Eqn Directional Gross (Driveway) Volumes Intern al Capture External Traffic Volumes Pass-By Traffic Net-New Project Traffic Scenario ITE Code Scale (X) nits Rate or Distribution o' ume s Volumes Volumes Equation Rate Enter Exit Enter Exit Total F Trips Enter Exit Total % Trips Enter Exit Total Free Standing NA 42% 58% 239 331 570 34 225 311 536 •'28% 150 162 224 386 Discount Su erstore Trips Due to Proposed Expansion Driveway Volume Based - Proposed - Existing] - Trips Due to Expansion Ex ansion Scenario [ Pro osed - Existin ] Directional Gross Drivewa Volues m Internal Ca lure External Traffic Volumes Pass-B Traffic Net-New Project Traffic p p g Enter Exit Enter Exit Tota l % Tri s Enter Exit Total % Trips Enter Exit Total Free Standing Discount Superstore Ex ansion 55 81 136 4 54 78 132 81 20 31 51 Notes: Rate determined based on 2006 Net (Walmart ) Driveway Trips obtained from Count Data •' Pass By Rate for Free Standing Discount Superstore based on ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd Edition L-7 • s • nt Road n Road Drew Street 0 0 at Road n Road Irew Street -5m PM 11MIIWI ?a,-W- CP L? lUo ) l/? llyg ?. . fwdf C ? l? rtsficaPher-??c f ' V V i? 56 2- - 78 S?p 2- 1 Ll;?3 ( J b 2- ?¢ s" p ?- ?! 3 2?8 c>23 ?3 E • TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY STATEMENT Proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter Expansion Store #2081-05, Clearwater Pinellas County, Florida Introduction This methodology statement outlines procedures and data that will be used to evaluate the projected traffic impacts of a proposed expansion of a Wal-Mart Store to a Wal-Mart Super center located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of US 19 and NE Coachman in Pinellas County. The project consists of an existing freestanding store of approximately 122,000 square feet. It is proposed to expand the existing store to freestanding discount superstore of approximately 160,000 square feet. This is a proposed increase of approximately 40,000 square feet. Future Analysis (Buildout) Year The future analysis (build out) year for the project will be assumed to be 2008. Trip Generation Trip generation potential for the proposed expansion will be based upon data collected at the existing stores' driveways (tube counts and turning movement counts), as well as equations/rates documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE), Trip Generation, 7th Edition for a Freestanding Discount Superstore (Land Use Code 813). Out parcel trip generation will be determined by using the equations/rates documented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE), Trip Generation, 7th Edition. The net change in external new trips will be the difference between the existing traffic volumes collected versus the traffic volumes projected using ITE equations. Pass-by rates will be determined based on those published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE), Trip Generation, 7th Edition for the corresponding land uses. For the existing traffic counts, internal capture will be accounted for and reflected in the existing, external driveway volumes. Trip Distribution Trip distribution of project traffic will be based upon the distribution of existing turning movement counts at study area intersections. Specific assignment of trips at the proposed project driveways will be based upon engineering judgment and the distribution of existing traffic volumes. Transportation Impact Study Area The study area is proposed to include the following study intersections (as identified in the attached site plan and site location map): • Sunset Point & US 19; • Stag Run Boulevard & SB Frontage Road; 0 0 • NE Coachman Road & US 19; • US 19 & Drew St; • North Driveway & Stag Run Boulevard; • East Driveway & Southbound Frontage Road; • South East Driveway & NE Coachman Road; and • South West Driveway & NE Coachman Road. In addition, the following study roadway segments will be included: • US 19 from Sunset Point Dr. to NE Coachman; • US 19 from NE Coachman to Drew St; and • NE Coachman Road from Old Coachman Road to US 19. Traffic Volume Conditions The p.m. peak hour, peak season existing traffic, project traffic, future background traffic, and future total traffic will be quantified and displayed in appropriate figures based upon the procedures described below. Existing Traffic Conditions Existing p.m. peak hour intersection turning movement volume counts will have been conducted within one year from the time the analysis is performed, and will be modified appropriately using the peak season adjustment factors for Pinellas County published by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to determine existing traffic conditions, unless alternative peak season adjustment factors are provided by Pinellas County. In addition, any current construction projects will be noted and the maintenance of traffic effect will be manually adjusted based upon engineering judgment. Future Background Traffic Conditions Future, non-project traffic volumes will be the sum of existing peak hour, peak season traffic volumes and background traffic. Background traffic will consist of a combination of background traffic growth and/or approved (vested) development traffic volumes as appropriate. The background traffic growth rate will be calculated based upon historical traffic counts published by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). Vested development traffic information will be provided by Pinellas County. If specific vested development turning movement volumes are unavailable, the agreed upon background traffic growth rate will be used. Future Total Traffic Conditions The future total traffic conditions will be the sum of existing traffic volumes, future non-project traffic volumes, and project traffic. It will be used to evaluate the impacts of the proposed development in the buildout year of the project. Roadway Network Improvements Roadway and intersection improvements to be included in the analysis will be identified based upon discussions with Pinellas County staff and a review of the appropriate jurisdictional agency work programs. Analysis Scenarios The analysis period will be conducted for the p.m. peak hour (which generally occurs from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.). Three scenarios will be analyzed in this study: existing conditions, future background traffic, and future total (with project) traffic. Link Analyses The FDOT Generalized Level of Service Tables (2002) will be used to evaluate the study area roadway segments for the p.m. peak hour. For roadway segments found to be deficient based upon a generalized analysis, more detailed analysis shall be provided using the most recent Highway Capacity Software and/or Synchro traffic analysis software as appropriate. Intersection Analyses The analysis of study area intersections will be based upon the p.m. peak hour, and will be conducted utilizing the most recent Highway Capacity Software and/or Synchro traffic analysis software as appropriate. Report A traffic impact statement detailing the traffic impacts of the development, and appropriate mitigation improvements, if any, will be provided to Pinellas County for review. The statement will include: the level of service of study area intersections and roadways for the p.m. peak hour, peak season of existing, future background traffic, and total traffic conditions; a review of turn lane requirements at project driveways; and proposed mitigation improvements. - d /usu°Sasnµ ugy?nyruo,? " as 900E Ntlld'73%3 :alld mum '-N tor :slap nv/' Panaddtl uolslnay wa 'oN Q ? SIiF' 90110 80110 99119 aN aouv=uwunv/a alu?l(NiaJ dQf :R9 Poddtl Wd0 :R9 P"a 2 W1S :iV U/naaQ 1d'HaIVAWM390-190L'ON ONINOtltll 2J31 N30N3c rns .-?'/?¦vm Laves' ¦ ?-dS M F.miy33 .O9-YL .aleaS 9o1L0 slap :RgPaufilsa0 mm ...N NINIOtl NYId 311S 33lLIWWOO 3ALM03X3 c N lea4S W €? wq « 5? off ; ~? ?_ 0 W 3. 1911 ;w ? 4? g 6? ?4g d " ,g a W" L,? ¢8Y3 ?zoe >b><4u8 c a YS u ? t C?H o ?r2 G ?u 8 g ? ? ow ' ` LL m 33 ku m? 4 - ? w ?? f`II 8 Q < e ° 9 N h g$ 8?°? "< gw ?? ?`?° gwO N< o °C. 121€ g°La $° ?? ° g < ? w 9i 8 ZU g 9 < k?8° a >4 R° °8og v< w? i H <op 3 a? Eli yv<°i = ?? g st} 8 tlfi: E° < o"? °a°9 -H g9 g a o g ?'>wn Hg ?? e1 w °? o- g=? .3° Hw W- S zs ? ° u gQ k'9 s oo?g owwQ o a, ..2I<9 a- = 3 z g= o<" k 9<?; %o a r F ? ? p " HO ? d ? gg 5 w? ?° mL'tw ? 'z w ? F yes g '?`? ? n w€ '? xo ra <izmo ° ?€ 4 s E&mo -. ? ?' i?w a g s ? i ?8 r < eG0 g C3 H? w < g 38 ?r 3m O w N 2zmLLR ` ° wg" ' Z 6 - y Zg s ¢o 43 w Q?? M8 1" ? w " 98°0 H-H unn! w G€ b o ° N N B J< ? " 8t 3? 8= ? > U O 5 " m m u d" zk 8 S n '1 s r?o"o"" ° o" w " "a P oW = < H 2- gp ? H.- Res 56 g! ??` n o ? PS _ W ?? w € ggci >w'w § F S ad ?U-1 8 $' ? gE UPS 4ww. g? 5 ww 5„ k'b°m ?y =wa g?a FF sH ° W E"HO 8 O grc" ? gg g8 0 gp ?' Yes ~ O? 63 J¢° ?i 5 Kw jtl"'?ZO LLw 3 o F' c E <? ? " ? e 9r 9$ ? F U g e J " LL $ a o?tE3 s? io -" $o ow ea5 U"$? ?zw gig ? i i - F `? owes UP y 6: sF ?u y yma t F ?4 ??Yw ul? U i ?'°?? i F ?rc? is 8LL0 i ?? Q 8 °w = a e ??a + u . n3 g ?a H ?o aNO a j €???uu ?? " € w S w W6O w a F a w? ?g ?a _ o 8 10 ? S ? q w C?3 F rc a ° 3 ob ?? K8 bo i m ° < - ' f - . a Nu o " « «u_ a O F 33 « « F - « .- - t 0 o O 1 1 Naes g 1$191 f ? ? ? W ? ? V aaa3 a ?$ O a w ? w d? D 4 " 2 ? e y a e > ? m 4? ?"?yyg i y `e O a Sy 9& & o O ff' X33 8 tl tl O 3 Fes oa u: a? @ a ~ Z g3 °8 °? ` " $ v: ' w ° ¢ ? F F ?, -? 9$ @ g 9 a mg !r ?3„ 4 z Zin ° 7 O 37 ? o ° ? $Yaa `^ $ $ 0 ? $ o i S n I p f 9 ? f _ sm 3 w }' Z a '? n. eB a d 8 < :? iB ; a y L O W O . G C3Ca 1 xz i a z i3a ti BEt $ 1 N " Q a u ° ga B Q u" 1 L L F S ??a ° i r N ?' 8 w 9 .8 s °o O a@5 `e? ?? .5 '? lei e?pp3 iv o W ym ° ?? sg O ° ZWaIY IMS a a & y ll a O i ggg ? o = ?'Y , l? F s 4 O O W O 2 0 0 ¢ Dog 0 o 6 n m,- .i _ - ' -• V ' UI - - - - - - - • \ • SWTIaWXOFaan.ua=noes _ .N... a\\\\\\\\\\ ?8u ??? ... a\\\\\\\\ \\ \ \\\\\\a?v\\\\\\\\\\\ 5 \\...\..\5d \\\\\\\\\\ _ ?\\\\\\\\O ?\\\\\\\\\? ....\....... r \\\\\\ ?\\\\\O ?\\\\\\\\\\\? \1 it \\\\\\\\\ r\\\\\\\\\\ - \\\\\\ I'.\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\ \\ \\\\\,\ Q\\\\?\\\\\1 ?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\1 ?' \ \ . \\\\\\ ?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \ IN, 11 \ \\\\\ \ \. i \ d It X \ H\ \ \ \ . \07,x\ \ \\, ? a. . a0U . ? 3 Q \ . H y. . • - SIT -0 n - .CL - -0 \\ Jr- \ - - _-_- .-_ - - Jr- . l fl 3€:'' \ \ I LL r ,/ , \ 1 I \ I 4 ? m - ?g \ \ u \\\ \\ 3 1 W oiRig _ ? \ \\\.,? ? \ n ? \ . wa ?\ a \ \ ? i I \ \ w ._ 1;a \ I I 1 Ia o- a ?`o \ a \ N 2 1 \ \\ '. t I 1 I I I ' 1 I - _ 1 r • • Wells, Wayne From: Garriott, Kevin Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 8:06 AM To: 'Ispurgeon@RHAIA.com' Cc: Wells, Wayne; Walker, Jeff Subject: FW: Meeting Questions WM Expansions Clearwater FL submittal We accept permit applications after all the discussions at DRC are over the drawings accurately reflect what was agreed upon during that process. Submittals for construction permit before that will not have accurate drawings submitted for permit. After you receive your Development Order (DO), please feel free to submit for construction permit anytime. Thank you for your communication with us. Kevin Garriott City of Clearwater Development and Neighborhood Services 727-562-4567 -----Original Message----- From: Walker, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 12:24 PM To: 'Larae Tucker'; Garriott, Kevin Subject: RE: Meeting Questions WM Expansions Clearwater FL submittal I forwarded your question to the B.O., as he is better qualified to answer a question of this nature. Regards, Jeff Walker -----Original Message----- From: Larae Tucker [mailto:lspurgeon@RHAAIA.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 10:56 AM To: Walker, Jeff Subject: RE: Meeting Questions WM Expansions Clearwater FL submittal Good morning Jeff, I am ready to submit my building plans for review. It is my understanding from our civil engineer that we do not have full DRC approval yet and cannot attend another meeting until 10/5/06. Is there a possibility that we can submit our building plans to get the review started while we are waiting for the next DRC meeting? Please let me know. Thanks larae --Original Message----- From: Jeff.Walker@myClearwater.com [mailto:Jeff.Walker@myClearwater.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 11:12 AM To: Larae Tucker Subject: [SPAM] Meeting Questions Larae, A quick follow-up on a few of your plumbing questions in regards to the new plumbing code, which we are still getting up to speed on. 1 The old code (2001) allowed Seep-sealed traps. The new code no longer allows deep-sealed traps and requires, for those applications where seal lose due to evaporation is an issue, the use of a trap seal primer. The new code allows a combination drain vent plumbing line but there are exclusions. Best check section 912 for what can and cannot drain to a combination drain vent. The indirect waste drain connection (air gap at floor drain) by code does requires a P trap at the fixture/sink drain if the developed length of the indirect drain line exceeds 2' horizontal length or 4' total developed length. Of course, a trap is also required at the floor drain/floor sink for sewer gas, see 802.2. Regards, Jeff walker 2 f 0 CITY OF CLARWATER Clearwater PLANNING DEPARTMENT - UNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 0 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576 W W W .MYCLEARWATER. COM August 02, 2006 Dan Moyer 3277a Fruitville Road Sarasota, Fl 34237 RE: FLS2006-07044 -- 23106 US HIGHWAY 19 N -- Letter of Incompleteness Dear Dan Moyer : The Planning Staff has entered your application into the Department's filing system and assigned the case number: FLS2006-07044. After a preliminary review of the submitted documents, staff has determined that the application is Incomplete with the following comments. 1. Provide on Page 1 of the application the Project Valuation. 2. Submit a TREE INVENTORY, prepared by a "certified arborist", of all trees 8" DBH or greater, reflecting size, canopy (drip lines) and condition of such trees. A tree survey has been submitted and a tree status plan (Sheet TR-1 - TR-3) with the existing trees numbered, with their type and caliper, has been submitted, but the drip line and condition of the trees has not been shown/submitted. 3. Delineate and dimension all required perimeter landscape buffers. 4. Civil and landscape plans must show the sight visibility triangles per Clearwater Code. 5. Provide irrigation notes on the landscape plans. 6. Plans need to be dimensioned, including distances from all property lines to pavement and other structures, width of landscape islands and landscape parking row dividers, sidewalks, width of drive aisle on the west side of the building, loading areas/docks, width of drive aisle on the east side of the building, width of handicap parking spaces and adjacent access aisle, dumpster enclosures, etc. 7. Landscape plans (Sheets L-2 & L-31ndicate the location of proposed landscape materials, but does not indicate the quantities of trees. 8. Depict by shading or crosshatching all parking lot interior landscaped areas. 9. Provide in the Site Data table the square footage of the vehicular use area (VUA), the square footage of interior landscaping area provided, the percentage of the interior landscape area provided in relation to the VUA (minimum of 10% of the VUA). 10. Must submit a COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE PROGRAM application, as minimum code is not being met at least for perimeter buffers (potentially interior landscaping and foundation landscaping), including the justification for the reductions requested. Landscape associated with the Comprehensive Landscape Program shall exceed minimum Code requirements to offset the areas where minimum Code will not be met. 11. Provide on Sheet C-3 the dimensions of the lot lines. 12. Show the location of existing public and private utilities, including fire hydrants and water lines. 13. Show or indicate through notes the location of outside mechanical equipment and all required screening (including a/c units). Letter of Incompleteness - FLS2006-07044 - 23106 US HIGHWAY 19 N c LL CITY OF CLL*RWATER o ClearWater PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 0 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576 W W W.MYCLEARWATER. COM August 02, 2006 14. Code Section 3-1202.E.2 requires a foundation landscape area of a minimum of five feet in width and must be planted in accordance with this Section. Proposed key legend #33 on Sheet C-3 indicates the provision of such foundation landscaping on the landscape plan, yet the landscape plan does not show such. 15. Indicate in the Site Data table on Sheet C-3 the total square footage of the paved area (vehicular use area) (existing and proposed). 16. Building elevations need to indicate (dimension) the building height (to highest top of roof deck) and the height of all parapets and other wall extensions (from roof deck). 17. As previously discussed with our Traffic Operations of our Engineering Department, a Traffic Impact Study is required to be submitted (Note: The line on the application where a study is not required is initialed, but is noted that "will be provided under separate cover"). 18. The application on Page 6 of 7 is signed by John E. Clarke, but the signature is not notarized (alternately, since Mr. Clarke, on behalf of Wal-Mart, the owner, has appointed CPH Engineers, Inc. as an agent, someone in CPH could sign the application on Page 6). Section 4-202 of the Community Development Code states that if an application is deemed incomplete, the deficiencies of the application shall be specified by Staff. No further development review action shall be taken until the deficiencies are corrected and the application is deemed complete. Please resubmit by 9:00 am on Tuesday, August 8, 2006. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 727-562-4504 or Wayne.Wells@myclearwater.com. Sincerely yours, 0 f" If Nj?. - I-\ . Wa-L- Wayne Wells Planner III Letter of Incompleteness - FLS2006-07044 - 23106 US HIGHWAY 19 N 0 0 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 6:44 PM To: 'dmoyer@cp.hengineers.com' Subject: FLS2006-07044, 23106 US Hwy 19 N, Wal-Mart Dan - Attached is a Letter of Incompleteness for the above referenced project. The original letter will be mailed to you. I am also attaching a Comprehensive Landscape Program application, which I think you will need. I will fax you shortly the letter from the Coachman Ridge homeowners. Wayne Wells letter of Comprehensive completeness 8.2.0.Landscape Progra... FAX COVER MEMO CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 100 S. MYRTLE AVE. CLEARWATER, FL 33756 (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4865 TO: FAX: 141- 3(,0gr-' f'-zZq Phone: --5 7 7 1 FROM: VJU-?,C\a- \A)&?\S Phone: 72-7 ` -5- ?O 2 - g S? DATE:_ RE: FL s Z.o o (o - b 7 0 Z-31 ID b US 15 MESSAGE: _? NUMBER OF PAGES(INCLUDING THIS PAGE) ' ?t11?,,,f??i?1?A?4?14? . • Aug. 02 2006 06:46PM YOUR LOGO YOUR FAX NO. 7275624865 NO OTHER FACSIMILE START TIME USAGE TIME MODE PAGES RESULT 01 919413654779 Aug.02 06:45PM 00'54 SND 02 OK TO TURN OFF REPORT, PRESS 'MENU' #04. THEN SELECT OFF BY USING '+' OR '-'. FOR FAX ADVANTAGE ASSISTANCE, PLEASE CALL 1-800-HELP-FAX (435-7329). rage i or i Subj: Coachman Ridge Summary of Survtys Date: 5/22/2006 3:38:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: RAL2000 To: VINMAN2486 Coachman Ridge Summary of Surmys 1. Original Site Plan (item #8) called to have Wal-Mart "mitigate the 'boxlike' appearance" which was not done. The time to correct this is during the new construction (i.e., Sam's Club's new elevation on Gulf-to-Bay). 2. The compactor for recycling cardboard boxes was to be enclosed with a 6ft. high opaque fence or wall. This has not been done. 3. TRAFFIC - Intersections of US 19 & NE Coachman and NE Coachman & Old Coachman are already rated poorly. Going east on NE Coachman, you have one lane fanning into 4 lanes (2 left, I straight and 1 right) This is already backed up. People turn left into Wal-mart through the exit only. People cross the double yellow lines to get into the northbound left turn lanes. At times, traffic going east & west (at both intersections) are backed up to El Tair. How will this be addressed? 4. NOISE - Original Site Plan did not allow pick-up or deliveries between I OPM - 8AM, dumpster pick-up between 9PM - 9AM or to have parked trucks running behind the building between 9PM - 9AM. According to the survey, Wal-Mart has not followed these provisions. There will be more trucks to deliver groceries on a daily basis. More trash pick-ups. How will this be addressed? 5. GARBAGE - Wal-Mart will be producing more food garbage. This will attract rats, raccoons, seagulls and crows. How will they address this problem? 6. LITTER - Wal-Mart has a poor record of keeping trash and debris picked up in the front of the store. Trash blows into the protected wet lands. Will they be more diligent in keeping the property around the store clean? 7. LANDSCAPING - This has always been a low priority in the past. Bushes were not trimmed, bushes died and were not replaced, garden beds were not weeded and trash is not picked up around the shrubs and trees. How will this be handled? Note: They have recently mulched and trimmed bushes. 8. STORAGE - Wal-Mart has parked tractor trailers behind the building for additional storage. Is this something that needs a permit? V-6?, Z.OUp °, C- c?. Co,v, Monday, May 22, 2006 America Online: VINMAN2486 July 3, 2006 Sherry Watkins City of Clearwater Planning Department 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 Phone: 727-562-4567 Fax: 727-562-4865 RE: Project Name: Wal-Mart Supercenter #2081-05 Expansion Subject: Flexible Standard Development Application Parcel #: 06/29/16/52413/000/0010 Address: 23106 US Hwy 19 N Sec/Twp/Rg e: 6/29S/1 6E Dear Ms. Watkins: 3277A Fruitville Road Sarasota, Florida 34237 Phone: 941.365.4771 Fax 941.365.4779 www.cphengineers.com Regarding the project referenced above, we respectfully request a Flexible Standard Development Permit for the 16.50 acre site. The project is located at 23106 US Hwy the northwest corner of Northeast Coachmen Road and US 19 in the City of Clearwater. There is currently an existing Wal-Mart store with approximately 119,530 SF and associated parking and utilities within the property limits. Under this permit we are redeveloping the existing Wal-Mart and developing the vacant land directly north of the existing Wal-Mart building and providing additional parking to serve the building. Please review the enclosed documents. Per coordination with Mr. Ben Elbo the traffic study will be provided under a separate cover as soon as it is complete. In support of this submittal please find the following items enclosed: 1. Check in the amount of $475.00 for the application fee. 2. One original and fourteen (14) copies of the original application. 3. Three (3) copies of the fire flow calculations/water study. 4. Two (2) sets of stormwater reports and SWFWMD permit exemption requests. 5. One (1) original signed and notarized Comprehensive Sign Program Application, three copies of folded plans, and application fee in the amount of $300.00. 6. Fifteen (15) sets of signed and sealed plans (including survey). 7. Fifteen (15) sets of reduced color site plans. 8. Fifteen (15) sets of landscape plans and reduced color landscape plans. 9. Fifteen (15) sets of building elevation drawings and reduced building elevations. If you have any questions or comments please contact us at 941-365-4771. Sincerely, ORIGINAL Dan Moyer RECEIVED CPH Engineers, Inc. JUL 05 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER Wells, Wayne From: RAL2000@aol.com Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 10:38 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Re: Walmart @ NE Coachmen Road Wayne: Thanks for the update. I'm glad you are keeping them on their toes. I heard the bulldozer today removing some of the trees. I glad they are saving the big tree in the NW corner. I hope they are going to replace some of the landscaping along Stag Run because it has been neglected for years and needs lots of help to make it presentable. But I will keep a watch and let the powers that be to stay on top of it. Gloria In a message dated 10/12/2009 2:21:09 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, Wayne.Wells(o)-myClearwater.com writes: Dan - Thank you for the good news. I am sure the neighborhood to the west is pleased, but will probably monitor construction and the trees/landscaping being preserved. This will an improvement to the Walmart site and for the surrounding neighborhood. As for amendments, I don't know if it is necessary for you to visit me, although that is totally possible. I can tell you that such changes will need to come through the building permit process as an amendment to the issued permit (eight site and landscape plans; plus any building construction plans). You can shoot me a PDF to look at to see if there are any major issues prior to submitting for the site and building permits. Once you collect your notes, send me an email with the proposed changes and then we can decide if a meeting is necessary. Wayne From: Moyer, Daniel [mailto:dmoyer@cphengineers.com] Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 1:57 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Romero, Carlos Subject: Walmart @ NE Coachmen Road Wayne, good afternoon. This site is currently under construction and progressing well. Walmart is interested in approaching the City for some minor plan modifications. The main item that we would like to address is the addition of a second pallet/bale storage area to be located at the southwest corner of the site. There are some other little things too, although I need to go through my notes and see what they are. What do we need to do in order to po these changes? I can meet you at yourfe to go over these changes if that would be beneficial. Please let me know, thanks! Daniel P. Moyer, P.E., LEED AP CPH Engineers, Inc. 3277A Fruitville Road, Suite 2 Sarasota, Florida 34237 Office: (941) 365-4771 Cell: (813) 841-5851 • Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 1:48 PM To: 'RAL2000@aol.com' Subject: BCP2007-11185 - 23106 US Highway 19 N - Wal-Mart Supercenter FYI From: Moyer, Daniel [mailto:dmoyer@cphengineers.com] Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 1:14 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: RE: BCP2007-11185 - 23106 US Highway 19 N - Wal-Mart Supercenter Yes, this project is currently out to bid. I actually have a meeting with the contractors tomorrow. I would imagine work will begin within a month Dan Moyer, P.E., LEED AP CPH Engineers, Inc. Office: (941) 365-4771 Cell: (813) 841-5851 From: Wayne.Wells@myClearwater.com [mailto:Wayne.Wells@myClearwater.com] Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 1:11 PM To: Moyer, Daniel Subject: BCP2007-11185 -.23106 US Highway 19 N - Wal-Mart Supercenter Dan - It appears from the activities and review comments on the above referenced Building Permit that it is ready to be issued. The adjacent neighborhood is anxious to see dirt moving. Apparently some landscaping and trees along Stag Run are not being cared for, especially the big oak on the northwest that the neighborhood wanted saved. Can you enlighten me as to the status? Is it out to bid? Thanks. Wayne M. Wells, AICP Planner III City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756-5520 Phone: 727-562-4504 Fax: 727-562-4865 0 • Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 1:48 PM To: 'RAL2000@aol.com' Subject: Super Walmart Watch for the forwarded email coming at you in a minute. From: RAL2000@aol.com [mailto:RAL2000@aol.com] Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 12:14 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Super Walmart Hi Wayne: Hope you are enjoying your summer and that the City let you get away for awhile to relax. Just checking in on our favorite subject - Walmart. Have they submitted for building permits yet? Or are they already out for bids? The store has been very negligent in caring for their current landscaping especially along Stag Run. There are dead bushes, debris and vines everywhere. And it is overgrown all around the big oak tree that we fought to save. I don't know who to contact in the city to have them check into this matter. If you could be so kind as to give me that person's name I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks for all your help. It has been a pleasure to work with you. Sincerely, Gloria Losi Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 8:59 AM To: 'RAL2000@aol.com' Subject: Super Wal-Mart Gloria - Sorry for the late response. When there are many emails that come in quickly, emails just get pushed down, then you don't see it for a while and then you refind it and respond like I am now. The most recent plans were resubmitted on March 25th and I completed my review on May 2nd. The plan still shows the retention pond and the saved 54" oak tree. They are getting close to obtaining their permit. There was a lady who worked for Wal-Mart that called me and talked to me about phasing of the improvements. When I talked to the engineer for the project and told him what she had said, he said that was news to him as they had just met to discuss scheduling and phasing and none of what the lady had said was correct. Potentially, the store personnel may not know what is going on. Keep in touch with me and let me know when you hear something that is a concern. I will check it out and let you know what I know from the City-side. Wayne -----Original Message----- From: RAL2000@aol.com [mailto:RAL2000@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 1:01 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Super WalMart Hi Wayne: I was just in WalMart talking to Marcus, the manager, and got some info that I wanted to pass by you. He said that he saw some updated plans about the expansion - like the retention pond was eliminated as was an outside "pit" area to allow for additional parking and the side road was now not changing. So my question is, can they do these thing without the City's OK and could they then decide to take out my big oak tree that I wanted to save? Please let me know when you get a chance. Hope is well with you. Thanks, Gloria Losi Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides. 5/12/2008 • • Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 5:36 PM To: Jackson, Kari Subject: Wal-Mart Kari - The existing Wal-Mart store at 23106 US Highway 19 N was approved October 31, 2007, to be expanded to a Super Wal- Mart store through Case No. FLS2006-07044 (see attached Development Order). A building permit to construct the building and site improvements has been submitted for review (BCP2007-11185). Should you have any additional questions, see me. Wayne US Hwy19N J6 FLS2006-071 -----Original Message----- From: Jackson, Kari Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 1:54 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Wal Mart Hi Wayne - I have an inquiry concerning the Wal Mart on 19 & 590. Is this store being considered for a super Wal Mart? Michael Lopez said you were the man for this question. Thanks Wayne, Kari Conditions Associated With FLS2006-07044 23106 US HIGHWAY 19 N +r?/'1 ? y?lt9 Landscape Wayne Wells, AICP 727-562-4504 04/01/2007 10/15/07 - WW Include as a condition of approval. 8/22/08 - WW No "Note" is found on the plans, regardless of the response sheet submitted. Plans need to show how gaps in the landscaping will be filled in. With the construction of the pallat/bale storage area, landscaping in this area will be wiped out. Need a continuous hedge along this western area with trees at least every 35 feet. On the west side of the pallat/bale storage area, accent trees need to be planted to aid with this screening/buffering. This will ALSO be condition of approval for compliance prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy/Completion. 4/11/07 - WW Sheets L-2 and L-3 - Need to include a "Note" along the west side regarding the preservation of existing landscaping for screening purposes (to meet neighborhood's desire to retain such) and may need to fill in gaps. Technically, there should be a hedge along this west side. 10/16/2007 Include as a condition of approval in the Development Order: That, prior to the issuance of any permits, the landscape plans be amended to include the following: a. a continuous hedge along the property lines of the outparcel in the southwest corner of the site; b. upgrading the interior islands south/southwest of the garden center with shrubs and groundcovers; and c. upgrading the new interior islands north of the building with shrubs and groundcovers. Parks & Recs Condition Chris Hubbard Not Met Not Met 11/16/2006 10/15/07 - WW Not Met Include as a condition of approval. 11/16/06 - CJ H The Public Art and Design Impact Fee may be due and payable on this project prior to issuance of building permit. This fee could be substantial and it is recommended that you contact Chris Hubbard at 727-562-4837 to calculate the assessment. Storm Water Condition Phuong Vo 562-4752 Not Met 07/10/2007 The following to be addressed prior to building permit. 1. Pond has been modified, please provide revised drainage report reflecting the changes and show that the required volume is still met. General note: 1. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. 2. At building permit application, applicant shall submit all data again for review Traffic Eng Condition Steve Doherty 562-4773 10/30/2006 1. Provide rationale for northbound stop sign to the west of parking aisle 6. Not Met 1/2/07 - PEDESTRIAN CROSSING 2. Increase curb radius from 35 feet to 50 feet on NE driveway & US 19 South frontage road to allow for easier turns and less median conflicts. This median shall remain and not be demolished. 1/2/07 - MET - MEDIAN REMOVED.----- NOT MET 8/23/2007 B_E 3. Widen driveway on SW corner & SR-590 to a minimum of 36 feet. 1/2/07 - MET 4. Widen driveway on NE corner & US 19 South frontage road to be a minimum of 12 feet wide on both sides of the driveway median. 1/2/07 - MEDIAN REMOVED ----- NOT MET 8/23/2007 B_E Print Date: 10/16/2007 CaseConditons Page 1 of 5 • i FLS2006-07044 23106 US HIGHWAY 19 N Traffic Eng Condition Steve Doherty 562-4773 5. Change the identification of US 19 from State Road 590 to State Road 55. 1/2/07 - MET 6. Remove the identification of NE Coachman Rd. as County Road 2. 1/2/07 - MET 7. Provide truck delivery route on the plan for a truck having a wheel base length of 46 feet. 1/2/07 MET 8. Handicapped parking spaces do not comply with the current Florida Building Code Chapter 11 Section 11-4.6.2. Accessible route shall be designed such that users are not compelled to walk or wheel behind parked vehicles. NOT MET 8/23/2007 B_E 9. Provide rationale as to why landscape island changed for the SW driveway on NE Coachman Road. NOT MET 8/23/2007 B _E All of the above to be addressed prior to D.O. NOT MET The following to be addressed prior to building permit: 1/2/07 - ACKNOWLEDGED 1. Change "Left Turn Only" sign to "Right Turn Only" on north driveway & Stag Run Blvd. 2. Add painted-on two way directional arrows (item #39 on site plan) to the following parking areas: South of Pond #1, NE corner of property west of US 19 South frontage road, SW corner of property west of SW driveway & SR-590. 3. Identify the sign on the north side of parking aisle 3. Install a stop sign that faces east at this location. 4. Identify how "Employee Only Parking" spaces shall be delineated. 5. Change color of two-way directional arrows from yellow to white (item #39 on site plan) per MUTCD standards. 6. Identify the purpose of 2' wide loading zones for all curbed parking spaces. 7. Identify what the 18 inch solid yellow thermoplastic marking is referring to on sheet C-13. 8. Repaint median on driveway located at NE corner & US 19 South frontage road. 9. Install a "No Left Turn" sign on the second median to the west of the driveway on the SW corner & SR-590. 10. Change color of painted diagonal marking to yellow on the south side of the median cut which exists to the west of the driveway on the SW corner & SR-590. The marking shall be rounded on the end and not rectangular as indicated on the site plan. 11. Flip the direction of white diagonal marking on the north side of the median cut which exists to the west of the driveway on SW corner & SR-590. 12. Relocate four median signs that exist for northbound traffic that is exiting the driveway that lies immediately west of the intersection of US 19 & SR-590. Signs shall be relocated to the west to align with the aforementioned driveway. 13. Concrete median on the NE driveway shall be removed and replaced with a painted median and flex posts around the perimeter. Painted median shall be painted with diagonal lines to indicate correct direction of traffic flow. The width of the drive aisle from each side of the flex post perimeter to the curb shall be a minimum of 12 feet. 14. Furnish a stop bar, stop sign, and a "Right Turn Only" sign underneath the stop sign for the NE driveway. 15. If FDOT does not plan to install one-way signs facing the NE driveway & Stag Run Blvd. along the US 19 SB access road as part of the overpass then furnish these signs. Conditions 13 thru 15 acknowledged with Dan Moyer of CPH Engineers (941-365-4771). H_P General Note(s): 1) Applicant shall comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule and paid prior to 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. Print Date: 10/16/2007 CaseConditons Page 2 of 5 • FLS2006-07044 23106 US HIGHWAY 19 N Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727-562-4504 11/13/2006 10/15/07, 8/22/07, 8/14/07, 4/1/07 & 11/13/07 - WW Not Met Condition of approval to be included in the Development Order: That a vinyl windscreen shade cloth or other material acceptable to the Planning Department providing 100 percent opacity located on the fencing along the east, west and south elevations of the garden center be maintained in a clean and attractive appearance and shall be in good repair with the color the as the building (roycroft rose) or black, at all times; 11/13/2006 10/15/07, 8/22/07, 8/14/07, 4/1/07 & 11/13/07 - WW Not Met Condition of approval to be included in the Development Order: That the storage of materials within the enclosed garden center, including the racks, not be visible above any fencing, walls or other screening, and not exceed 15 feet in height; 11/13/2006 10/15/07, 8/22/07, 8/14/07, 4/1/07 & 11/13/07 - WW Not Met Condition of approval to be included in the Development Order: That the management of the store fully enforce the requirements/limitations of this Development Order at all times; 11/13/2006 10/15/07, 8/22/07, 8/14/07, 4/1/07 & 11/13/07 - WW Not Met Condition of approval to be included in the Development Order: That no outdoor storage or display of materials/goods be located beyond the limits of the approved garden center (e.g. in the parking lot, drive aisles, etc.), except as may be approved through approved Temporary Use Permits; 04/02/2007 10/15/07, 8/22/07 & 8/14/07 - WW Not Met Include as a condition of approval in the Development Order to maintain the landscaping on the west side of the site for screening purposes. 4/2/07 - WW If six-foot high wall is to be removed, need to revise the response to General Applicability criteria #6 on Page 2 of the application to talk about landscape screening on the west side. 04/02/2007 10/15/07, 8/22/07, 8/14/07 & 4/2/07 - WW Not Met Provide responses to the Memorandum of opposition submitted by Steve Sarnoff at the DRC meeting. 04/01/2007 10/15/07, 8/22/07, 8/14/07 & 4/1/07 - WW Not Met Condition of approval to be included in the Development Order: That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to and approved as part of Case FLS2006-07044; 04/01/2007 10/15/07 & 8/14/07 - WW Not Met Include shade cloth as a condition of a condition of approval in the Development Order. 4/1/07 - WW Elevations on Sheet A2 - Garden center pilasters and fencing are not shown (for clarity of the Wal-Mart building). Provide elevations of the garden center so that we can see what it is proposed to look like. Provide as much detail as possible. The color elevations help, but it is still hard to decipher. Provide information as to any shade cloth or other devices to be used to provide 100 percent opacity to obscure views of the materials stored in the garden center racks. 11/13/2006 10/15/07, 8/14/07, 4/1/07 & 11/13/07 - WW Not Met Condition of approval to be included in the Development Order: That a Declaration of Unity of Title document be recorded in the public records prior to the issuance of any permit. 10/26/2006 10/15/07 & 8/14/07 - WW Not Met Include as a condition of approval in the Development Order limiting the height of storage in the pallat/bale storage area. 2/16/07 - WW am confused by the plans and response. The response is the pallat and bale storage area will CaseConditons Print Date: 10/16/2007 Page 3 of 5 • FLS2006-07044 23106 US HIGHWAY 19 N Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727-562-4504 be screened by an "aesthetically pleasing fence", while on Sheet C-4, Key Note #20 indicates a six-foot high screen wall, with the finish/color to match the building's exterior and Key Note #40 refers to the pallat and bale storage area with "metal decorative fence (opaque long front gates)". Is it (a) a wall on three sides and a metal, opaque fence on the east side or (b) a fence all the way around? Prefer (a). If (a), need more detail as to the metal, opaque fence on the east side and where gates will be. Items stored within this area would not be allowed to be stacked higher than the wall/fence. 10/26/06 - WW Sheet C-4 - Key Legend #40 (pallat and bale storage area) - Must be screened from view by a six-foot high solid wall, finished on the outside similar to the building, with opaque gates. Items stored within this area would not be allowed to be stacked higher than the wall. Also, unclear why this storage area must occur at this location rather than farther south out of plain view of Stag Run Blvd. Revise. 10/26/2006 10/15/07 & 8/14/07 - WW Not Met Include as a condition of approval in the Development Order a continuous landscape screen of hedge and trees. 2/16/07 - WW Want to further discuss prior to approving the plan to ensure the neighborhood's desire is being met (keeping existing landscaping). May need to look to fill in gaps of landscaping along this west side (need to show on Sheets L-2 and L-3). May also desire to discuss a six-foot high solid fence in lieu of the wall, as a potential means of screening views. 10/26/06 - WW Sheet C-4 and C-4A - Key Legend #20 indicates there is a six-foot high wall intended to be constructed along the west property line. Show on Sheets C-4, C4A, L-2 and L-3 the wall. The wall within the front setback of Stag Run Blvd. cannnot exceed three feet in height. Suggest a detail of the proposed wall (cross section). Wall needs to be finished and painted the same as the building. Revise. 11/12/2006 10/15/07 - WW Not Met Include as a condition of approval: That, prior to the issuance of any permits, the recycling dumpster area in the southeast corner of the property be designed in accordance with Solid Waste Department requirements; 8/14/07 - WW Relocated Recycling Dumpsters are now shown within a landscape area, whereas before they were shown to be placed within a new paved area. Need to show placement of these dumpsters within a paved area (as before), as they will not function well within a landscape area. Landscape plans don't even recognize the Recycling Dumpsters at this location. Revise all appropriate sheets. 4/1/07 - WW Sheets C-4 & C-4A - Revise "Existing Recycling Dumpsters" to either "Proposed Recycling Dumpsters" or "Relocated Recycling Dumpsters", as they presently are located on the west side of the eastern driveway on NE Coachman Rd. 11/12/06 - WW Sheet C-4A - Show the recycling dumpsters in the southeast portion of the parking lot (takes up three parking spaces). 08/22/2007 10/15/07 - WW Not Met count 766 spaces provided. Condition approval to revise parking provided counts prior to the issuance of any permits. 8/22/07 - WW Sheet C-4 & C-4A - I count 767 parking spaces. Parking information on Sheet C-4 only indicates 757 spaces. Recount parking rows, as the plan indicates mis-counts in row counts. Revise total number of spaces being provided. Parking demand study validates 757 spaces minimum being provided. Because of this, additional landscape islands can be installed to break up existing parking rows that exceed 15 spaces in a row by removing one nine-foot wide space somewhat in CaseConditons Print Date: 10/16/2007 Page 4 of 5 0 0 FLS2006-07044 23106 US HIGHWAY 19 N Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727-562-4504 the middle of the parking row: a. row of 20 spaces facing NE Coachman Rd. between the two driveways; and b. row of 22 spaces adjacent to the wetland area on the north side. CaseConditons Print Date: 10/16/2007 Page 5 of 5 % • r Wells, Wayne From: Hubbard, Christopher Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 9:43 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: RE: FLS2006-07044, 23106 US Hwy 19 N, Wal-Mart Wayne, That sounds good to me. I've spoken with Jim Porter, their legal rep. and he is aware of the Ordinance, so it shouldn't be a problem. -Chris -----Original Message----- From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 8:37 AM To: Hubbard, Christopher Cc: Reid, Debbie Subject: RE: FLS2006-07044, 23106 US Hwy 19 N, Wal-Mart Chris - I checked with Kevin Garriott. They will obtain a Certificate of Completion rather than a Certificate of Occupancy. I can include in the Development Order a condition of approval such as: "That, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Completion, the developer satisfy the requirements of the Public Arts Ordinance (Clearwater Ordinance No. 7489-05)." How they qualify and/or satisfy the requirements will be up to them dealing with you. How does this sound? Wayne -----Original Message----- From: Hubbard, Christopher Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 5:02 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: FW: FLS2006-07044, 23106 US Hwy 19 N, Wal-Mart Wayne, Debbie Reid forwarded your message along to me. I read through the comments you have placed upstairs near Rm. 216. There is no mention of the developer meeting the Public Art Ordinance, and the timing of when the Ordinance must be met is dependant upon the developer's choice of how they will meet its requirements. That being said, it would behoove us to require the developer mention in their Development Agreement that they intend to satisfy the Public Art Ordinance prior to receiving their Certificate of Occupancy; we have extra leverage in enforcing the Ordinance this way. A sample text could read as: The developer of this project acknowledges the requirements of the Public Art Ordinance (Clearwater Ordinance No. 7489-05). It is agreed that prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy for this project, the developer will satisfy the requirements of the Public Art Ordinance through one of two options: 1) Allocate no less than one (1) percent of the project's aggregate job value to purchase and install approved on- site public artwork. The approved artwork must be installed before the Certificate of Occupancy will be issued. This option has a maximum required art expenditure of $200,000.00. -or- 2) Contribute no less than 0.75 percent of the project's aggregate job value to the City's Public Art Discretionary Fund in-lieu of on-site public art, to be used for the purchase and maintenance of public art on City-owned property. The in-lieu fee must be paid prior to the issuance of a Building Construction Permit. This option has a L ? 0 maximum required art expenditure of $200,000.00 Thanks, Chris -----Original Message----- From: Reid, Debbie Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 11:21 AM To: Hubbard, Christopher Subject: FW: FLS2006-07044, 23106 US Hwy 19 N, Wal-Mart Chris, when looking this one over for Wayne, noticed you had a hold on it but that you did not receive the email! Thought I better send it along to you. Thanks!! Debbie O -----Original Message----- From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 6:31 PM To: Albee, Rick; Buysse, Beverly A.; Buzzell, William; Doherty, Steve; Dougall-Sides, Leslie; Everitt, Steven; Glenn, Tom; Gluski, Roberta; Kader, Art; Keller, James; Kurleman, Scott; Morris, William D.; Reid, Debbie; Rice, Scott; Rickard, Leonard; Tefft, Robert; Thompson, Neil; Watkins, Sherry Subject: FLS2006-07044, 23106 US Hwy 19 N, Wal-Mart DRC Members - Plans were resubmitted for the Super Wal-Mart. I have placed two copies of the plans with responses to comments on top of the cabinets outside Rm. 216. If you wish, you may take a copy. Please review the resubmittal in light of conditions still showing as "not met" and let me know by email, after your review, if there are still comments to be addressed prior to the issuance of the Development Order or if there are conditions to include in the Development Order. Please review the resubmittal if possible by noon on Thursday, September 20, 2007. Thanks. Wayne 0 0 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 6:31 PM To: Albee, Rick; Buysse, Beverly A.; Buzzell, William; Doherty, Steve; Dougall-Sides, Leslie; Everitt, Steven; Glenn, Tom; Gluski, Roberta; Kader, Art; Keller, James; Kurleman, Scott; Morris, William D.; Reid, Debbie; Rice, Scott; Rickard, Leonard; Tefft, Robert; Thompson, Neil; Watkins, Sherry Subject: FLS2006-07044, 23106 US Hwy 19 N, Wal-Mart DRC Members - Plans were resubmitted for the Super Wal-Mart. I have placed two copies of the plans with responses to comments on top of the cabinets outside Rm. 216. If you wish, you may take a copy. Please review the resubmittal in light of conditions still showing as "not met" and let me know by email, after your review, if there are still comments to be addressed prior to the issuance of the Development Order or if there are conditions to include in the Development Order. Please review the resubmittal if possible by noon on Thursday, September 20, 2007. Thanks. Wayne • • Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 10:06 AM To: Elbo, Bennett Subject: RE: Walmart Regarding the driveway, yes I can. -----Original Message----- From: Elbo, Bennett Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 9:04 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: FW: Walmart Can you address our concerns with the driveway along NE Coachman Rd.? Thanks Wayne. -----Original Message----- From: Patni, Himanshu Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 8:56 AM To: Elbo, Bennett Subject: RE: Walmart I don't think either of us can make this meeting. There is already the Pre-DRC meeting and the Morton Plant one with Beth Moser. -----Original Appointment----- From: Elbo, Bennett Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 5:07 PM To: Patni, Himanshu Subject: Walmart When: Monday, August 27, 2007 2:00 PM-3:00 PM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). Where: Planning Department conference Rm 216. Bennett - We are meeting with Dan Moyer at 2:00 pm on Monday, August 27, 2007, in the Planning Department conference Rm 216. If you can join us, I would appreciate it. Wayne 9 0 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 8:35 AM To: Albee, Rick Subject: FLS2006-07044, 23106 US Hwy 19 - Wal-Mart Rick - You still have comments "not met" for this project from 1/10/07. Could you look at the resubmitted plans this week and see if your comments are "met"? Since plans are no longer on the cabinets, please see me for the plans. Thanks. Wayne Wells, Wayne From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 4:00 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: FW: REVISED PLAN SUBMITTED FOR WALMART 23106 US HWY 19 FYI -----Original Message----- - From: Doherty, Steve Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 3:51 PM To: Watkins, Sherry Cc: Rice, Scott; Vo, Phuong Subject: RE: REVISED PLAN SUBMITTED FOR WALMART 23106 US HWY 19 General Engineering, Traffic Engineering and Environmental, DONE. Stormwater conditions listed below need to be acknowledged by the applicant to change condition status to MET. Stormwater conditions: The following to be addressed prior to building permit. 1. Pond has been modified, please provide revised drainage report reflecting the changes and show that the required volume is still met. General note: 1. DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. 2. At building permit application, applicant shall submit all data again for review -----Original Message----- From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 11:16 AM To: Buzzell, William; Chase, Susan; DRC Members; Gluski, Roberta; Hufford, Diane; James Miller; Josuns, Sarah; Patni, Himanshu; Reid, Debbie; Rickard, Leonard; Shell, Heather C.; US Post Office (E-mail); Vo, Phuong; Yellin, Catherine Subject: REVISED PLAN SUBMITTED FOR WALMART 23106 US HWY 19 Good morning DRC Members, Walmart was in again and has given a REVISED plan for Wal-Mart please review these as they have changed from the resubmittal due to a error that they found in the plans. Thank you, Sherry Watkins Planning Department From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 3:09 PM To: DRC Members Subject: FLS2006-07044 23106 US hwy 19 N WAL-MART Stores Importance: High DRC members - Revised plans have been resubmitted for the above referenced project and have been placed on the file cabinets outside Conference Room 216. Please review your comments and see if they can be checked off as being "met". For those comments that are still "not met", if the comment can be a condition of approval included in the Development Order to be met prior to the issuance of any permits, please indicate such in the revised comment. If you would like to take a copy of the plans you may do so. I would appreciate it if you could review the f 'S^ie resubmittal by the end of day on Friday, July 13, 2007. • Please let me know once you have reviewed the resubmittal and changed your comments. Thanks. Sherry Watkins) • Wells, Wayne From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 11:16 AM To: Buzzell, William; Chase, Susan; DRC Members; Gluski, Roberta; Hufford, Diane; James Miller; Josuns, Sarah; Patni, Himanshu; Reid, Debbie; Rickard, Leonard; Shell, Heather C.; US Post Office (E-mail); Vo, Phuong; Yellin, Catherine Subject: REVISED PLAN SUBMITTED FOR WALMART 23106 US HWY 19 Good morning DRC Members, Walmart was in again and has given a REVISED plan for Wal-Mart please review these as they have changed from the resubmittal due to a error that they found in the plans. Thank you, Sherry Watkins Planning Department From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 3:09 PM To: DRC Members Subject: FLS2006-07044 23106 US hwy 19 N WAL-MART Stores Importance: High DRC members - Revised plans have been resubmitted for the above referenced project and have been placed on the file cabinets outside Conference Room 216. Please review your comments and see if they can be checked off as being "met". For those comments that are still "not met", if the comment can be a condition of approval included in the Development Order to be met prior to the issuance of any permits, please indicate such in the revised comment. If you would like to take a copy of the plans you may do so. I would appreciate it if you could review the resubmittal by the end of day on Friday, July 13, 2007. Please let me know once you have reviewed the resubmittal and changed your comments. Thanks. Sherry Watkins Wells, Wayne From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 3:09 PM To: DRC Members Subject: FLS2006-07044 23106 US hwy 19 N WAL-MART Stores Importance: High DRC members - Revised plans have been resubmitted for the above referenced project and have been placed on the file cabinets outside Conference Room 216. Please review your comments and see if they can be checked off as being "met". For those comments that are still "not met", if the comment can be a condition of approval included in the Development Order to be met prior to the issuance of any permits, please indicate such in the revised comment. If you would like to take a copy of the plans you may do so. I would appreciate it if you could review the resubmittal by the end of day on Friday, July 13, 2007. Please let me know once you have reviewed the resubmittal and changed your comments. Thanks. Sherry Watkins • • Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 1:38 PM To: 'schuylerls@yahoo.com' Subject: Wal-Mart, 23106 US 19 case conditions on resubmittal... r 0 • I #!Y/I rJConditions Associated With 4 FLS2006-07044 23106 US HIGHWAY 19 N Landscape Wayne Wells, AICP 727-562-4504 10/26/2006 2/16/07 - WW Not Met Sheets C4 & C4A - Wheel stops are still necessary in the following locations: 1) the easternmost space in a row of five spaces due east of the garden center; and 2) the easternmost space in the third row south of the wetland/stormwater pond, west of Wendy's. Additionally, when the foundation landscaping is shown along the northern side of the building, the adjacent parking spaces will need wheel stops. 10/26/06 - WW Sheet C-4 and C-4A - Wheel stops are required adjacent to all landscape areas, including landscape islands and parking row dividers. 11/13/2006 4/1/07 - WW Not Met Need to center the dahoon hollys within the larger/wider planting areas along this west side. 11/13/06 - WW Due to the existence of overhead utility lines along the west property line, unless shade trees can be planted approximately 20 feet from these overhead lines, need to plant accent trees. Recommend planting heavily within this western side with trees to reduce views of the building by the single family neighborhood to the west. 11/13/2006 4/1/07 - WW Not Met Coordinate the crosshatching shown on Sheets C-4 and C-4A with that indicated in the smaller, inset plan on Sheet L-1. Not all shown on Sheet L-1 is indicated on Sheets C-4 and C-4A. 11/13/07 - WW Sheets C-4 and C-4A - Need to crosshatch all of the interior landscape areas. Some areas are crosshatched, others not. Need to recalculate the interior landscape area when all changes are done on the plans. Need to discuss what areas are counted toward interior landscape area. 04/01/2007 Sheet L-1 & L-2 - The Pre-treatment pond has been reshaped with this resubmittal. The vertical Not Met wall paralleling the relocated driveway to Stag Run is only partially shown. Revise. 04/01/2007 Sheets L-1 and L-2 - With the reshaping of the Pre-treatment pond next to the relocated driveway Not Met to Stag Run Blvd a vertical wall is being installed east of the driveway. The landscape area between the pavement curbing and the vertical retaining wall is approximately seven feet in width. Three live oaks are indicated to be planted within this seven foot area, which is an insuffient planting area. Revise these three live oaks in this area to six accent trees (tree ligustrum or dahoon holly). 04/01/2007 Sheets L-2 & L-3 - Identify on the plan the pink trumpet trees and the number of such where Not Met planted. 04/01/2007 What appears to be foundation landscaping areas indicated along the east front of the building on Not Met Sheets C-4 and C-4A are not so indicated/coordinated on Sheets L-1, L-2 and L-3, as the areas between the grocery store entrance and the regular store entrance and south of the regular store entrance to the corner of the building are not shown to be landscaped along the building. Revise/coordinate. - 04/01/2007 Sheets L-2 and L-3 - Enhance existing or new landscape islands where new trees are proposed to Not Met be planted with shrubs and groundcover in the following locations: a. west and north of Wendys (L-2); b. north of building (L-2); c. west side of Jiffy Lube on both sides of the cross-access driveway and the island west of the Jiffy Lube cross-access driveway (L-3); d. east of the garden center (eastern end) )L-3); and e. islands south and southwest of the garden center (L-3). 04/01/2007 Sheet L-2 - Plant shrubs VO along edge of pavement from west end of shrubs planted around Not Met Pond #1 (north of building) to the pallat/bale storage area. Print Date: 04/02/2007 CaseConditons Page 1 of 6 • • FLS2006-07044 23106 US HIGHWAY 19 N Landscape Wayne Wells, AICP 727-562-4504 04/01/2007 Sheets L-2 and L-3 - Need to include a "Note" along the west side regarding the preservation of Not Met existing landscaping for screening purposes (to meet neighborhood's desire to retain such) and may need to fill in gaps. Technically, there should be a hedge along this west side. 04/01/2007 Sheet L-2 - Enhance the landscaping along the US 19 frontage with shrubbery and groundcovers Not Met similar to that along NE Coachman Rd. Land Resource Condition Rick Albee 727-562-4741 10/13/2006 10/13/06-Revise the retention pond top of bank to be outside the tree canopy of tree #248,249 Not Met and 250 prior to D.O. 1/10/07-The pond was modified at tree #248, however, the top of bank is still too close to trees #249 and 250. Typically, cuts should not occur within 1/2 of the trees canopy line. Revise the retention pond top of bank prior to D.O. 10/13/2006 10/13/06-Justify the reasoning for renovating the existing parking lot and removing the trees from Not Met the existing landscape islands. These are all healthy trees and shall be preserved in place with no modifications to the islands. Revise plans prior to D.O. 1/10/07-Justify why the parking islands are being modified. Is the parking lot not functioning adaquately? The minor modification of island curbs, such as those at trees #207-215, can damage the trees root systems. As the root systems of trees growing in landscape islands reach the curbs the roots will turn and run parallel to the curb. So moving the curbs just a few inches can eliminate a good percentage of the tree's roots. Recommend leaving the parking lot the way it is except for the areas requiring major modification. Justify or modify plans prior to D.O. 10/13/2006 10/13/06-Provide a Tree Preservation Plan prepared by a certified arborist, consulting arborist, Not Met landscape architect or other specialist in the field of arboriculture. This plan must show how the proposed building, parking, stormwater and utilities impact the critical root zones (drip lines) of trees to be preserved and how you propose to address these impacts i.e.; crown elevating, root pruning and/or root aeration systems. Other data required on this plan must show the trees canopy line, actual tree barricade limits (2/3 of the drip line and/or in the root prune lines if required), and the tree barricade detail. And any other pertinent information relating to tree preservation. Provide prior to building permit. 1/10/07-The PRESERVATION PLAN needs to show root prune requirements where grade cuts occur under the canopies of trees to be preserved such as the curbs at trees #248 and #235-243, and the top of bank at trees #249-250. Verify that all of the above requirements are met. Provide the Preservation Plan prior to building permit. 10/13/2006 10/13/06-Show all trees with their canopies, on all of the civil plans prior to D.O. Additional Not Met comments may be forthcoming once this data is received and reviewed. 1/10/07-Show all trees with their canopies, on ALL of the civil and landscape plans prior to D.O. 10/13/2006 10/13/06-The Tree Inventory shall utilize the following rating system. All trees rates 2 or below Not Met shall be removed from the site. Revise inventory prior to D.O. 0. A dead tree 1. A tree that is dying, severely declining, hazardous, harboring a communicable disease or a tree designated by the State of Florida's Exotic Pest Plant Council as a category #1 ecological pest i.e., Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius). A tree with a rating of 1 should be removed as it is beyond treatment and is a threat to cause personal injury or property damage. 2. A tree exhibiting serious structural defects such as condominant stems with included bark at or near the base, large cavities, large areas of decayed wood, crown dieback, cracked/split scaffold branches, etc. In addition, a tree with health issues such as low energy, low live crown ratio, serious disease or insect problems, nutritional deficiencies or soil pH problems. A tree with a rating of #2 should be removed unless the problem(s) can be treated. A tree with a #2 condition Print Date: 04/02/2007 CaseConditons Page 2 of 6 • • FLS2006-07044 23106 US HIGHWAY 19 N Land Resource Condition Rick Albee 727-562-4741 5. A tree with very high live crown ratio and exceptional structure and systemic health and virtually free of insect of disease problems or nutritional deficiencies. A tree in this category should have a balanced crown with exceptional aesthetic amenities. A tree in this category should be of a species that possesses characteristics inherent to longevity and withstanding construction impacts. A tree with a #5 rating lends considerable value to the site and should be incorporated into the site design. A tree with a #5 rating is worthy of significant site plan modification to ensure its preservation. 6. A specimen tree. A specimen tree is a tree that possesses a combination of superior qualities in regards to systemic health, structural strength, crown density, live crown ratio, form (balanced crown), overall aesthetic appeal, size, species, age and uniqueness. A great effort should be made to preserve a specimen tree including shifting structures that would adversely impact the tree. In addition, a specimen tree should have an undisturbed area equal to its dripline (equal to the branch spread to grow in. Only an experienced and competent International Society of Arboriculture (I.S.A.) Certified Arborist should be allowed to work on a specimen tree. 1/10/07-Show all #1 and 2 rated trees to be removed and insure that all #4 and 5 rated trees are preserved prior to D.O. 10/13/2006 10/13/06-The tree survey is incomplete, noticed that some trees are missing. All trees, with their actual canopies, on and within 25' of the property must be shown on the plans. Additional comments may be forthcoming once this data is received and reviewed. 1/10/07-The tree survey is still incomplete. There are some trees east of trees #245-248 and between trees #249 and 250. Verify that ALL trees are surveyed and inventoried and shown on ALL plans prior to D.O. Parks & Recs Condition Debbie Reid 562-4818 11/16/2006 Public Art requirement may need to be met if the construction value is over $5,000,000 and the building permit is not secured within 6 months of application. Contact Christopher Hubbard, Public Art Specialist, at 727-562-4837 or christopher.hubbard@myclearwater.com. Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727-562-4504 10/25/2006 2/15/07 - WW Plans are still unclear for all these sheets. Foundation landsaping is required on this side of the building, but the landscape plans do not show any landscaping. Revise to show foundation landscaping. 10/25/06 - WW Sheets C-4, C-7, C-9, L-1 and L-2 - Plans are unclear as to whether the north side of the building has a sidewalk between the building and parking or foundation landscaping (as required by Code) (concrete stoop outside door on north side tends to lead one to believe it is a landscaped area, but the landscape plan doesn't show any landscaping). Dimension the width of this area (should be at Print Date: 04/02/2007 Page 3 of 6 Not Met Not Met Not Met CaseConditons .; 0 • FLS2006-07044 23106 US HIGHWAY 19 N Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727-562-4504 least five feet in width). Revise. 10/26/2006 2/16/07 - WW Not Met I am confused by the plans and response. The response is the pallat and bale storage area will be screened by an "aesthetically pleasing fence", while on Sheet C-4, Key Note #20 indicates a six-foot high screen wall, with the finish/color to match the building's exterior and Key Note #40 refers to the pallat and bale storage area with "metal decorative fence (opaque long front gates)". Is it (a) a wall on three sides and a metal, opaque fence on the east side or (b) a fence all the way around? Prefer (a). If (a), need more detail as to the metal, opaque fence on the east side and where gates will be. Items stored within this area would not be allowed to be stacked higher than the wall/fence. 10/26/06 - WW Sheet C-4 - Key Legend #40 (pallat and bale storage area) - Must be screened from view by a six-foot high solid wall, finished on the outside similar to the building, with opaque gates. Items stored within this area would not be allowed to be stacked higher than the wall. Also, unclear why this storage area must occur at this location rather than farther south out of plain view of Stag Run Blvd. Revise. 10/26/2006 2/16/07 - WW Not Met Want to further discuss prior to approving the plan to ensure the neighborhood's desire is being met (keeping existing landscaping). May need to look to fill in gaps of landscaping along this west side (need to show on Sheets L-2 and L-3). May also desire to discuss a six-foot high solid fence in lieu of the wall, as a potential means of screening views. 10/26/06 - WW Sheet C-4 and C-4A - Key Legend #20 indicates there is a six-foot high wall intended to be constructed along the west property line. Show on Sheets C-4, C4A, L-2 and L-3 the wall. The wall within the front setback of Stag Run Blvd. cannnot exceed three feet in height. Suggest a detail of the proposed wall (cross section). Wall needs to be finished and painted the same as the building. Revise. 11/12/2006 4/1/07 - WW Not Met Still unclear why islands are being reshaped. Need to meet with Rick Albee and myself to discuss. 11/12/06 - WW It is unclear why existing landscape islands are being rebuilt/reshaped or why parking row dividers are being widened, as well as movement of parking spaces and parking rows, when there is limited improvement to the parking lot and traffic flow. Recommend keeping parking lot as is to a great amount but adding parking islands to better break up the sea of asphalt. Should set up a separate meeting with Rick Albee and myself to discuss specific locations on the site. 11/12/2006 4/1/07 - WW Not Met Sheets C-4 & C-4A - Revise "Existing Recycling Dumpsters" to either "Proposed Recycling Dumpsters" or "Relocated Recycling Dumpsters", as they presently are located on the west side of the eastern driveway on NE Coachman Rd. 11/12/06 - WW Sheet C-4A - Show the recycling dumpsters in the southeast portion of the parking lot (takes up three parking spaces). 11/12/2006 4/1/07 - WW Not Met Response of "acknowledged" inadequate. Please respond to the question posed below. 11/12/06 - WW Site inspection reveals many truck trailer bodies being used for the storage of goods for sale in the store. With the additions and remodeling of the store, coupled with the elimination of Wal-Mart's layaway program, will ALL of these truck trailer bodies be removed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy? Print Date: 04/02/2007 CaseConditons Page 4 of 6 FLS2006-07044 23106 US HIGHWAY 19 N Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727-562-4504 11/13/2006 4/1/07 & 11/13/07 - WW Not Met Condition of approval to be included in the Development Order: That the storage of materials within the enclosed garden center, including the racks, not be visible above any fencing, walls or other screening, and not exceed 15 feet in height; 11/13/2006 4/1/07 & 11/13/07 - WW Not Met Condition of approval to be included in the Development Order: That a vinyl windscreen shade cloth or other material acceptable to the Planning Department providing 100 percent opacity located on the fencing along the east, west and south elevations of the garden center be maintained in a clean and attractive appearance and shall be in good repair with the color the as the building (roycroft rose) or black, at all times; 11/13/2006 4/1/07 & 11/13/07 - WW Not Met Condition of approval to be included in the Development Order: That no outdoor storage or display of materials/goods be located beyond the limits of the approved garden center (e.g. in the parking lot, drive aisles, etc.), except as may be approved through approved Temporary Use Permits; 11/13/2006 4/1/07 & 11/13/07 - WW Not Met Condition of approval to be included in the Development Order: That the management of the store fully enforce the requirements/limitations of this Development Order at all times; 11/13/2006 4/1/07 - WW Not Met Response sheet indicates the minimum width of the foundation landscaping provided will be five feet, but neither Sheets C-4, C-4A, L-1, L-2 or L-3 provide such dimensions. Revise. 11/13/07 - WW Dimension the width of the foundation landscape areas on the east side of the building (all areas along the building face) on either Sheets C-4 and C-4A or L-2 and L-3. Needs to be a minimum width of five feet. 11/13/2006 4/1/07 & 11/13/07 - WW Not Met Condition of approval to be included in the Development Order: That a Declaration of Unity of Title document be recorded in the public records prior to the issuance of any permit. 03/30/2007 Sheet C-4 - Revise Site Data to indicate proposed setbacks as follows: Not Met Front: NE Coachman : 31 feet (to pavement) US 19: 43.1 feet (to pavement) Stag Run Blvd: 28.7 feet (to pavement) Side: East: Zero feet (to pavement) North: Zero feet (to pavement) West: 5.09 feet (to pavement) 04/01/2007 Elevations on Sheet A2 - Garden center pilasters and fencing are not shown (for clarity of the Not Met Wal-Mart building). Provide elevations of the garden center so that we can see what it is proposed to look like. Provide as much detail as possible. The color elevations help, but it is still hard to decipher. Provide information as to any shade cloth or other devices to be used to provide 100 percent opacity to obscure views of the materials stored in the garden center racks. 04/01/2007 Condition of approval to be included in the Development Order: Not Met That the final design and color of the building be consistent with the conceptual elevations submitted to and approved as part of Case FLS2006-07044; 04/01/2007 Sheet C-4A - Dash stripe the outparcel in the southwest corner similar to that shown for the Not Met outparcels along US 19 on Sheet C-4. 04/01/2007 Sheets C-15 and C-15A are missing from the resubmittal plan package. Please resubmit (revised Not Met CaseConditons Print Date: 04/02/2007 Page 5 of 6 jo 10 • FLS2006-07044 23106 US HIGHWAY 19 N Zoning Condition Wayne Wells, AICP 727-562-4504 as necessary due to revised site design). 04/02/2007 If six-foot high wall is to be removed, need to revise the response to General Applicability criteria Not Met #6 on Page 2 of the application to talk about landscape screening on the west side. 04/02/2007 Provide responses to the Memorandum of opposition submitted by Steve Sarnoff at the DRC Not Met meeting. Print Date: 04/02/2007 CaseConditons Page 6 of 6 :ft 0 0 Wells, Wayne From: Patni, Himanshu Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 11:02 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: RE: Wal-Mart Expansion - Comments I did not have any follow-up communication with Steve after this but I did ask CPH to comment on some of the remaining issues and questions that I listed below and they are working on them. Himanshu -----Original Message----- From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 10:49 AM To: Patni, Himanshu Subject: FW: Wal-Mart Expansion - Comments Himanshu - I talked to Bennett this morning regarding Steve Sarnoffs comments on the Wal-Mart expansion and he forwarded to me your responses below. Did, you have any follow-up communication with Steve Sarnoff? If so, please forward such emails to me. Thanks. Wayne -----Original Message----- From: Elbo, Bennett Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 10:27 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: FW: Wal-Mart Expansion - Comments FYI -----Original Message----- From: Patni, Himanshu Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 3:10 PM To: Sarnoff, Stephen Cc: 'jmelendez@cphengineers.com'; 'Sivaraman, Vijay'; Elbo, Bennett; Melone, Christopher; Bertels, Paul Subject: RE: Wal-Mart Expansion - Comments Steve, I have prepared some additional responses to the remaining concerns and objections on the Wal-Mart study and appreciate the reports and studies you sent us. They are interesting reads and will also come in handy for future impact studies involving large department or discount stores of this nature. Concern 2: The labeling of US 19/Frontage Road includes the thru lanes of US 19 & frontage roads that are under construction. It has been confirmed with CPH that the entire intersections were studied and this can be seen in the turning movement count figures and the appendices at the back of the report. Objection 4: We did not have any copies of the FDOT, ITE, or Alachua county reports concerning Wal-Mart Supercenters prior to the impact study scoping meeting we had with CPH. It was at this time that the ITE land use codes were agreed upon and it would be unfair for us to ask CPH to redo the study with different land use codes. It is important to keep in mind that the Wal-Mart presently exists at this location and already generates a fair percentage of the trips mentioned in the studies & reports you attached. In addition, the proposed Supercenter will not be a typical full size Supercenter since it will not offer larger inventories of non-food items, a tire & lube shop, or a gas station so the trips generated should be less than those of the Supercenters mentioned in the reports (ex: US 19 in Pinellas Park or Dale Mabry Hwy. in Tampa). Objection 5: Once again the ITE land use codes were agreed upon during the methodology meeting and I feel it is fair to use ITE Land Use Code 815 (Free Standing Discount Store) for the existing store and ITE Land Use Code 813 (Free Standing Discount Superstore) for the expansion. The 28% pass-by rate was also agreed upon in the methodology letter and I feel this is a fair percentage to use for a Wal-Mart Supercenter. Objection 7: This is a valid statement since CPH used the trip generation & capture rates that we all agreed upon. If the rates were to be revised then we would of course expect different results. Objection 11: 1 will let CPH comment on this one but the SB right turns off the US 19 access road will likely impact the AM peak only and not the PM peak since the dominant flow during the PM peak is northbound. Objection 13: 1 cannot see how the 419 trips you mentioned are calculated? Perhaps CPH can comment on this one if they see something I don't. Himanshu -----Original Message----- From: Patni, Himanshu Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 4:28 PM To: Sarnoff, Stephen Cc: 'jmelendez@cphengineers.com'; 'Sivaraman, Vijay'; Elbo, Bennett; Melone, Christopher; Bertels, Paul Subject: Wal-Mart Expansion - Comments Steve, I have only today obtained a copy of your letter dated November 16, 2006 regarding comments you had on the proposed Wal-Mart expansion on US 19 & SR-590. I am also copying the consultants on this message since I want to address some of your concerns but neither I or the consultant have yet had the time to fully respond to all objections or concerns but here is what I can say so far since the study has been resubmitted: Objection 1: This point is debatable and I do not feel that this lightly utilized access point/intersection will change the overall impact of the surrounding roadways if you analyze it as an intersection versus an access point. Concern 1: Data and LOS for this segment has been provided and it is my understanding that CPH Engineers had the data to begin with and simply did not furnish it with the original report. Concern 2: 1 do not believe this to be true based on discussions with CPH Engineers on the phone and in person we were informed that in a meeting we had analyzed the entire intersection. However, the revised study's Figure 2 only shows the SB Frontage Road along US 19 and not the other two southbound thru lanes that were present during construction in 2006. CPH can comment on this as well. Objection 2: This can be misleading but this cannot be the case and must be an error in writing since CPH Engineers used turning movement counts at all intersections we asked them to analyze and the data in the appendices shows uneven splits in NB and SB traffic during the PM peak as it should. Objection 3: Traffic Ops. does not require a written letter from Wal-Mart regarding overpass completion. Based on the latest FDOT schedule and our road closure schedule the overpasses will be completed by December 2007 so this assumption is valid and we agree with it. Concern 3: This data has been provided with the revised study. Concern 4: All data is provided in the figures and Figure 3 outlines the future background traffic volumes assuming that the Wal-Mart does not expand. If Wal-Mart does not expand then the left turn into the SW driveway won't exist and they are not required to provide this movement on Figure 3. Concern 5: This data is present in the latest report. Objection 6: Data in the tables and the appendix correspond with each other and are identical. Objection 8: Data in the appendix was taken into account in the HCS/Synchro analysis and shows all possible movements at these referenced intersections. Objection 9: This is incorrect. The report mentions a new right turn lane at the SE driveway not the SW driveway. Objection 10: 1 do not see where the congestion is mentioned as being minimal. Objection 12: This is not present in the revised report as this segment was incorrectly presented in the first report and was never required to be analyzed. Himanshu Patni, E.I. Traffic Operations City of Clearwater (727) 562-4560 • • Wells, Wayne From: Everitt, Steven Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 8:08 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: RE: SGN2006-09008, 23106 US Hwy 19, Wal-Mart The Comps Sign (SGN2006-09008) was approved. The case is in "HLD" status. Can't tell you why. Lindsey couldn't help me. Zoning has signed off though. Steven -----Original Message----- From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 5:31 PM To: Everitt, Steven Subject: FW: SGN2006-09008, 23106 US Hwy 19, Wal-Mart Steven - What did you do with your SGN - approve it? Status? Wayne -----Original Message----- From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 6:25 PM To: Everitt, Steven Subject: SGN2006-09008, 23106 US Hwy 19, Wal-Mart Steven - am processing FLS2006-07044 to make this Wal-Mart into a Super Wal-Mart, which is going to the November 2, 2006, DRC meeting. I also have SGN2006-07010 for a Comprehensive Sign Program for the Super Wal-Mart. It looks like we have two people trying to have a Comp. Sign Program reviewed/approved. Wayne • Wells, Wayne From: Elbo, Bennett Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 10:27 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: FW: Wal-Mart Expansion - Comments FYI -----Original Message----- From: Patni, Himanshu Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 3:10 PM To: Sarnoff, Stephen Cc: 'jmelendez@cphengineers.com'; 'Sivaraman, Vijay'; Elbo, Bennett; Melone, Christopher; Bertels, Paul Subject: RE: Wal-Mart Expansion - Comments Steve, I have prepared some additional responses to the remaining concerns and objections on the Wal-Mart study and appreciate the reports and studies you sent us. They are interesting reads and will also come in handy for future impact studies involving large department or discount stores of this nature. Concern 2: The labeling of US 19/Frontage Road includes the thru lanes of US 19 & frontage roads that are under construction. It has been confirmed with CPH that the entire intersections were studied and this can be seen in the turning movement count figures and the appendices at the back of the report. Objection 4: We did not have any copies of the FDOT, ITE, or Alachua county reports concerning Wal-Mart Supercenters prior to the impact study scoping meeting we had with CPH. It was at this time that the ITE land use codes were agreed upon and it would be unfair for us to ask CPH to redo the study with different land use codes. It is important to keep in mind that the Wal-Mart presently exists at this location and already generates a fair percentage of the trips mentioned in the studies & reports you attached. In addition, the proposed Supercenter will not be a typical full size Supercenter since it will not offer larger inventories of non-food items, a tire & lube shop, or a gas station so the trips generated should be less than those of the Supercenters mentioned in the reports (ex: US 19 in Pinellas Park or Dale Mabry Hwy. in Tampa). Objection 5: Once again the ITE land use codes were agreed upon during the methodology meeting and I feel it is fair to use ITE Land Use Code 815 (Free Standing Discount Store) for the existing store and ITE Land Use Code 813 (Free Standing Discount Superstore) for the expansion. The 28% pass-by rate was also agreed upon in the methodology letter and I feel this is a fair percentage to use for a Wal-Mart Supercenter. Objection 7: This is a valid statement since CPH used the trip generation & capture rates that we all agreed upon. If the rates were to be revised then we would of course expect different results. Objection 11: 1 will let CPH comment on this one but the SB right turns off the US 19 access road will likely impact the AM peak only and not the PM peak since the dominant flow during the PM peak is northbound. Objection 13: 1 cannot see how the 419 trips you mentioned are calculated? Perhaps CPH can comment on this one if they see something I don't. Himanshu -----Original Message----- From: Patni, Himanshu Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 4:28 PM To: Sarnoff, Stephen Cc: 'jmelendez@cphengineers.com'; 'Sivaraman, Vijay'; Elbo, Bennett; Melone, Christopher; Bertels, Paul Subject: Wal-Mart Expansion - Comments Steve, I have only today obtained a copy of your letter dated November 16, 2006 regarding comments you had on the proposed Wal-Mart expansion on US 19 & SR-590. I am also copying the consultants on this message since I want to address some of your concerns Aneither I or the consultant have yet had the Mme to fully respond to all objections or concerns but here is what I can say so far since the study has been resubmitted: Objection 1: This point is debatable and I do not feel that this lightly utilized access point/intersection will change the overall impact of the surrounding roadways if you analyze it as an intersection versus an access point. Concern 1: Data and LOS for this segment has been provided and it is my understanding that CPH Engineers had the data to begin with and simply did not furnish it with the original report. Concern 2: 1 do not believe this to be true based on discussions with CPH Engineers on the phone and in person we were informed that in a meeting we had analyzed the entire intersection. However, the revised study's Figure 2 only shows the SIB Frontage Road along US 19 and not the other two southbound thru lanes that were present during construction in 2006. CPH can comment on this as well. Objection 2: This can be misleading but this cannot be the case and must be an error in writing since CPH Engineers used turning movement counts at all intersections we asked them to analyze and the data in the appendices shows uneven splits in NB and SIB traffic during the PM peak as it should. Objection 3: Traffic Ops. does not require a written letter from Wal-Mart regarding overpass completion. Based on the latest FDOT schedule and our road closure schedule the overpasses will be completed by December 2007 so this assumption is valid and we agree with it. Concern 3: This data has been provided with the revised study. Concern 4: All data is provided in the figures and Figure 3 outlines the future background traffic volumes assuming that the Wal-Mart does not expand. If Wal-Mart does not expand then the left turn into the SW driveway won't exist and they are not required to provide this movement on Figure 3. Concern 5: This data is present in the latest report. Objection 6: Data in the tables and the appendix correspond with each other and are identical. Objection 8: Data in the appendix was taken into account in the HCS/Synchro analysis and shows all possible movements at these referenced intersections. Objection 9: This is incorrect. The report mentions a new right turn lane at the SE driveway not the SW driveway. Objection 10: 1 do not see where the congestion is mentioned as being minimal. Objection 12: This is not present in the revised report as this segment was incorrectly presented in the first report and was never required to be analyzed. Himanshu Patni, E.I. Traffic Operations City of Clearwater (727) 562-4560 0 0 Wells, Wayne From: Albee, Rick Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 11:59 AM To: Watkins, Sherry; Buzzell, William; DRC Members; Gluski, Roberta; Hufford, Diane; Reid, Debbie; US Post Office (E-mail) Subject: RE: Wal-Mart - FLS2006-07044 Update conditions, most are still NOT MET. -----Original Message----- From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 1:09 PM To: Buzzell, William; DRC Members; Gluski, Roberta; Hufford, Diane; Reid, Debbie; US Post Office (E-mail) Subject: Wal-Mart - FLS2006-07044 Importance: High DRC Members, Plans for the following case have been resubmitted for Wal-Mart - FLS2006-07044 23106 US HWY 19 N . I have placed three copies of the case resubmittal package on the cabinets outside of Room 216 in our office for your review Please feel free to take a copy if you wish. Please review your comments/conditions for this case in Permit Plan and determine if they are met. Whether the conditions are "met" or still "not met," please affirm to me via email. Please have these cases reviewed, if possible by 12:00 pm on, Friday, January 12, 2007. Thank you Shemj L Watkins Planning Department Administrative Analyst (727) 562-4582 sheen,/. watkins @m yclearwater. com • C? Wells, Wayne From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 9:39 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: FW: Wal-Mart - FLS2006-07044 Shemj L Watkins Planning Department Administrative Analyst (727) 562-4582 shemj.watkins@mycleanvater.com -----Original Message----- From: Keller, James Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 9:39 AM To: Watkins, Sherry Subject: RE: Wal-Mart - FLS2006-07044 Ms. Sherry Watkins, Please be advised that the conditions for FLS2006-07044 have been MET for fire conditions. Thank you for your help in this matter (Once Again ! ) Respectfully, James Keller Fire Inspector II Fire Prevention and Investigations Clearwater Fire & Rescue -----Original Message----- From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 1:09 PM To: Buzzell, William; DRC Members; Gluski, Roberta; Hufford, Diane; Reid, Debbie; US Post Office (E-mail) Subject: Wal-Mart - FLS2006-07044 Importance: High DRC Members, Plans for the following case have been resubmitted for Wal-Mart - FLS2006-07044 23106 US HWY 19 N . I have placed three copies of the case resubmittal package on the cabinets outside of Room 216 in our office for your review. Please feel free to take a copy if you wish. Please review your comments/conditions for this case in Permit Plan and determine if they are met. Whether the conditions are "met" or still "not met," please affirm to me via email. Please have these cases reviewed, if possible by 12:00 pm on, Friday, January 12, 2007. Thank you Sherry L Watkins Planning Department Administrative Analyst (727) 562-4582 sherry.watkins@myclearwater.com 01 0 Wells, Wayne From: Rice, Scott Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 2:40 PM To: Watkins, Sherry; Wells, Wayne Subject: RE: Wal-Mart - FLS2006-07044 All Engineering conditions met or acknowledged. A Scott Rice, PE Assistant Engineering Director 727-562-4781 -----Original Message----- From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 1:09 PM To: Buzzell, William; DRC Members; Gluski, Roberta; Hufford, Diane; Reid, Debbie; US Post Office (E-mail) Subject: Wal-Mart - FLS2006-07044 / Importance: High DRC Members, Plans for the following case have been resubmitted for Wal-Mart - FLS2006-07044 23106 US HWY 19 N . I have placed three copies of the case resubmittal package on the cabinets outside of Room 216 in our office for your review. Please feel free to take a copy if you wish. Please review your comments/conditions for this case in Permit Plan and determine if they are met. Whether the conditions are "met" or still "not met," please affirm to me via email. Please have these cases reviewed, if possible by 12:00 pm on, Friday, January 12, 2007. Thank you Sherry L Watkins Planning Department Administrative Analyst (727) 562-4582 shemj.watkins@myclearwater.com 0 0 Wells, Wayne From: Watkins, Sherry Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 1:09 PM To: Buzzell, William; DRC Members; Gluski, Roberta; Hufford, Diane; Reid, Debbie; US Post Office (E-mail) Subject: Wal-Mart - FLS2006-07044 Importance: High DRC Members, Plans for the following case have been resubmitted for Wal-Mart - FLS2006-07044 23106 US HWY 19 N . I have placed three copies of the case resubmittal package on the cabinets outside of Room 216 in our office for your review. Please feel free to take a copy if you wish. Please review your comments/conditions for this case in Permit Plan and determine if they are met. Whether the conditions are "met" or still "not met," please affirm to me via email. Please have these cases reviewed, if possible by 12:00 pm on, Friday, January 12, 2007. Thank you Sherry L Watkins Planning Department Administrative Analyst (727) 562-4582 sherr y. wa tkins @ m yc lea nva ter. corn • § 4-501 • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE DIVISION 5. APPEALS dence in the Level 1 review, which is the subject of the approval within seven days of the date the development order is issued. The filing of an application)6tice- of appeal shall stay the effect of the decision pending the final determination of the case. Section 4-501. Author ty:and purpose. A. The community development board has the authority to Bear appeals from: ..fat .. 1. Administrative interpretations of this de- velopment code., 2. Orders, requirements, decision's or deter- minations'riiade`by an administrative of- ficial mi - the"administration of this'devel- opment -code, except for -enforcement actions. 3. Level"One approval' decisions. ' 4. , - Denials ,of .any permit; or license: issued under the•provisions.of this,Code.. 5. Any'denials d6e'med to have'occurred'-as a result of the failure ' of the 'community development coordinator to act-within-the time limits provided' 4n `this : Community Development Code. B. The hearing officer has the authority to hear appeals from: 1. Decisions of the community development board,regarding Level Two approvals:. 2. Decisions'ofthe community development board•regarding Level One approvals. 3. Any denials deemed to have occurred as a result -of the failure of the community development board{to"act within the time limits provided in'thi itommunity Devel- opment Code, nor-as a result 'of th6°tOure of any Jother': administrative official or body' (other than the`'community develop= • xiieiit-coordinato`r''or` the' city'co'mmission) to act within the time 'lmits"provided' liy any-other Applicable 'law, rule, policy;. or regulation then in effect.-- (Ord. No. 6526-00 =§ 1, 645700; Ord. No. 6998-02, 1 11 11 1 § 5, 7-1&02),- , '. Section 4-502: Application/notice of appeal. A. An appeal of a Level One approval (flexible standard) may be initiated by an applicant or property owners within the required notice area and who presented competent substantial evi- 13. Appeal of all other applications other than Level One approval flexible standard may be initiated by the applicant, or by_ any person granted party status within 14 days of the decision. Such Application shall' be' file&with the city clerk in a form specified by the community development coordinator identifying with specificity the basis for the appeal ,and accompanied by, a fee as required by Section 4-202(E). The filing of an application/notice of appeal 'shallstay the effect of the decision pending'-the final determination of the case. C. No building permit shall be issued for a Level Two or Level Three approval prior to the expiration of the appeal period.. (Ord. No. 6526-00, § 1, 6-15-00; Ord. No. 6928-02, §§ 101, 102, .5-2-02) p Section 4-503. Staff review, report and rec- omniendation. After the community, development coordinator has reviewed the application/ notice of appeal in accordance with the provisions of Section 4-202(C) and (D), the coordinator shall, send a written recommendation to the community development board, or the hearing officer, if applicable, with a copy to the applicant, setting forth whether the appeal should be granted or denied and the grounds for such recommendation. (Ord. No. 6526-00 § 1, 6-15-00).?s Section 4=504.- Community development board appeals. A. Upon receipt of the recommendation of the community development coordinator regarding appeals from decision set out in Section 4-501(A), the community development board shall review the application, the recommendation of the com- munity development coordinator, conduct a quasi- judicial public hearing on the application in ac- cordance with the requirements of Section 4-206 and render a decision in accordance' with the Supp. No. 12 CD4:20.2 O • Printed: 11/29/2006 Clearwater Times are subject to change U DRAFT ACTION AGENDA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE Thursday, November 16, 2006 111b 4664 8:30 a.m. STAFF REVIEW 2.30 pm Case Number: FLS2006-07044 -- 23106 US HIGHWAY 19 N Owner(s). Wal-Mart Stores Inc C/O #2081 Div Store # 0555 Bentonville, Ar 72716 TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Applicant Dan Moyer 3277a Fruitville Road Sarasota, F134237 TELEPHONE: 941-365-4771, FAX: 941-365-4779, E-MAIL: dmoyer@cphengineers.com Location: 16.5 acres located on the west side of US Highway 19 N between NE Coachman Road and Stag Run Boulevard Atlas Page: 263B Zoning District: C, Commercial Request: Flexible Standard approval to permit the expansion of an existing 119,530 square-foot retail sales and services use (Wal-Mart) to a Wal-Mart Supercenter with and expanded Garden Center of a total of 157,990 square feet in the Commercial District with a reduction to the side (east and north) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to 5.66 feet (to pavement) and a reduction to required parking from 790 spaces (five spaces per 1,000 sf GFA) to 766 spaces (4.79 spaces per 1,000 sf GFA), under the provisions of Section 2-703.R, and a reduction to the side (east and north) landscape buffer from five feet to zero feet, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: Retail sales and services Neighborhood Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Association(s): Clearwater, F133758 P O Box 8204 TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Neighborhood Coachman Ridge Homeowners Association(s): Clearwater, F133758 Po Box 7626 TELEPHONE: 727-796-5975, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Neighborhood Virginia Groves Association(s): Clearwater, F133764 1746 St. Croix Drive TELEPHONE: 669-1730, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Presenter: Wayne Wells, Planner III Attendees Included: City: Wayne Wells, Neil Thompson, Scott Rice, Rick Albee, Jim Keller, Lenny Rickard Applicant: Dan Moyer, Daniel Short, Danielle Wright, Anthony Benitez, John Melendez, Jim Porter Other: Schuyler Ellis, William Ownley The DRC reviewed this application with the following comments: General Engineering: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, November 16, 2006 - Page 1 Prior to issuance of• building permit: 1. Applicant shall provide a copy of an approved right-of-way permit from D.O.T. 2. Pay the sanitary sewer and water impact fees as may be required if an increase in water meter sizing is proposed. 3. The City of Clearwater, at the applicant's expense, will remove/relocate any/all water meters that have to be relocated as part of this development, including reclaim water meters. (No meters shall be located within any impervious areas.) 4. 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 tap to the device. Applicant is also responsible for all associated fees and all other installation fees 5. Applicant shall install a gate valve on both sides of proposed backflow device(s). 6. Provide a note or dimension on the plan indicating that the Fire Department Connection (FDC) shall be installed at least 15-feet from the face of building. 7. Provide a note or dimension on the plan indicating that the Fire Department Connection (FDC) shall be located no further than 40-feet from the nearest Fire Hydrant Assembly (FHA). 8. A double detector check valve with bypass meter shall be required for any internal fire protection line. 9. Ductile iron pipe shall be installed between any tap and water meter. Ductile iron pipe must be installed between any tap and backflow preventor device. At least one joint of ductile iron pipe shall be installed on the service side of any backflow preventor device. 10. Fire hydrant lines/fire sprinkler lines shall be constructed of ductile iron pipe. 11. Show on the plan a clean-out for the sanitary sewer lateral and include Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards Detail #305, pg. 1/3. 12. The exterior and interior of all PRECAST manholes shall be coated with at least 15 mils dry thickness of PROCO EP-214-351 Epoxi-Mastic as manufactured by Protective Coatings Inc. per City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards, Part "B", Technical Specifications, Section IV, Article (13)(E). 13. Provide a detail of the proposed doghouse manhole. 14. Show sanitary mains connecting grease traps - these pipes need to be coated with Protecto 401 (from the manufacturer). General Note: If the proposed project necessitates infrastructure modifications to satisfy site-specific water capacity and pressure requirements and/or wastewater capacity requirements, the modifications shall be completed by the applicant and at their expense. If underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, the installation shall be completed and in service prior to construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. General Note: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Environmental: 1 . Prior to DO: 1. A vegetative buffer shall be provided on all lands within 25 feet of any property designated on the Zoning Atlas as preservation (P), or any property determined to be wetlands under the jurisdiction of the State of Florida ("jurisdictional wetlands"); and all lands within 15 feet of the top of the bank of any creeks, channels, or related waterways which contain jurisdictional wetlands. "Top of the bank" is that point on the slope at which the side slope becomes flatter than one foot vertical to four feet horizontal. (Section 3-907) This applies to the west side of the wetlands, please revise the plans. 2. In acccordance with the City Storm Drainage Design Criteria, Page 7: Vertical walls in retention pond #1 are not permitted adjacent to street rights-of-way , along the boundaries of adjacent properties, or on more than two sides of the pond. Prior to building permit: 3. Submit a detailed planting plan for the wet pond to include at least 35% coverage under normal conditions. Fire: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, November 16, 2006 - Page 2 I . Does this buildin• tain a fire pump ? • 2. Building is greater than 250' iin length, must comply with Ordinance No. 7617-06 Radio System Regulations for Buildings. Acknowledge PRIOR to D.O. 3 . FDC is required, and shall be a minimum of 15' from building and shall have a fire hydrant within 40'. Hydrant shall not be located on same main as Fire Sprinkler and must be on supply side of double detector check valve. PRIOR to D.O. 4. Where underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, they shall be installed, completed, and in service prior to construction as per NFPA-241. A hard road surface able to support the weight of Fire Apparatus prior to any building construction being started. Acknowledge PRIOR to D.O. 5 , Entry on US Hwy 19 N ( East Side Dr. ) sheet C-4A shows a drive ailse with a 'RAISED-ISLAND' at 24 feet, remove the ISLAND to allow fire entry from US Hwy 19.PRIOR to D.O. Harbor Master: 1 . No issues. Legal: 1 , No issues. Land Resources: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, November 16, 2006 - Page 3 1 . Revise the retention and top of bank to be outsde the tree canopy Odee #248,249 and 250 prior to D.O. 2. Reroute the sanitary from under tree #248 prior to D.O. 3 . Justify the reasoning for renovating the existing parking lot and removing the trees from the existing landscape islands. These are all healthy trees and shall be preserved in place with no modifications to the islands. Revise plans prior to D.O. 4. Provide a Tree Preservation Plan prepared by a certified arborist, consulting arborist, landscape architect or other specialist in the field of arboriculture. This plan must show how the proposed building, parking, stormwater and utilities impact the critical root zones (drip lines) of trees to be preserved and how you propose to address these impacts i.e.; crown elevating, root pruning and/or root aeration systems. Other data required on this plan must show the trees canopy line, actual tree barricade limits (2/3 of the drip line and/or in the root prune lines if required), and the tree barricade detail. And any other pertinent information relating to tree preservation. Provide prior to building permit. 5 . Show all trees with their canopies, on all of the civil plans prior to D.O. Additional comments may be forthcoming once this data is received and reviewed. 6. The Tree Inventory shall utilize the following rating system. All trees rates 2 or below shall be removed from the site. Revise inventory prior to D.O. 0. A dead tree 1. A tree that is dying, severely declining, hazardous, harboring a communicable disease or a tree designated by the State of Florida's Exotic Pest Plant Council as a category #1 ecological pest i.e., Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius). A tree with a rating of 1 should be removed as it is beyond treatment and is a threat to cause personal injury or property damage. 2. A tree exhibiting serious structural defects such as condominant stems with included bark at or near the base, large cavities, large areas of decayed wood, crown dieback, cracked/split scaffold branches, etc. In addition, a tree with health issues such as low energy, low live crown ratio, serious disease or insect problems, nutritional deficiencies or soil pH problems. A tree with a rating of #2 should be removed unless the problem(s) can be treated. A tree with a #2 condition rating will typically require a considerable amount of maintenance to qualify for an upgrade of the condition rating. 3. A tree with average structure and systemic health and with problems that can be corrected with moderate maintenance. A tree with a codominant stem not in the basal area that will be subordinated or cabled and braced or a codominant stem that will soon have included bark can be included as a #3. A tree with a rating of #3 has average appearance, crown density and live crown ratio and should be preserved if possible. 4. A tree with a rating of 4 has good structure and systemic health with minor problems that can be easily corrected with minor maintenance. The tree should have an attractive appearance and be essentially free of any debilitating disease or insect problem. The tree should also have above average crown density and live crown ratio. Mature trees exhibiting scars, old wounds, small cavities or other problems that are not debilitating can be included in this group particularly if they possess unique form or other aesthetic amenities relating to their age. A tree with a rating of 4 is valuable to the property and should be preserved. 5. A tree with very high live crown ratio and exceptional structure and systemic health and virtually free of insect of disease problems or nutritional deficiencies. A tree in this category should have a balanced crown with exceptional aesthetic amenities: A tree in this category should be of a species that possesses characteristics inherent to longevity and withstanding construction impacts. A tree with a #5 rating lends considerable value to the site and should be incorporated into the site design. A tree with a #5 rating is worthy of significant site plan modification to ensure its preservation. 6. A specimen tree. A specimen tree is a tree that possesses a combination of superior qualities in regards to systemic health, structural strength, crown density, live crown ratio, form (balanced crown), overall aesthetic appeal, size, species, age and uniqueness. A great effort should be made to preserve a specimen tree including shifting structures that would adversely impact the tree. In addition, a specimen tree should have an undisturbed area equal to its dripline (equal to the branch spread to grow in. Only an experienced and competent International Society of Arboriculture (I.S.A.) Certified Arborist should be allowed to work on a specimen tree. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, November 16, 2006 - Page 4 7. The tree survey i0 omplete, noticed that some trees are missing.0trees, with their actual canopies, on and within 25' of the property must be shown on the plans. Additional comments may be forthcoming once this data is received and reviewed. Landscaping: 1 . Show the sight visibility triangles per Clearwater Code on the Landscape Plans. 2. Sheet L-2 - Landscape terminal island at the northeast corner of the building should have a sidewalk going through it continuing out to Stag Run Blvd. Revise. 3 . Sheet C-4 and C-4A - Wheel stops are required adjacent to all landscape areas, including landscape islands and parking row dividers. 4. Sheets L-1 - L-4 - Revise laurel oaks to live oaks. 5 . Coordinate outdoor lighting locations, as well as freestanding signs, with proposed landscaping to ensure the proposed lights and signs will not be shielded by existing or future tree canopies and other landscape materials. Show outdoor lighting locations on Sheets L-1 - L-3. 6. In order to provide maximum planting area for tree root growth, to the greatest degree possible move underground water and utility lines to the edges of islands or into paved areas (example: Sheet C-9A, Blowup B). 7. Sheets L-2 and L-3 - Revise to include tree types and numbers labeled on the plans (just like shrubs and groundcovers). Do also for sweet vibuma n shrubs. Difficult to add numbers up absent this information. 8. Sheet TR-1 and L-2 indicate that tree #119 (24" DBH oak) is proposed to be saved, but it is adjacent to the proposed building. Unclear how this tree will be saved, due to the height of the building (?). 9. Sheet L-1 - L-3 - There are a number of interior islands large enough that should be planted with shade trees (oaks) that are rather being proposed for cabbage pahns or pink trumpet trees. Suggest revising. 10. Sheet L-4 - Revise Plant List - Shade trees minimum size = 10-foot height and 2.5-inch caliper; Accent trees minimum size = eight-foot tall and two-inch caliper. 11 . Sheets L-1 - L-4 - Tree requirements in the Code are based on shade trees. Alternately, two accent trees = one shade tree; three palms (clustered) = one shade tree. Revise plan accordingly. 12. Sheets L-1 - L-3 - Plant trees within landscape area between parking and east property line adjacent to Jiffy Lube. 13. To qualify as "interior landscape area", these areas must meet the following Code requirements: 1 Tree/island min. (unless existing trees are being preserved to meet interior tree requirement); 1 Tree/150 square feet of required greenspace; Shrubs: 50% required greenspace; Groundcover shall be utilized for required greenspace in lieu of turf. 14. Due to the existence of overhead utility lines along the west property line, unless shade trees can be planted approximately 20 feet from these overhead lines, need to plant accent trees. Recommend planting heavily within this western side with trees to reduce views of the building by the single family neighborhood to the west. 15. Sheets C-4 and C-4A - Need to crosshatch all of the interior landscape areas. Some areas are crosshatched, others not. Need to recalculate the interior landscape area when all changes are done on the plans. Need to discuss what areas are counted toward interior landscape area. Parks and Recreation: 1 . 10/10/06 - FLS2006-07044 To determine whether open space impact fees apply to this project, further information is needed on existing floor area (building coverage). Site data table needs to be corrected to reflect existing building coverage. 2. Public Art requirement may need to be met if the construction value is over $5,000,000 and the building permit is not secured within 6 months of application. Contact Christopher Hubbard, Public Art Specialist, at 727-562-4837 or christopher.hubbard@myclearwater.com. Stormwater: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, November 16, 2006 - Page 5 The following to peaddressed prior to DO. • 1. Redesign the pond to adhere to City of Clearwater Storm Design criteria page 7, which stated as follows, "... In no circumstance will vertical walls on detention ponds be permitted adjacent to rights-of-ways, along the boundary of adjacent parcels of land, on more than two sides of a detention pond, or any side of a pond serving only as a water quality facility." 2. To be less confusing, it is recommended that S-1 to be labeled as "Control Structure" on the drainage plan and Storm Schedule. The following to be addressed prior to building permit. 1. Provide a copy of an approved SWFWMD permit. 2. It is recommended to use a bigger size of orifice to reduce maintenance Solid Waste: I . Please include Recycling Drop-off location on your plans (presently in South East Parking Lot) Traffic Engineering: 1 , 1. Provide rationale for northbound stop sign to the west of parking aisle 6. 2. Increase curb radius from 35 feet to 50 feet on NE driveway & US 19 South frontage road to allow for easier turns and less median conflicts. This median shall remain and not be demolished. 3. Widen driveway on SW corner & SR-590 to a minimum of 36 feet. 4. Widen driveway on NE corner & US 19 South frontage road to be a minimum of 12 feet wide on both sides of the driveway median. 5. Change the identification of US 19 from State Road 590 to State Road 55. 6. Remove the identification of NE Coachman Rd. as County Road 2. 7. Provide truck delivery route on the plan for a truck having a wheel base length of 46 feet. All of the above to be addressed prior to D.O. The following to be addressed prior to building permit: 1. Change "Left Turn Only" sign to "Right Turn Only" on north driveway & Stag Run Blvd. 2. Add painted-on two way directional arrows (item #39 on site plan) to the following parking areas: South of Pond #1, NE corner of property west of US 19 South frontage road, SW corner of property west of SW driveway & SR-590. 3. Identify the sign on the north side of parking aisle 3. Install a stop sign that faces east at this location. 4. Identify how "Employee Only Parking" spaces shall be delineated. 5. Change color of two-way directional arrows from yellow to white (item #39 on site plan) per MUTCD standards. 6. Identify the purpose of 2' wide loading zones for all curbed parking spaces. 7. Identify what the 18 inch solid yellow thermoplastic marking is referring to on sheet C-13. 8. Repaint median on driveway located at NE corner & US 19 South frontage road. 9. Install a "No Left Turn" sign on the second median to the west of the driveway on the SW corner & SR-590. 10. Change color of painted diagonal marking to yellow on the south side of the median cut which exists to the west of the driveway on the SW corner & SR-590. The marking shall be rounded on the end and not rectangular as indicated on the site plan. 11. Flip the direction of white diagonal marking on the north side of the median cut which exists to the west of the driveway on SW corner & SR-590. 12. Relocate four median signs that exist for northbound traffic that is exiting the driveway that lies immediately west of the intersection of US 19 & SR-590. Signs shall be relocated to the west to align with the aforementioned driveway. 13. Is concrete median in East entry drive to be removed? If concrete median is to remain, applicant shall paint nose of median with yellow thermoplastic and permanently attach a flex post at the east end of the median. If concrete median is to be removed, a row of flex posts shall be utilized. Either design shall be subject to the approval by Clearwater Traffic Operations. General Note(s): 1) Applicant shall comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule and paid prior to 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. Planning: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, November 16, 2006 - Page 6 1 . Sheet C-4 - Plans ate northeast corner of the building are incomplIPLandscape plan Sheet L-2 provides some detail as to location of landscape areas versus concrete/pavement. Revise. 2. Sheets C-4, C-7, C-9, L-1 and L-2 - Plans are unclear as to whether the north side of the building has a sidewalk between the building and parking or foundation landscaping (as required by Code) (concrete stoop outside door on north side tends to lead one to believe it is a landscaped area, but the landscape plan doesn't show any landscaping). Dimension the width of this area (should be at least five feet in width). Revise. 3 . Sheet C-4 - Key note #8 - Unclear what this relates to, since the Landscape Plan doesn't acknowledge this ramp (Sheet L-2). Unclear what the ramp is for (?). 4. Sheet C-4 - Key Legend #42 - Cannot find on plan, nor can I find a detail on it. 5. Delivery truck travel path(s) - It appears, based on a "NT" for "No Trucks" sign on Stag Run Blvd. (Sheet C-4), that trucks will need to enter the site off NE Coachman Road. Unclear of truck travel path(s) through the site leading to entrance(s) and exit(s). Provide a plan that shows truck travel path(s). 6. Sheet C-4 - Unclear why Key Legend #12 and #17 are shown on the north side of Pond #1. 7. Sheet C-4A - There are only three (not four) spaces in a parking row east of the garden center and crosswalk area (a cart corral is located within this row reducing the number of spaces). Revise. 8. Sheet C-4 - Site Data - Revise the number of parking spaces provided to 765 spaces. 9. Parking Generation Study - Revise the number of parking spaces provided to 765 spaces. 10. Sheet C-4 - Key Legend #40 (pallat and bale storage area) - Must be screened from view by a six-foot high solid wall, finished on the outside similar to the building, with opaque gates. Items stored within this area would not be allowed to be stacked higher than the wall. Also, unclear why this storage area must occur at this location rather than farther south out of plain view of Stag Run Blvd. Revise. 11 . Sheet C-4 and C-4A - Key Legend #20 indicates there is a six-foot high wall intended to be constructed along the west property line. Show on Sheets C-4, C4A, L-2 and L-3 the wall. The wall within the front setback of Stag Run Blvd. cannnot exceed three feet in height. Suggest a detail of the proposed wall (cross section). Wall needs to be finished and painted the same as the building. Revise. 12. Sheets C-4, C-4A, C-15 and C-15A - Coordinate the location of parking lot lighting with site landscaping to avoid shielding of lighting by existing or future tree canopy, generally by not placing site lighting within landscape islands. Revise. 13. Sheet C-4 - Definition of "structure" includes pavement. "Setbacks" listed in the Commercial District are structure setbacks, not building setbacks. Revise Site Data to reflect correct proposed setbacks. 14. It is unclear why existing landscape islands are being rebuilt/reshaped or why parking row dividers are being widened, as well as movement of parking spaces and parking rows, when there is limited improvement to the parking lot and traffic flow. Recommend keeping parking lot as is to a great amount but adding parking islands to better break up the sea of asphalt. Should set up a separate meeting with Rick Albee and myself to discuss specific locations on the site. 15. Sheet C-4A - Show the recycling dumpsters in the southeast portion of the parking lot (takes up three parking spaces). 16. Site inspection reveals many truck trailer bodies being used for the storage of goods for sale in the store. With the additions and remodeling of the store, coupled with the elimination of Wal-Mart's layaway program, will ALL of these truck trailer bodies be removed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy? 17. Site inspection reveals there is a lot of outdoor storage of "landscape material and accessories" on the south side of the building within exising parking and landscape areas. Is it the intent of this proposal to eliminate ALL of this outdoor storage in the existing parking and landscape areas and relocate it to the proposed garden center? Will all of the existing fencing in the parking lot south of the existing garden center be removed with this proposal? If so, it appears that a taller fenced in area is proposed. Is it the intent to add a rack system inside for the storage of the landscape accessories (stepping stones, edging, hoses, etc.) on the higher portions accessible only by forklift? Will products stored on the top rack be visible above the fence? Code limits maximum storage height to 15 feet. Staff would prefer a garden center that blends in better with the rest of the Wal-Mart store by having architectural columns matching the design and color of the walls with the fence material between, with a vinyl windscreen shade cloth providing 100 percent opacity to obscure views of the materials stored in the garden center racks. Revise. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, November 16, 2006 - Page 7 18. Condition of approval to be included in the Development Order: • That the storage of materials within the enclosed garden center, including the racks, not be visible above any fencing, walls or other screening, and not exceed 15 feet in height; 19. Condition of approval to be included in the Development Order: That a vinyl windscreen shade cloth providing 100 percent opacity located on the fencing along the east, west and south elevations of the garden center be maintained in a clean and attractive appearance and shall be in good repair with the color the as the building (roycroft rose) or black, at all times; 20. Condition of approval to be included in the Development Order: That no storage or display of materials/goods be located beyond the limits of the approved garden center (e.g. in the parking lot, drive aisles, etc.); 21 . Condition of approval to be included in the Development Order: That the management of the store fully enforce the requirements/limitations of this Development Order at all times; 22. Planning Staff had previous concerns regarding the proposed color and architectural appearance of the building, desiring an "upgraded" appearance. To that end, based on revised elevations and renderings submitted at a meeting held on October 24, 2006, Staff prefers these revised elevations and renderings using the more rich colors of roycroft rose (primary wall color), renwick beige (wall accent), interface tan (front wall accent), birdseye maple (secondary front wall color), privilege green (front wall accent) and hickory monierlife rile saxony plit shake roof. 23 . Sheets C-4 or C-4A - Unclear where key note #36 is located. Revise/advise. 24. Have you done any research as to any Site Plan conditions from the past that would still be applicable to this proposal, such as hours truck deliveries can occur, whether trucks are allowed to park behind the store with their engine running, hours for dumpster pick-up? 25 . Sheets C-4 and C-4A - Provide dimensions from the edge of the proposed pavement (or pallet/bale storage area) on the west side to the property line wherever changes are proposed. 26. Provide responses as to HOW the proposal complies with the following Flexible Standard criteria for "retail sales and services": 1. Lot size and width: The parcel proposed for development was an existing lot of less than 10,000 square feet and was not in common ownership with any contiguous property on May 1, 1998. 2. Height: a. The increased height results in an improved site plan, landscaping areas in excess of the minimum required or improved design and appearance; b. The increased height will not reduce the vertical component of the view from any contiguous residential property. 3. Side and rear setback: a. The reduction in side and rear setback does not prevent access to the rear of any building by emergency vehicles; b. The reduction in side and rear setback results in an improved site plan, more efficient parking or improved design and appearance; c. The reduction in side and rear setback does not reduce the amount of landscaped area otherwise required. 4. Off-street parking: The physical characteristics of a proposed building are such that the likely uses of the property will require fewer parking spaces per floor area than otherwise required or that the use of significant portions of the building will be used for storage or other non-parking demand-generating purposes. 27. Dimension the width of the foundation landscape areas on the east side of the building (all areas along the building face) on either Sheets C-4 and C-4A or L-2 and L-3. Needs to be a minimum width of five feet. 28. A Comprehensive Sign Program (CSP) has been submitted under Case No. SGN2006-07010 for the Super Wal-Mart proposal. While this appears premature, due to construction time for the building, comments for the CSP will be handled separately from this Flexible Standard Development application. 29. Condition of approval to be included in the Development Order: That a Declaration of Unity of Title document be recorded in the public records prior to the issuance of any permit. 30. Sheets C-4 and C-4A - Unless there is a demonstated need for more handicap parking spaces than required, reduce to the minimum handicap spaces required. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, November 16, 2006 - Page 8 Other: 0 No Comments E Notes: Prior to issuance of a Development Order, submit four revised sets of application material addressing all DRC comments by May 16, 2007, or FLS will be void for failure to timely address DRC comments. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, November 16, 2006 - Page 9 `Clearwater • • DRAFT ACTION AGENDA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE Thursday, November 16, 2006 8:30 a.m. 2:30 am STAFF REVIEW Printed: 11/13/2006 Times are subject to change Case Number: FLS2006-07044 -- 23106 US HIGHWAY 19 N Owner(s): Wal-Mart Stores Inc C/O #2081 Div Store # 0555 Bentonville, Ar 72716 TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Applicant Dan Moyer 3277a Fruitville Road Sarasota, F134237 TELEPHONE: 941-365-4771, FAX: 941-365-4779, E-MAIL: dmoyer@cphengineers.com Location: 16.5 acres located on the west side of US Highway 19 N between NE Coachman Road and Stag Run Boulevard Atlas Page: 263B Zoning District: C, Commercial Request: Flexible Standard approval to permit the expansion of an existing 119,530 square-foot retail sales and services use (Wal-Mart) to a Wal-Mart Supercenter with and expanded Garden Center of a total of 157,990 square feet in the Commercial District with a reduction to the side (east and north) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to 5.66 feet (to pavement) and a reduction to required parking from 790 spaces (five spaces per 1,000 sf GFA) to 766 spaces (4.79 spaces per 1,000 sf GFA), under the provisions of Section 2-703.R, and a reduction to the side (east and north) landscape buffer from five feet to zero feet, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G. Proposed Use: Retail sales and services Neighborhood Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Association(s): Clearwater, F133758 P O Box 8204 TELEPHONE: No Phone, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Neighborhood Coachman Ridge Homeowners Association(s): Clearwater, F133758 Po Box 7626 TELEPHONE: 727-796-5975, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Neighborhood Virginia Groves Association(s): Clearwater, F133764 1746 St. Croix Drive TELEPHONE: 669-1730, FAX: No Fax, E-MAIL: No Email Presenter: Wayne Wells, Planner III Attendees Included: City: Wayne Wells, Neil Thompson, Scott Rice, Rick Albee, Jim Keller Applicant: Dan Moyer, The DRC reviewed this application with the following comments: General Engineering: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, November 16, 2006 - Page 1 1 . Prior to issuance of babuilding permit: 0 1. Applicant shall provide a copy of an approved right-of-way permit from D.O.T. 2. Pay the sanitary sewer and water impact fees as may be required if an increase in water meter sizing is proposed. 3. The City of Clearwater, at the applicant's expense, will remove/relocate any/all water meters that have to be relocated as part of this development, including reclaim water meters. (No meters shall be located within any impervious areas.) 4. 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 tap to the device. Applicant is also responsible for all associated fees and all other installation fees 5. Applicant shall install a gate valve on both sides of proposed backflow device(s). 6. Provide a note or dimension on the plan indicating that the Fire Department Connection (FDC) shall be installed at least 15-feet from the face of building. 7. Provide a note or dimension on the plan indicating that the Fire Department Connection (FDC) shall be located no further than 40-feet from the nearest Fire Hydrant Assembly (FHA). 8. A double detector check valve with bypass meter shall be required for any internal fire protection line. 9. Ductile iron pipe shall be installed between any tap and water meter. Ductile iron pipe must be installed between any tap and backflow preventor device. At least one joint of ductile iron pipe shall be installed on the service side of any backflow preventor device. 10. Fire hydrant lines/fire sprinkler lines shall be constructed of ductile iron pipe. 11. Show on the plan a clean-out for the sanitary sewer lateral and include Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards Detail #305, pg. 1/3. 12. The exterior and interior of all PRECAST manholes shall be coated with at least 15 mils dry thickness of PROCO EP-214-351 Epoxi-Mastic as manufactured by Protective Coatings Inc. per City of Clearwater Contract Specifications and Standards, Part "B", Technical Specifications, Section IV, Article (13)(E). 13. Provide a detail of the proposed doghouse manhole. 14. Show sanitary mains connecting grease traps - these pipes need to be coated with Protecto 401 (from the manufacturer). General Note: If the proposed project necessitates infrastructure modifications to satisfy site-specific water capacity and pressure requirements and/or wastewater capacity requirements, the modifications shall be completed by the applicant and at their expense. If underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, the installation shall be completed and in service prior to construction in accordance with Fire Department requirements. General Note: DRC review is a prerequisite for Building Permit Review; additional comments may be forthcoming upon submittal of a Building Permit Application. Environmental: 1 . Prior to DO: 1. A vegetative buffer shall be provided on all lands within 25 feet of any property designated on the Zoning Atlas as preservation (P), or any property determined to be wetlands under the jurisdiction of the State of Florida ("jurisdictional wetlands"); and all lands within 15 feet of the top of the bank of any creeks, channels, or related waterways which contain jurisdictional wetlands. "Top of the bank" is that point on the slope at which the side slope becomes flatter than one foot vertical to four feet horizontal. (Section 3-907) This applies to the west side of the wetlands, please revise the plans. 2. In acccordance with the City Storm Drainage Design Criteria, Page 7: Vertical walls in retention pond #1 are not permitted adjacent to street rights-of-way , along the boundaries of adjacent properties, or on more than two sides of the pond. Prior to building permit: 3. Submit a detailed planting plan for the wet pond to include at least 35% coverage under normal conditions. Fire: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, November 16, 2006 - Page 2 Does this building contain a fire pump ? Building is greater than 250' iin length, must comply with Ordinance No. 7617-06 Radio System Regulations for Buildings. Acknowledge PRIOR to D.O. FDC is required, and shall be a minimum of 15' from building and shall have a fire hydrant within 40'. Hydrant shall not be located on same main as Fire Sprinkler and must be on supply side of double detector check valve. PRIOR to D.O. Where underground water mains and hydrants are to be installed, they shall be installed, completed, and in service prior to construction as per NFPA-241. A hard road surface able to support the weight of Fire Apparatus prior to any building construction being started. Acknowledge PRIOR to D.O. Entry on US Hwy 19 N ( East Side Dr. ) sheet C-4A shows a drive ailse with a 'RAISED-ISLAND' at 24 feet, remove the ISLAND to allow fire entry from US Hwy 19.PRIOR to D.O. Harbor Master: 1 . No issues. Legal: I . No issues. Land Resources: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, November 16, 2006 - Page 3 I . Revise the retention pond top of bank to be outsde the tree canopy tee #248,249 and 250 prior to D.O. 2. Reroute the sanitary from under tree #248 prior to D.O. 3 . Justify the reasoning for renovating the existing parking lot and removing the trees from the existing landscape islands. These are all healthy trees and shall be preserved in place with no modifications to the islands. Revise plans prior to D.O. 4. Provide a Tree Preservation Plan prepared by a certified arborist, consulting arborist, landscape architect or other specialist in the field of arboriculture. This plan must show how the proposed building, parking, stormwater and utilities impact the critical root zones (drip lines) of trees to be preserved and how you propose to address these impacts i.e.; crown elevating, root pruning and/or root aeration systems. Other data required on this plan must show the trees canopy line, actual tree barricade limits (2/3 of the drip line and/or in the root prune lines if required), and the tree barricade detail. And any other pertinent information relating to tree preservation. Provide prior to building permit. 5 . Show all trees with their canopies, on all of the civil plans prior to D.O. Additional comments may be forthcoming once this data is received and reviewed. 6. The Tree Inventory shall utilize the following rating system All trees rates 2 or below shall be removed from the site. Revise inventory prior to D.O. 0. A dead tree 1. A tree that is dying, severely declining, hazardous, harboring a communicable disease or a tree designated by the State of Florida's Exotic Pest Plant Council as a category #1 ecological pest i.e., Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius). A tree with a rating of 1 should be removed as it is beyond treatment and is a threat to cause personal injury or property damage. 2. A tree exhibiting serious structural defects such as condominant stems with included bark at or near the base, large cavities, large areas of decayed wood, crown dieback, cracked/split scaffold branches, etc. In addition, a tree with health issues such as low energy, low live crown ratio, serious disease or insect problems, nutritional deficiencies or soil pH problems. A tree with a rating of #2 should be removed unless the problem(s) can be treated. A tree with a #2 condition rating will typically require a considerable amount of maintenance to qualify for an upgrade of the condition rating. 3. A tree with average structure and systemic health and with problems that can be corrected with moderate maintenance. A tree with a codominant stem not in the basal area that will be subordinated or cabled and braced or a codominant stem that will soon have included bark can be included as a #3. A tree with a rating of #3 has average appearance, crown density and live crown ratio and should be preserved if possible. 4. A tree with a rating of 4 has good structure and systemic health with minor problems that can be easily corrected with minor maintenance. The tree should have an attractive appearance and be essentially free of any debilitating disease or insect problem. The tree should also have above average crown density and live crown ratio. Mature trees exhibiting scars, old wounds, small cavities or other problems that are not debilitating can be included in this group particularly if they possess unique form or other aesthetic amenities relating to their age. A tree with a rating of 4 is valuable to the property and should be preserved. 5. A tree with very high live crown ratio and exceptional structure and systemic health and virtually free of insect of disease problems or nutritional deficiencies. A tree in this category should have a balanced crown with exceptional aesthetic amenities. A tree in this category should be of a species that possesses characteristics inherent to longevity and withstanding construction impacts. A tree with a #5 rating lends considerable value to the site and should be incorporated into the site design. A tree with a #5 rating is worthy of significant site plan modification to ensure its preservation. 6. A specimen tree. A specimen tree is a tree that possesses a combination of superior qualities in regards to systemic health, structural strength, crown density, live crown ratio, form (balanced crown), overall aesthetic appeal, size, species, age and uniqueness. A great effort should be made to preserve a specimen tree including shifting structures that would adversely impact the tree. In addition, a specimen tree should have an undisturbed area equal to its dripline (equal to the branch spread to grow in. Only an experienced and competent International Society of Arboriculture (I.S.A.) Certified Arborist should be allowed to work on a specimen tree. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, November 16, 2006 - Page 4 7. The tree survey is incomplete, noticed that some trees are missing.*trees, with their actual canopies, on and within 25' of the property must be shown on the plans. Additional comments may be forthcoming once this data is received and reviewed. Landscaping: 1 . Show the sight visibility triangles per Clearwater Code on the Landscape Plans. 2. Sheet L-2 - Landscape terminal island at the northeast corner of the building should have a sidewalk going through it continuing out to Stag Run Blvd. Revise. 3 . Sheet C-4 and C-4A - Wheel stops are required adjacent to all landscape areas, including landscape islands and parking row dividers. 4. Sheets L-1 - L-4 - Revise laurel oaks to live oaks. 5. Coordinate outdoor lighting locations, as well as freestanding signs, with proposed landscaping to ensure the proposed lights and signs will not be shielded by existing or future tree canopies and other landscape materials. Show outdoor lighting locations on Sheets L-1 - L-3. 6. In order to provide maximum planting area for tree root growth, to the greatest degree possible move underground water and utility lines to the edges of islands or into paved areas (example: Sheet C-9A, Blowup B). 7. Sheets L-2 and L-3 - Revise to include tree types and numbers labeled on the plans (just like shrubs and groundcovers). Do also for sweet viburnam shrubs. Difficult to add numbers up absent this information. g . Sheet TR-1 and L-2 indicate that tree #119 (24" DBH oak) is proposed to be saved, but it is adjacent to the proposed building. Unclear how this tree will be saved, due to the height of the building (?). 9. Sheet L-1 - L-3 - There are a number of interior islands large enough that should be planted with shade trees (oaks) that are rather being proposed for cabbage palms or pink trumpet trees. Suggest revising. 10. Sheet L-4 - Revise Plant List - Shade trees minimum size = 10-foot height and 2.5-inch caliper; Accent trees minimum size = eight-foot tall and two-inch caliper. 11 . Sheets L-1 - L-4 - Tree requirements in the Code are based on shade trees. Alternately, two accent trees = one shade tree; three palms (clustered) = one shade tree. Revise plan accordingly. 12. Sheets L-1 - L-3 - Plant trees within landscape area between parking and east property line adjacent to Jiffy Lube. 13. To qualify as "interior landscape area", these areas must meet the following Code requirements: 1 Tree/island min. (unless existing trees are being preserved to meet interior tree requirement); 1 Tree/150 square feet of required greenspace; Shrubs: 50% required greenspace; Groundcover shall be utilized for required greenspace in lieu of turf. 14. Due to the existence of overhead utility lines along the west property line, unless shade trees can be planted approximately 20 feet from these overhead lines, need to plant accent trees. Recommend planting heavily within this western side with trees to reduce views of the building by the single family neighborhood to the west. 15 . Sheets C-4 and C-4A - Need to crosshatch all of the interior landscape areas. Some areas are crosshatched, others not. Need to recalculate the interior landscape area when all changes are done on the plans. Need to discuss what areas are counted toward interior landscape area. Parks and Recreation: 1 . 10/10/06 - FLS2006-07044 To determine whether open space impact fees apply to this project, further information is needed on existing floor area (building coverage). Site data table needs to be corrected to reflect existing building coverage. Stormwater: 1 . The following to be addressed prior to DO. 1. Redesign the pond to adhere to City of Clearwater Storm Design criteria page 7, which stated as follows, "... In no circumstance will vertical walls on detention ponds be permitted adjacent to rights-of-ways, along the boundary of adjacent parcels of land, on more than two sides of a detention pond, or any side of a pond serving only as a water quality facility." 2. To be less confusing, it is recommended that S-1 to be labeled as "Control Structure" on the drainage plan and Storm Schedule. The following to be addressed prior to building permit. 1. Provide a copy of an approved SWFWMD permit. 2. It is recommended to use a bigger size of orifice to reduce maintenance Development Review Agenda - Thursday, November 16, 2006 - Page 5 Solid Waste: 0 • 1 . Please include Recycling Drop-off location on your plans (presently in South East Parking Lot) Traffic Engineering: 1 , 1. Provide rationale for northbound stop sign to the west of parking aisle 6. 2. Increase curb radius from 35 feet to 50 feet on NE driveway & US 19 South frontage road to allow for easier turns and less median conflicts. This median shall remain and not be demolished. 3. Widen driveway on SW comer & SR-590 to a minimum of 36 feet. 4. Widen driveway on NE corner & US 19 South frontage road to be a minimum of 12 feet wide on both sides of the driveway median. 5. Change the identification of US 19 from State Road 590 to State Road 55. 6. Remove the identification of NE Coachman Rd. as County Road 2. 7. Provide truck delivery route on the plan for a truck having a wheel base length of 46 feet. All of the above to be addressed prior to D.O. The following to be addressed prior to building permit: 1. Change "Left Turn Only" sign to "Right Turn Only" on north driveway & Stag Run Blvd. 2. Add painted-on two way directional arrows (item #39 on site plan) to the following parking areas: South of Pond #1, NE corner of property west of US 19 South frontage road, SW corner of property west of SW driveway & SR-590. 3. Identify the sign on the north side of parking aisle 3. Install a stop sign that faces east at this location. 4. Identify how "Employee Only Parking" spaces shall be delineated. 5. Change color of two-way directional arrows from yellow to white (item #39 on site plan) per MUTCD standards. 6. Identify the purpose of 2' wide loading zones for all curbed parking spaces. 7. Identify what the 18 inch solid yellow thermoplastic marking is referring to on sheet C-13. 8. Repaint median on driveway located at NE corner & US 19 South frontage road. 9. Install a "No Left Turn" sign on the second median to the west of the driveway on the SW corner & SR-590. 10. Change color of painted diagonal marking to yellow on the south side of the median cut which exists to the west of the driveway on the SW corner & SR-590. The marking shall be rounded on the end and not rectangular as indicated on the site plan. 11. Flip the direction of white diagonal marking on the north side of the median cut which exists to the west of the driveway on SW corner & SR-590. 12. Relocate four median signs that exist for northbound traffic that is exiting the driveway that lies immediately west of the intersection of US 19 & SR-590. Signs shall be relocated to the west to align with the aforementioned driveway. 13. Is concrete median in East entry drive to be removed? If concrete median is to remain, applicant shall paint nose of median with yellow thermoplastic and permanently attach a flex post at the east end of the median. If concrete median is to be removed, a row of flex posts shall be utilized. Either design shall be subject to the approval by Clearwater Traffic Operations. General Note(s): 1) Applicant shall comply with the current Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and fee schedule and paid prior to 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. Planning: Development Review Agenda - Thursday, November 16, 2006 - Page 6 1 . Sheet C-4 - Plans qate northeast corner of the building are incompleekandscape plan Sheet L-2 provides some detail as to location of landscape areas versus concrete/pavement. Revise. 2. Sheets C-4, C-7, C-9, L-1 and L-2 - Plans are unclear as to whether the north side of the building has a sidewalk between the building and parking or foundation landscaping (as required by Code) (concrete stoop outside door on north side tends to lead one to believe it is a landscaped area, but the landscape plan doesn't show any landscaping). Dimension the width of this area (should be at least five feet in width). Revise. 3. Sheet C-4 - Key note #8 - Unclear what this relates to, since the Landscape Plan doesn't acknowledge this ramp (Sheet L-2). Unclear what the ramp is for (?). 4. Sheet C-4 - Key Legend #42 - Cannot fmd on plan, nor can I fmd a detail on it. 5 . Delivery truck travel path(s) - It appears, based on a "NT" for "No Trucks" sign on Stag Run Blvd. (Sheet C-4), that trucks will need to enter the site off NE Coachman Road. Unclear of truck travel path(s) through the site leading to entrance(s) and exit(s). Provide a plan that shows truck travel path(s). 6. Sheet C-4 - Unclear why Key Legend #12 and #17 are shown on the north side of Pond #1. 7. Sheet C-4A - There are only three (not four) spaces in a parking row east of the garden center and crosswalk area (a cart corral is located within this row reducing the number of spaces). Revise. 8. Sheet C-4 - Site Data - Revise the number of parking spaces provided to 765 spaces. 9. Parking Generation Study - Revise the number of parking spaces provided to 765 spaces. 10. Sheet C-4 - Key Legend #40 (pallat and bale storage area) - Must be screened from view by a six-foot high solid wall, finished on the outside similar to the building, with opaque gates. Items stored within this area would not be allowed to be stacked higher than the wall. Also, unclear why this storage area must occur at this location rather than farther south out of plain view of Stag Run Blvd. Revise. 11 . Sheet C-4 and C-4A - Key Legend #20 indicates there is a six-foot high wall intended to be constructed along the west property line. Show on Sheets C-4, C4A, L-2 and L-3 the wall. The wall within the front setback of Stag Run Blvd. cannnot exceed three feet in height. Suggest a detail of the proposed wall (cross section). Wall needs to be finished and painted the same as the building. Revise. 12. Sheets C-4, C-4A, C-15 and C-15A - Coordinate the location of parking lot lighting with site landscaping to avoid shielding of lighting by existing or future tree canopy, generally by not placing site lighting within landscape islands. Revise. 13. Sheet C-4 - Defmition of "structure" includes pavement. "Setbacks" listed in the Commercial District are structure setbacks, not building setbacks. Revise Site Data to reflect correct proposed setbacks. 14. It is unclear why existing landscape islands are being rebuilt/reshaped or why parking row dividers are being widened, as well as movement of parking spaces and parking rows, when there is limited improvement to the parking lot and traffic flow. Recommend keeping parking lot as is to a great amount but adding parking islands to better break up the sea of asphalt. Should set up a separate meeting with Rick Albee and myself to discuss specific locations on the site. 15. Sheet C-4A - Show the recycling dumpsters in the southeast portion of the parking lot (takes up three parking spaces). 16. Site inspection reveals many truck trailer bodies being used for the storage of goods for sale in the store. With the additions and remodeling of the store, coupled with the elimination of Wal-Mart's layaway program, will ALL of these truck trailer bodies be removed prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy? 17. Site inspection reveals there is a lot of outdoor storage of "landscape material and accessories" on the south side of the building within exising parking and landscape areas. Is it the intent of this proposal to eliminate ALL of this outdoor storage in the existing parking and landscape areas and relocate it to the proposed garden center? Will all of the existing fencing in the parking lot south of the existing garden center be removed with this proposal? If so, it appears that a taller fenced in area is proposed. Is it the intent to add a rack system inside for the storage of the landscape accessories (stepping stones, edging, hoses, etc.) on the higher portions accessible only by forklift? Will products stored on the top rack be visible above the fence? Code limits maximum storage height to 15 feet. Staff would prefer a garden center that blends in better with the rest of the Wal-Mart store by having architectural columns matching the design and color of the walls with the fence material between, with a vinyl windscreen shade cloth providing 100 percent opacity to obscure views of the materials stored in the garden center racks. Revise. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, November 16, 2006 - Page 7 18. Condition of appro. o be included in the Development Order: That the storage of materials within the enclosed garden center, including the racks, not be visible above any fencing, walls or other screening, and not exceed 15 feet in height; 19. Condition of approval to be included in the Development Order: That a vinyl windscreen shade cloth providing 100 percent opacity located on the fencing along the east, west and south elevations of the garden center be maintained in a clean and attractive appearance and shall be in good repair with the color the as the building (roycroft rose) or black, at all times; 20. Condition of approval to be included in the Development Order: That no storage or display of materials/goods be located beyond the limits of the approved garden center (e.g. in the parking lot, drive aisles, etc.); 21. Condition of approval to be included in the Development Order: That the management of the store fully enforce the requirements/limitations of this Development Order at all times; 22. Planning Staff had previous concerns regarding the proposed color and architectural appearance of the building, desiring an "upgraded" appearance. To that end, based on revised elevations and renderings submitted at a meeting held on October 24, 2006, Staff prefers these revised elevations and renderings using the more rich colors of roycroft rose (primary wall color), renwick beige (wall accent), interface tan (front wall accent), birdseye maple (secondary front wall color), privilege green (front wall accent) and hickory monierlife file saxony plit shake roof. 23 . Sheets C-4 or C-4A - Unclear where key note #36 is located. Revise/advise. 24. Have you done any research as to any Site Plan conditions from the past that would still be applicable to this proposal, such as hours truck deliveries can occur, whether trucks are allowed to park behind the store with their engine running, hours for dumpster pick-up? 25 . Sheets C-4 and C-4A - Provide dimensions from the edge of the proposed pavement (or pallet/bale storage area) on the west side to the property line wherever changes are proposed. 26. Provide responses as to HOW the proposal complies with the following Flexible Standard criteria for "retail sales and services": 1. Lot size and width: The parcel proposed for development was an existing lot of less than 10,000 square feet and was not in common ownership with any contiguous property on May 1, 1998. 2. Height: a. The increased height results in an improved site plan, landscaping areas in excess of the minimum required or improved design and appearance; b. The increased height will not reduce the vertical component of the view from any contiguous residential property. 3. Side and rear setback: a. The reduction in side and rear setback does not prevent access to the rear of any building by emergency vehicles; b. The reduction in side and rear setback results in an improved site plan, more efficient parking or improved design and appearance; c. The reduction in side and rear setback does not reduce the amount of landscaped area otherwise required. 4. Off-street parking: The physical characteristics of a proposed building are such that the likely uses of the property will require fewer parking spaces per floor area than otherwise required or that the use of significant portions of the building will be used for storage or other non-parking demand-generating purposes. 27. Dimension the width of the foundation landscape areas on the east side of the building (all areas along the building face) on either Sheets C-4 and C-4A or L-2 and L-3. Needs to be a minimum width of five feet. 28. A Comprehensive Sign Program (CSP) has been submitted under Case No. SGN2006-07010 for the Super Wal-Mart proposal. While this appears premature, due to construction time for the building, comments for the CSP will be handled separately from this Flexible Standard Development application. 29. Condition of approval to be included in the Development Order: That a Declaration of Unity of Title document be recorded in the public records prior to the issuance of any permit. 30. Sheets C-4 and C-4A - Unless there is a demonstated need for more handicap parking spaces than required, reduce to the minimum handicap spaces required. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, November 16, 2006 - Page 8 Other: 0 No Comments • Notes: Prior to issuance of a Development Order, submit four revised sets of application material addressing all DRC comments by May 16, 2007, or FLS will be void for failure to timely address DRC comments. Development Review Agenda - Thursday, November 16, 2006 - Page 9 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 11:34 AM To: $carol.colIins@dot.state.fl.us' Subject: FLS2006-07044, Wal-Mart, 23106 US Hwy 19 N Carol - The parcel number for Wal-Mart is 06/29/16/52413/000/0010. If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me. Wayne Wells Planner III 727-562-4504 0 0 Wells, Wayne From: Shawen, Dee Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 8:00 AM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: RE: OCL-0018651, 23106 US Hwy 19 (Wal-Mart) It shouldn't be, the DRT who opened the OCL case should have scheduled an inspection on the case to trigger a work order to look at the case before renewal were mailed. Thanks for the info, I'll close the OCL case. -----Original Message----- From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 6:17 PM To: Shawen, Dee Subject: OCL-0018651, 23106 US Hwy 19 (Wal-Mart) Dee - I am working on a Flexible Standard case for Wal-Mart and while looking through Permit Plan I found the above OCL. This OCL was only for the contractor building out a Blimpie Subs in the Wal-Mart building. The buildout of Blimpie Subs was issued a Certificate of Occupancy on 11/17/05 (BCP2005-07444). This OCL is shown in "REN" status for 2006-2007. Why is this OCL being renewed if it was only for that job and it was completed in November 2005? Wayne 6 0 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 9:46 AM To: Castelli, Joelle Wiley Cc: Matthews, Douglas E.; Delk, Michael; Clayton, Gina; Thompson, Neil Subject: St. Petersburg Times Reporter This morning I spoke to Mike Donila, reporter with the St. Petersburg Times, regarding the recently submitted Flexible Standard Development application to expand the existing Wal-Mart at 23106 US Hwy 19 N to a Supercenter with an expanded Garden Center. I explained that I am performing a "completeness" review at this point. If deemed complete, it will be scheduled for the August 31, 2006, Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting. If not complete, they will be given to a certain date to make their application complete and, if they submit the necessary information to make it complete, then it will be scheduled for the same DRC date mentioned above. I also explained that the DRC would determine if the application meets Code. He said he would contact me tomorrow to see if they were deemed complete. Z96-08 Page 3 PREVIOUS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Board previous approval of the request was subject to the following 13 conditions:- 1) Within the 25 foot wide buffer proposed along the rear of the site (the west side) and along the Stag Run Blvd. Frontage west of the proposed driveway (a portion of the north side), buffer vegetation shall be installed consisting of three rows of shrubs (minimum height 30" at time of installation) placed three (3) feet on center; the tree planting requirements of the Clearwater City code for perimeter landscaping shall also be met. Due to site constraints, however, the rear buffer can be reduced to a minimum of 10 feet in width along up to 20 percent of the width of the property to accommodate the turning radii required for truck loading access and maneuvers so long as no reduction in plant materials in the reduced width buffer occurs. Plant materials to be installed in these areas shall be dense, fast growing varieties. A landscaping plan indicating this landscaping, as well as all other required landscaping, shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Development and Asst. Public Works Director (Environmental) and approval of this plan shall occur prior to the issuance of a building permit; 2) The Wal-Mart building shall maintain a 75 foot setback from Stag Run Boulevard; 3) The existing driveway proposed for removal along Stag Run B'vd. Shall be completely removed through the wetland mitigation area and the land under the driveway shall be restored to a functioning wetland condition to the extent possible given existing utilities in this area; 4) During construction, erosion barriers shall be installed to protect wetland areas to be preserved and /or created; 5) No alcoholic beverage sales for on-premise consumption shall be permitted on the subject property; 6) The hours: o operation shall be from 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m., seven days a wee. o, xCept that extended hours' of operation of 7:00 a.m. to until 11:00 p.m. may be 06emitted forspecial events for up to 10 days per calendar year; 7) No pickups or deliveries shall occur before 8:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m., seven days a week; 8) The applicant shall consti uct or, alternately, provide funds to cover the full construction costs of cul-de-sacs or other street termini, as deemed acceptable by the City staff, to close Stag Run blvd. To through traffic; such construction should include landscaping and other design considerations to eliminate cut-through traffic; J) a. The applicant shall provide all improvements to surrounding roadways required by the Florida Department of Transportation, b. As offered, the applicant shall pay $10,000.00 for improvements to the North East Coachman Road (FDOT project for FY 92-y3); The applicant shall provide architectural renderings showing the proposed east (front), north and south elevations of the proposed Wal-Mart building as part of its site plan application. These elevations shal! demonstrate architectural features, such as color schemes, entrance treatments, and landscaping which mitigate the "boxlike" appearance of some Wal-Mart stores and specify color treatment for the building; 0 1% Z96-08 Page 4 1 1) All outdoor storage and displays shall be required to be approved through the conditional use permit process. Proposals for special, temporary outdoor sales shall be included in this requirement, so that screening and other conditions can be established. Also included are temporary outdoor storage proposals; 12) A cross-access easement shall a executed between the applicant and the owner of Lot 4 to permit the sharing of the proposed driveway access(es); no direct driveway access shall be permitted to Lot 4 from NE Coachman Road; and 13) No semi-trailers shall enter or exit the property on :Stag Run Road Boulevard. At its meeting of July 16, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to approve the request to extend the hours of operation to 24 hours a day, seven days a week subject to the following additional conditions of approval: 1) Dumpster service shall be prohibited between the hours of 9p.m. and 9 a.m.; 2) Landscaping shall be continuously maintained especially along the vVest side of the site; 3) All site lighting shall be equipped with a 90 degree cut-off mechanism, with the light being directed downward and away from adjoining residential properties and street rights-of-way prior to issuance of the requisite occupational license; and 4) There shall be no parking of refrigerated or other vehicles which must be parked in a running condition west of the east wall of the Wal-Mart building during the hours of 9:00 P.M. to 9:00 a.m. With the exception of condition #6, and the newly established four conditions listed above, all previously approved conditions of approval remain in effect. CC Z9608 Pinellas County Property Apper Information: 06 29 16 52413 000 0 ' Page 2 of 5 00 / 29 / 10 / 52413 / 000 / 0010 02-Aug-2006 Jim Smith, CFA Pinellas County Property Appraiser 10:52:28 Ownership Information Non-Residential Property Address, Use, and Sales UAL-MART STORES INC OBK: 08258 OPG: 1077 C/O #2081 DIU STORE # 0555 1301 SE 10TH ST BENTOHUILLE AR 72716-0001 EVAC: Non-EUAC Comparable sales value as Prop Addr: 23106 US HIGHWAY 19 N of Jan 1, 2005, based on Census Tract: 267.02 sales from 2003 - 2004: 0 Sale Date OR Book/Page Price {Qual/UnQ} Vac/Imp Plat Information 5 /1,993 8,258/1,077 5,054,400 {Q} I 1993: Book 109 Pgs 013-014 0 /0 01 0 0 { } 0000: Book Pgs - 0 /0 0/ 0 0 { } 0000: Book Pgs - 0 /0 01 0 0 { } 2005 Value EXEMPTIONS Just/Market: 9,200,000 Homestead: NO Ownership % .000 Govt Exem: NO Use %: .000 Assessed/Cap: 9,200,000 Institutional Exem: NO Tax Exempt %: .000 Historic Exem: 0 Taxable: 9,200,000 Agricultural: 0 2005 Tax Information District: CU Seawall: Frontage: Clearwater view: 05 Millage: 23.2372 Land Size Unit Land Land Land Front x Depth Price Units Meth 05 Taxes: 213,782.24 1} 0 x 0 7. 00 719, 343. 1 S Special Tax .00 2} 0 x 0 1,000.00 .64 A 3} 0 x 0 .00 .00 Without the Save-Our-Homes 4} 0 x 0 .00 .00 cap, 2005 taxes will be : 5} 0 x 0 .00 .00 213, 782. 24 6} 0 x 0 . 00 . 00 Without any exemptions, 2005 taxes will be 213, 782.24 Short Legal LOEHMANN'S PLAZA REPLAT PT OF LOT i LYING IN SEC'S Description 6 & 7 DESC BEG NW CDR OF LOT i TH S89DE 310.72FT TH Building Information http://136.174.187.131htbinlegi-scr3?plus=l &r=0%2E32&o=l &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &s=4&t3=1... 8/2/2006 Pinellas County Property Appoer Information: 06 29 16 52413 000 00 Page 3 of 5 Property and Land Use Code descriptions 00 f 2 16 / 52413 f 000 l 0010 :01 02-Aug-2006 Jim Smith, CFA Pinellas County Property Appraiser 10:52:29 Commercial Card Di of i Improvement Type: Discount Store Property Address: 23106 US HIGHWAY 19 N Prop Use: 323 Land Use: 14 Structural E1Bmonts Foundation Spread/Mono Footing Floor System Slab on Grade Exterior Wall Concrete Block Height Factor 20 Party Wall None Structural Frame Masonry Pillar&Steel Roof Frame Bar Joist/Rigid Fram Roof Cover Built Up/Metal/Gyps Cabinet & Mill Average Floor Finish Carpet Combination Interior Finish Drywall Total Units 0 Heating & Air Heating&Cooling Pckg Fixtures 41 Bath Tile Floor + Half Wall Electric Average Shape Factor Rectangle Quality Average Year Built 1,994 Effective Age 10 Other Depreciation 0 Function Depreciation 0 Economic Depreciation 0 Sub Aromas Description Factor Area Description Factor Area 1) Base Area 1. 00 103,674 7) . 00 0 2) Utility .55 12,427 8) 00 0 3) Sales Service Area 1. 00 4,680 9) . 00 0 4) Open Porch .30 1,456 10) .00 0 5) Open Porch .20 3,744 11) .00 0 6) .00 0 12) . 00 0 CommE3 r4-- i.a1 Extra FBaturBs Description Dimensions Price Units Value RCD Year 1) FRGT RAMP 1993 12.00 1,993 23,920 23,920 1,994 2) ASPHALT 518370 1.75 518,370 907,150 907,150 999 3) COHC PAVE 6000 4.00 6,000 24,000 24,000 999 4) FIRESPRIHK 120781 1.75 120,781 211,370 173,320 1,994 5) FENCE 776 16.00 776 12,420 9,190 1,996 6) FENCE 1171SF 14.50 1,171 16,980 13,580 1,998 TOTAL RECORD VALUE: 1,1 51,160 Map With Property Address (non-vacant) [+-I F +_1 T 41 R F q http://136.174.187.131htbinlcgi-scr3?plus=l &r=0%2E32&o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &s=4&t3=1... 8/2/2006 Pinellas County Property App?er Information: 06 29 16 52413 000 06 Page 4 of 5 19 1.7; i.i 1/8 Mile Aerial Photograph (2002) http://136.174.187.13/htbin/cgi-scr3?plus=l &r=0%2E32&o=l &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &s=4&t3=1... 8/2/2006 Plne,!1as C'uunty Prohert\ .-\hl? cr lnt viiiation: 00 29 10 5241 3 000 0? ?n ml: j x . t l Pinellas County Property Appraiser Parcel Information Back to Search-Page An explanation-of this screen Pa(-,c 5 of 5 „G ?r ?J >yi .3 a 41 F 4 i http://136.174.187.13/htbin/cgi-scr3?plus=1&r=0%2E32&o=1 &a=1 &b=1 &c=1 &s=4&t3=1... 8/2/2006 4 0 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 2:56 PM To: 'dmoyer@cphengineers.com' Cc: Lopez, Michael Subject: FLS2006-07044 - 23106 US Highway 19 N - Wal-Mart Supercenter Dan - Upon further review, there is no fee in our Code for this Minor Revision, so I am sending the check back to you. I will process your request once I receive the email/letter explaining the request. Thanks. Wayne -----Original Message----- From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 2:23 PM To: 'dmoyer@cphengineers.com' Cc: Lopez, Michael Subject: FLS2006-07044 - 23106 US Highway 19 N - Wal-Mart Supercenter Dan - Revisions were just submitted today by Sandra Latimer for Building Permit #BCP2007-11185 for the Wal-Mart Supercenter at 23106 US Highway 19 N. One of the Planning comments related to changes to the exterior colors of the building. As part of the resubmission was a revised color scheme rendered elevations and a check for $400 for a Minor Revision to the color scheme approved under FLS2006-07044. So as to completely understand the revisions and ensure no misunderstandings, could you please submit either a letter or an email explaining what specific revisions were made (are requested) on the plans and the reasoning for such? Thanks. Wayne M. Wells, A/CP Planner III City of Clearwater 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756-5520 Phone: 727-562-4504 Fax: 727-562-4865 77 A a,v.L a7;dr-oJ,-y PpAw err ? ?: , Q,ODQ¢,??DO.>z ? Date ;,?• ' ! -b Sr Vlme CaUern A_ o (yf lx ???v,,.a/'? X31 Ufa VS (Qty Phan '1 a? 7a? `77"77 -6 & 2 AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION lfax 7-'?-'7 -7--n -Y &Z-lz Meo6age perm..sr-coe"% 1 {o ??.?¢ Per 04 Sd -Kf?j CCun Use - gOJZttu ce.4?c-/ -spa Bede Time To Call Date Taken f3y??'- 0 9. LL CITY OF CLEARWATER Clearwater PLANNING DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING 0 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE: (727) 562-4567 FAX: (727) 562-4576 W W W . MYCLEARW ATER. C OM October 27, 2006 RE: NOTICE OF FILING OF AN APPLICATION FOR FLEXIBLE STANDARD DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AT 23106 US HIGHWAY 19 N (FLS2006-07044) To Surrounding Property Owners: As a property owner within 500 feet of 23106 US HIGHWAY 19 N, the City of Clearwater Planning Department gives notice that an application for Flexible Standard approval to permit the expansion of an existing 119,530 square-foot retail sales and services use (Wal-Mart) to a Wal-Mart Supercenter with and expanded Garden Center of a total of 157,990 square feet in the Commercial District with a reduction to the side (east and north) setback from 10 feet to zero feet (to pavement), a reduction to the side (west) setback from 10 feet to 5.66 feet (to pavement) and a reduction to required parking from 790 spaces (five spaces per 1,000 sf GFA) to 766 spaces (4.79 spaces per 1,000 sf GFA), under the provisions of Section 2-703.R, and a reduction to the side (east and north) landscape buffer from five feet to zero feet, as a Comprehensive Landscape Program, under the provisions of Section 3-1202.G.. On November 16, 2006, the Development Review Committee (composed of the City's professional staff) will review and determine whether the application demonstrates compliance with the City's Community Development Code. Following that review and determiniation, the Planning Director will issue a Development Order approving, approving with conditions, or denying the application. The earliest date that the City will make a decision on the application will be November 16, 2006. The City encourages you to participate in the review of this application. You may contact me at 727-562-4504 or Wayne.Wells@myclearwater.com for further information, visit our office to review the files and/or submit written comments to be considered in the City's review of the application. Please be advised that the applicant may submit additional or new information regarding this case; which you may review during regular business hours. However, no further notice will be provided to you should the application be amended. An appeal of the decision of the Planning Director may be initiated by the applicant or property owners within the required notice area who present competent substantial evidence at, or prior to, the Development Review Committee meeting on November 16, 2006. An appeal must be filed, including an appeal fee, with the Planning Department within seven days of the date of the Development Order. Thank you for your interest in the City of Clearwater's development review process. You may access our Planning Department through the City's website: www.myclearwater.com. Sincerelyyours, The DRC meeting time is 2:30 Room 216 VJQA?? m W?& Wayne Wells,AICP Planner III Letter of Notification - FLS2006-07044 - 23106 US HIGHWAY 19N I ,r'_ i A B C PROPERTIES LTD PO BOX 593688 ORLANDO FL 32859 - 3688 FISHER, GREGG FISHER, CAROL J 23331 US HIGHWAY 19 N CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 1574 SUSAN ENTERPRISES CO PO BOX 6067 PALM HARBOR FL 34684 - 0667 SAVELLE, SIDNEY H THE POBOX53 HOUSTON TX 77001 - 0053 HAKKI, HADI THE HAKKI, ISTABRAK THE 104 POINCIANA LN LARGO FL 33770 - 2614 MOODY, LOREN T 1765 BEVILLE RD CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 1502 KILBRIDE, CHARLES W KILBRIDE, C D 2489 STAG RUN BLVD CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 1835 GRANDICH, ELIZABETH B 2478 COACHWHIP TER CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 1801 COOPER, EARLE S COOPER, DAWN C 1697 MIDNIGHT PASS WAY CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 1821 PANAGIOTOPOULOS, THEODOROS N 1655 MIDNIGHT PASS WAY CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 1821 ERWIN ELECTRIC INC 1715 COACHMAN PLAZA DR STE A CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 1930 PARISE, CONSTANCE M THE 2424 SUMMERWOOD CT DUNEDIN FL 34698 - 2253 ELGIN, DESNEE E 2427 SABER CT CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 1120 C L APARTMENTS LP 400 LOCUST ST STE 790 DES MOINES IA 50309 - 2347 SUPER STAR TIRE STORE CLWR INC 1717 COACHMAN PLZ DR CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 1905 FLORIDA POWER CORP PO BOX 14042 ST PETERSBURG FL 33733 - 4042 CANTU, DAVID O CANTU, JEAN B 1791 MCCAULEY RD CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 1542 DAVIES, CHARLES P 2483 STAG RUN BLVD CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 1835 STELLICK, JAMES J STELLICK, VICKI E 2484 COACHWHIP TER CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 1801 HARLAN, RONALD DEAN HARLAN, SUSAN K 3008 NORTHFIELD DR TARPON SPRINGS FL 34688 - 9123 KEKLLAS, ELEFTERIOS 1641 MIDNIGHT PASS WAY CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 1821 COBBLESTONE COURT INC 23197 US HIGHWAY 19 N CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 1847 ADVANCE STORES CO PO BOX 2710 ROANOKE VA 24001 - 2710 DENISON LTD PTNSHP 5445 TRIANGLE PKWY STE 400 NORCROSS GA 30092 - 2575 CANARY, RICHARD L 1795 MCCAULEY RD CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 1542 BELL, SUSAN C 2495 STAG RUN BLVD CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 1835 LORELLO, JOHN C LORELLO, PATRICIA M 2477 STAG RUN BLVD CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 1835 MEIR, EZRA 2492 COACHWHIP TER CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 1801 GEORGE, BRIAN T 1669 MIDNIGHT PASS WAY CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 1821 URINO, FRANK N & NATALIE TRUST URINO, FRANK N THE 1627 MIDNIGHT PASS WAY CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 1821 I CONTAKOS, NICHOLAS J EST 1614 CONE AVE APEX NC 27502 - 1518 FISCHER, RANDY 1567 MIDNIGHT PASS WAY CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 1819 BURNHAM, REBECCA N 1582 MIDNIGHT PASS WAY CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 1818 CLYNE, ROBERT F JR CLYNE, LINDA M 1626 MIDNIGHT PASS WAY CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 1820 CHINNICI, JOSEPH CHINNICI, DIANNA 5119 DEVONSHIRE RD RICHMOND VA 23225 - 3011 LOSI, ROBERT A LOSI, GLORIA J 2486 STAG RUN BLVD CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 1832 WAL-MART STORES INC 1301 SE 10TH ST BENTONVILLE AR 72716 - 0001 REALTY INCOME CORP # 1216- 04 P O BOX 460069 ESCONDIDO CA 92046 - 0069 DECADE CO INCOME PROP N19 W24130 RIVERWOOD DR # 100 WAUKESHA WI 53188 - 1131 FL DEPT OF TRANS 11201 N MCKINLEY DR TAMPA FL 33612 - 6456 • BYARS, KATHERINE G BYARS, JAMES L 1599 MIDNIGHT PASS WAY CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 1819 BRILL, DAVID B 1551 MIDNIGHT PASS WAY CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 1819 SUHOZA, BRIAN D SUHOZA, TERESA 1598 MIDNIGHT PASS WAY CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 1818 LARSEN, JAMES A LARSEN, JO ANNE 1640 MIDNIGHT PASS WAY CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 1820 BYARS, SARAH BYARS, JAMES L JR 2481 COACHWHIP TER CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 1802 WILSON, MICHAEL S WILSON, RITA J 2492 STAG RUN BLVD CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 1832 BLANCHARD, RICHARD B BLANCHARD, CATHY H 1583 MIDNIGHT PASS WAY CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 1819 WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL INC 4288 W DUBLIN-GRANVILLE RD DUBLIN OH 43017 - 1442 LAURENT, JOHN F THE DURRANCE, BARBARA J TRUST PO BOX 10868 TALLAHASSEE FL 32302 - 2868 LAURENT, JOHN F THE DURRANCE, BARBARA J TRUST PO BOX 10868 TALLAHASSEE FL 32302 - 2868 SZAZYNSKI, TIMOTHY C SZAZYNSKI, CAROL 2565 NE COACHMAN RD CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 1804 BUCKLES, JEANNETTE K BUCKLES, KENNETH P 1550 MIDNIGHT PASS WAY CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 1818 MARINEAU, NORMAN R MARINEAU, JANCIE A 1612 MIDNIGHT PASS WAY CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 1820 BELDIA, ADELBERT B BELDIA, NOVELYN L 15512 REDINGTON DR REDINGTON BEACH FL 33708 - 1738 JOHANSEN, PAMELA J THE 2480 STAG RUN BLVD CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 1832 RANEY, KENNETH D 2498 STAG RUN BLVD CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 1832 TAHERI, DAVID B THE TAHERI FAMILY TRUST 14874 KERNITE CT NEVADA CITY CA 95959 - 8609 FLORIDA POWER CORP PO BOX 14042 ST PETERSBURG FL 33733 - 4042 SUNCOAST RUMORS INC PO BOX 10868 TALLAHASSEE FL 32302 - 2868 FLORIDA POWER CORP PO BOX 14042 ST PETERSBURG FL 33733 - 4042 NORTHEAST COACHMAN PROF* E M G & ASSOC INC CENTER CLEARWATER 9905 RACETRACK RD 2519 MCMULLEN BOOTH RD # TAMPA FL 33626 - 4458 202 CLEARWATER FL 33761 - 4159 EMG&ASSOCINC CLEARWATER 2519 MCMULLEN BOOTH RD # 202 CLEARWATER FL 33761 - 4159 DUTTER DESIGN & CONSULTING INC 2528 NE COACHMAN RD CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 1803 ELKABBANY, KAMEL 2625 SR 590 # 111 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2210 KUSHNIR, YAROSLAV KUSHNIR, VLADIMIR 2625 SR 590 # 114 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2210 WALKER, CHARLES W JR 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 123 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2210 MINAYA, CHRISTIAN 2625 STATE RD 509 # 212 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - DELLIS, MARIA 13587 FEATHER SOUND DR # 1013 CLEARWATER FL 33762 - 5504 OCAMPO,HERNANDO 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 224 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2210 COLEMAN, CHARLES H COLEMAN, KIMBERLY A 640 NW BLACKBERRY CIR LAKE CITY FL 32055 - 5091 HICKS, PAMELA A 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 112 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2210 SZOBOLODI, GABOR TAKACS, JUDIT 29757 66TH WAY N CLEARWATER FL 33761 - 1607 BURNS, MARC PO BOX 902 COMMACK NY 11725 - 0902 E M G & ASSOC INC CLEARWATER 2519 MCMULLEN BOOTH RD # 202 CLEARWATER FL 33761 - 4159 FRYE, GENE V FRYE, ONALINE 82115BST#115 PINELLAS PARK FL 33781 - 1733 WERNER, MICHAEL A WERNER, ELIZABETH H 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 222 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2210 FENTON, HAROLD F FENTON, FRANCES 1581 GULF BLVD # 604N CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2999 DAILEY, CHRISTOPHER S 1740 EVANS DR CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 1908 COACHMAN CREEK CONDO ASSN 2625 SR 590 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - ANDERSON, BARBARA A 2625 SR 590 # 113 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2210 SIMIC, JOVICA SIMIC, SLAVICA 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 122 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2210 GREVA, ZULFI GREVA,ORNELA 2829 AMBOY RD STATEN ISLAND NY 10306 - 2006 MC CANN, SUSAN B 13798 74TH AVE SEMINOLE FL 33776 - 3801 REGISTER, JENNIFER M 5122 75TH STREET N ST PETERSBURG FL 33709 - 2445 KUTHY, AGNES 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 312 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2211 KELLEY, JAMES E 206 S MAYWOOD AVE CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 4218 GUZZO, DANIEL HAVERIC-IMAMOVIC, AMELA TSOUKATOS, GEORGE GUZZO, CATHERINE 2625 STATE RD 590 # 323 77 GORDON ST PO BOX 3261 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2211 PERTH AMBOY NJ 08861 - 4401 PRINCETON NJ 08543 - 3261 NORTON, CHERYL A 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 411 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2211 DREW, RICHARD E DREW, ROLENA C 1992 TEMPLE TER CLEARWATER FL 33764 - 6651 MONAHAN, LYNN A 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 423 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2212 CHAU, DOC VO 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 512 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2212 KUSHNIR, MIKHAIL 2092 DAWN DR CLEARWATER FL 33763 - 4103 LONDONO,HERNANDO VASQUEZ, ANA M 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 524 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2212 DE CAUSSIN, MARTHA A 2625 STATE RD 590 # 533 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2212 O'DELL, THOMAS N 80 CEDAR ELM DR SAFETY HARBOR FL 34695 - 4621 DOUTHIRT, JOHN E 9440 WYNNECREST DR CINCINNATI OH 45242 - 6941 YATES, RIONALD D 2625 STATE ROAD 590 APT 412 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2211 CECCE, LAWRENCE TUTAS, BRYANT K 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 421 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2212 SMELTZER, WILLIAM T 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 424 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2212 PALMER, MARIA S 1799 N HIGHLAND AVE # 141 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 2112 HAKKI, ABDUL H HAKKI, BELMINA 1508 STURBRIDGE CT DUNEDIN FL 34698 - 2260 HARDEMAN, TONI R 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 531 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2212 MILIC, TANJA BJELOTOMIC, PETAR 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 534 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2212 ALTMAN, PAUL 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 613 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2213 HERCEG, AMER 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 622 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2213 • FENTON, HAROLD F FENTON, FRANCES 1581 GULF BLVD # 604N CLEARWATER FL 33767 - 2999 DASHI, SPIRO DASHI, EFIGJENI 2625 STATE ROAD 590 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2235 BARSS, JAMES A 57 WOOD DR NORWOOD MA 02062 - 3131 KUSHNIR, YAROSLAV 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 514 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2212 KORKIS, JACOB 1001 PEARCE DR # 310 CLEARWATER FL 33764 - 1105 BOZEK, TOMASZ 2625 STATE RD 590 # 532 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2212 KORMOCZI, BRIGITTA 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 611 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2213 SIMONEAU, LEON SIMONEAU, SHERRY 15 BARBARA LN HUDSON NH 03051 - 3769 CENGIC, AMER CENGIC, ADILA 704 RICHARDS AVE CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 5437 DAVIDA, JENNIFER L DASHI, SPIRO RUMMLER, KATHLEEN M 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 624 DASHI, EFIGJENI 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 712 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2213 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 711 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2213 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2213 MAC KENZIE, ROBERT V • BOGDAN, AKOS P • MAC KENZIE, JENNIE 1141 MARINE ST 45 DARTMOUTH ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1044 BEVERLY MA 01915 - 1656 PRUDHOMME, CHARLES H ZWEIL, WILLIAM C JR 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 722 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2213 HADLEY, RONALD A 3118 PHOENIX AVE OLDSMAR FL 34677 - 5608 COHEN, MICHAEL C DOUTHIRT, HARRIET A 530 ALLEGHENY AVE # A TOWSON MD 21204 - 4232 KLAUCK, RICHARD A 614 S SPENCER AVE CLEARWATER FL 33756 - 6237 NOGIC, DZEVAD NOGIC, DURDA 2625 SR 590 # 823 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2214 FAIRBURN, ROBERT 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 912 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2214 SARIC, LJUBICA 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 921 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2214 ALBANO, ANTHONY F 232 CAMPBELL AVE REVERE MA 02151 - 3227 GOBLE, TIMOTHY J GOBLE, PATRICIA J 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1013 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2215 COACHMAN CREEK 812 TRUST 2705 BRATTLE LN CLEARWATER FL 33761 - 1206 FRACALOSSI, VERONICA 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 821 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2214 MIDNIGHT ROSE INC THE 824 COACHMAN TRUST PO BOX 413 CLEARWATER FL 33757 - 0413 NORCROSS, EVA M 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 913 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2214 CORPER, TYSON L 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 922 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2214 GLYNN, THOMAS F 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1011 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2215 MARRERO, ELIZABETH 2625 SR 590 # 1014 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2215 KOTCHEVA, STOYANKA 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 721 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2213 VUCINIC, NEDJO VUCINIC, RADOMIRKA 2625 STATE RD 590 # 724 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2213 PENN, LAWRENCE W 47-18 217TH ST # 1 C BAYSIDE NY 11361 - 3565 FRANKLIN, ANCESNETTE M 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 822 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2214 ADEN, DAVID L 4611 KLING DR ALEXANDRIA VA 22312 - 1512 MEYER, RYAN H 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 914 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2214 COOGAN, WILLIAM COOGAN, GLORIA 1430 DAVENPORT DR NEW PORT RICHEY FL 34655 - 4224 VATEVA, MARINA S 3540 32ND AVE N # 216 ST PETERSBURG FL 33713 - 2431 PETROVIC, BRUNO PETROVIC, LJILJANA 3076 CASCADE DR CLEARWATER FL 33761 - 4011 CERDA, MIGUEL A COSTAN, DOINA DI MARCO, GUISEPPE 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1022 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1023 1 MARCIA AVE CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2215 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2215 TORONTO ON M6G 2Y3 00030 - CANADA GRIMES, CAROLYN A MORIN, ERIC L • SELEC, ANDRE 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1031 2625 SR 590 # 1032 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1033 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2215 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2215 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2215 BURYKIN, MARK 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1034 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2215 BLEI, EDWIN PAGE, DARLENE 2625 KEENE PARK DR LARGO FL 33771 - 1821 COSTACHE, LEE ALEXANDER 12149 78TH AVE SEMINOLE FL 33772 - DAVID, MARY A 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1113 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2216 HARRIS, JONATHAN J 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1122 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2216 SCHONMANN, KELLY 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1131 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2216 SHTYRKALO,PAVEL 2625 STATE ROAD 590 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2235 THOMPSON, LINDA 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1213 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2216 READING, MARVIN D 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1222 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2217 DOUTHIRT, ERIC M . DOUTHIRT, JAMES M 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1231 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2217 ROBITAILLE, ALAIN F 2625 SR 590 # 1114 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2216 PRAMATARIS, JAMES PRAMATARIS, DIANNE 21 ALEXANDER AVE FARMINGDALE NY 11735 - 1603 RAJPAL, KAMLA PANCHGANI MAHARASHTRA INDIA 412805 00000 - BAYYARI, MOHD 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 2832 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2226 RAKANOVIC, IRFAN RAKANOVIC, ZUMRA 1623 MAPLE TRACE CT GRAYSON GA 30017 - 4013 THOMPSON, TERRY P THOMPSON, DEBORAH S PO BOX 231 WEBSTER NC 28788 - 0231 GIURI, ROBERT A 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1232 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2217 CHESNET, DARLA R 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1121 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2216 BIGLER, KELLY A 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1124 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2216 CUMMINGS, LOIS S 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1133 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2216 SMALL, KAREN G 2625 SR 590 # 1212 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2216 JOHNSON, TRACI S JOHNSON, SUE A 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1221 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2217 CORBETT, ROBERT D 253 N ELTING CORNERS RD HIGHLAND NY 12528 - 2906 RAWLINS, ANDREW T 2625 SR 590 # 1233 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2217 JAMES-GILL, SUSAN SCOTT, ALICE C EARNEST, GINGER D 251 W ESSEX AVE 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1311 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1312 LANDSDOWNE PA 19050 - 1508 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2217 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2217 MOLLBERG, SVEN B TRUST 5333 PARK AVE DOWNERS GROVE IL 60515 - 4962 VAILLENCOURT, STEPHEN J VAILLENCOURT, ANN MARIE 23551 VISTAMAR CT LAND O'LAKES FL 34639 - 4888 LA RUE, JAMES R 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1331 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2218 ANDREWS, ROBERT S GARGIULO-ANDREWS, MARYANN 36 STEBBINS AVE STATEN ISLAND NY 10310 - TSOUKATOS, THEODORE TSOUKATOS, IRENE 77 GORDON ST PERTH AMBOY NJ 08861 - 4401 STOURAITIS, MARCOS 7420 DES TILLEULS AVE DUVERNAY QC H7A 2P8 00030 GOLD, JERALD L 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1321 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2218 WILLIAMS, EDNA 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1324 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2218 KORKIS, JACOB 1001 PEARCE DR # 310 CLEARWATER FL 33764 - 1105 CANADA KORKIS, JACOB 1001 PEARCE DR # 310 CLEARWATER FL 33764 - 1105 WILSON, NATALIE A 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1411 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2218 WECHSLER, SERGIO 3236 GLENRIDGE CT PALM HARBOR FL 34685 - 1729 IGNJATIC, DALIBOR IGNJATIC, DRAGANA 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1413 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2218 MICHAILOS, NICHOLAS 608 SANDY HILLS AVE TARPON SPGS FL 34689 - 5787 BOGDAN, AKOS PETER 1141 MARINE ST CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1044 KAROLYI, EVA KAROLYI, FERENC H8642 FONYOD MEREDEK UTCA 4 00000 - HUNGARY EDDINGS, MICHAEL L 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1523 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2219 MAYER, JAMES MAYER, SUSAN E 8703 ZACHMAN CIR EDEN PRARIE MN 55344 - 3904 ROHR, PAUL D 2160 LAGOON DR DUNEDIN FL 34698 - 2528 KUSHNIR, VLADIMIR 2625 SR 590 # 1512 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2219 HELLER, KATHRYN R 2625 SR 590 # 1521 CLEARWATER FL 33759.--2219 HEARD, THOMAS H 1075 MOHAWK CIR W CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 1867 BRADLEY, EDWARD G 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1421 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2218 ALBRECHT FAMILY TRUST ALBRECHT, ERICH O THE 3078 EASTLAND BLVD # 302 CLEARWATER FL 33761 - 4148 ALIANIELLO, ROBERT G 4220 MAPLE PATH CIR NOTTINGHAM MD 21236 - 5561 NAVAS, GUSTAVO W 9825 HERMOSILLO DR NEW PORT RICHEY FL 34655 - 5248 STRUK, NATALIE STRUK, ANNA 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1611 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2219 MENOR, DOMINADOR G COSTLOW, JAYNA A DELCORIO, STEVEN MENOR, JUANITA P COSTLOW, MARIANNE 1515 BAYSHORE BLVD # 13 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1612 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1613 DUNEDIN FL 34698 - 4221 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2219 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2219 ALBRECHT, ERICH O THE BELEC, ZLATKO BREMER, PATRICIA L ALBRECHT, JOANTILL T THE BELEC, SAUDA 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1623 3078 EASTLAND BLVD # 302 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1622 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2219 CLEARWATER FL 33761 - 4148 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2219 MC LEAN, KRISTEN A 3021 BONAVENTURE CIR # 101 PALM HARBOR FL 34684 - 4742 RAMLOGUN, HARRY K RAMLOGUN, ROOPA 1770 HAWTHORNE CT OLDSMAR FL 34677 - 5051 DEGEN, DANIEL C 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1712 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2220 MALONE, RICHARD J MALONE, ROSE 106 E ZORANNE DR FARMINGDALE NY 11735 - 2893 GADEK,DOROTHY 6046 74TH ST MIDDLE VILLAGE NY 11379 - 5218 VUCINIC, DIJANA 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1822 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2220 BOISVERT, GILL BOISVERT, DORIS 10213 GREENSIDE DR COCKEYSVILLE MD 21030 - 3332 BERG, DAVID 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1823 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2220 O'KEEFE, DOLORES M 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1912 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2221 HONG, MAN-TUAN 834 58TH ST BROOKLYN NY 11220 - 3610 HAGERMAN, JAMES B 2625 SR 590 # 1714 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2220 FISHER, PAUL D 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1723 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2220 MOORE, JEANNE K LIVING TRUST MOORE, JEANNE K THE 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1812 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2220 FARRELL, GLEN M PO BOX 8321 CLEARWATER FL 33758 - 8321 BASEVIC, BLAZENKO 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1824 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2220 MURPHY, DOUGLAS R 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1914 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2221 NICOL, CHARLES 2625 SR 590 # 1922 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2221 CHORNOBY, MARY THE 8014 REDWOOD CT FOX LAKE IL 60020 - 1045 VOJNIKOVIC, FADILA AVDIC, DINO 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1724 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2220 KUSHNIR, VLADIMIR 1101 SAWGRASS DR TARPON SPGS FL 34689 - 6257 VUCINIC, NEDJO VUCINIC, RADOMIRKA 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1822 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2220 ALTAWBAH, BILAL ALTOUBAH, EYAD 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1911 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2221 MURPHY, DOUGLAS R MURPHY, KAREN J 2247 MANOR BLVD N CLEARWATER FL 33765 - 1615 THOMPSON, DEBBIE L 2625 STATE ROAD 590 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2235 SCHMITT, MARGARET A DELIC, VEDRAN LA RUE, HELEN 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1924 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1931 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1932 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2221 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2221 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2221 JO,NES DAVID R BRANNON MICHAEL R • DOERR, MICHAEL A PO BOX 7328 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1934 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 2111 WARNER ROBINS GA 31095 - CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2221 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2222 7328 NELSON, LORA L MATTINGLY, JAMES B JOHNSON, SUSAN B 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 2112 MATTINGLY, JAMES P 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 2114 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2222 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 2113 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2222 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2222 CHANKERSINGH, CARLYLE K TYE, BONITA L CLAY, JOSEPHINE LYNDON CHANKERSINGH, MARILYN L 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 2122 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 2123 733 FAIRWOOD FOREST CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2222 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2222 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2801 PAULE, LYNN B DE VITO, WILLIAM N LUTTERMAN, ROBERT L 2625 SR 590 # 2124 13554 S TARA DR LUTTERMAN, DEBORAH B CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2222 LOCKPORT IL 60491 - 9170 2625 SR 590 # 2212 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2222 HASTINGS, BARBARA A JOHNSON, STEPHEN R HAGE, CHAD A 2625 STATE RD 590 # 2213 HALL, CHRISTI R 2685 STATE ROAD 590 # 2512 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2222 1568 AMBERLEA DR N CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2200 DUNEDIN FL 34698 - 4715 FERREIRA, OMAR PALMER, MARIA S KUNTZ, MICHELLE K FERREIRA, SANDRA 1799 N HIGHLAND AVE # 141 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 2224 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 2222 CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 2112 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2222 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2222 INGRAM, PEGGY JACKSON, JOHN ALBERGO, ROBERT THE 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 2311 SCOULLAR, MARGARET H K & A LAND TRUST CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2223 2625 STATE ROAD 590 APT 23 4132 WOODLANDS PKWY CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2235 PALM HARBOR FL 34685 - 3494 BUCHELE, NIKOLAUS BUCHELE, NIKOLAUS ZULOVIC, MIRALEM 13360 VERONO 13360 VERONA 5848 N DRAKE AVE TUSTIN CA 92782 - 9140 TUSTIN CA 92782 - 9140 CHICAGO IL 60659 - 4404 BOWLING-HUFFORD, GOODLESS, NEAL L HO, PAMELA LAM BARBARA 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 2324 2683 MEADOW WOOD DR HUFFORD, JAMES V CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2223 CLEARWATER FL 33761 - 1722 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 2323 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2223 LLANGOZI, ASTRIT S GRAD, EDWARD PACHEV, PETAR V 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 2411 GRAD, HELENA F 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 2414 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2223 181 EARL ST CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2223 TARPON SPRINGS FL 34689 - 3800 114 . BELILLA, VICTOR J 2625 STATE ROAD 590 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2235 NOLAN, SUSAN 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 2424 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2223 FELIX, CHRISTINE 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 2513 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2224 WILDER, MAURICE 3000 GULF TO BAY BLVD FL 6 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 4321 CHAD, DUC VO 7312 120TH AVE LARGO FL 33773 - 3216 SEBBAN, GERARD 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 2614 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2224 GUTHRIE, GALE A 2625 SR 590 # 2623 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2225 • MILICEVIC, MANDA MILICEVIC, VIOLET POA 10924 S KILBOURN AVE OAK LAWN IL 60453 - 5733 SCHULTZ, MATTHEW M 2599 W BAY ISLE DR SE ST PETERSBURG FL 33705 - 3356 NIKIC, MILICA NIKIC, SASA 1966 SANDRA DR CLEARWATER FL 33764 - 4772 BULLOCK, ANN S BULLOCK, RICHARD M 2805 SCHAFFLIND CT VIENNA VA 22180 - 7021 MORALES, JUANA M 2625 SR 590 # 2514 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2224 SYMONDS, ELIZABETH A 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 2523 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2224 LE, CARENE 2625 STATE RD 590 # 2612 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2224 CHAN, JOHN PENN, LAWRENCE PO BOX 632 VALLEY STREAM NY 11582 - 0632 MONIODIS, MARY LOU 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 2624 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2225 ZIDOUHIA, AMINE ZIDOUHIA, ADIL 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 2713 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2225 OBANDO, JOSE A OBANDO, MAURO P 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 2722 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2225 ANSALDI, DAVID 25350 US HIGHWAY 19 N APT 98 CLEARWATER FL 33763 - 21 12 HAGE, CHAD A 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 2512 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2224 ABLAKOVIC, NEDIMA A 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 2521 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2224 VEIT, HENRY VEIT, JUDITH 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 2524 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2224 ZAIMOVIC, DINO 2625 STATE RD 590 # 2613 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2224 NEFEDOVA, ANNA 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 2622 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2225 GRANT, FREDERICK A 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 2711 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2225 KUSHNIR, HELEN G 2625 SR 590 # 1512 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2219 JENDRUSIAK, KENNETH H JENDRUSIAK, ROSEMARY L 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 2723 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2225 RADAK, DRAGAN DRAKE, JENNIFER HART, JEFFREY T RADAK, VESNA 2625 SR 590 # 2811 HART, CYNTHIA C 1484 70TH ST N CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2226 2625 SR 590 # 2812 ST PETERSBURG FL 33710 - 5336 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2226 RENO, JAMES L REHO, ANNETTE 2525 CIRCLE DR PAINESVILLE OH 44077 - 5107 ROCEK, MICHAEL 2625 STATE RD 590 # 2822 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2226 FIDELUS, KAZIMIERZ K FIDELUS, ZOFIA 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 2831 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2226 GILDUGARTE, LUIS M GIL, NORIS C 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 2834 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2226 CLEARWATER NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION PO BOX 8204 CLEARWATER, FL 33758 Coachman Ridge PO Box 7626 Clearwater, F1 33758 OKRENUK, DAWN 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 2814 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2226 KELLEY, JASON L 1109 WEBB DR CLEARWATER FL 33755 - 3737 BAYYARI, MOHD 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 2832 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2226 0 HUTCHINSON, THOMAS P 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 2821 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2226 FELDMAN, ELISSA 8656 SPRINGFIELD AVE SKOKIE IL 60076 - 2216 BITLER, ROBERT D JR 140 JOHNSTON AVE JACKSONVILLE FL 32211 - 7621 FLS2006-07044 - Wal-Mart Wayne Wells 23106 US 19 Thursday, December 14, 2006 1 3B . Stores' advance elicits furor Pasco residents take issue with how plans for two Wal-Marts have moved forward. BY.DAVID DECAMP Times Staff Writer NEW PORT RICHEY - Tivo hotly contested Wal-Mart Supercenters could be closer to being built in Pasco County after key decisions this week A store planned at State Road 54 and Grand Boulevard won approval Tbesday after a 3Y2-hour meeting by the county's Development Review Committee. Neighbors voiced concerns about traffic and argued the county failed to fol- low proper procedures - all but guaranteeing an appeal. Farther north near Hudson, Wal-Mart officials want Beacon Woods residents to back a com- promise to win state approval for another store. The county has approved the plans for a Supercenter at the abandoned Bayonet Point - Mall at U .S. 19 and Beacon Woods Drive. But the Florida Department of Mansportation wants another opening allowing cars to turn into the store from Beacon Woods Drive. A decision is due at a Dec. 28 meeting. Thesday's decision on the New Port Richey store did not sit well with some neighbors. "I always thought the county was supposed to be on the side of the people. Today they were on the side of developers;' said Cynthia Besio, a Colonial Hills neighborhood organizer. Neighbors wanted the DRC to stop Wal-Mart's 205,000- square-foot project. It was the second time the board reviewed the proposed store because the county failed to notify the neighbors when it approved the plans in May. Wal-Mart critic Schuyler Ellis of Tampa argued that the county failed to require that Wal-Mart receive variances and follow other development standards. While acknowledging the plan fell short on some,points, county officials tweaked the development agreement to add conditions. The DRC deemed it unnecessary to require vari- ances, which trigger a whole new approval process. BRENDAN FITTERER I Times Wal-Mart critic Schuyler Ellis offers an 11-point challenge to county officials regarding a proposed New Port Richey Wal-Mart. .CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT A7EFF?' POST OFFICE Box 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 SUNCOAST RLTMORS INC C V 80 $ O BOX 10868 TALLAHASSEE FL 32302.2868 j -- U. (i 8 01 METSU17445 RECEIVED NOV 2 "7 2066 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER SUNOSss 322 1 1 N G 76 11110/015 RETURN TO SENDER NO FORWARD ORDER ON FILE UNADLE TO FORWARD RETURN TO SENDER y sc : 3.2SO220ssss PM *0230- 0 3335-1 O- 21 a F^3 I'` 5& .-2 9 sww$. »} ?a)??11/11?11??)?II)11)?1??1'Dl?a?)lll?ll?i l?l?)lltll?Il?l11?I CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 99?9TEF`???' POST ONCE Box 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 RECEIVED NOV 2 7 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMEW CITY OF CLEARWATER 33758%4748 _ NGV03'Jt ._ .:.,? F ?' N MEM-717445 a NICOL, CHARLES 2625 SR 590 # 1922 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2221 NIXIE 337 A. RETURN TO NOT DELIVERABLE UNADLE TO BC: 33750474048 1 11 1111111,111111111111111111111 07 ll/i9106 SENDER AS ADDRESSED FORWARD *2S74-02229-19-30 X111, 1,11„I„I„Il„1,1,1,11 CITY OF CLEARWATER j'Q' PLANNING DEPARTMENT POST OFFICE Box 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 4 MORIN, ERIC L 2625 SR 590 # 1032 CLEARWAT ER FL 33759 - 2215 r .r 00,30 k IN METER717445 a RECEIVED NOV 2 7 .1.006 ?LANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • S. ['••1t - _a • 337S87o4748 NOVO 3'Jtj NIXIE 307 1 RETURN TO NOT DELIVERABLE UNABLE TO BC: 337 0474949 1111111111,11,))1)1111„ 111111 11 07 11/19/06 SENDER AS ADDRESSED FORWARD *2574-02225-18-30 „? ,1„11„I„1, J 11,1, I, f„1 CITY OF CLEARWATER er PLANNING DEPARTMENT hgTFP; ?? POST ONCE Box 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 RECEIVED NOV 2 7 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER _ NGV03'3b =??% H qq q E7' "744S LONDONO,HERNANDO VASQUEZ, ANA M 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 524 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2212 v-3z z'9?22%2-as CvU6 _ 337 S9 x%.4743 NIXIE 007 1 RETURN TO ATTEMPTED - UNABLE TO MC: 33750474049 I„I 111, 11,111,1,1, 1, 1111„)1111 07 11/19105 SENDER NOT KNOWN FORWARD x0901-05704-04-OS „1,1„11, ,1, , 1111),, I, I, i 111 ;,CITY OF CLEARWATER ?g? PLANNING DEPARTMENT Posr ONCE Box 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 i '• ................ r w Cr o .C? ? ?WwU a W 00 0 U) 0 C?/ Z U a n? A&SOng postage. When re is paste ad ut ths note or over it. Mr. Guiseppe Di.Marco 1 Marcia Avenue Toronto, ON M6G 00030 Canada, Q4 i?74?4? .? i:r CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4 ••?gTEF,Eo?, POST OFE'(CE Box 4748 ?:'?•' CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 7 o ?? Q 8 L H MET01717445 a Keith Zay Keith Z ac & Associates Inc Q , . 101 P . lippe Parkway, Suite 205 Safe Harbor, FL 34695 L j*) c TCN ? o N t I m 00 ?/ cn r c- ! i ? ? rn ? ' ?•? '?? °' ri trr 46 t arr r r r rr sr rr rrr r rr rr rr rr rr ? r rr ;•':%rt, CITY OF CLEARWATER - Q? c PLANNING DEPARTMENT .?yTEgE??' POST OMCE Box 4748 CLEARWATER, F 48 w w ^ n ? r u a Q w u ww O D J 06UU Ucn0 u w RE 1033 L H MEM.717445 SELECT A l Ro 3359.2215 2625 S W A v-v CLEF re'--v? r. a-tss-, a N'e7sW8 NIXIE 337 1 RETURN TO NOT DELIVERABLE UNABLE TO BC: 33758474848 07 11/18/08 SENDER AS ADDRESSED FORWARD ?k2574-02275-18-30 , J, i„I 1, ?!„1„I I„I, I, I, ? 1 `?-40. 3rd; CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT Posr OmcE Box 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 n z z (n G c ?m . ro mm m :0 m ('m r- 0 o m m I z ' L H METEQ717445 ? SHTYRKALO,PAVEL 2625 STATE ROAD 590 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2235 NIXIE 307 1 07 illi7l05 RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED - NOT KNOWN UNABLE TO FORWARD BC: 33758474040 *2674-17591-16-215 , ,:?,?:, ??:4?.?? I„U,,,II,1,,,1,1,I,1„I„1,,11,,,1?!„II„1„I„II„I,l,l„1 CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT ='?yTEq;?°POST OFFICE Box 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 2 w cc g w coo 0 Q w? ¢¢ v, - -, CD Gj L) cV C6°6 Cr U w o ZOO g " (. Bob Gregg RE Gregg Architects 420 Park Place, Suite 100 Clearwater, FL 33759 j d zxj h'OV07'G? ?, , *2-v" 00 .30s F L H METER717445 a NIXIE 337 1 RETURN TO NOT DELIVERABLE UNABLE TO e? MC-- 337.58474040 •! 4?:a_.s I)II I I I IIII if it?11)I1?I1111?1111 4'1 K 07 11116/06 SENDER AS ADDRESSED FORWARD *2674-00716-16-31 11111111111111111111111111111 CITY OF CLEARWATER Q; PLANNING DEPARTMENT 47ER;?? POST OMCE Box 4748 RETURN TO SEME)ER CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 RP@VL AS r, rU U,J U 8 M METEA717445 JONES, DAVID R PO BOX 7328 WARNER ROBINS GA 31095 - 7328 RECEIVED DEC 2 0 2006 `-'TANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER CITY OF CLEARWATER _a PLANNING DEPARTMENT `ry?4TERE~ POST OFFICE BOX 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 ?. H OWETER717445 ? READINC7) MR AD 59 # 1222 '2625 ?gW AT ,R FL 337 59 -2217 CL RECEIVED DEC 0 4 2006 RETURN TO SENLDER BY FEARS 33730 11129./2006 UNABLE TO FORWARD PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER N-s }:: E l '_ .W - 3375$ «4740 YL.J CITY OF CLEARWATER Q PLANNING DEPARTMENT W?TEf1;??' POST OFMCE Box 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 RECEIVED Nov 2 2 2066 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWAiER DENISON LTD PTNSHP 5445 TRIANGLE PKWY STE 400 NORCROSS GA 30092 - 2575 ?.UCf9?4?S?:a-???? LUUS 33750%4740 a u8 R L` M A UM,717445 NIXIE 300 1 RETURN TO NOT DELIVERABLE UNABLE TO BC : 337 SO474E340 Illillllllillllililiiiilllil111) 24 11/17/06 SENDER AS ADDRESSED FORWARD x0924-02396-05-OS J lllllllllllllllillllllllilllli ?? CITY OF CiLEARWATER ?o4; • PLANNING DEPARTMENT Q• grER;`?'• POST OFFICE Box 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 0 RECEIVED NOV 2 2 2000 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER N A4MR717445 l IGNJATIC, DALIBOR IGNJATIC, DRAGANA 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1413 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2218 337Se%47?49 Nixie 007 1 RETURN TO NOT DELIVERABLE UNABLE TO BO: 33750474040 1 e111 e1111111111111itIIIIIII]111 0'7 11/19/06 SENDER AS ADDRESSED FORWARD *2S74-02226-10-30 eerlrirriierlerlreli a (elrleei CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT aTEaE?° POST ONCE Box 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 i 10 MARY 590 2624 5 H METER717445 tr CIS, 26 5S T AT TER 33159.222 CLEpgW A ?.,- . 33? s'?trG°Ltv?8?7iAoiyam?4.,8 NIXIE 3:37 1 Col 11/2 /06 RETURN TO SENDER UNKNOWN REASON UNAMLE TO FORWARD MC! 337SO474848 *2574-01674-20-.27 I,, I) o,. I,1„1„1„ 11,,,1,1„11„1„1 u fill 1, 1, I Ili ;CITY OF CLEARWATER :c3, c? PLANNING DEmRmNT POST OITICE Box 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 RECEIVED NOV 2 2 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 0 F' L BELEC, ZLATKO H MF7ER717445 ? ?- BELEC, SAUDA 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1622 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2219 .1 -AKES17-1-2' 33758%4749 NIXIE 337 1 RETURN TO ATTEMPTED - UNABLE TO MC: 337 0474946 1 111111111111111111111111111111 07 11/19/06 SENDER NOT KNOWN FORWARD *2S74-00496-18-30 1111) 1111 lifir1if 1Jill 111111,1 CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT ?TEPE?, POST OFFICE Box 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 VOJNIKO VIC ' FADILA A VDIC DIlVO 2625 STATE ROAD CLEARWATER 33759 1224 220 1 ?? A MET'ER717445 a RECEIVED NOV 2 2 2005 MANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER • 33758:4748 NIXIE ;307 1 RETURN TO ATTEMPTED - UNAMLE TO MC: 337'SO474948 irr)ierrllrl?relrlrlrlrrlrilrrll 07 11019/oe SENDER NOT KNOWN FORWARD *2S74 - 00483-1 0- 30 ?rr),l,rll,J,rG,llrrlri,irrl CITY OF CLEARWATER Q' PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4TEPE?'POST OFFICE Box 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 DECEIVED NOV 2 2 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER r? MU"14Y, DOUGLAS 0 # 1914 CLEAR2625 STATE ROAD ? 33759 - 2221 K. E, 33758%4748 L H A&MR717445 NIXIE 337 1 RETURN TO NOT DELIVERABLE UNABLE TO BC : 337.E9474840 lu llrrrllrlrrrlr?rlrlrrlrrlrrll 07 itJ18l0E SENDER AS ADDRESSED FORWARD *2574-0.2.",,30- 38-30 rrrlrl,rl rrlrrlrrlirrlrltirrl CITY OF CLEARWATER :za: Q; PLANNING DEPARTMENT y7EaE?°POST ONCE Box 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 t • rs.:.?'?."?? kr.??rk'?:?.*' •,_?c.F-?rt`?? .?i°"3frte? ' i?, ",3"' howl k' 314 . Missouri Ave, Suite 311 Clearwater, FL 33756 ay W 0 0'5 0 8 14 METER717445 I RECEIVED Nov 16 2005 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER =3.7MS7:748 NIXIE 337 1 RETURN TO ATTEMPTED -- UNABLE TO BC: 33759474840 I„ I I,,, I i,1,,, I, I, I, I„I„I„11 07 11/11/Os SENDER NOT KNOWN FORWARD *1574-17302-02-41 ........................................................................... - v3 1 ' t' ?, is dx?F- CITY OF CLEARWATER = m: • PLANNING DEPARTMENT ' Posr OFFIcE Box 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 337558-4748 (J U lj O VATEVA M o , ARINA S 3540 32ND A ?? R L H MEM717445 ?. VE 21 6 ST PETERSB G F UR L 33 3713 2 _2431 RECEIVED NOV 15 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER N I X I E 337 1 07 11/13108 RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED - NOT KNOWN UNABLE TO FORWARD BC: 4. 4'1 337.S947404G *2674-03769-13-31 3d75OX4748 1:J IM )ifIMIIII III„I„bil),t ,lill)ll)?I))11) i1??{?I?i??i CITY OF CiLEARWATER ^QC PLANNING DEPARTMENT grEa,„?' POST OI ICE Box 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 RECEIVED NOV 16- 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT GIN OF CLEARWATER • SET -PETERSUUR.'G r-L -337 EMG& S' CLEARW 2519 MC 202 rT..ARWA' .474$ N BOOTH RD # FL 33761 - 4159 NIXIE 037 1 RETURN TO NOT DELIVERABLE UNABLE TO BO: 30750474948 111'111,) 11 111111111111,1)JIM a AgEnEW l7445r 07 1111010E SENDER AS ADDRESSED FORWARD Tk? 574-'?c 1704-d6-39 ., 11?I,IIt„1,111,1111111,1,11 CITY OF CLEARWATER g PLANNING DEPARTMENT A7E;;;`v? Pon OMCE Box 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 E rrn NOV 1 uvj LEI L5 C>?uJ 77. -17 CITY(-. CL.','. _ -r PROF L w h'EMR717445 a ORTHEAST COACHMAN A-r-rl IF*rF.D vurr Y.?4rjwk+-p-rs N CENTER 9905 RACETRACK RD RECEIVED TAMPA FL 33626 - 4458 NOV 13 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 9?gTEa? °'' POST OFFICE Box 4748 ' CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 1ti:T3 - LHh ELE 70 F M14FiRD Tom Quartetti Sun Ketch Construction 36460 US 19 North Palm Harbor, FL. 34684 N METER717445 RECEIVED NOV 13 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CiTy OF CLEARWATER f 33 ?Il 'lfi jj 1 li i lI t 1( lii.i .. .:• •,r ???§t' I :i10. 3lfi71! ! !!!If 3 ! i!F!! if I3! !f!! !! !f!!1 !! ! ! ". ti"yc!i<; CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 99KJTER;`o? Posr OmcE Box 4748 • CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 %t? E M ASSOC CLEAR ATER 2519 MC L L RECEIVED 202 CLEARW R 4K: r N &MM7)7445 BOOTH RD # FL 33761 - 4159 NOV 13 2006 OL4NNING DEPARTMENT ` NIXIE 337 1 00 1111 O! off, CITY OF CLEARWA ER RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED - NOT KNOWN UNAM"E To6 FORWARD BC:: *37'S047+4040 *2001-21004-06-39 CITY OF CLEARWATER i ?!! W?` • •. ., e _ s. • as .? _ n ,? ?? ¢1.N? - x ?uyy ? _ Q• u u 4 a m w fu ¢uu i? wf m PLANNING DEPARTMENT j { \ f. ; E.. !kI Ik ?9a .PF?q POST ONCE Box 4748 `: V CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 ?\ Iruli?,:,,:,,; ::•:,, ,?,,.. t?= ?..'.. tt3 ASSOC INC -kI !hams E M TER # CLEAR I,LE 00TH RD 2519 MC 202 RFL 33761 - 4159 - WA CLEA H MEM717445 ; RECEIVED NOV 13 2000 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER NIXIE 337 1 00 11/10/06 RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED - NOT KNOWN UNABLE TO FORWARD HBO: 33750474949 *2001-22037-06-39 CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT POST ONCE Box 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 iN ME MR717445 Ron Hughes Tampa Bay Land Surveying RECEIVED 1822 Drew Street, Suite 6 Clearw t F a er, L 33765 NOV 13 200'6 MANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER N IX I E 337 1 07 11110/06 RETURN TO SENDER NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TO FORWARD BC: 33759474949 *2674-00201-10-30 P..K 's,R CITY OF CLEARWATER a' PLANNING DEPARTMENT POST OFFICE Box 4748 ?.4TER,CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 Kelly Sutton McKim & Creed 601 Cleveland Street Clearwater, FL. 33755 RECEIVED NOV 13 2066 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 33755%9990 11.7 9 F L H METER717445 * NIXIE 337 1 RETURN TO ATTEMPTED - UNADLE TO DC; 33758474949 IIII111111111,111111111,1 1,11)11 07 11/09106 SENDER NOT KNOWN rORWARD *2574-09895-03-14 ,r CITY OF CLEARWATER :tea- PLANNING DEPARTMENT 9'v?TERF?' POST OMCE Box 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 NOV 13 D CO 1' 71 bar,,.,: .l? !} Pr F-ARWA F47-TEl'iP7Et! HUT tt.t"4-wrs Ed Mazur Florida Design Consultants, Inc. 6321 Grand Boulevard New Port Richey, FL 34652 R L a MMA71-7445 r RECEIVED NOV 13 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER F?;•+?'?:: ?, ?e:??itrt???iti??lri,f?:jtr?tr??3sa?2?rr??ti????si??rl??i?i?,1 CITY OF CLEARWATER 5? PLANNING DEPARTMENT 9 ATEfi;???° POST OITICE Box 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 g [E a T 7) P - NOV 13 DEVELOPMENT ? CITY OF CLE;?,' 0 ANSALDI, DAVID 19 N APT 98 25350 UwATER FL 33763 - 21.12 CLEAR -?Nov03 `- - r N "ErV?i7449 RECEIVED NOV 1 3 2000 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER NIXIE 337 1 07 11/09/06 RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED - NOT KNOWN UNADL.E TO rORWARD DC : 33758474048 't'274- 011 D0- 00- 30 CITY OF CLEARWATER "9. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 99hJTEFI?o?,• POST OFFICE Box 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 s d { j NOV i ivuJ U U , -1 DEVEI.OPME„I i>-. , CITY C15 OI..'!: ll1,,..F- . DELLIS, MARIA 13 5 87 FEATHER SOUND DR # 1013 CLEARWATER FL 33762 - 5504 0 N 6'ETTA717445 -' NIXIE 337 1 RETURN TO NOT DELIVERABLE UNABLE TO 3:.'759%4748 SENDER f a> : ? t I _ ... DC; '-'*7Z8474040 07 11/00/06 AS ADDRESSED FORWARD y , ;fie "?r1: CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT _q ? QC 9KATEF,;`o?' POST OFFICE Box 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 z z ?m0 C ?< CD m < =oc? < N r G v m v an mm - -i r FAIRBURN, ROBERT 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 912 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2214 ?x. F L H MMR717445 ,tea 337 NO 1 106 C 07 11,/00106 RETURN TO SENDER FAIRDURN'ROBERT MOVED LEFT NO ADDRESS UNAMLE TO FORWARD RETURN TO SENDER IBC: 33750474040 *2674-07366-00-21 CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 49?gTER;E?' Posr Omm Box 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 CORDER, TYSON L 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 922 CLEARWATER. FL 33759 - 2214 z Om? C < o' T6 m "o r °o .-l? L H METER717445 X 337 NO 3 905 C 07 i l/ 0€J/ 05 FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND CORPER'TYSON L 162:1 W RAVINE LN DUNNELLON FL 34434-2257 RETURN TO SENDER •? ,:.;??: =-?`se??:?:?;? I„iI,,,ILI,,,l,l,l,l„I„I„11,,,1,1„II„i„I„li„I,i,l„I CITY OF CLEARWATER ?_. PLANNING DEPARTMENT `9?4TEf1;?? Posr OFFtcE Box 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 ? z z n co C) O C7 ? 20 `) b. o < :C O c' N" FISHER, PAUL D 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 1723 CLEARWATER FL 33759 _ 2220 H IWEM717445 0 X 337 NO i £!O5 C 07 lilOeYOS FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND FISHER'PAUL D SAN 4651 SARA70 AVE SAN DxEGO OA A 92107-2205 RETURN TO SENDER ,.??K E CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT POST OFFICE Box 4748 '•?yTER;;.CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 L) z --- n Z Z -n m C7 JJ QO <0 rJ h? Dnm ?ccnm ? r c- > 0 c m K ?lf DD m l FELIX, CHRISTINE 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 2513 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2224 NOV03'06 __ ?i ? V V9? ? A H METER717445 ? - X 337 NO 1 SOS C 07 11/08/08 FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND FELIX' C:'HRISTINE 1247 S HILLCREST AVE CLEARWATER FL 33756-4363 RETURN TO SENDER •?,..,4?.: ?:-?:???tsa?a;??? i„Il,,,II,I,,,I,1,1,i„I„!„il,,,l,l„il.,I„i„il„LI,L,i CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT 99?4TEFtE?,' POST ONCE Box 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 '?j ?z n z p -n m 'mm m IJCU L1 ?mm Cf) r c D 0 C m K z '_ ... a i - NO'J03'06 N MEM717445 ? OKRENUK, DAWN 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 2814 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2226 337 DO 1 DOS C 07 11/00/08 RETURN TO SENDER OKRENUK MOVED LEFT NO ADDRESS UNABLE TO FORWARD RETURN TO SENDER DC: 33758474848 *2674-07399-09-21 ,:;, t;. 4 CITY OF CLEARWATER ems:. _ ?? PLANNING DEPARTMENT 994TEpEvq, POST OFFICE Box 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 v z z nct) o M D n M ?m< c-? cf) m m RUNMLER K?'THL59 # ? 12 TATS READ 2213 CLF 2625 SWATER FL 337 59 - IJVOJv?O -) r^V`'?f Q ? 3 ?J ? r? F L M IAETER717445 al RUNK625 33'7 x93060 1"f O5 31 11/07/09 FORWARD TIME EXP R7N 1`0 SEMI) 1121 SUNSET POINT RD CLEARW.ATER FL 3:3755..1445 C F t .i C `r? CITY OF CLEARWATER : ?. Q: PLANNING DEPARTMENT tin A TER; ?° POST OFFICE Box 4748 CLEARWATER FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 `= NOVQTO? 9 , • N { 6 F L ` a MEroemaas ? co Douglas Hoeksema N 3 Trammell Crow 201 N th N Y R or ew ork Avenue, Suite 200 0 0 Winter Park, FL 32789 z z ? u a N=XIE 327 1 24 11/04/08 RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED - NOT KNOWN UNAMLM TO FORWARD BC: :33750474040 11974-02400-04-32 33758%4740 ; . .....;: CITY OF CLEARWATER Q' PLANNING DEPARTMENT '- STEP; POST OFFICE Box 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 Is co LULU c Q Jim Shaw in cv Shaw & Associates 00 o 15151/.-4 `h Street North CS O U St. Petersburg, FL 33704 ZO 000 C:) 1'r • I P-s : SFr 1JV.4zap. a ?4ETER717445 NIXIE 337 1 RETURN TO NOT DELIVERABLE UNABLE TO BAG : 337S0474040 i??ll???lt?l???)?t?t?t?,l??t„il 07 11/04/06 SENDER AS ADDRESSED FORWARD *2674-00817-194-30 CITY OF CLEARWATER Q j PLANNING DEPARTMENT 99?ATEF;?, POST OITFICE Box 4748 h,7VQ3'Qfi ? '?'; • CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 ? L..,'M ?.?17445 ABLAKOVIC, NEDIMA A 2625 STATE ROAD 590 # 2521 CLEARWATER FL 33759 - 2224 ? ? o o z 00 0 oo v y o AZ c" X 337 NO 1 705 1 07 11107/06 FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND ADLAKOVIC 1809 EL_MHURST DR CLEARWATER FL 33765-1412 RETURN TO SENDER I„Il,,,ll,l,,,l,l,l,i„I„1„II?„111111111 I„111 11„11111111 0 .. L H METER71744Fi CITY OF CLEARWATER e? : = cp PLANNING UEMKPMENT '9TER; 'POST ONCE Box 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 ?v Z ?? C m? rU 0 m ? M James King George F. Young Incorported 299 9TH Avenue North St. Petersburg, FL 33701 ry; hg ,? x - ` Gr? NOV01'06 / er R L H METER-71-7445 *I N?XLE 337 1 07 11/04/06 RETURN TO SENDER NO SUCH NUMBER UNABLE TO FORWARD DC: 33758474848 *2674-02538-04-290 CITY OF CLEARWATER Q_ PLANNING DEPARTMENT KATEP;?o?'' POST OFFICE Box 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 CO 0 D N 00 N U O 0= 0 z g t+0U0 i?Jt ?? L H at?m?naas ? a JOHNSON, STEPHEN R o 1568 AMBERLEA DR N 0 DUNEDIN FL 34698 - 4715 au • 337?0?4740 X 337 Ni 1 705 D 07 11/07/06 FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND JOHNSON .5335 ANHINGA TRL NEW PRT RCHY FL 34SS3-7032 RETURN TO SENDER CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATER;`? POST ONCE Box 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 • .f h'0'J09'Ub 0 0.002 H METER717445 ? ae Jon Wood o 17 3 Trammell Crow C3 t CV < 201 North New York Avenue, Suite 200 Wi t P k FL 32789 L n er ar , 5D UA o LU Oo o U. z0 Z U CL NIXIE 02-1 1 .24 11./04/065 RCTURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED -- NOT KNOWN UNARL E TO FORWARD CC: 2750474040 *1974-02491-04-02 *3758%4746 I„J1,,,11,III )1 ,,,1,)„11„1„1„1.1„t, 1 ? j} •t ,'••{?•. w«n't '?'.« .i...^i G.a, 'fflf f/tf.f• . __ .. -- ------------- __ - f CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPARTMENT '•4TEF,; ' POST ONCE Box 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 n Z Z O O Z C AO 00 , 69 M o M v Kr"rEfIr'"rED FtC1i Ktcjw ---ie7.3 .:J NOb'01'Og y ? 0 ;? .30 $ _ , F L M A'EM717445 4 Ben Harrill 2435 U.S. Highway 19, Suite 350 Holiday, FL 34691 ?' W ?'? ?? .:?? ? 1 l) II l l f i l l J 11 11 !l 1 l it l f t ,..,?: ?;?,p-.?,?=?N^ia?.. tt !tr t rer a ! t a! ar !a ait r :! ,a! tr rr !rat 3t? CITY OF CLEARWATER c PLANNING DEPARTMENT Q; = ........ POST OFFICE Box 4748 k't ' - UIPE-:L € 0. PUP14PIRD CiLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 Keith Lawes Long Bow Corp. Global Financial Investments, LLC 300-6 th Street #7 Safety Harbor, FL 34695 • NOV0 110 L H MEM717445 ? Ci' o W % ? N ?3 ?L) O UU O!x y ? Z C:) ? Z U a A '» •»`?»..,s?'...':.3?',•'..t!+i•- ! ,? ?:! 1lfilf!!!!I!!!11liiFt:ii:l?fif(3!!flt3:I?Il1lFI:lt?flllf:iF:1 CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING DEPAI2fMENT 9j1gTEp;`?'POST ONCE Box 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 F L N METER717445. MAYER, JAMES MAYER, SUSAN E 8703 ZACHMAN CIR EDEN PRARIE MN 55344 - 3904 o Og C mp n ,n O m 47 v N 0 D m O G7 T r• u„ ,r 33758%4748 X 337 NO 1 005 I 07 11108/06 • FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND MAYER 7881 BAILEY DR EDEN PRAIRIE MN SS347-1175 RETURN TO SENDER 11 13 1,1,.1„1„l „i,1, l ?, CITY OF CLEARWATER z PLANNING DEPARTMENT Q; 1g7EF,E?POST OFFICE Box 4748 CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 o N a W Ilu ?U C> au O= O Z U d • I+OV01'il6 O F L M METERY1744S ? T. James Graham Graham Design Associates PA 28100 US Highway 19 N Clearwater, FL 33761 30758%4748 11:»11•: i ~ ? r ! :? 7.1.1'-7--.r NIXIE 007 1 RETURN TO ATTEMPTED - UNASLE TO SIC: 00758474848 11 IIII)l 1111111111111 111 111111 11 07 11/03/08 SENDER NOT KNOWN FORWARD *2674-10974-00-28 1111I111I11I11111111111111) 11 CITY OF CLEARWATER :? ?• PLANNING DEmmwNT =q ..- Q: -9 gTERE ° POST OMCE Box 4748 EARWATER, FLORIDA 3 3 7 58-4748 a n 5, n ? o 0 r mSo C' ir" - 0" m X M M U cJ I? j i A M'-' : •"i .» } tee-. ": j?r ?:1s 3` ,3 l -5 C- L _ L H OWETER71744S till All on Utter derson Lesniak and Associates 4326 W. El Prado Boulevard, Suite 1 Tampa, FL 33629 • ...:• •.a s, l' 1:=?;"'Yyr?.„ ... lit H111I1t7}7}1}1}111!F111711 ?J 1l FIt?t}1tFF?311i}ll}}1}1}I EF1 CITY OF CLEARWATER :moo, PLANNING DEPARTMENT ? _? -?• ..? POST OITICE Box 4748 CLEARWATER FLORIDA 33758-4748 , ? . ` F L. H METER717445 ORIGINAL RECEIVED A. Reginald Termulo NOV enna Development & Management Inc. V 0 7 2006 21030 U.S. 19 North Cleawater, FL 33765 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER 337 N1 3 COS 1 07 IIJ04/06 RETURN TO SENDER :MENNA DEVELOPMENT MOVED LEFT NO ADDRESS UNAEILE TO FORWARD RETURN TO SENDER MC: 33758 *2574-00719-04-28 . _ ..? ?• ? ?-??: ?--??? w?'?•;?••- I„I l ?„i l,1,,, 1, 1, 1, l„1„1„l+l'L 1,,,, ,? ,? ,,, , „ „ „ ,? „ ,,, , 0 r Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2007 4:40 PM To: 'RAL2000@aol.com' Subject: FLS2006-07044, 23106 US Highway 19 N, Wal-Mart Gloria - Please find attached the Development Order for the above referenced expansion of the existing Wal-Mart store. If you would like a copy of the Development Order with Michael Delk's signature and on City letterhead, please stop by our office and we will provide a copy for you. If you have any questions, feel free to email or call me (727-562-4504). Wayne L__ J US Hwy19N J6 FLS2006-07i Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 2:18 PM To: 'RAL2000@aol.com' Subject: RE: Super Walmart Gloria - Yes, they did resubmit on September 13th. I have been remise in letting you know. I have not completed my review yet, but I anticipate hopefully getting out a Development Order later this week. Wayne -----Original Message----- From: RAL2000@aol.com [maiIto: RAL2000@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 1:42 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Super Walmart HI Wayne: Just checking in to see if Walmart has submitted their paperwork. I am hearing rumors that another Super Walmart is planned for the corner of US 19 and Roosevelt. ( Old Bay Area Outlet Mall location) I wonder if they are holding off on this project to see if they get the green light on that project? Please let me know what is happening. Thanks! Gloria Losi ra120000)aol.com 797-3149 See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage. 9/25/2007 6 0 Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 7:27 AM To: 'RAL2000@aol.com' Subject: RE: Wal-Mart Gloria - The short answers to your questions are: 1. No; 2. No; 3. Yes; and 4. No. I hope you have a great time on your cruise. Eat a lot. Relax. Enjoy. Hope there are no hurricanes to mess up the cruise. And, if you drink heavily, don't get too close to the railings (or you will be swimming with the fishes). Check back with me when you return. Wayne -----Original Message----- From: RAL2000@aol.com [ma i Ito: RAL2000@aol.com] Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 10:00 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Wal-Mart Hi Wayne: Hope you enjoyed your time off. I'm going on a cruise next week and can't wait. We all need to have some fun! Did Wal-Mart submit the revised and final plans yet? And if so, did the city approve them and give Wal- Mart the Development Order? Did my tree get saved? And did they file for site and building plan permits already? So many questions. Thanks for taking the time to answer them. Hope to hear from you soon. Gloria See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage. 9/11/2007 . ? Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 7:37 AM To: 'RAL2000@aol.com' Subject: Super Wal-Mart Gloria - I met with the Wal-Mart consultants last week. I expect the revised plans (hopefully the final plans) to be submitted this week and potentially the Development Order could be issued next week. I also expect site and building plans to be submitted for building permits soon after the Development Order is issued. Note: I am out of the office Wednesday - Friday this week. Wayne -----Original Message----- From: RAL2000@aol.com [maiIto: RAL2000@aol.com] Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 8:39 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Super Wal-Mart Hi Wayne: I hope you had a wonderful Labor Day weekend and actually had some time to relax! Just wondering what is happening with my friendly neighborhood Wal-Mart? We have a newsletter going out in the next week or so and wanted to put an update about Wal-Mart in it. So, if you you have any news to print, Please let me know in the next couple of days. Thanks! Gloria Losi 797-3149 ral2000@aol.com Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com. 9/4/2007 Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: Wells, Wayne Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 8:42 AM To: 'RAL2000@aol.com' Subject: RE: Wal-mart Update I worked on the review yesterday morning. Had to work on a different project yesterday afternoon and today due to a deadline. Rick Albee also needs to review, but has been out sick this week. Should have reviews completed by end of the week. There will be conditions of approval in the Development Order. Hope to have it wrapped up soon. -----Original Message----- From: RAL2000@aol.com [mailto:RAL2000@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 6:10 PM To: Wells, Wayne Subject: Wal-mart Update Hi Wayne: Just checking in for my Wal-mart update to see if there has been any progress. I spoke to the manager this week and he said the start date for construction should be in November. Of course, that depends on my favorite City of Clearwater employee and what he has to say about that. Let me know if there is any news. We have a Homeowners Association meeting on Monday, August 13 and they always ask me for an update. Thanks! Gloria Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com. 8/15/2007 0 4 Page 1 of 1 Wells, Wayne From: RAL2000@aol.com Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 1:51 PM To: Wells, Wayne Cc: Clayton, Gina; Thompson, Neil Subject: Coachman Ridge/ Super Wal-Mart concerns Dear Wayne: Attached is our letter about the Wal-Mart expansion plans. Please call me if you have any questions. Thanks, Gloria Losi 727-797-3149 10/23/2006 0 a October 23, 2006 Wayne Wells, Project Manager City of Clearwater, Planning Department 100 South Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, Fl 33756 RE: Wal-Mart Expansion @ 23106 US 19N Dear Mr. Wells, As per our phone conversation from last week, you will find our questions and concerns about the Wal-Mart Super Center construction plans in this e-mail. 11. Plan has a 6' high Screen Wall along the west property line, but I do not see the location of the wall on the plan. Are they removing trees and shrubs to install wall? If so, will the landscaping be replaced? 2. Where is #36 located on Sheet # C-4 or C-4A? 3. New Loading Dock on NW corner of building - How do trucks get there? Do they enter off NE Coachman and drive behind the building? Original site plan conditions do not allow semi- trucks to enter property from Stag Run Blvd. Is this the reason for removing the 54" Oak tree on NW corner of property? Could the loading dock be moved back to existing building line to save this big oak tree? 4. Where are any Site Plan Conditions? Would the original site plan conditions still apply and be enforceable? This is very important. Concerns from the Neighborhood Survey: 1. "Box-like" Appearance - this is something that the City has already addressed with Wal-Mart to make improvements from the plans submitted. 2. Compactor Wall - plan calls for a 10' screen wall. 3. TRAFFIC - This is still a MAJOR concern. There are no improvements in their traffic study to alleviate traffic on NE Coachman. There is still only one lane fanning into 4 lanes of traffic while traveling east. This will be a bigger nightmare with more traffic from shoppers, snowbirds and baseball fans. I know this is a State Road, but this needs to be addressed. 4. NOISE - We would like to see site plan conditions similar to the original application which did not allow deliveries between l OPM - 8AM, dumpster pick- up between 9PM -9AM, or allow parked trucks to be running behind the building between 9PM -9AM. How will these conditions be enforced? Also, NO semi- trucks are to enter or exist onto Stag Run Blvd. 5. LANDSCAPING - PLEASE keep the 54" OAK on NW corner of property! This tree blocks the view of the building, the parking lot lighting and helps keep noise down. The landscape plan shows lots of viburnum and oaks. Are these the existing plants on the property? Some of these are in poor condition. Are they going to replace them? Landscaping along the back of property needs to remain the three rows of planting per original site plan. This is very important to block 0 0 out the back of building, lighting and noise. Bad landscaping around the property needs to be replaced then all landscaping needs to be maintained to City of Clearwater standards. 6. LITTER- Wal-Mart needs to have a higher standard of property maintenance. Litter and garbage needs to be picked up around the property on a regular basis. Employee "smoke" area should be located in the back of the building with butt receptacle and garbage cans available. 7. GARBAGE - Garbage pick-up for food waste should be frequent to prevent rodents, animals, and birds along with "garbage smells" to linger around property. 8. STORAGE - Wal-Mart is parking semi-trailers in back of property and even in the parking lot. I have also noticed private RV's parking overnight in the parking lot. Is this allowed in city code? This should be mentioned in the new site plan conditions. Thank you for taking the time to review our questions and concerns before the DRC meeting on November 2, 2006. We are appreciative that the City of Clearwater is giving the residents of Coachman Ridge an opportunity to express our opinions and that the City will represent us in this process. Sincerely, Gloria Losi Homeowner and Secretary of the Coachman Ridge Homeowners Association cc. Gina Clayton and Neil Thompson IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR R DATE M Y l A.M. TIME ` P.M. Y ?J OF PHON E ?l 0H) FAX AREA CODE Lj MOBILE NUMBER EXTENSION AREA CODE NUMBER TIME TO CALL MESSAGE f ----------- V"\ SIGNED oince TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATTENTION Page 1 of 1 91 4? Subj: Coachman Ridge Summary of Survoys Date: 5/22/2006 3:38:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: RAL2000 To: VINMAN2486 Coachman Ridge Summary of Surveys 1. Original Site Plan (item #8) called to have Wal-Mart "mitigate the 'boxlike' appearance" which was not done. The time to correct this is during the new construction (i.e., Sam's Club's new elevation on Gulf-to-Bay). 2. The compactor for recycling cardboard boxes was to be enclosed with a 6ft. high opaque fence or wall. This has not been done. 3. TRAFFIC - Intersections of US 19 & NE Coachman and NE Coachman & Old Coachman are already rated poorly. Going east on NE Coachman, you have one lane fanning into 4lanes (2 left, 1 straight and 1 right) This is already backed up. People turn left into Wal-mart through the exit only. People cross the double yellow lines to get into the northbound left turn lanes. At times, traffic going east & west (at both intersections) are backed up to El Tair. How will this be addressed? 4. NOISE - Original Site Plan did not allow pick-up or deliveries between I OPM - 8AM, dumpster pick-up between 9PM - 9AM or to have parked trucks running behind the building between 9PM - 9AM. According to the survey, Wal-Mart has not followed these provisions. There will be more trucks to deliver groceries on a daily basis. More trash pick-ups. How will this be addressed? 5. GARBAGE - Wal-Mart will be producing more food garbage. This will attract rats, raccoons, seagulls and crows. How will they address this problem? 6. LITTER - Wal-Mart has a poor record of keeping trash and debris picked up in the front of the store. Trash blows into the protected wet lands. Will they be more diligent in keeping the property around the store clean? 7. LANDSCAPING - This has always been a low priority in the past. Bushes were not trimmed, bushes died and were not replaced, garden beds were not weeded and trash is not picked up around the shrubs and trees. How will this be handled? Note: They have recently mulched and trimmed bushes. 8. STORAGE - Wal-Mart has parked tractor trailers behind the building for additional storage. Is this something that needs a permit? V_eO Zooo e C-o1, Coy, Monday, May 22, 2006 America Online: VINMAN2486 V7 4 r? ?...: u l? ?` ??? 5 ?il q r. ?. fi i .. U tJ , L R G 1 -? I`F 5-?-?? 1?.?-. l.s?, ?5 ? ? "- ? ? ?y - ? - .s ??? r '??? C-5z"V"., bP ? - ho? jeeA.,, i ?? (.r-.?.- 1t '? BSI ^e, 4- ? r k?,s '1N # .pJ ?• .F a 1 t 1 y4? x ? aft , f)F a? 1 • ? y1 ?. il?C' 4 t < J Y i o ? r???? `J. i,, 4 ? ?{,' ?h ,L? . t: b... .__ ,_. ? ?...?? ?.;. Sr 4 rf? ? _ i. - ?i.', _ '. x. :/1 ':'?? r: ?:?. p( n: 1: J: ?. _?\.: .°ti.'• ! d t he l ?? 14. Zr.w d s ; aiwL111111V r Y 1 r? ? -? ?? _ .,. ,.. - (5) C,- ? iclll s L?) -E,2, k ?,, ? <?? ? ,P_, a t Y Al. fi+?? , ,?- :W- 19 r 1 I' f L ?.: • hq,.. .-• tF ? m ? v it ? ?, 1 r r r !' _ to A wtq Ile .Ja cJ- ?41?n?ii - ? 1G1°? Kt_4"/ i lrocyeSS Gher?? -"x vn-r.l O COACH HOMEOWNERS P.O. Box 7626 May 10, 2006 Dear Coachman Ridge Resident, N RID- 3OCIATION, INC. rwater, FL 337ig It has come to our attention that the local Wal-Mart may be planning to expand to a Wal-Mart Supercenter in the near future. At this time, they have not submitted a construction plan to the City of Clearwater, but have met with city officials to discuss their intent. As your Neighborhood Homeowner's Association, we would like your input as outlined below. We feel we need to take a look at Wal-Mart to make sure that what they have planned will have no negative effects on our neighborhood. When Wal-Mart was built in 1993, there was a provision for a future 30,000 square foot expansion. But also at that time, Wal-Mart agreed to various site plan conditions and we need your help in determining if Wal- Mart has followed those conditions. Please let us know if Wal-Mart has complied with the following agreed provisions. Has Wal-Mart allowed pick-up or deliveries before Sam or after 10pm, any day of the week? Yes No Don't Know 2. Has Wal-Mart allowed semi-trailers to enter or exit the property on Stag Run Blvd.? Yes No Don't Know 3. Has Wal-Mart allowed dumpster service between the hours of 9pm and 9am? Yes No Don't Know 4. Has Wal-Mart allowed refrigerated or other vehicles which must be parked in a running condition behind the Wal-Mart building during the hours of 9pm and 9am? Yes No Don't Know 5. Has landscaping been continuously maintained on the Wal-Mart property especially on the west side? Yes No Don't Know 6. Has site lighting been directed downward and away from the residential properties and streets? Yes No Don't Know 7. Other comments or concerns Signature Name Address Phone Time is short for getting our questions and concerns in to the city, so if possible please return your completed survey by May 20, 2006 to: CR Resident since Gloria Losi 2486 Stag Run Blvd Clearwater, FL 33765 f. R i ' ' C• E S' t t' Ci-Y r? ?Z }, ,t l 'J..i.lj. A _ Page 1 of 1 0 0 Subj: Coachman Ridge Summary of Surveys Date: 5/22/2006 3:38:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: RAL2000 To: VINMAN2486 Coachman Ridge Summary of Surveys 1. Original Site Plan (item #8) called to have Wal-Mart "mitigate the 'boxlike' appearance" which was not done. The time to correct this is during the new construction (i.e., Sam's Club's new elevation on Gulf-to-Bay). 2. The compactor for recycling cardboard boxes was to be enclosed with a 6ft. high opaque fence or wall. This has not been done. 3. TRAFFIC - Intersections of US 19 & NE Coachman and NE Coachman & Old Coachman are already rated poorly. Going east on NE Coachman, you have one lane fanning into 4 lanes (2 left, 1 straight and 1 right) This is already backed up. People turn left into Wal-mart through the exit only. People cross the double yellow lines to get into the northbound left turn lanes. At times, traffic going east & west (at both intersections) are backed up to El Tair. How will this be addressed? 4. NOISE - Original Site Plan did not allow pick-up or deliveries between l OPM - 8AM, dumpster pick-up between 9PM - 9AM or to have parked trucks running behind the building between 9PM - 9AM. According to the survey, Wal-Mart has not followed these provisions. There will be more trucks to deliver groceries on a daily basis. More trash pick-ups. How will this be addressed? 5. GARBAGE - Wal-Mart will be producing more food garbage. This will attract rats, raccoons, seagulls and crows. How will they address this problem? 6. LITTER - Wal-Mart has a poor record of keeping trash and debris picked up in the front of the store. Trash blows into the protected wet lands. Will they be more diligent in keeping the property around the store clean? 7. LANDSCAPING - This has always been a low priority in the past. Bushes were not trimmed, bushes died and were not replaced, garden beds were not weeded and trash is not picked up around the shrubs and trees. How will this be handled? Note: They have recently mulched and trimmed bushes. 8. STORAGE - Wal-Mart has parked tractor trailers behind the building for additional storage. Is this something that needs a permit? Monday, May 22, 2006 America Online: VINMAN2486 i =` \ NOTE: EXISTING STAENDED-_ • BLVD. e u, _ k ^ `' \?\ I TO BE DEAD IN FLORIDA ^ a wr . \ l POWER CORPORATION RIGHT-OF-WAY vla ?. i. 4u ol ??? i \ 9 \ ,•.: _. x'3.6, ? ! \ \ \\? ? ...ms :..,,, m f?l, iV?a .y^ •??9? ? fy / / 1 '9,p'gi? ??\`?•T'?'? -T9? 0?2 ?.•s ,,e. e. , ? •?i; .!.. , ? o? ^ ? 'i_/JSC tiC •95,?? ?A SC+\\ .,.K. .d : ?.m• ? • ? yF ADO o?., "•>?,yT \ °t? ?` i +o ??• i(\ ? 50',1 Q •c 0 o-S + TGBEREMOV?II-.vim TO BE ', 6-D v 7 6 00 /5. orris ?9'f I I I r??" \! < EXISTING BUILDING P? f6\ \ \. ,• i. / - I (EXISTING BUILDINGS WITHIN SE LOT I ARE TO BE REMOVED \ \ \ \ / I I PAH 1 (STING f I WAL-MART EXIST#iG BUILDING ° -_ .R y ^^?^\ \ \ \?:. $• 1 079JSF, STOREFRONT R; MP 2? I I LG-116-FGR STRIPED _' I I PEDESTRIAN I ; 25'p9_X HEIGFfT '??---CR05SM ?= y COMPACTOR PAD; / -? /y y \ /?Qt?' L . • b, / LOADING DOCK I" '2-PORCH W CRAMP I % y ro Tr/TTya /'S• ryh / o• • iv I r l I EXISTING BUILDING I-{] // •i3' .fiI TRUCK WELL \\ i /Q?' I \T•C? I / - I I I \ °" -- - T XISTING LOT 1 I '---\ f I I I I I I r ?\ I I • u- ? I I'' I I I ------- ' o I I tiry ! HEAVY DUTY Wis. I L- ------ J v ti I - Of:CRETE TO BE REMOVED -J hs - ----I IRS- ?\ 0 d, D TO BE REMOVED X - O - _- \ ti \ 5• CAN ?? . ?. \y EXIST NG a wnrea UN E • aT ^? ti h • yd EXISTING VEGETATION PHA $S2 \ rl of sfninv ` FUTURE PA y rnossi"r, ;ti`o •c (TO F3E LA 4 ; IN PHASE t ti \ -- TY ASPH l ?+• 24' 1 - N ?• t. o ^tl --.T- 7z - PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF C LEARWATER POST OFFICE BOX 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUTH MYRTLE AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562-4567 FAX (727) 562-4865 October 31, 2007 Steve Sarnoff 2886 Catherine Drive Clearwater, FL 33759 Re: FLS2006-07044, Wal-Mart 23106 US Highway 19 N Dear Mr. Samoff: A Memorandum of concerns and objections for the above referenced Flexible Standard Development application was submitted on your behalf at the Development Review Committee on November 16, 2006. Your concerns and objections were considered as part of our review of this application. On October 31, 2007, a Development Order was issued for the above referenced application (see attached). In accordance with Section 4-502.A of the Code, since you are not a property owner within the required notice area, you cannot appeal the issuance of the Development Order. We appreciate your input and consideration as part of the development process. If I can be of further assistance, I may be contacted at 727-562-4504 or wayne.wells@myclearwater.com. Sincer Y, I Wayne?Wells, AICP Planner III Attachment S: Wlanning DepartmenACD BlFlex Standard (FLS) Unactive or Finished Casesl US Hwy 19 N 23106 Wal-Mart (C) - ApprovedlLetter to Steve Sarnoff 10.31.07.doc FRANK HIBBARD, MAYOR JOHN DORAN, COUNCIIMEMBER J.B. JOHNSON, COUNCILMEMBER BILL JONSON, COUNCILMEMBER ® CAREEN A. PETERSEN, COUNCILMEMBER "EQUAL EMPLOYMENT AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER" .v jkv - .n, _, R ZSSA R e r v . r:: rr L , 11P N ?.le arwater I µ x ? am" .A PREPARED BY ' PUBLIC WORKS MINISTRATION EN EERNG/GIS g I ,, , i j i ••,•0 ?? j 100 S. Myrtle Ave., Clearwater, FL 33756 Ph.: (727)562-4750 Fax: (727)526-4755 • !..._ i I i , : I ; I ( L_-.-_.1 i.. +1 ! , www.MyClearwateceom _ u ? i ? ± I ! PWECe,M1rnrrun dAb 4lud+hed. tl G d C „ ?'•? 1 MON J ? I i ! , ? O ; I ,W , , I 3 vw/ O n e ,bMaa/ V R'Elc epEr AdmPtlMlbrvFiOll.s»In0. WmwrMsmObd WutM q'a,r ?,YM MA tl»uNr9ferr6ie TM tl»drh nceMdw macbdbll d arr. ' i ? IIR ! fa. .. e.rDew re UoyppFq.Yrept YltAdect,n A. w4t tl»C dG v .. ' ? ?. ? '? wr .... ? ? // . ? . ry Earr? WNE .?nneenr,r mxr rn. ? e .d „ + ? - / ____ _ _ !( _. -r Ery,wn r dun, drbkrenr Wun..roY N1 b : / ( . ?.E i A ry wMCO.wr.uotle d w/N IM Ur. armavt. i !I vw a ! ra9aEanuaeTwrn . ? Y; i i t O d i .. raR •e.n..e R»w.m? •.,. ma ? ? i O t E » _ . ?_? I .. °.. l ' - '» ubl"r..a."°r ?a -wEn?f a?. I t_...___..-----------y.--?:--"-----"'-- ----------'? `a.? r ? E11P -werw.. ?++Wa'aY^.?r^f».? e.YRaeAmodcu.w.non . LL ! `ws J ?_\ II rE1 i» I , ! .,. OMgOYeb COWERQK 0911UC1E 9VECVL VSE a9TiKT8 n \ ' . ..aA 1 '' ' ' E O I t., Mwrtlr ritl TrdrrAyy T 1 f ?_ I •??_ ' . tarYm ?1 ""'""" oxp. a ro..rar o:r o,, O City Owned Property LAxa •,A ! j » a . Agreement to Annex C Annexation o Deannexation Correction c Retuning ? •i tAr 3 ' +N ] \ t _ 14y ; 1 _, + SUB NUMBER I - Refer to Plat) = . • /? I f ' ;? ; ? i O BLOCK NUMBER f (i 1 A r r rw. S +O SUB PARCEL NUMBER :.2, / f a E _ !y I O \ _? Lre \ \ PARCEL NUMBER M&B +ae i LAND HOOK (COMMON OWNERSHIP) „ - I ? O ,f r, 1 - u, rrn ?__?; .. > ! mar,/ PLATTED SUBDrVISION BOUNDARY I ......._ r. w .. L+ , r« + ., „r ra w .. i `- ll , ?n 1 I I » I COU NfY HIGHWAY STATE HIGHWAY U.S. HIGHWAY 6 L Outside City of Clearwater (OR t ar W Id w. w I I t; t. . am Zoning Atlas - » Mar 21, 2005 _?: , 4 . o s • ; - .. r,-I- _ 4 » SE 114 of 6-29-16 u -_-. 2638 _ 2728 nru 1 A-0-° a "I. • 2548 255A . , rIh . D u .. , O Oe, iEt • Clearwater _ PREPARED BY PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION 2 - _ O L - +? A ENGINEERING I GIS 100S. Myrtle Ave, Clearwater, FL 33756 Ph: (727)562-4750, Fax: (727)526-0755 www.MYClearwater.com ' ? j Y f Distlaimer. „ " .?.. . cs aM .? -. , . "_? nr t_,'. \ a O n mmrewn ear„ s bmsnea e m. wew?w m. aamdrl-rr enamm:;ne ?e m?:line a«enmo ana umaer mr roddmlewm me erm.mwreb mm me oma - r-+ , J . y + r L , r \ :? - -? •" mcawe waa canclea br" nnme de d "kPirel ro n¢ bl -I . . ., _ » • • reaeacNre ln-11 -1h Ne DaY OI Clewwme l nokas,ro wamn0es .speazzawM' p : ' ; .,.. ,"1G, ,j? M.•. r+r n.:M .. s .e, r. , .. l r,ne ?-F ,vy ccumry. cOmpbleneas. rolreWliryw piwlY rM' Izf anv alner czar, ?olnraYN ,M.a v b s r r ? Y j 2 ?• "? s xzme l O xaN Ne vae o. m u» ` r ?vf NN ..... 1 w I , . ss • a.. ?" -? ?' - 6 I Iz Feet 200 100 0 200 r:..a. ,n .. xE90EUrNt Meruxre Loft p p ," 1 aY n Oma•I IbeMnrY ?. , _+a a. .,. '. .. _ _•z„?.) :, '.. ',c, .„°.,c „ _ atic .. :. _ ? °.?, ee ?mrnw, yap cnec "'u.wmmem ce".e,,.r«" rr ,'. .'_?E. ?E,sDa -mow Eawe, u. ureM 04acr y0areeacwemmn ,w r?,c:. .?. .. , - ^ n „ COwn Ts ,cn ww recnpe,ry r On nr rm u rM{ne•ee +1 t•.u< ? , i I\ • , is " ' " r ? eunem c ??? 1 xn u Oam Open SOxce.+ervemner m.nrwn 0 a v (V n ` ? I ? m meoxemn•ie• ? L d u R egen ^°?_ - r ?, •. 4 City Owned Property __ Y n" ? ?x Agreement to Annex n; O\r _ f O I? 1]es5 C ] SUB NUMBER (e -Refer to Plat O _ rr BLOCK NUMBER 10 o - „ O SUB PARCEL NUMBER c s m=_ c PARCEL NUMBER (M&B) - zn O I:, ,. -? ...v •, :. r ,• ",'„ j ., LAND HOOK (COMMON OWNERSHIP PLATTED SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY - - ;: r COUNTY HIGHWAY v 0 O ,( STATE HIGHWAY erv ' ' ' ®r U.S. HIGHWAY Outside City of Clearwater sacs a, r: o• ? z ., „ _ ew -- .e = Zoning Atlas •` I? ?n __._- --_ Sep 08, 2006 ,^ ---- "" SW 114 of 5-29.16 273B 264A 1SSA I . ?a , R a i ¢ f n - 758A - o Q 0 learWater xn 1 fla n 1 , n-T u PR A E BY PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION ENGINEERINGIGIS 100 S. Myrtle Ave., Clearwater, FL 33756 su --J• :• % Ph.: (727)562-4750, Fax: (727)526.4755 I wn www.MyCleerwateceom Dbct~ ' i nr ' q % ? ? r bs wr - PPL¢ra,Mvatlw, d?hYPmlard¢Y ee GrydGsrwabr FWb KWb AbMl e ,.1 - ••• . ..'? p " an aYElryavepp, rgmwllv.aepne r,dvad¢YtM nr?vfrnwllP Pw ugraarldN?q N.t MV dsb ^ e?¢Irg Y100¢t IO ? ncNeUa.•mlbsrd1yrpiepvporo deewbpNp.prepldc nh?werrrm A. wc?Pr r'Y Gydpaa"vnrPWAIE _ -- -'.- _- ? n u abarowEranib erpanHwenplyd, voMa scuwry,mmplelaraa, mlw¢y, wPUmdabd ?. esb/ any ' ----. ? I a, ( n ? ' ? '• F CC earrPa,tlwtlMww r°rt¢xmon, by tlydchra?rrPWAlf MaaMaro tls¢Ay aMYnwraartlWdnlq rM wawmbwa r a ) y r N E F w ' CM1t¢¢ aw too P m¢ w ° .? I it r C 6 d ? ? °" • _ ° nE¢nEwlwoomcrs _ _ u, ? lPN •Lw UaMYMUtlwItlJ Y ? ff ,?, ?, -- .O r wa •1Agln,q P••nnu ,ortown -r.Jwn wp?wrrrnr"I,nu P E a w - - n.a .r.nw •" M r wa -rJJ•re,,.PM I rirr GW d)p-COtlmr, Eql• HJprovlmu Canw.mn tNwla Pbekt a ?E .n ?E?; wd¢?a ?d??...wn a n s - ? .. C°reEe a / t pr,OalmC1¢ 9PEGK U¢E q¢T111CT9 o. ? wr_uwmx wn•nd?wrmrcecr _ _ [ . I+meend ?-CwnianrJ qaH. ?•• P „,• i f -- - - City Owned Property wO " r a r 0` _ _ _ Agreement to Annex 1 1 x t # ' Anne ati o D IT.CRM x on eannexatlon Correction C Rezonin 1 ? v w „'/ m coon g . 5o F ¢ tR¢ r r 5 r¦y . } y w ' ?ar ] ff ? nq; ' n - - SADL•8 E 1 p A ? SUB NUMBER R.I., to PI.Q ? $ 1 , n ? LAK 33 e a ?a : 1 O BLOCK NUMBER -e -+ser ¢ n ae?, a O r ?• r r 8 .? .P y? O SUB PARCEL NUMBER ,• na PARCEL NUMBER (M&B) a w. ? ra w r r et ?' n n r LAND HOOK (COMMON OWNERSHIP) r a m m" r Ta a .? ?? ?-r PLATTED SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY _,. r A ? - , wl °. , a D,Y : " .a n " .r g y ,4 ' ? ? EDIL Q • . a. ,? COUNTY HIGHWAY STATE HIGHWAY ? m '° m aorx *, a ? Y ' wrr O ] .. 5 ? t¢ U.S. HIGHWAY , -. r ? ET Aa1J ¢rl , c y • , pno/ ? , M1U •. ,? r . n q . ?„' a a. , , a - his - i, Outside City of Clearwater --------------- - --- Zoning Atlas Mar 21, 2005 • n ,> " ";, r? r I '? arr oM1 M1 .. -' p SE 114 of 5-29.16 ZTM 264B 27311 MEMORANDUM NOV 16 2006 Date: 16 November 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER To: Wayne Wells, Himanshu Patni, and the Development Review Committee of the City 5?, mii;eA of Clearwater, Florida aA- PXC- From: Stephen Sarnoff, 2886 Catherine Drive, Clearwater, Florida 33759 RE: Clearwater Wal-Mart #2081-05 Expansion, Application Number FLS2006-07044 To Whom It May Concern: Attached you will find a complete list of objections and concerns to the expansion of the Clearwater Wal-Mart Store located on the Northwest Corner of U.S. Highway 19 and NE Coachman Road. I intend these concerns and objections to be considered by the Development Review Committee as they discuss the Level One Flexible Standard Development Application for the expansion of the Wal-Mart Discount Store. My concerns and objections are split into two groups, one set pertains to the Traffic Impact Study while the other set pertains to the Parking Generation Study and the Site Plan. Some of the concerns and objections pertain to data that was collected outside of this application. These reports, articles, and studies are provided as attachments. I urge you to please review these attachments thoroughly prior to granting this expansion any Development Order. Lastly, I would like to highlight two concerns from the Traffic Impact Study set, that, alone, should be enough to postpone and/or continue the Development Review Committee Meeting to a later date: Concern 3: Page 7, Wal-Mart reports that the historical AADT Volume data from FDOT is provided in Appendix D. This data is not there. Wal-Mart must furnish this data with enough time for any member of the public to appropriately review and comment on this data. As of 9:30 am, November 16`h, 2006, this data has not been turned into the City of Clearwater. This alone, is enough to prevent the Development Review Committee from approving Wal-Mart's plans at this time. Concern 1: Page 3, Study Roadway Segments, in the agreed upon methodology Wal-Mart was supposed to include NE Coachman Road from Old Coachman Road to Belcher Road, however it is not listed in this section, nor is it included anywhere in the study ...As of 9:30 a.m. November 16`", 2006, this analysis had not been submitted to the City of Clearwater. This alone, is enough to prevent the Development Review Committee from approving Wal-Mart's plans at this time. Sincerely, Steve Sarnoff 2886 Catherine Drive Clearwater, Florida 33759 s ??a? C`.?117 ?f3-2S?? 30 ORIGINAL RECEIVED I r 1 0 0 Site Plan Objections and Concerns Parking J Objection 1: Parking s_tudy used current discount center to obtain rates. The parking study should have used the nearest Supercenter for data collection. Reference: Pinellas Park Supercenter started with a parking rate of 5 spaces per 1000 square feet GFA, and they are currently in the process of adding more parking since the original requirement has become inadequate. ?Objection 2: Comparison rates are based on TTE Free-Standing Discount Store Land Use Code 815, the comparison rates should be ITE Discount Superstore Land Use Code 813. The 815 ITE trip generation rate clearly does not apply to the store after expansion, since they are moving from a discount store to a Superstore that includes groceries. Therefore the minimum comparison rate should be the one provided under TTE Land Use Code 813, for a discount Superstore since that is what they are building. Concern 1: Per staff comments Wal-Mart must justify the reasoning for renovating the existing parking lot and removing the trees from the existing landscape islands. The trees "shall be preserved with no modifications to the islands." If this condition stands Wal-Mart must provide proof that the existing parking layout will satisfy requirements. Concern 2: Wal-Mart claims they are providing 766 spaces in actuality they are providing 765. Reference Sheet C-4A, First Row in from the South West Driveway off of Coachman road, Wal-Mart Claims 4 Spaces will be available, however the Cart Corral in one space will prohibit any visitor to use the 4th space. Objection 3: Since Wal-Mart plans on having t_he Supercenter with an outdoor Garden Center the true parking requirements should fall under the Shared Parking section of the Community Development Code. Regardless of sole ownership of both of the uses, this section of code would apply for the following reasons: 1. The enclosed structure of the Discount Store and the Grocery Store must be considered as its use of Retail Sales and Services. 2. The Garden Center is a separate structure that is only covered. If standing on its own this use would be considered Outdoor Retail Sales, Displays, and Storage. 0 0 3. The garden center has its own entrance and exit and it will have its own cash register. If a consumer can conduct a transaction at the garden center without ever entering the actual Supercenter then it must be considered its own use. 4. The original conditions approved for the construction of the existing Wal-Mart Discount Center, state that Outdoor Retail Sales, Displays, and Storage must meet all supplementary conditions in accordance with Section 41.053(23) of the City Land Development Code. Since that code has been updated to the Community Development Code, the Garden Center must meet all supplementary conditions as provided by Section 2-703, while also being considered its own use. 5. An application for a Level One Flexible Standard Development, includes standards for both of the above uses. Therefore the following Parking requirements apply: Section 3-1405. Shared parking. TABLE INSET. WEEKDAY WEEKEND USE Night Midnight 6 a.m. Day 9 a. m. 4 p.m. Evening 6 p. m. Midnight Day 9 a. m. 4 p.m. Evening 6 p. m. Midnight Residential 100% 60% 90% 80% 90% Government 5% 100% 0% 0% 0% Office and Marinas 5% 100% 10% 10% 5% Retail 5% 70% 90% 100% 70% Overnight Accommodations 80% 80% 100% 80% 100% Restaurant 10% 50% 100% 50% 100% Entertainment 10% 40% 100% 80% 100% Places of Worship 0% 20% 10% 100% 20% Others 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% When any land, building or area is used for two or more uses which are listed below, the minimum total number of required parking spaces shall be determined by the following: Multiply the minimum required parking spaces for each individual use, excluding spaces reserved for use by specified individuals or classes of individuals, by the appropriate percentage listed in the Table below for each of the designated time periods. Add the resulting minimum required parking spaces in each of the five vertical columns for the table. The minimum parking requirement is the highest sum of the vertical columns. 0 0 From this table, the Supercenter would be considered a retail use and the garden center is would have to meet the standards for an "Other" use. Using the flexible standard development rate for parking, the Supercenter must provide 762 spaces. Using the flexible standard development rate for parking, the Garden Center must provide 55 spaces. The sum requirement being 817 spaces. If we use the requested reduction rate for the retail use, Wal-Mart must provide 730 spaces for the Supercenter. Since the level one Flexible Development Standard do permit a reduction in the Outdoor Retail Sales, Displays, and Storage Use, the parking rate must remain at 10 spaces per thousand square feet requirement, meaning that they must provide 55 spaces. The sum total requirement being 785 spaces. Therefore regardless of the City's actions to approve the reduction in parking requirement for the Supercenter, Wal-Mart is still grossly under the appropriate required amount of spaces for this expansion. /Objection 4: Wal-Mart's parking spaces do not meet the Clearwater's Design Standards. Per Section 3-1402 the design standards for the parking lot are as follows: Stall Width - 9.0 feet Aisle Width - 24.0 feet Curb Length - 9.0 feet Stall to Curb Length -18.0 feet Wal-Mart's Design Stall Width - 8.75 feet Aisle Width - 23.75 feet Curb Length - 8.75 feet Stall to Curb Length - Some stalls only measure 17.5 feet, others are 18.75 feet J Concern 3: Wal-Mart will park trailers in their parking lot further limiting the already reduced amount of spaces in their parking lot. Section 3-1408. Parking restrictions in commercial areas. Commercial trucks, semi-tractor trailers, cabs and other commercial vehicles shall be permitted to be parked or stored on commercial property only if such vehicles are associated with the property on which they are located. Although it is understood that trailer parking is permitted in this lot. These parked trailers must be considered when discussing their parking requirements. Therefore Wal- Mart must be upfront with how often, for what duration, and how many trailers they plan on leaving in the parking lot and how many parking spaces are required for each trailer. Per the approval conditions of the existing Wal-Mart Discount Center, Wal-Mart is not allowed to leave more than four trailers on the site at one time (Last condition, Page 2). Wal-Mart must provide the dimensions of these trailers, in order to determine how many parking spaces each trailer will occupy. Those occupied spaces must be excluded from 0 0 the total count of spaces Wal-Mart is providing, which are 765 spaces. Once these spaces are excluded from the overall count, the parking lot must be reevaluated. Concern 4: Wal-Mart does not provide enough Loading Docks to meet Clearwater Code. Section 3-1406 Off-street loading and vehicle stacking spaces. B. Schedule. Any use identified below shall provide off-street loading in all districts except the D and T districts, as specified: 2. Commercial or industrial use: Any building containing 5,000 square feet or more of gross floor area designed or adaptable for commercial or industrial use shall be provided with loading spaces in accordance with the following table: TABLE INSET: Total Gross Floor Area (in square feet) Loading Spaces 5, 000 to 15, 000 1 Over 15,000 to 50,000 2 Over 50,000 to 100,000 3 Each additional 100,000 1 additional Per the schedule above, Wal-Mart must provide a minimum of 3 loading spaces to their store. However, since the gross square footage of 157,990 S.F., is above the 100,000 GFA, the city could demand that they need to provide a minimum of 4 loading spaces for this Supercenter, the current plan only provides two loading areas. J Flexible Development Standards - Requested Reductions (Variances) Concern 5: In addition to the reductions applied for and recognized by the staff of the City of Clearwater, one additional variance shall be included. Height - Exceeds minimum standard of 25 feet - Applying for 34.75 feet Fences J Objection 5: Wal-Mart's fence surrounding stormwater pond 1 does not meet the development standards of the City of Clearwater. Section 3-803.C - A fence or wall which exceeds 100 feet in length in any single horizontal plane along a street right-of-way shall either be offset to create inset areas of at least eight feet in width and depth for landscaping treatment or non-opaque openings in the walls or fence shall be provided through the use of wrought iron or similar types of 0 0 wall treatment or some architectural features such as a column or other feature is used to offset the unbroken nature of the fence or wall. The fence along the north side of stormwater Pond 1 is well over 100 feet in one horizontal plane, furthermore it traverses the Stag Run Blvd ROW, therefore it must comply with the design standards set out in this section of code. Mainly, it needs to be offset with various 8 feet deep insets. Objection 6: Wal-Mart should not eve be allowed to build a chainlink fence surrounding stormwater pond 1, as it runs along_ the Stag Run Blvd ROW in the rear yard. Instead this fence should be constructed of an entirely different material. Section 3-805. C Chain link Fences - Side and rear setbacks. Chainlink fences located in a side or rear yard shall not exceed 48 inches or six feet if clad with green or black vinyl. If such side or rear yard is adjacent to a public right-of-way, however, such chainlink fence shall not be permitted. Lighting /Concern 6: Wal-Mart's lighting plan is inadequate and lacks the appropriate information for it to be accuratelv reviewed. Section 3-13 - Wal-Mart's lighting plan did not provide enough information to appropriately review the site lighting plan. For instance it did not inform of the fixture type or the height of the lights that are to be used. Both the fixture type and the height affect the location of where the lights can be placed on the property in order to ensure that any light escaping the property line only permits a "diffuse shadow" and nothing more. Outdoor Retail Sales, Displays, and Storage Objection 7: Wal-Mart is attempting to have outdoor retails sales, displays, and storage without following t_he appropriate application process and without meeting the supplementary conditions for this use, as required from the Clearwater Community Development Code and the original conditions of approval granted to Wal-Mart when the existing discount center approved. This objection applies to the Pallet/Bale Storage in the side/rear (Northwest) lot and to the Garden Center. For the reasons stated in Objection 3 above, both of the areas of concern shall be considered Outdoor Retail Sales, Displays, and Storage Uses. The first violation is at the hands of the Pallet/Bale Storage Area. Per the following code citation, Wal-Mart must enclose this area. Section 3-1502. Property Maintenance Requirements F. Exterior storage and display/ nonresidential properties. 1. All equipment, materials and merchandise shall be stored and located at all times within an enclosed structure and no exterior storage of merchandise for sale shall be permitted unless expressly authorized pursuant to the provisions of this Development Code. Additionally, per the original conditions established by the approval for the existing Discount Store, "All outdoor storage and displays shall be required to be approved through the conditional use permit process" (Condition 9, P&Z). Additionally, these conditions state, "The applicant shall meet all supplementary conditions for outdoor retail sales, displays and/or storage in accordance with Section 41.053(23) of the City Land Development Code" (due to the copy of the original conditions provided by the city, it is not possible to accurately cite this condition, however it is provided in the attachments). Considering that the City Land Development Code has been updated with the Community Development Code, the outdoor storage must meet the requirements provided in the Community Development Code Section 2-703.L Flexible Standard Development criteria for Outdoor Retail Sales, Displays and/or Storage. These same conditions and standards apply to the Garden Center, as it is an Outdoor Retail Sales use, thus Wal-Mart must follow the same application process and adhere to the same standards for the Garden Center. The first standard violated by the outdoor pallet/bale storage area concerns the required setbacks. Per Section 2-703, the required side (west) setback for outdoor storage is 10 feet; Wal-Mart only provides a side (west) setback of 7.66 feet. Landscaping Objection 8: Wal-Mart's landscape plans do not adhere to the strict standards expressed in the Clearwater Cites The trees that they intend to plant do not meet the minimum height requirements, nor has Wal-Mart taken the appropriate steps to plant any trees at heights less than the minimum standards. Section 3-1202. General landscaping standards. B. Plant material specifications. Except as provided in subsection (6) below, plant materials which are utilized to satisfy the landscaping required by this development code shall comply with the following minimum standards: 1. Minimum plant material standards: TABLE INSET. SIZE (at I QUALITY I OTHER REQUIREMENTS 0 0 PLANT installation) a. Use of live oak (City tree) is encouraged, however species diversity is preferred over Florida monoculture. Shade 10' height Grade #1 b. Must be planted a minimum of five feet from any Tree 2.5" caliper impervious area. c. At least ten percent of the total number of trees shall be of a species which exhibits conspicuous flowering. Accent 8' height Florida 2 accent trees = I shade tree; unless overhead lines Grade #1 are unavoidable; no more than 25% of required Tree 2" caliper trees may be accent trees. Can be used to satisfy 75% of tree requirements on Beach, Sand Key & Island Estates, 25% elsewhere 10' clear and Florida in the City. Staggered clusters of 3 palm trees = 1 Palm straight Grade #1 shade tree, except for specimen palm trees such as: Tree trunk phoenix canariensis (canary island date palm), . phoenix dactylifera (edible date palm) and phoenix reclinata (senegal date palm), which count as shade trees on a 1:1 ratio. Per the above code citation it is clear that no tree upon planting can be less then 8 feet in height, however per Sheet L-4, Landscape Plan Notes and Detail, several of the trees that Wal-Mart will be planting will be under this height. Crape Myrtle - 6' - 7' Min Ht Tree Ligustrum - 6' - 7' Min Ht Hong Kong Orchid - 6' - 8' Min Ht Pink Trumpet - 6' - 8' Min Ht If these trees are planted Wal-Mart will not be meeting the minimum requirements as set out in this section of code, unless the city manager grants approval to modify the size specifications as stated in this section of the code, subsection 6. 6. The city manager may modify the size specifications of the trees required in this section only if the applicant for development approval demonstrates to the city manager that such size is not readily available in the market area and that the proposed landscaping treatment is equal to or superior to the landscaping which would have been provided with the larger trees. However, to date it is not clear if the City Manager has granted Wal-Mart this permission, or if they have any applied for it. • • Objection 9: Wal-Mart's landscape plan does not meet the appropriate percentage requirements as set out in Clearwater's Community Development Code, nor do they accurately represent the total number of trees of each individual species to be planted on this site- Subsection 4 of the General Landscaping Standards section states: A minimum variety of tree species shall be provided: each species shall provide a minimum of ten percent of the total number of trees. For the size of the landscaping required Wal-Mart must provide a minimum of 5 species of tree. According to Wal-Mart's Landscape plan, they provide 7 species. However, out of the 7 species provided, 3 of the species fail to meet the minimum 10 percent of the total number of trees. Crape Myrtle - 6 trees provided = 2% of the total number of trees Tree Ligustrum - 12 trees provided = 4% of the total number of trees Hong Kong Orchid - 11 trees provided = 4% of the total number of trees. These percentages were divided using the number of trees listed for each species under the Plant List on Sheet L-1, Overall Preliminary Landscape Plan. Each amount listed per species was divided by the sum total of all of the species to be planted (289), the percentages exclude the existing trees to remain. However, the total amount of trees listed per species is suspect when one reviews the following sheets included in the Landscape plan. On Sheet L-1, Overall Preliminary Landscape Plan, the Plant List records 6 Crape Myrtle Trees on site. However when counted; only 4 appear on the plans. On sheet L-2 Overall Preliminary Landscape Plan, the Plan List records 3 Crape Myrtle Trees on site, but when counted; only 1 appears on the list. On Sheet L-3, Overall Preliminary Landscape Plan, the Plant List records 3 Crape Myrtle Trees on site, on this sheet all 3 Crape Myrtle trees appear. On sheet L-4, Landscape Plan Notes and Details, the Plant List records that there will only be 4 Crape Myrtle trees on site and all 4 appear. If one uses the accurate recorded amount of 4 Crape Myrtle trees from sheet L-4, the percentage of this species falls to 1%, well below the 10% minimum. This misrepresentation occurs again when looking at the count for Tree Ligustrum. On Sheet L-1, Overall Preliminary Landscape Plan, the Plant List records 12 Tree Ligustrum trees on site; when counted, only 8 appear on the plans. On sheet L-2, Overall Preliminary Landscape Plan, the Plant List records 6 Tree Ligustrum trees on site, however only 4 appear on this sheet, one of which is below the matchline for sheet L-3, which actually reads as the matchline for sheet L-2. On Sheet L-3, Overall Preliminary Landscape Plan, the Plant List records 4 Tree Ligustrum trees on site. In actuality, 5 Tree Ligustrum trees appear. On Sheet L-4, Landscape Plan Notes and Details, the Plant List 0 0 records 8 Tree Ligustrum trees on site. If one assumes that the accurate number is 8 trees on side, the percentage of this species in comparison to the total number of trees becomes 3%, well below the 10% minimum required. Additional errors occur in the comparison of the Plant List on Sheet L-l, Overall Preliminary Landscape Plan, and the Plant List on Sheet L-4, Landscape Plan Notes and Details. For instance, Sheet L-1 lists a total of 47 Laurel Oaks, while Sheet L-4 lists 46. Sheet L-1 lists a total of 97 Cabbage Palmettos, while Sheet L-4 lists 100. Sheet L-1 lists a total of 56 Pink Trumpet Trees, while Sheet L-4 lists 58. Sheet L-1 lists a total of 60 Live Oaks, while Sheet L-4 lists 57. Concern 7: Wal-Mart misrepresents the number of trees to be removed from this site. Sheet TR-1, Tree Retention Plan, the total count Wal-Mart provides for trees to be removed is 75, in actuality the total, per their list, is 76. However the total count from looking at the plan diagram on this page shows a removal of 78 trees. Public Art Concern 8: Wal-Mart does not provide any proof that they will honestly and accurately participate in the Public art and design program, as required by code. Section 3-2401. Public art and design program. The City of Clearwater recognizes that providing for public art and enhancing the appearance of buildings and spaces provides benefits to the community by expanding the historical, cultural, and creative knowledge of citizens. In keeping with its concern for the arts and quality of its environment... eligible private development projects shall also allocate not less than one percent of the aggregate job value for on-site public art to enhance the visual appeal of the project and city. An in-lieu-of contribution to the city's public art and design program, as provided for herein, will also satisfy this requirement. Definitions Aggregate job value means the total of all construction costs associated with a particular site plan project regardless of the number of permits associated with the project, or whether it is a phased project. Construction costs include all labor, structural materials, plumbing, electrical, mechanical, infrastructure, and site work. Per the Wal-Mart site plan it is not clear that any part of their project includes the allocation of the aggregate job value for any on-site public art. If Wal-Mart is going to provide the "in-lieu-of contribution" then prior to the issuance of the Development Order Wal-Mart must provide a detailed analysis of the aggregate job value for this expansion. One percent of this value, up to 200,000 dollars, must be dedicated to the city's public art and design program prior to the issuance of the building permit. 0 0 Traffic Impact Study Concerns and Objections I Objection l: Page 1, Wal-Mart lists 5 access points to its property. The number two access point is the Stag Run Boulevard and U.S. 19 Frontage Road Intersection. This is not a direct access point to the Wal-Mart site therefore it should be studied as an affected intersection and not an access point. Concern 1: Page 3, Study Roadway Segments, in the agreed upon methodology Wal-Mart was supposed to include NE Coachman Road from Old Coachman Road to Belcher Road, however it is not listed in this section, nor is it included anywhere in the study. Prior to any Development Order this segment must be added to the traffic study and the analysis of this segment must be made available with enough time for any member of the public to appropriately review and comment on the analysis. As of 9:30 a.m. November 16th, 2006, this analysis had not been submitted to the City of Clearwater. This alone, is enough to prevent the Development Review Committee from approving Wal-Mart's plans at this time. J Concern 2: Page 3 - Study Intersections - The agrees upon methodology was to include the entire intersection of U.S. 19 and additional roads (I.E. Coachman, Sunset Point, and Drew). Wal-Mart lists their analysis as US 19/Frontage Road. With that labeling it can only be assumed that Wal-Mart only studied the Frontage Road portion, and not the entire intersection. 1 Objection 2: Page 6, Wal-Mart assumes that the same percentage split on the NB U.S. 19 approach as is in the SB US 19 approach. Throughout U.S. 19 traffic is worse going north than south. Wal-Mart should be required to look at historical data to prove that this assumption is valid. iObjection 3: Page 6, Wal-Mart claims that the U.S. 19 improvements will be done by 2007, this claim is a mere assumption. Wal-Mart must provide proof, in a written letter, that this is true. J Concern 3: Page 7, Wal-Mart reports that the historical AADT Volume data from FDOT is provided in Appendix D. This data is not there. Wal-Mart must furnish this data with enough time for any member of the public to appropriately review and comment on this data. As of 9:30 am, November 16th, 2006, this data has not been turned into the City of Clearwater. This alone, is enough to prevent the Development Review Committee from approving Wal-Mart's plans at this time. Concern 4: Figure 2 versus Figure 3, Southwest Driveway and NE Coachman Road, Figure 2 accounts for EB traffic turning right into the neighboring apartments to the south, while Figure 3 ignores this turn. Figure 2 also accounts for traffic leaving the apartments turning left or right while figure 3 ignores this data. Figure 3 also does not account for traffic on NE Coachman Road heading WB turning into the apartment complex. Additionally, Figure 3 does not provide the number of trips for the newly created left-in access at this intersection. Wal-Mart must revise Figure 3 to include the 0 0 trips that will be heading EB on NE Coachman and turning into the apartment complex. They must also add the traffic that will be exiting from these apartments attempting to turn left of right onto NE Coachman Road. Wal-Mart must also provide data for traffic heading WB on NE Coachman Road turning left into the apartment complex. Lastly, Wal-Mart must provide the data for the newly created left-in access from NE Coachman Road to the Southwest Driveway. Concern 5: Figure 3, Southeast Driveway and NE Coachman Road, At the NE Coachman Road and U.S. 19 Frontage Road intersection Wal-Mart shows but omits the data for the U-turn. Wal-Mart must provide this data prior to the DO approval. JObjection 4: Trip Generation Methodology, The methodology assumes that the rate for the discount center will be the same for the Supercenter. Considering that it has been Wal-Mart's stated belief in the grocery component as the primary force for the success of the Supercenter's, one can assume that the trip generation rate would be much higher for a Supercenter than a Discount Store. Using the methodology provided Wal-Mart estimates the trip generation rate to be 3.56 trips per thousand square feet during Peak P.M. Hours using the 160,000 square foot number provided in the TIS. If we use the accurate square footage, 157,990 square feet, the Trip Generation rate would increase to 3.60 trips per thousand square feet during peak hours. According to the Institute of Traffic Engineers, a Wal-Mart Supercenter is usually evaluated using the ITE Land Use Code of 813. Wal-Mart refers to the expanded store with the TTE Land Use Code 813 reference, the net trips generated by the expansion of the store would exceed the estimate provided in the study. However, more recent evaluations of Wal-Mart Supercenter's actual trip generation rates. These studies, attached, show that the actual trip generation rates exceed the estimate provided in the study by at least 50 percent. These, conducted by the Florida Department of Transportation and released in the TTE Journal imply that the most accurate estimate of trip generation for a Supercenter if applied to the expansion would yield an estimate of 310 more post-expansion trips than Wal-Mart's consultant acknowledges. Prior to any approval for any Development Order, these studies need to be taken into consideration by the Traffic Operations Department of the City of Clearwater. JObjection 5: Wal-Mart uses versions of the TTE Land Use Code 813 Internal Capture and Pass By Trip Rates for the expansion. They then use versions of the TTE Land Use Code 815 Rates for the original store and then use the ITE Land Use Code 815 for the Trip Generation Rate for the expansion. Wal-Mart must settle on one TTE Land Use Code, which should be TTE Land Use Code 813 for comparison. Additionally, the Pass By Trip Rate of 28% is too high for a destination store like a Supercenter, this number should be more like 20%. This objection lends itself to the previous objection of the low Trip Generation Rate. The reason the Level Of Service is not affected with the addition of the Supercenter in their table is dues to the low trip generation and the high pass by and internal capture rates. For instance, Wal-Mart only shows a net added 51 trips leaving out of the 4 exits thus the marginal increases to traffic volume on the nearby roads seems negligible. If Wal-Mart used the accurate rates for the above discussed categories, then the impact on the roads would be much more severe and the LOS would be affected, 0 0 giving a more likely scenario of what will happen to the surrounding road network when this store is open. ,/Objection 6: In Table 4, Wal-Mart lists the U.S. 19 and Drew Street Intersection under Existing Traffic Conditions LOS as a B for Node 3. From looking at the Synchro Reports in Appendix E, this intersection had a LOS below B for 3 of the 5 traffic movements studied. The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Summary of this intersection rated it as a LOS C. Additionally Wal-Mart does not provide any Synchro Reports for Future LOS of this intersection, rather the provide two different reports for the Existing LOS. One report rates Node 3 as a LOS C, the other report rates Node 3 as a LOS B. 1 Objection 7: Table 5 shows that without the expansion of the store the Southwest Driveway and NE Coachman Road Intersection is going to fall to a D. Wal-Mart contends that even with the added traffic Wal-Mart contends that it will not fall any further. This is unlikely, as the Trip Generation, Internal Capture, and Pass-by rates were all grossly underestimated. JObjection 8: It does not seem that the studies of the unsignalized Intersections accumulated in table 5 for the approach LOS, studied all of the traffic movements that would affect the LOS. (Refer to Appendix E) For instance, Frontage Road and Stag Run Blvd only accounted for the right outs from EB to SB, they did not study the right ins from SB to WB. Wal-Mart must provide data for the traffic entering through this access. Again, the East Driveway and the SB Frontage Road intersection was neglected from the entering traffic data. This occurs again for the SE Driveway and NE Coachman Road. /Objection 9: Page 19, Wal-Mart claims that the addition of a WB Right turn lane at the intersection of NE Coachman Rd and SW Driveway is an improvement, however this turn lane is already there. Objection 10: Page 19, Wal-Mart claims that the southbound left turn lane at the SW Driveway and NE Coachman Intersection will have minimized congestion due to its proximity to US 19 and Coachman. This cannot be true since this turning movement receives a LOS Grade of F from the start. Objection 11: Page 19 and 20, Wal-Mart claims that the Intersection at U.S. 19 and Coachman Road will provide a sufficient gap for the EB left turn lane at the Coachman SW Driveway intersection to clear out enough for any WB or NB left turns into and out of the Town Place Apartments to occur. This is a grand assumption for it does not include the movements of SB cars taking a right-turn off of the Frontage road onto NE Coachman Road which will severely limit the gap available for the EB left turns at the NE Coachman Road and the SW Driveway intersection to occur. ,Objection 12: PM Peak Hour Roadway Segment Capacity LOS, The Future Total Traffic for the segment of NE Coachman Rd from US 19 to Landmark Drive, estimates only a 6 car increase in volume on this road from the Future Background Traffic to the Total Traffic added from the expansion. NE Coachman Road to the east of U.S. 19 is full of • homes and neighborhoods that will be served from this expansion. Currently the Publix at the corner of Coachman and McMullen Booth serves this area, the addition of the grocery department to this Wal-Mart will draw many residents west on Coachman towards the store, most likely more than 6. /Objection 13: Future Total Traffic versus Existing Traffic, When totaled up the differences between the Future Total Traffic and the Existing Traffic is only 419 added trips during peak hours. Earlier in the TIS Wal-Mart stated that the Supercenter will be creating a minimum of 570 trips during peak hour times, therefore Wal-Mart does not account for the actual number of trips during peak hours, that they originally stated. Even if the assumption is that these trips are internally captured by the Supercenter, it must be considered that this 419 number is lower than the current Gross Traffic Volume of 434 trips created by the existing Discount Store. • 0 Trin Generation Characteristics of Free-Standing Discount Superstores FREE-STANDING DISCOUNT SUPERSTORES HAVE GAINED IN POPULARITY BECAUSE OF THEIR CONVENIENCE, COMBINING GENERAL RETAIL MERCHANDISE, FULL- SERVICE GROCERY DEPART RENTS AND OTHER SPECIALTY SHOPS AT DISCOUNT RATES. THIS STUDY SHOWED A P.M. PEAK-HOUR TRIP GENERATION RATE OF 5.50, SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER THAN THE STANDARD ITE FREE-STANDING DISCOUNT SUPERSTORE P.M. PEAR_ HOUR RATE OF 3.87. IN THE PAST DECADE, THE NUM- ber of proposed free-standing discount superstores has increased throughout the United States. These stores have contin- ued, to gain in popularity because of their convenience, combining general retail merchandise, full-service grocery depart- ments and other specialty shops, such as pharmacies and. photo processing, at dis- count rates. Due to this popularity, many localities are growing concerned over the impact of these stores on their communities and infrastructure system. Regarding traffic impacts, an important issue has been raised concerning whether the published Insti- tute of Transportation Engineers OTE) trip generation rates for free-standing dis- count superstores are accurate for super- stores that are larger than the average facilities documented in Ttip Generarzon. This feature provides a summary of a trip generation study prepared for a major discount superstore company located. throughout the United States by looking . at traffic conditions related to five free standing discount superstores. INTRODUCTION Trip generation. for traffic impact analy- ses typically is conducted using trip genera- tion rates published by ITE. For most retail land uses, traffic impaws are focused on the p.m. peak-hour of adjacent street traffic to determine the needed, infrastruc- ture improvements surrounding the store. In the case of free-standing discount superstores, the published trip generation rates are based on sur- veys conducted dur- ing the 1990s and 2000 throughout the United States. It is believed that larger supersrores may generate at different rates. It should be noted that: only 1.0 stores were sur- veyed. for the i T E rate; the average st7e of the stores surveyed in determining the ITE rate wa's 161,000 square feet, although many of today's free-standing discount superstores have more than 200,000 square feet (213,210 for put- poses of this study); and free-standing discount superstores intuitively should have a higher trip generation rate than free-standing discount stores, which by definition do not contain a full-service grocery store but have most of the other amenities of the superstore. This study was undertaken to provide additional information regarding the issues noted above. The principal ques- tion to be addressed in the study was whether today's free-standing discount superstores with sizes greater than. 200,000 square feet have different trip generation characteristics than the free- standing discount superstores averaging 1,61,000 square feet, which were sources of data for ITE T..and Use Code 813. The current ITE category used for a free- standing discount superstore is land Use Code 813. Discount superstores are free-stand- ing stores with off-street parking. They offer a variety of customer services and centralized cashiering and contain a full- service grocery department under the same roof that shares entrances and exits with the discount superstore area. They typically maintain long store hours, seven days a week. The stores included in this land use often are the only ones on the site, but they also can be found in mutual operation with a related or unrelated garden center and/or service sm. tion. T hcy sometimes are found as separate parcels within a retail. complex with their own dedicated parking. area. Iand. Use Code 815 (free-standing discount store) is a related use. Table 1. depicts the ITE published average daily weekday rate of traffic and the p.m. peak-hour rate of adjacent street traffic for a free-stranding discount super- store per I.,000 square feet of gross floor area (GFA). Per die discussion, Table 1 30. ITE JOURNAL / AUGUST 2006 0 9 tt ! r' r e r s Comparison of published trip generator rates 17E Free-Standing ITE Free-Stand'mg Discount Superstate Discount Store ITE Shopping Center (Land Use Code 813) ' (land Use Code 815) (Land Use Code 820) Number of studies 10 47 407 Average 1,000 square 161 115 379 feet ofCFA AveraV weekday trip generation rime 49.21 56.02 42.94 Average p.m. peak-hour trip generation rate per 3.137 5.06 3:75 1.,000 square fiat, peak hour of adjacent strut traffic also includes the rate for Land Use Code 815 for comparison. In. addition to the use of thefree-stand- ing discount superstore, often. when. part of a larger retail development, traffic impact analysis will. be conducted using the ITE rate for Land Use Code 820 (shopping center). For discussion purposes, the shop- ping center rate also is included in Table 1. METHODOLOGY . This study included five stores in the states of Oklahoma and texas, that fit the ITE definition of free-standing discount superstore to estimate their peak-hour trip generation. Field review of all locations included a sketch-level drawing of the site plan., including the driveways to be counted at each location. Each building's square footage was attained and calculated either by site plans obtained. from each local jurisdic- tion in which the superstore was located, bya measuring wheel during field review, or by contact with the store. The square footage of the garden center and tire and tube shop were included in the square footage calculations. . Staff were positioned. at the driveway openings and. traffic counts at each of the facilities were conducted on two typical weekda)n (Tuesday, Wednesday and/or Thursday) from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.na. The first weekday count was taken in July 2003 and the second in October 2003. It should be noted that no inclement weather occurred during either season of the traffic counts. The peals hour of adjacent traffic was determined. to be from 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. and was used for analysis purposes. SITE SELECTION As defined in ITE's :Trip Generation, 7th Edition, free-standing discount superstore locations chosen for study had dedicated parking, provided genera.( merchandise and a grocery store and. operated seven days a week. In. addition, it was decided to include only stores with a size of 200,000 square feet or greater. Each location is described. below, including the type of services (in addi- tion to general merchandise) provided at that superstore location. Garden Center/Grocery/PhormacylI'hoto CenterlPortrait Stu&eMire and Lube The GFA. totals 210,945 with. the gar- den center and tire and tube shop and currently is on the site with no other developments. Six driveways were counted. for the analysis. Garden CenteilGas Station/Groceryl Pharniac),17'hoto Cented1lortwitSitta7a/ Tire and Lube The superstore site totals 209>115 square feet with the garden center and. tire and tube. shop, The building has a drive- way entrance from a gas station located at the southwest corner of die property. For analysis purposes, the traffic entering .in and out of the driveway connecting the gas station and. superstate parking I.ot vtras counted and, therefore, die gas station was excluded from the analysis. A. total of four driveways were counted .for analysis. IT[ JOURNAL / AUGUST 2006 Garden C",enterlGas StationlGroceryl Md)ona1dslPharznacy111hoto Canes/ Portrait Studiol'I'ire and Lube The building totals 204,000 square feet with the garden center and tire and tube shop and has an additional four- pump gas station of 225 square feet. For purposes of this study, the gars station's square footage was not included in the analysis. Six driveway entrances to the parking lot were counted for the analysis. Garden CenterlGrocerylMcDonaldwsl PharmacylPhoto CenterlPortrait StudiolTire and Lube1Vision Center The superstore site totals 209,000 square feet with the garden center and tire and tube shop. Dour driveways were counted. for analysis. Garden CenterlGas StationlGraceryl PharnzacylPlroty Cr nterlTortrait Studio/Tire and Lubd ision Center The superstore totals 233,000 square feet with the garden center and tire and tube shop. Five driveways were counted, including a driveway entrance between the parking area for die superstore and another retail. store with a separate drive- way entrance. TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS Trip generation was conducted by utilizing the average peak-hour (4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m..) counts and the square footage of each free-standing discount superstore to determine the trips per 1,000 square feet during the p.m. peak hour. Furthermore, the average traffic turning in and out of the superstore dri- veways each was divided. by total traffic to determine the p.m. peak hour in and. out percentages. The two days of riaffic counts (July and. October 2003) were summarized for each of the five locations. The average rate of the two weekday counts for p.m.. peak hour traffic and the in and out per- centages are calculated in T We 2. In addition, Table 3 utilizes the ITE fitted curve equation for the free-standing dis- count superstore. LIMITATIONS OF STUDY Although this study was conducted. using standards that comply with ITE 31 1 1 • f t' 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 3 1 1 .Mpeak-hour"trips 1 f i 1 ite f• i i r 1 000 i p.tn peak- `hoar trip generatitm rate (trips, per 1,000 square feet), peak hourif atliacent Site Day In In *% ` Out Out % traffic , square feet street traffic 1 1 672 50.81% 650 49,20'n - 1522 210.`1)5 6.27 2 715 49.6%,_ 727 50.4% 1/42 21.0.95 6.84 Avel'age 694 50.2% 699 _4006. 1383 210.95 ..6.56 2 1 484 49.7% 489 5031 , 973 209.12 4.65 2 508 49.4% 520 50.6% 1028 209.12 4.92 Average 496 49.6% 505 50.4% 1001 209.12 4.79 3 1 6" 1 51.91Y4, (>04 48;1!36 1255 2t14,O0 6.15 2 759 51.7941 708 48:311 1467 204.00 7.19 Average 705 51.81% 656 18.2,16 1361 204;00 .6.67 4 1 438 49.2% 453 50.8% 891 209.00 4.26 2 397 47.0% 448 53.0% 845 209.00 4.04 Avertge. 418 411.1% 451 51.9% 869 209.00 4.16 5 1 600 51.511,4, 570 48.54%1 1176 233.00 5.05 . 2 624 4s.v„ 67 52.0%, 1301 233.00 _5,5,13 Avcti6c 615 19169'!1 624 50.411% I 123.9 233.40 5-32. Aver age 49.9% 50.2% 117(} 213, 1. 5.50 f 1^ f 1 1 1 8 i 1 study - 1 1)- 1 1 1' 1 hour, 1 1 / - 1 a rates to ITE 1- trag djacent street , 1 rates, ic. Average 1,000 square feet of GFA Average rote ITE Trip Gene7- aioii. lib Pinion 1-rec.-Standing discount Suherscnl e 161.00 3.87 (Laud Usc Code 413 1'1I 7rvp Genizalion, ;7tb Edition Free-Standing Discount Superstore 0rted curve trip generation, p-m. peak hour, 213.21 3.96 peak )tour of adjacent street traffic Study average 21121 5.50 trip generation procedures, it is impor- tant to note its :limitations so that trans- portation professionals can determine how best to use the results. The following limitations are noted:_ • Th.e study included. sites located only in the south central United Stares. • Only five sites were included. in the study. •'.I lie study analyzed only weekday p.m. peak hour conditions and did .not include daily counts or Saturday 4aritnts. Despite these limitations, the study, provides. new information on a laird use category that does not appear to be fully addressed. in previous studies. CONCLUSIONS Trip generation. rates for the stores included in this study, as shown in Table 2, were compared to the p.m. peal; hour rate of adjacent: street traffic for free- standing discount superstore as shown in Table 1. Table 4 summarizes the ITE trip generation rate and the average trip gen- eration rate for the free-standing discount 32 superstores analyzed. in this study for the p.m. peak hour of adjacenr street traffic. The results shown in Table 4 indicate that todays free standing discount super- stores with sizes greater than 200,000 square feet have significantly higher trip generation. rates than the stores used to sup- ply data. for IT E 1-and Use Cade 813.11iis leads to the following recommendations: • Transportation. professionals should consider. using the trip generation. rates documented in this study when analyzing free-standing dis- count superstores. that more closely match the characteristics of the stores included in this study as com- pared to the stores used to supply data for 1 E Land Use Code 81.3. • ITE should consider adding a new land use category consistent with today's free-standing discount super- stores with sizes greater than 200,000 square feet, as described. below. The proposed definition for the new 1711 land use category is: • Large. Free-Standing Discount Super- store (greater than 200,000 square fist) This category generally is described as a free-standing superstore with off-srreet parking and a GFA of 200,000 square feet or greater. These stares usually have a variety of customer services, centralized cashiering and a wide range of products, and include a garden center, service sta- tion, auto service center, fidl-line grocery ITE JOURNAL J AUGUST 2006 • store and, often, a fast-food restaurant (all inclusive in the GFA). 1" here stores typically are open 24 hours, seven days a week and. often are stand-alone facilities, but also can be found in mutual operation with other retail store(s). Typically, die discount superstore will. maintain its own dedicated parking when part ofa larger shopping miter_ It is recommended that the square footage. used for this category include any garden centers, tire and tube shops, inter- nal restaurants and external bas station. This recommendation is made to provide a common basis for comparison that is' based. on total square footage. As mentioned. previously, the ITE trip generation rare for a. shopping center is frequently used to develop trip rates for free-standing discount superstore loca- tions that, share parking with other unre- lated retail stores. When preparing traffic impact assessments, this issue should be looked at closely b=use the currently accepted ME trip generation rate using the average rare for a shopping center during the p.m. peals hour of adjacent traffic is :3.75, as identified in Table 1. W GEORGIENA M. ( VIVIAN rs vice president of VRIM Technologies h2c., which she founded t ,;',r r in] 988. She has more than .3.5 years a f rx(rrzx- d' enre. in tranportation planniq µ,.<. financing congestion mawugonent, traffic engr . raring environmental a sessnient and connaunity outrwli. Sperifae experience includes pmparrttion of regional and local transportation pkins and programsand associated envirenmen- tal docurnenu; peer nwie. w and development of traffic impact studier,• and preparation o f 'If2- percent sales tax plaits and irnpart fee prognmis far transportation irnp overrtents: t Advertise your company products and services ! y placing; a banner ad on the ITE Web site' Placing a banner ad is a great way to reach ITE`s more than 16,000 members and rather Web site guests. Target Your Market When you place a section banner ad on the ITE Web site, you choose where your advertisement is placed. If you are hiring a new employee you may want to place your banner ad within the Employment Center. Have a new prod- uct line you're looking to promote? Look no further than the Technical Information section. Increase Your Exposure Vertical banners are displayed on the left side of the screen within the navi- gation bar. This means your ad will be seen on almost every page of the ITE Web sitgl Only one advertiser .uses the designated space at a time, and there are only two vertical spaces available. Ads are placed in the order that they are received. Please visit www.ite.org/marketing/bannerads.asp for ad specifications. For availability, please contract Christina Carneski, Marketing Sales Manager, at +t 242-289-0222 ext. 128 or cgameski@ite.org. Visit www.ite.org/marketing/bannerads.asp to download an order form today! ITE JOURNAL / AUGUST 2006 37 ALACHUA COUNTY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING Comprehensive Plan Amendments County Administration Building 12 Southeast First Street Jack Durrance Auditorium Room 209 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS LEE PINKOSON, CHAIR PAULA M. DELANEY, VICE CHAIR MIKE BYERLY CYNTHIA MOORE CHESTNUT RODNEY J. LONG ORIGINAL RECEIVED NOV 16 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER MEETING AGENDA March 16, 2006 5:00 PM f 0 0 ALACHUA COUNTY COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MARCH 16, 2006 CALL TO ORDER ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA OLD BUSINESS: (Legislative) This application is continued from the February 22, 2006 BOCC Meeting. 1. APPLICATION CPA-07-06 (LARGE SCALE AMENDMENT) A request by Robert Ackerman and Tom Ryder, agents, for a Comprehensive plan text amendment to the Urban Activity Center policies of the Future Land Use Element to require a greater level of analysis during the Development Review Process concerning the need and impacts of retail establishments exceeding 100,000 sf GLA. Staff Recommendation: Denial of this application. Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval with a 6-1 vote. (Commissioner Massey was opposed.) ADJOURN Alachua County Comprehensive to Large Scale Prepared by Plan Amendment Related Retail Gene Boles, AICP Boles Consulting, Inc November 25, 2005 Page 1 of 37 Alachua County Comprehensive Plan Amendment Related to Large Scale Retail Table of Contents Introduction 4 General Perspectives on Large Scale Retail 5 The Role of Retail in the Alachua County Economy 6 Retail Development Patterns in Alachua County 9 Local Business First Initiatives 10 Market Dominance 16 Affordable Housing 18 Effects on Poverty Levels 23 Abandonment & Lease Retention 24 Cross- Jurisdictional Impacts 25 Fiscal Impacts 26 Economic Impacts 28 Travel & Traffic Impacts 29 Is Alachua County Subsidizing Large Scale Retail? 32 Recommendations 32 Amendments to Alachua County Comprehensive Plan 33 Endnotes Page 2 of 37 List of Tables Table 1: Retail Industry in Alachua County: Selected Indicators 7 Table 2: Estimate of Annual Sales in Alachua County by Selected Business Type 8 Table 3: Sales Volume Estimates by Size of Store 9 Table 4: Annual Economic Impact per Store (millions in 2002) 14 Table 5: Local Economic Return from $100 Spending 15 Table 6: Affordable House Price Range by Income Level (2003) 19 Table 7: Affordable House Price Gap by Income Level (2003) 20 Table 8: Affordable Rents by Number of Bedrooms and Income Level 20 Table 9: Difference Between Affordable Rents & Market Rents 20 Table 10 Commuting Characteristics of Four Hypothetical Workers 21 Table 11: Comparison of Poverty Levels to Wage Levels in Alachua County 22 Table 12: Town of Barnstable Nonresidential Prototype Land Use Analysis 27 Table 13: Net Fiscal Impacts for Nonresidential Prototypes: Town of Barnstable 27 Table 14: Average Vehicle Trip Length in Miles by Purpose of Trip: United States 30 Table 15: Average Vehicle Trip Length in Miles by Purpose of Trip: United States 30 vs Alachua County Table 16: Daily/ weekly Trips from Land Use 813 (Free Standing Discount 31 Superstore) For An Assumed Store Size of 200,000 Square Feet List of Figures Figure 1: Business Development Patterns in Alachua County 11 Figure 2: Publix Supermarket Development Pattern 12 Figure 3: Hypothetical SuperCenter Development Pattern 13 Page 3 of 37 Introduction The Alachua County Comprehensive Plan 2001-2020 provides `for the concentration of mixtures of higher intensity and density land uses through designations of Activity Centers on the Future Land Use Map, with standards to ensure pedestrian-friendly compact centers connected to a multi-modal transportation system and integrated with surrounding uses in the urban area".' This objective is accomplished by the classification of retail and employment oriented activities into "high", "medium", and "low" activity centers by size and type of activity. The Future Land Use Element then (1) designates existing activity centers and (2) prescribes specific "Activity Center" plan policies that are to apply to the existing activity centers.2 A Comprehensive Plan Amendment is required for new, expanded or renovated activity centers "to establish level, type and uses on the Future Land Use Map and to establish specific activity center policies in the Comprehensive Plan.3 Such Comprehensive Plan Amendments shall be considered based on: (a) the findings of a market or employment study,....., (b) urban form requirements, ...., and (c) ...... the needs of the community, character of the surrounding area and market considerations.4 The Future Land Use Element goes further require that design standards be applied to new or expanded activity centers that stress compactness, mixed use, site and building design, signage design, parking, automobile access, community green space and surface water management.5 These standards are specifically intended to achieve a balanced mixture of uses ... to reduce overall trip lengths, to support pedestrian, bicycle and transit opportunities and create pedestrian friendly streetscapes". Despite the very positive and far-reaching aspects of these policies, forms of retail development have emerged in recent years that, by their size, design and market share philosophy, have the potential to undermine these objectives. Large scale retail, especially that of a scale that draws from a broad trade area, presents unique issues for urban planning and may require a greater level of analysis during the development review process. These issues include among others: • The impact of large scale retail on governmental jurisdictions beyond the boundaries of the host government; • The consistency of large scale retail with the comprehensive plans of all counties and municipalities within their trade area; • Increases in vehicle miles traveled due to expanded trade areas and longer driving distances for shopping; • The fiscal implications of concentrating retail facilities including the decline of tax revenues and increased service and infrastructure cost in neighboring jurisdictions; • The economic impacts on established businesses and on the local and regional economy; • The impact on jobs, wages and public efforts to alleviate poverty; • The availability of housing and its affordability for the work force to be employed by large scale retail; • The potential for regional saturation or dominance of a local market with a cumulative impact on the provision of infrastructure and services not contemplated by current planning processes; • The abandonment of existing retail facilities through the consolidation of existing stores and as a result of store downsizing and closing by competitors. This paper is intended to generally address the role of chain retail and especially large scale retail in the economy and development of Alachua County. It is not intended to focus on WalMart except to the degree that it is representative of the issues in question. Because WalMart is the world's largest Page 4 of 37 corporation and a leader in the regionalization of retail through the superstore retail model, most of the data and analysis available on the subject - both positive and negative - is focused on WalMart's impacts and practices. It should also be noted that the findings and conclusions are generalized, emphasizing the importance of thoroughly understanding the impact of a particular retail development on the community in which it proposes to locate. General Perspectives on Large Scale Retail Large retail stores commonly referred to as "big box retail"' offer communities the prospect of consumer savings and a broad variety of consumer goods, but at the same, time pose potential negative impacts on traffic, the environment, and the local economy. In balancing the positive and negative effects of large-scale retail developments on local communities, many cities and counties have approved such stores, while many others have enacted restrictions to limit their construction.8 This report is not intended to be exhaustive nor does it represent in-depth research and analysis related to the performance of large-scale retail in the North Central Florida economy. Rather, the report is intended to highlight issues raised by documented research around the nation and the implications of these findings for Alachua County. There is no single definition of large-scale or big box retail, but most definitions tend to focus on the square footage, on the items sold inside the stores and design. To understand the meaning behind the range of size, it is important to understand the range of establishments that typically qualify as large scale retail. There are five major big box subgroups: Discount Department Stores: These big box stores range from 80,000 to 200,000 square feet and offer a wide variety of merchandise, up to 60,000 distinct items, at low prices. Examples include K- Mart, WalMart, and Target. "Superstore Retailers" are an offshoot of the discount department store but typically add convenience goods such as groceries and automotive products. California defines the "superstore retailer" to mean a store greater than 130,000 square feet of gross buildable area that contains more than 20,000 stockkeepin9 units and derives more than 10 percent of its total sales from the sale of nontaxable merchandise. ° "Category Killers": These big boxes are so named because they do not intend to compete with existing businesses, rather "they mean to kill them off and monopolize the market. Category killers are specialty or niche stores that offer a large selection of items in a particular category and may vary in size from 20,000 to 120,000 square feet. Retailers include Barnes & Noble, Borders Books, Music & Cafe, (ranging from 25,000 to 45,000 square feet), Blockbuster Video, Circuit City, Office Depot, Lowe's, Home Depot, and Toys 'R US. This group depends on high sales volume and not price markups, dealing directly with product manufacturers to eliminate middleman charges. Outlet Stores: These big box stores range from 20,000 to 80,000 square feet, and are often the discount arms of major department stores. Retailers include Nordstrom Rack, Nike, and Burlington Coat Factory. Some manufacturers sell merchandise directly through outlet stores so as to reduce costs by eliminating middleman charges. Warehouse Clubs: These big boxes range from 104,000 to 170,000 square feet and offer a variety of goods in bulk wholesale process. Warehouse clubs typically charge their customers an annual fee and provide a limited number of product items, generally 5,000 or less. This group includes Costco Wholesale, Pace, and Sam's Club. Page 5 of 37 Large scale retail can also be defined by its aesthetic qualities and impact on community character. In addition to size-based definitions, a Columbia University study characterized big box architecture as "large windowless, rectangular single story buildings" with "standardized facades" that "seem to be everywhere and unique to no place, be it rural town or urban neighborhood." Large scale retail provides a timesaving convenience to shoppers who prefer to make the majority of their purchases at one time and place. Proponents assert that this convenience, together with the lower price of goods, overshadows the possible disadvantages. However, the average shopper may not be aware of the potential harms associated with large scale retail. These harms may include 1) lower employee wages, 2) increases to municipal costs, 3) increased urban sprawl, 4) foreclosure of local competition, and 5) changes to the flavor and character of the community. Thus, the availability and low prices offered by large scale retail should be weighed against the potential negative impacts in approving or rejecting the development of large scale retail within a community. ...a shopping center, in and of itself, does not CREATE buying power (spending potential).... There is a common misunderstanding among many suburban and small town planning commissioners and politicians that bringing in ... a big box retail concentration somehow represents `economic development' This is not true. 12 Seth Harry, Retail Planning Consultant Supporters and opponents of large scale retail offer conflicting forecasts for the social and economic impacts on communities. For example, several reports analyze the potential impact of Wal-Mart's proposal to build 40 supercenters in California.13 The majority of these studies are overwhelmingly skeptical about the long-term benefits of supercenter development. Regional and national studies alike conclude that Wal-Mart will have a negative impact on jobs, tax revenue, and the environment. A study conducted in the San Francisco Bay Area addressed both the economic and non-economic impacts in order to explain why supercenters, as a style of retail development, are so controversial. This study found that the economic impact of supercenters upon wages and competition is a key factor contributing to the controversy. Other relevant issues include the impact of supercenters on traffic, land use, and urban decentralization. The study also concluded that communities are not only concerned about jobs; they are also concerned about the potential environmental harms resulting from supercenter development such as pollution and traffic congestion, and the effect of these structures on community character or pedestrian mobility. 14 The Role of Retail in the Alachua County Economy What is the role of retail in the economy of Alachua County? The Quarterly Census of Employment & Wages report Alachua County for the first quarter of 2005 (refer to Table 1 and Appendix A) indicates that 122,952 workers earned $939.4 million in wages over the three month reporting period or about $3.76 billion annually. These statistics represent an average quarterly wage of $7,640 or the average annual equivalent of $30,560. Employment and wages in Alachua County were reported by 6,124 business units representing all sectors of the economy. Based on these data, the average business size is 20.1 employees per business. Alachua County is clearly a "service-based" economy. Over 91% of the labor force and total wages paid are in the "Service-Providing" sectors (including retail) of the Alachua County economy. Services businesses employ about 112, 500 workers at an average annual wage of $30,412 or slightly below the average annual wage for all sectors. "Education and Health Services" is the most significant sector reflecting the influence of the University and Santa Fe Community College. This sector accounts for over 48% of the County's total economy and 43% of the work force. Average annual Page 6 of 37 wages for the Education & Health Services sector is $34,076 or about 12% than the average annual wage of the total work force. Almost 13,000 workers or about 10.5% of the County's labor force is employed in the "Retail" sector. These workers earn an average annual wage of $20,348 representing approximately $262.8 million annually or slightly less than 7% of the total wages paid. The average retail business in Alachua employs 14.6 workers. While "chain retailers" and "large scale retail" organizations may be represented across the full spectrum of the Retail sector, they are most dominant in categories of "Grocery Stores" and "General Merchandise". The following excerpts from the Quarterly Census of Employment & Wages serve to highlight these categories. Table 1: Retail Indust in Alachua Count : Selected Indicators Reporting Total Annual Average % County Average Employees / Sector Units Wages Employees Annual Annual Business (million) Wage Wage All Industries 6,124 $3,760 122,952 $30,560 105.2% 20.1 Goods-Producing 956 $335 10,434 $32,144 112% 10.9 Service-Providing 5,168 $3,422 112,518 $30,412 99.5% 21.8 Education & Health 712 $1,810 53,128 $34,076 111.5% 74.6 Services Retail Trade 886 $263 million 12,916 $20,348 66.6% 14.6 Grocery Stores 67 $51 3,121 $16,224 53.1% 46.6 General Merchandise 36 $36 2,036 $17,800 58.2% 56.6 Source: Quarterly Census of Employment & Wages These data indicate that retail trade (1) represents a relatively small part of the overall Alachua County economy and (2) pays the lowest wages of all sectors with the exception of the Leisure & Hospitality sector (see Table 1). Grocery stores and general merchandise pay wages that are 20% and 12.5% lower respectively than the Retail sector as a whole. Tax records from the Florida Department of Revenue shows annual sales in Alachua County for the 2005 fiscal year to be $6.143 billion. Of this amount, $3,185 billion was subject to sales tax resulting in a total $200.5 million in sales tax revenues generated from within Alachua County. Because a breakdown of these sales and tax revenues by business type are not published by county, the statewide ratios are used to gain a more fine grain evaluation of the local retail sector. Table 2 estimates gross and taxable sales by business type in Alachua County by applying these statewide ratios. The Alachua County impact fee study conducted in 200415 documents a total 8.735 million sq feet of retail floor space within the County. Given the retail sales estimate provided above, retail facilities in Alachua County average approximately $232 per sq foot of sales volume. Since retail investment responds to buying income, it is reasonable to assume that in the absence of significant fluctuations in per capita and/or family income levels, retail sales will expand in proportion to population and that retail facilities will also expand to meet this need. The impact fee study cited previously projected retail floor area to expand at an annual rate of 1.77% or an annual increment of about 120,000 sq feet (the equivalent of a neighborhood shopping center). If buying income increases in proportion to population i.e. no change in individual or family buying power, the retail sales volume can be expected to increase by about $36 million per year. Page 7 of 37 Table 2: Estimate of Annual Sales in Alachua Countv by Selected Business Tvpe Ratio of Total Estimate of Annual Ratio of Total Estimate of Annual Business Type Gross Sales' Gross Sales Taxable Sales' Taxable Sales GROCERY STORES 5.60% $344,134,454 4.24% $135,074,007 MEAT MARKETS 0.03% $1,939,105 0.01% $224,378 SEAFOOD 0.03% $1,953,240 0.01 /o ° $274,372 DEALERS VEGETABLE AND 0.04% $2,277,037 0.01 /° ° $418,284 FRUIT MARKETS BAKERIES 0.09% $5,473,549 0.07% $2,368,941 DY AND 0.19% 313 $11,971 0.16% $5,196,293 CAN NARY , CLOTHING 1.28 /o ° $78,863,434 2.64% $84,016,432 STORES SHOE STORES 0.21% $12,627,077 0.43% $13,776,590 HARDWARE PAINTS 0.79% $48,537,113 0.96% $30,685,797 MACHINERY GENERAL MERCHANDISE 10.56% $648,868,587 11.98% $381,549,583 STORES DRY GOODS 0.05% $3,368,255 0.08% $2,657,760 STORES AUTO ACCESSORIES, 1.06% $65,419,313 1.18% $37,539,484 TIRES, PARTS FILLING AND SERVICE 1.50% $92,198,140 0.41% $13,030,647 STATIONS FURNITURE 1.38% $85,077,965 2.36% $75,063,088 STORES HOUSEHOLD 0.72% $43,933,330 1.02% $32,641,452 APPLIANCES STORE AND OFFICE 0.86% $52,928,516 1.02% $32,564,001 EQUIPMENT MUSIC STORES, RADIOS, 4.29% $263,556,653 2.79% $88,999,421 TELEVISION LUMBER AND BUILDING 2.97% $182,476,060 5.41% $172,293,695 MATERIAL BARBER AND 0.28 /o ° 014 253 $17 0.27% $8,617,445 BEAUTY SHOPS , , BOOK STORES 0.22% $13,735,204 0.33% $10,433,600 CIGAR STANDS, 0.04 /° ° 546 550 $2 0.04% $1,351,173 TOBACCO SHOPS , , FLORISTS 0.10% $6,432,010 0.11% $3,525,639 PHOTOGRAPHERS, 0.19/0 ° $11 556 600 0.24% $7,633,484 PHOTO SUPPLIES , , SHOE REPAIR 0.00% $221,408 0.00 /o ° $125,020 SHOPS GIFT, CARD, AND 0.46% $27 966,215 0.68% $21,637,095 NOVELTY SHOPS , NEWS STANDS 0.02% $1,067,168 0.01% $416,961 TOTAL SELECTED 33% $2,026,142,550 36% $1,162,114,643 TYPES TOTAL ALL SALES 100% $6,143,447,644 100% $3,184,785,928 'State ratios as reported by the Florida Department of Revenue Source: Florida Department of Revenue Page 8 of 37 11 Table 3 illustrates that an annual increase of $36 million countywide would support an increase of about 100,000 - 120,000 sq ft of commercial floor space. Table 3: Sales Volume Estimates b Size of Store Typical Size Annual Sales Volume $250/ sf Annual Sales Volume $400/ sf 50,000 sf $12.5 million $20 million 100,000 sf $25 million $40 million 200,000 sf $50 million $80 million Retail Development Patterns in Alachua County How has retail development historically developed in Alachua County and what development trends can be expected for the future? What implications does large scale retail development have for this development pattern and for Alachua County in general? Figure 1 shows the historical business development pattern throughout the County. 1-75 has exerted a profound influence on the County's development pattern and can be expected to do so in the future. The construction of the expressway along Gainesville's western boundary almost certainly accelerated the westward expansion of the urban area and simultaneously provided an opportunity for the development of major commercial centers at the interchanges. Before 1-75 was constructed, most of the County's commercial development was centered in or near the downtown core with convenience commercial historically found in the outlying municipalities. Suburbanization in the mid 1900's supported the development of shopping nodes generally north of the downtown along US Hwy 441 and neighborhood centers serving the residential development north and northwest of the University and the City's historical core. In recent years, major commercial development has focused almost entirely at or near the interchanges and dominated by chain retail and large scale retail. The Archer road commercial center consists primarily of a series of "power centers" featuring Target, WalMart, Lowe's, Best Buy, Office Max and others along with supermarkets such as Publix, Winn Dixie and Albertson's. The Newberry road interchange supported the Oaks Mall and a variety of chain retailers in "power centers" clustered around the interchange. As the community grows, this type of development will almost certainly occur at the 39th Street and Alachua interchanges. While Alachua's County's community and regional retail was relocating form downtown Gainesville to the Archer Road and Newberry Road interchanges, investment was occurring to serving new residential development primarily in the form of neighborhood shopping centers anchored by a supermarket. Is this commercial pattern sustainable? Will emerging retail trends notably the SuperCenter and the movement toward larger retail footprints, larger trade areas and increasingly longer shopping trips substantially alter shopping patterns. To put this question in perspective, two competing scenarios are described. Publix Supermarket Development. The Publix supermarket chain currently operates 12 outlets in Alachua County. Figure 2 shows these locations and superimposes a two mile trade area for each of the store locations. As the diagram illustrates, this trade area pattern is interlocking presumably placing its stores within about 1.5 miles of its customers - a distance consistent with trip lengths normally expected for neighborhood retail. Page 9 of 37 The Publix' trade area shown on Figure 2 includes almost 71,000 households (2000 US Census) and about 160,000 persons. On average, there are approximately 6,000 households for each store. Effectively, the Publix store location strategy serves about 75% of Alachua County population with an estimated average trip length of 1.0 miles. It should be noted that Publix does not necessarily have market dominance within its trade area. Other supermarket chains co-exist. The 71,000 households in the trade area will support about 2.5 million sq feet (35 sq feet of convenience retail per household). At 60,000 per outlet, the Publix chain would serve about 29% of this total demand. Hypothetical Supercenter Development. As a hypothetical proposition, Figure 3 illustrates a probable pattern of Superstore development in Alachua County if the market saturation strategies were followed similar to those documented in Oklahoma City, Tampa, Orlando and Atlanta. In those cities, each Superstore was located to serve a population of between 30,000 and 50,000 persons with the stores separated by a 10 minute to 20 minute driving time. Two of the locations shown (Alachua and East Gainesville) are currently under active review for WalMart Supercenters. The remaining two locations at the 1-75 interchanges at 39th Street and Williston Rd are hypothetical. The five mile and ten mile trade areas for each of these locations are also shown on the map. An analysis of the 2000 US Census data indicates that the combined five mile trade radius of the four hypothetical locations would include 79,226 households and 182,318 persons (about 45,000 persons per store). This five mile trade area includes most of the cities of Gainesville and Alachua along with portions of High Springs and Unincorporated Alachua County. If the analysis is expanded to a ten mile trade area, a total of 90,477 households and 208,423 (about 52,000 persons per store) are captured including portions of Bradford, Columbia, Gilchrist, Levy, Marion and Union counties and all of municipalities within Alachua county with the exception of Waldo and Hawthorne. Local Business First Initiatives American communities from coast to coast are wrestling with the implications of chain retail and especially large scale chains. Few would argue that chain retail has no place in a large community or that such stores expand consumer choice and offer consumer value. At the same time, the negative aspects of large scale retail often resulting in strong local opposition to such development. Despite the national interest, there is a scarcity of objective fact-based analysis of this phenomenon. 16 Proponents and opponents alike present broad arguments based on emotional or philosophical pleas, for "mom and pop" shops and local character on the one side and for free markets and consumer choice on the other. This report attempts to enhance this discussion by the review of several credible and quantifiable studies. Austin Study. A 2002 study and comparison of a commercial development proposal in Austin, Texas led to three significant conclusions. 17 In the Austin study the following terms were used. Direct impacts were identified as all local expenditures by the store. For example, wages and benefits paid to employees remain local, as do local advertising spending, purchases from local suppliers, and, in the case of local merchants, profit. Indirect impacts quantify the further effects of direct impact funds as they circulate in the local economy and are calculated using multipliers to estimate the degree of circulation expected. These indirect impacts also include induced effects accounting for increased household spending brought about by additional local economic activity. Page 10 of 37 Figure 1: Business Development Patterns Page 11 of 37 Figure 2: Publix Supermarket Development Pattern Page 12 of 37 Figure 3: Hypothetical Superstore Development Pattern Page 13 of 37 Conclusion #1: Local merchants generate substantially greater economic impact than chain retailers. The study compared three freestanding stores, a typical Borders, and two existing local bookstore named BookPeople and Waterloo. The results are illustrated in Table 4. Table 4:Annual Economic Impact per Store millions in 2002 Borders National Chain BookPeo le Local Merchant Waterloo Local Merchant $0.8 $2.8 $4.1 Source: Economic Impact Analysis: Local Merchants vs. Chain Retailers, Civic Economics, December 2002 Three distinctions account for these dramatic differences: 1. Local merchants spend a much larger portion of total revenue on local labor to run the enterprise and sell the merchandise. 2. Local merchants keep their modest profits in the local economy. 3. Local merchants provide strong support for local artists and authors, creating further local economic development. Conclusion #2: Development of urban sites with directly competitive chain merchants will reduce the overall vigor of the local economy. The Austin study concluded that the development of the Borders store at would trigger a decline in local economic activity despite increasing the total sales of books and music at the location. Competitive Effects Borders Impact over Five Years Total book and music sales increase Economic returns decrease Two alternative outcomes were advanced in which the neighborhood and the Austin economy would be enhanced: 1. New merchants bring a new line of goods to the market (rather than competing goods), attracting additional consumer traffic to the area to the benefit of neighboring merchants. 2. New merchants bring a complementary line of goods to the market, leading to increased browsing among merchants with similar but unique lines of goods. Conclusion #3: Modest changes in consumer spending habits can generate substantial local economic impact. As shown in Table 6, for every $100 in consumer spending at Borders, the total economic impact is only $13. The same amount spent with a local merchant yields almost three times the local economic impact. Page 14 of 37 Table 5: Local Economic Return from $100 Spending Borders National Chain BookPeo le Local Merchant Waterloo Local Merchant $13 $45 $45 Source: Economic Impact Analysis: Local Merchants vs. Chain Retailers, Civic Economics, December 2002 Midcoast Maine Study.''-$ The Midcoast region of Maine has a population of about 145,000 people. Like many areas of the country, the Midcoast region had experienced a growing influx of national retailers and big box stores in recent years. With growth pressures likely to continue, Midcoast communities face a momentous decision: should they support the construction of additional big box stores or limit such development and focus instead on expanding locally owned retail? A study was conducted to find out if a local store makes a $100 sale, what happens to that $100? How much goes to pay local employees and local suppliers, thereby creating additional economic activity in the region? How much goes to out-of-state suppliers, thereby leaving the Maine economy? If that $100 is spent instead at a big box retailer, does more or less of it stay in the local economy? Eight locally owned businesses agreed to participate in our study by sharing detailed information on their revenue and expenditures for 2002. The eight businesses represented a broad range of goods and services. The newest had been in business for five years, the oldest for more than forty. They made a total of $5.7 million in sales during 2002 and employed 62 people. A similar expenditure profile for a major big box retailer with outlets in Maine was also created Because national retailers do not typically reveal detailed financial information, local expenditures for payroll, supplies, services, utilities, taxes, etc. were estimated and supplemented by published information on employment and property tax revenue for one of its local stores; statements made by company officials about the volume of inventory, supplies, and services purchased in the state; statements made by company officials about local charitable contributions; and national sales data. The eight locally-owned businesses spent 44.6 percent of their revenue within the surrounding two counties. Another 8.7 percent was spent elsewhere in the state of Maine. This in-state spending included: wages and benefits paid to local employees (28.1 percent of total revenue); inventory, supplies, and services from other local businesses (16.9 percent); profits that accrued to local owners (5.4 percent); taxes paid to local and state government (2.4 percent); and contributions made to local charities (0.4 percent). In terms of sourcing inventory, supplies, and services, the eight local businesses support a variety of other local businesses. All eight bank with locally owned banks. They purchase inventory from local manufacturers, advertise in local newspapers, and hire local accountants, printers, internet service providers, and repair people. Based on the estimates made in the study, a typical big box store spends 14.1 percent of its revenue within the local and state economy, mostly in the form of payroll. The rest leaves the state, flowing to out-of-state suppliers or back to corporate headquarters. The study concluded that: "When residents of the Midcoast region spend $100 at a big box retailer, their purchase generates $14 in local spending by the retailer. That same $100 spent at a locally owned business generates $45 in local spending, or three times as much. Dollars spent at a local Page 15 of 37 retailer support not only that store, but a variety of other local businesses, including local banks, accountants, printers, and internet service providers. From an economic development perspective, the ramifications of this are substantial. Based on current growth rates, annual retail sales in [the three counties] will expand by $74 million over the next four years. If all of this additional spending were captured by new and expanding locally owned businesses, it would add $23 million more to the local economy each year than if all of the new spending were captured by chains. That's the equivalent of more than 500 jobs. Most towns would go to great lengths to attract an employer of this size. Based on the results of this study, developing strategies to strengthen and expand locally owned retail over the next four years, rather than supporting additional chain store growth, could generate as much economic return as attracting a major employer." Andersonville Study19_ A study was conducted in Andersonville - a neighborhood on Chicago's north side - comparing the economic impact of ten Andersonville businesses and their chain competitors, it was found that: "Locally-owned businesses generate a substantial Local Premium in enhanced economic impact. • For every $100 in consumer spending with a local firm, $68 remains in the Chicago economy. • For every $100 in consumer spending with a chain firm, $43 remains in the Chicago economy. • For every square foot occupied by a local firm, local economic impact is $179. • For every square foot occupied by a chain firm, local economic impact is $105. Consumers surveyed on the streets of Andersonville strongly prefer the neighborhood over agglomerations of chain stores. • Over 70% prefer to patronize locally-owned businesses. • Over 80% prefer traditional urban business districts. The study points to clear policy implications. • Local merchants generate substantially greater economic impact than chain firms. • Replacement of local businesses with chains will reduce the overall vigor of the local economy. • Changes in consumer spending habits can generate substantial local economic impact. • Great care must be taken to ensure that public policy decisions do not inadvertently disadvantage locally owned businesses. Indeed, it may be in the best interests of communities to institute policies that directly protect them." Perspectives on Small Business. The National Foundation for Independent Businesses (NFIB) documents the overwhelming role of small business in the national economy. Out of 5.5 million businesses in the United States in 1999, less than 92,000 (1.67%) employed more than 100 people.20 In the first quarter of 2005, the Alachua County labor force numbered 122,952 employees representing 6,124 business entities for an average of 20.1 employees per business. Page 16 of 37 Market Dominance Chain retailers especially large ones have the capacity to dominate or saturate a local market potentially resulting in monopolistic practices. Such practices may also overwhelm local government's capacity to deliver public services and preserve quality community values.21 In defining market dominance, the extent a product, brand, or firm controls a product category in 'a' given geographic area must be examined. There are several ways of calculating market dominance. The most common and direct method of evaluating market is market share i.e the percentage of the total market serviced by a firm or brand. A company, brand, product, or service that has a combined market share exceeding 60% most probably has market power and market dominance. A market share of over 35% but less than 60%, held by one brand, product or service, is an indicator of market strength but not necessarily dominance.22 Oklahoma City Study- A 2004 study23 of the impact of WalMart on the American supermarket' industry focused on the Oklahoma City metropolitan area. The study showed that in 1997, only three' WalMart Supercenters and no Neighborhood Markets (standalone supermarkets approximately. 46 sf in size). By the end of 2003, these numbers had increased to 13:Supercenters and 7 Neighborhood' Markets representing an addition of 2,400,000 sf of retail space to the Oklahoma City market of which approximately 972,000 sf is in the form of grocery space. These figures represent one WalMart grocery store per 46,000 persons. The study estimated that by the end of 2003, WalMart accounted for 42% of all grocery sales in the Oklahoma City Metropolitan Area (1.1 million population). Of the 42%, 33% took place through the Supercenters and the remaining 9% was gained by the Neighborhood Markets. The following impacts on Oklahoma City grocery market were documented by the study: •' Between July 1998 and the end of 2003, thirty-one (31) supermarkets in the Oklahoma City area - representing 1.24 million sf of floor space - have closed and remain vacant. Ten (10) of these were chain supermarkets and twenty-one (21) were independents. These closures represent the loss of two existing grocery outlets for each new WalMart store. • _ The dominance of WalMart has apparently dissuaded supermarket competitors from opening new stores. Only one (1) new conventional supermarket and two (2) Target Supercenters' have opened in the metro area since 1998. • WalMart has also closed five (5) of its discount stores and two (2) Sam's Clubs leaving an additional 536,000 sf of vacant space on the local real estate market. • In the opinion of the study author, WalMart's share of the Oklahoma City grocery market will exceed 50% by the end of 2006. According to Forbes, for every new Wal-Mart, two rival supermarkets will close. This finding is supported by the Oklahoma City study. Page 17 of 37 Affordable Housing Can retail employees find affordable housing in Alachua County? Housing data developed by the Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing at the University of Florida suggests that the answer my well be no! According to the Alachua County Comprehensive Plan, affordable housing means that: Monthly rent or monthly mortgage payments including insurance and property taxes generally do not exceed 30 percent of that amount which represents the percentage of the median adjusted gross income for households qualifying under the definitions for low income, moderate income and very low-income. This does not preclude participation in federal or state programs that allow for a higher percentage of income to be devoted to rent or mortgage payments. Very low-income - one or more natural persons or a family that has a total annual adjusted gross income for the household that does not exceed 50 percent of the median annual gross income for households, adjusted for family size, within the metropolitan statistical area. Low-income - one or more natural persons or a family that has a total annual adjusted gross income for the household that does not exceed 80 percent of the median annual gross income for households, adjusted for family size, within the metropolitan statistical area. Moderate-income - one or more natural persons or a family that has a total annual adjusted gross income for the household that is less than 120 percent of the median annual gross income for households, adjusted for family size, within the metropolitan statistical area. The Alachua County Affordable Housing Stud Y24 documents the significant indicators of the state of affordable housing in Alachua County. Among them are: • Half of Alachua County's housing stock was built prior to 1980. • Median house prices rose 25% from 1998-2002. • Although there is an existing stock of housing that may be considered affordable, this stock is not readily available for sale or may have significant qualities that do not meet the test of healthy, safe, and decent living conditions. • Inside the Urban Cluster, homes available to low income households are almost entirely east of Gainesville's limits, although some Census Tracts west of Gainesville show that the majority of homes are affordable to low-income households. • More than half of housing valued at less than $50,000 is comprised of multi-unit buildings and mobile homes. • Half of all renter households and twenty percent of owner households pay more than thirty percent of their income for housing, and these households tend to fall disproportionately among very low and low-income households. • The need for affordable renter-occupied units is greater than the need for affordable owner- occupied units, when measured in absolute numbers and on a comparative percentage basis • All Census Tracts with a lower percentage of affordable housing than the countywide percentage are partially or wholly contained within the Urban Cluster, or are in the City of Gainesville. • Rural areas and the municipalities other than Gainesville contain more than the countywide percentage of affordable housing. Page 18 of 37 • Approximately one quarter of all Alachua County households are cost burdened now, with that number expected to increase by roughly 1,500 households by 2010. This projection omits OF student households. • Renters wanting to purchase a home in the next three years tend to be employed full time and be low or moderate-income households. • Without deep subsidies, very low-income households cannot afford homeownership. Moderate-income households have a greater ability to afford homeownership with only a moderate amount of assistance. • Public funding to assist developers construct affordable housing is generally a combination of financial tools, such as mortgage bonds, tax credits, bridge loans, and below market loans. • Large minimum lot sizes and other rigid standards required in several Alachua County single-family districts do not support affordable housing. The following excerpts from the Alachua County Affordable Housing Study are also especially to this analysis: The term `affordable housing' historically has been associated with housing for low-income families. However, today, many moderate-income households are finding it increasingly difficult to afford housing costs. In recent years increasing housing costs have forced many working families to pay greater percentages of their income for housing, while wages have not increased at a similar pace. Workforce housing is an essential need for many households as homeownership serves as the benchmark of greater economic independence. Lower income workers provide many services that communities depend on for economic and social vitality. Few can deny the importance of providing affordable workforce housing for teachers, firefighters, policeman, and custodians because they all play a significant role in the health and vitality of the community. However, housing prices are increasingly becoming out of reach for people in these professions and, in many instances, these are the very people forced to rent or purchase less expensive housing further away from their places of employment. Through thoughtful design that emphasizes neighborhood integrity, affordable housing can take many forms. This study addresses the location of affordable housing by examining current regulatory policies that discourage the provision of affordable housing closer to places of employment and discourage integration of affordable housing. Mixed-income neighborhoods can be encouraged through a variety of policies. Table 6: Affordable House Price Range by Income Level (2003) Maximum Maximum Affordable House % of AM[ Annual Income Monthly PITT Mortgage Price Range Payment 30% $13,000 $325 $37,000 U to $38,000 50% $26,650 $541 $61,500 $38,000 to $63,400 80% $34,650 $866 $98,500 $63,400 to $101,500 100% $43,305 $1,082 $123,000 $101,500 to $126,800 120% $51,960 $1,300 $147,700 $126,800 to $152,000 Source: Alachua County Affordable Housing Study Page 19 of 37 Table 7: Affordable House Price Gap by Income Level (2003) Income Category Maximum Affordable Price Median Price Home Price Gap 30% AMI $38,000 $137,785 -$99,785 50% AMI $63,400 $137,785 -$74,385 80% AMI $101,500 $137,785 -$36,285 100% AMI $126,800 $137,785 -$10,985 120% AMI $152,000 $137,785 +14,215 Source: Alachua County Affordable Housing Study Table 8: Affordable Rents b Number of Bedrooms and Income Level % of Area Number of Bedrooms in Unit Median Income Efficiency 1 2 3 4 30% $210 $263 $316 $385 $407 50% $410 $438 $526 $608 $678 80% $655 $710 $842 $973 $1,086 120% $984 $1,053 $1,263 $1,459 $1,629 Source: Alachua Count Affordable Housing Stud Table 9: Difference Between Affordable Rents & Market Rents Median Rent Affordable Rent Gap/ Surplus 30% AMI Efficiency $399 $243 -$153 1 Bedroom, 1 Bath $459 $263 -$196 2 Bedroom, 2 Bath $842 $316 -$404 50% AMI Efficiency $399 $410 $11 1 Bedroom, 1 Bath $459 $438 -$21 2 Bedroom, 2 Bath $842 $526 -$194 80% AMI Efficiency $399 $655 $256 1 Bedroom, 1 Bath $459 $701 $242 2 Bedroom, 2 Bath $720 $842 $122 Source: Alachua County Affordable Housing Study As previously noted, the retail sector's average wage is approximately $20,348 of about 2/3 of the average wage of the Alachua County labor force. Grocery and general merchandise stores pay even lower at $16,224 and $17,800 respectively. Some large scale retailers pay much less. The average hourly wage for WalMart employees of $9.02 with an average work week of 32 hours equates to an average annual wage of $15,009. Sales associates, by far the most common job classification used by the company, earned an average $8.23 per hour for 32 hours per week, adding up to an average annual wage of $13,861. Cahiers earned approximately $7.92 per hour for 29 hours a week representing annual wages of $11,948 placing many of these employees in the "cost burdened" category with respect to housing. The preceding data clearly indicates that retail workers may have difficulty finding affordable housing near their work potentially exacerbating the jobs-housing balance. A "drive til you qualify" scenario is established and along with it a variety of secondary effects. Page 20 of 37 Table 10 is excerpted from Jobs-Housing Balance - a Planning Advisory Service publication of the American Planning Association. These data illustrate the dilemma. Table 10: Commutinq Characteristics of Four Hypothetical Workers Robert Works at Amy Works Jason Works Moderately Kathy Works Home Close to Home Near home Far From Home One-way vehicle miles traveled to 0 6 11 22 work One-way peak travel time to work 0 14 26 48 minutes Travel cost per one-way trip to work $0 $2.07 $3.80 $7.59 $0.345 per mile Annual travel cost of round trips to $0 $1,076 $1,976 $3,947 work 260 work days) Annual hours of commuting to and 0 121 225 416 from work Annual cost of commute to and $0 $1 500 $2,790 $5,158 from work $12.40 per hour , Total cost of commute (travel plus $0 $2,576 $4,766 $9,105 commute time Note: Mileage cost of $0.345 per mile was an accepted federal standard for 2001. The 260 workdays measure is based on an eight-hour day and the generally accepted standard of 2080 hours annually per employee. The annual cost of commute to work of $12.40 per hour is used b the Texas Transportation Institute 2001 Source: Jobs Housing Balance, Jerry Weitz, Planning Advisory Service Report Number 516, American Planning Association, 2003 Effects on Poverty Levels In its Guiding Vision - FY 05-06, the Alachua County Board of County Commissioners adopted two provisions that address poverty in Alachua County. These provisions state: Sustainable economic development will be encouraged through a written economic development plan focusing on strengthening existing small businesses, growing diversified industries locally, implementing an aggressive poverty reduction plan, [emphasis added], introducing economic empowerment strategies, improving public infrastructure as our principle economic incentive and assuring new industries. These economic development strategies will be evaluated utilizing a comprehensive matrix detailing how each contributes to our quality of life. 25 Alachua County suffers from a significant level of poverty [emphasis added]. Therefore, the County Commission desires to facilitate, foster and enter into partnerships with other agencies to alleviate the long term structural and multi-generational causes of poverty. The County Commission recognizes that government alone cannot meet this challenge and that the root causes of poverty, and not just the symptoms, must be addressed within the community. Viable educational and entrepreneurial programs designed to assist non-college bound youths are needed in Alachua County to break this cycle of poverty. 26 What is the role of chain retail and large scale retail in alleviating the poverty cycle? Is the attraction of such businesses an asset or hindrance toward reducing poverty levels in Alachua County? Table 11 compares poverty levels established by the US Census with key income indicators for Alachua County. Page 21 of 37 Table 11: Comparison of Poverty Levels to Waqe Levels in Alachua County Size of Family Unit 2004 Poverty Threshold' One Person $9,645 Two Adults $12,649 One Adult / One Child $13,020 One Adult / Two Children $15,219 Two Adults / One Child $15,205 Two Adults / Two Children $19,157 Alachua Count Wage Levels - First Quarter 2005 Sector Wage Earners Annualized Average Wage All Industries 122,952 $30,560 Service-Providing 112,518 $30,412 Retail Trade 12,916 $20,348 Grocery Stores 3,121 $16,224 General Merchandise Stores 2,036 $17,800 'US Census Bureau, Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division, Revised August 30, 2005 2 Quarterly Census of Employment & Wages The figures offered above are averages. Income estimates obtained from the Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing27 indicate that entry level workers, median-wage workers and experienced workers earn $14,799, $19,187 and $28,937 respectively. It is reasonable to conclude that entry level and median wage workers especially those supporting a family are very close to the poverty line. The Penn State Study. A stud Y213 conducted by Dr. Stephan Goetz at Penn State University concludes that "Wal-Mart presence may stalled reduction in county poverty rates". This national study found that, while the average family poverty rate declined nationwide between 1990 and 2000, from 13.1 to 10.7 percent, or by 2.4 percentage points, counties that added a Wal-Mart store during the decade saw the poverty rate decline by a smaller amount than did counties not adding a store. One possible explanation for this finding may be that Wal-Mart deliberately seeks out impoverished communities to locate new stores. These poorer communities may in turn have greater difficulty reducing poverty over time. However, this is not the case. The present study not only controlled for initial poverty rates, but it also found statistically significant evidence that the chain avoids poverty- stricken areas when it locates new stores. Instead, the study concludes that the county poverty rate could rise because the chain pays its workers relatively low wages. This would especially be the case if these workers had previously earned higher wages in retail establishments that were driven out. Notably the owners of the mom and pop type retail operations that are driven out of business often represent the leadership class of the local community. As these retail operations are lost, so is the civic capacity needed to deal with local problems of a communal nature, and for economic growth to occur. philanthropic capacity to deal specifically with local needs is destroyed as local business leaders lose the source of their livelihood. the loss of small retailers can cause jobs to disappear in well-paying local support sectors, such as accounting, wholesaling and transportation. The Economic Policy Institute recently reported that the number of families below the poverty line is once again increasing.29 "The real income of the typical household has fallen five years in a row, despite the fact that the last three of those years - 2002, 2003, 2004 - have been years of economic expansion....The number and share of persons in poverty also increased last year, from 92.5% to Page 22 of 37 12.7%, the fourth consecutive increase ...2000 (the end of the last expansion). Since that year, 5.4 million more persons, including 1.4 million children, have been added to the poverty rolls." "....it appears that the changes in the economy - globalization, fewer unions, lower minimum wages, shifting norms in taxation and regulation favoring investors over wage-earners, and recoveries without adequate job growth - have significantly increased the time it takes for working families to reap the benefits of growth. Design & Community Character The typical large scale retail facility is designed for function, not aesthetics. Grossly dwarfing its nearby competitors, big boxes are reminiscent of large warehouses. Typical features include a standard block shape in a single building format, with a flat roof, no windows, all of which is surrounded by a sea of blacktop.30 Because big box stores average 100,000 plus square feet, with supercenters reaching as large as 250,000 square feet, both types stand out from their neighboring communities in terms of layout and size.31 Stores of this magnitude require an enormous parking lot in order to provide enough parking for the number of consumers who shop there. A survey of California parking requirements, and concluded that almost every city requires one parking space for every 200 square feet of floor space.32 Thus, a 250,000 square foot supercenter needs at least a 16-acre parking lot to meet the minimal requirement of five parking spaces per thousand square feet of store space.33 The enormous amount of asphalt required to meet this demand forms a large basis for the negative visual impact of these stores. Another cause for residents to oppose big box stores, comes from the lack of any attempt to integrate the architecture of these buildings with that of the surrounding community. The cookie-cutter design, as well as a general lack of character or color, forms the basis for why many consider them to be blight upon the neighborhood. This conclusion is underscored by a study commissioned by the Santa Fe Independent Business and Community Alliance. It determined that big box chains were eroding Santa Fe's distinctive character and economy. As a consequence of this study, several pro-local business initiatives are being examined as part of Santa Fe's new economic development plan.sa Many communities have instituted size and design requirements as part of their city's comprehensive plan in order to control such aspects as: the architectural design of the building, its overall size, the building materials or color scheme, and whether the building conforms to community character.35 The city of Stoughton, Wisconsin, enacted an ordinance that capped big box stores at 110,000 square feet, in order to prevent a planned 180,000 square foot Wal-Mart Supercenter. The city also imposed strict design standards, including varying roof heights that would break up the skyline, display windows, clearly defined entrances, and a landscaping plan. The community succeeded in forcing Wal-Mart to accede to its demand despite its small size. 6 Page 23 of 37 Abandonment & Lease Retention Big box retailers and supercenters commonly negotiate long-term leases that include the option of vacating the premises but maintaining the lease until the lease contract expires.37 Retention of the lease enables the retailer to prevent competitors from taking over that location and starting up a competing business. Because there are usually a limited number of real estate parcels that are appropriate for either a big box or a supercenter, the ability of a big box retailer to hold onto a lease can give it considerable leverage in its goal of preventing competitors from entering its market. Control over a lease becomes especially relevant when big box retailers or supercenters saturate a small geographic area to the point of overexpansion. Overexpansion occurs when too many stores are located within a small area, thereby saturating the market to the point that stores compete against stores from the same chain for market share. The chain may then close or consolidate some stores and retain the leases on the closed stores. For the local community, this raises two potential concerns. First, small local businesses often are unable to compete with the lower prices offered by big box retailers and go out of business. Although some consumers continue to support local stores, the reality is that many more are attracted away from the local hardware and household supply stores, as well as the more traditional supermarket.38 Retail Forward, a consulting firm that conducted a study on this issue, found that "for each Wal-Mart supercenter that opens in the next five years, two conventional supermarkets will shut their doors.39 Second, the study goes on to note, Wal-Mart already has a larger market share in the grocery industry than any of the nation's largest food retailers. Therefore, it would not be difficult for a supercenter to end up with a virtual monopoly on the local market, with the ability to retain control of leases helps to perpetuate the chain's ability to monopolize a local market.ao Lease retention policies raise additional concerns for local communities. Although the supercenter chain benefits from domination of the local market and its ability to shut down non- productive stores at will, the surrounding community looses both revenue and jobs as a result. The lease retention policy may also contribute to blight or the failure of nearby stores. The big box format is so specialized that unless another big box merchant takes over the property, it will remain vacant for some time, especially if the company continues to hold onto the lease. This is especially detrimental Page 24 of 37 if the supercenter acted as an anchor store in a shopping mall, because its closure and the company's refusal to end the lease may lead to the closure of the smaller mall stores. In response to the lease issue, some communities have taken over vacant big box stores so as to re- use them for an alternative purpose; however, this requires the investment of a substantial amount of money.42 Therefore, the more common result of a big box foreclosure is for the vacant structure to receive only minimal upkeep, leading to an unattractive and hazardous structure.43 All of this leads to a general deterioration that depresses surrounding property values. One town in Georgia has combated this by passing a law requiring big box owners to maintain any vacated structure, and terminate the lease if another business wants to take over the vacant building.aaAnother township near Philadelphia has passed an ordinance requiring supercenters to set aside money in an escrow account to cover demolition costs in the event that the site ever becomes vacant.as Cross?lurisdictional Impacts Large concentrations of retail, spawned by the large increment road network (a few multi-lane road set far apart), are often many times in excess of the local or host community's ability to sustain it. This situation creates some extremely challenging regional dynamics. It is not unusual to find a small semi-rural or county with many times the amount of retail space it needs to support its citizen's retail needs, usually in the form of large national chain boxes, with the remainder of the demand coming at the expense of other nearby communities and their respective business districts .41 This sets up an ongoing "retail arms war".... in which each community fights to acquire the biggest boxes in a winner "winner take all" fight to the death, that in all reality nobody actually wins, except ... the big box corporations and their shareholders... Even neighborhoods and communities which would rather not have big boxes, feel obliged to go after them for self- defense purposes, if for no other reason.47 The State of California has recognized that, while it is in the interest of local governments to promote economic development within their jurisdictions, the size of large scale retail and especially supercenters that introduce groceries and convenience goods present a myriad of land use, traffic and fiscal impacts that expand beyond the boundaries of the host community. To combat this effect, a bill was introduced that requires a comprehensive study of the fiscal and economic impact of the development on all jurisdictions within its trade area.as The intent of the California legislation is "to promote market competition and economic development in all communities of the state and to address the concern's of the state's small businesses as the superstore retail model enters the state's communities. Therefore the Legislature finds and declares all of the following: a) It is in the interest of local governments to promote economic development in their jurisdictions; b) In many municipalities, land use decisions are linked to fiscal policy because governments receive a share of sales tax revenues generated within their borders. California cities thus often seek large sales tax revenue sources, such as superstores, without taking into account all of the external economic effects that superstores bring to communities; c) Transformations in the big box retail industry are rapidly altering retail business nationwide, as California may soon learn firsthand. The engine of this change is the retail format known as the superstore a big box retail store that also contains the equivalent of a full-size grocery store, with the total floor space often three to four times as large as that of a conventional supermarket; d) As a result of the possible restructuring of retail business, particularly the grocery sector in California, the following effects may be seen: lower prices charged for grocery and other retail Page 25 of 37 goods; lower wages and benefits paid to grocery workers; and a host of complex land use, traffic and fiscal impacts, e) Land use decisions regarding superstores will fall to city and county governments, even if the impacts will be regional as well as local, t) Even if local officials foresee future negative economic impacts on their local community, there is little incentive to conduct an economic impact report and require the retail applicant to pay the costs. If one city were to charge an applicant approval cost, a superstore business would simply seek to operate elsewhere and possibly shift local sales tax revenue away from the city that required the report. Fiscal Impacts The concept that growth is always good for a community does not seem to correlate with the findings from various fiscal analyses..... It is ... apparent that in many central Ohio communities, retail development generates a net fiscal loss to local governments. The various analyses, conducted by at least four different consultants, reached a consistent conclusion about retail having a negative fiscal impact on municipal governments. 49 Mid Ohio Regional Planning Commission A 2002 fiscal impact study conducted for the Town of Barnstable, Massachusetts50 suggests that large scale retail may not perform as well as office, industrial and other forms of retail with regard to the cost vs. revenue balance for local government and in some circumstances may represent a drain on the public treasury. The study examined eight Nonresidential prototypes including: (1) Business Park, (2) Office, (3) Shopping Center, (4) Big Box Retail, (5) Specialty Retail, (6) Hotel, (7) Restaurant and (8) Fast Food Restaurant. In each case, the net fiscal impacts for these land us prototypes were determined by subtracting the costs necessary to serve these land uses from the revenues generated by each land use. The assignment of cost applied in Barnstable deserves further examination. In addition to any direct costs that may be associated with a land use prototype, a reliable method was devised to prorate general government costs. To do this, general government costs for (1) the Town Council, (2) administrative services, (3) community services, (4) police, (5) public works, (6) regulatory services, (7) schools and (8) other requirements. Annualized capital costs were also factored into the analysis. The factors shown in Table 12 were applied in the Barnstable study. What factors produced these results? For nonresidential land uses, employment densities, functional population and vehicle trip generation rates drive the overwhelming majority of costs. Revenues were also found differ because assessed value per sq feet tends to decrease as the size of the facility increases. Page 26 of 37 Table 12: Town of Barnstable Nonresidential Prototype Land Use Analysis Prototype ITE Employees per ' EDUs per 1000 sf / Ave. Assessed Value per 1000 sf / Vehicle Trips4 Code 1000 sf / room room 3 room Business Park 770 3.16 1.79 $56,000 12.76 Office 710 4.04 2.49 $69,000 18.31 Shopping 820 2.50 4.16 $68,000 68.17 Center Big Box Retail 815 1.96 3.40 $39,000 56.63 Specialty Retail 814 1.82 2.63 $101,000 40.67 Hotel 310 0.62 0.98 $30,000 8.23 Restaurant 831 5.00 6.25 $81,000 89.95 Fast Food 834 5.00 24.31 $189,000 496.12 Restaurant ' ITE trip generation and ULI data 2 ITE trip generation, visitor hours and average vehicle occupancy, Based on the presence of people compared to a single family residential unit 3 Town of Barnstable 4ITE Trip Generation 6'h Edition Based on the Town of Barnstable's particular mix of services and revenues produced the results shown in Table 13. Table 13: Net Fiscal Impacts for Nonresidential Prototypes: Town of Barnstable, MA NONRESI DENTIAL per 1000 sf / hotel room Business Office Shopping Big Box Specialty Hotel Restaurant Fast Food Park Center Retail Retail Restaurant Ave. Assessed $56,000 $69,000 $68,000 $39,000 $101,000 $30,000 $81,000 $189,000 Value Revenue $679 $845 $934 $554 $1,112 $313 $1,022 $2,116 Costs $567 $779 $1,248 $1,023 $786 $278 $2,122 $7,284 Net Result $112 $66 $314 $468 $326 $35 ($1,100) 1 $5,168 Source: Tischler & Associates, Inc Similarly, studies conducted in eight Ohio communities all showed the net impact of retail to be negative while office and industrial uses consistently showed to be positive. In the Ohio study, the net deficit averaged $.44 per sq foot. For perspective purposes, a large scale retail facility of 100,000 sq feet would result in an annual deficit of $44,000.51 Over a period of 12 years, the City of Concord, New Hampshire added 2.8 million sq ft of new commercial and industrial development. Yet tax revenue actually declined by 19 percent. An independent economic consulting firm found that there were several reasons for the declining tax base. One was that new retail development, primarily big box stores, had harmed local business. Property values, and subsequently tax revenue, in the older shopping areas had declined sharply. It was also fund that new development had eroded the value of residential property, probably due to increased traffic ad noise. The end result was that the city actually experienced a declining tax base despite all of the new growth.sz Page 27 of 37 Economic Impacts Seth Harry, an architect and retail planning consultant, summarizes the economic impact large scale retail in this way: As stated in the Urban Land Institute's Shoppinq Center Handbook: "A shopping center cannot generate new business or create new buying power... rather, they attract customers from existing shopping districts or capture a portion of new purchasing power from a growing area ..."It can cause a redistribution of business outlets and consumer patronage, but it cannot create new consumers." In other words, and In spite of widespread perception to the contrary, no retail boxes, regardless of size, are capable of actually creating spending potential, simply by virtue of their bigness. However, they are very capable of influencing and redistributing the spending patterns of the buying power that does exist within each community, and with these very large boxes that influence is increasingly being felt at a regional level. [emphasis added] 53 Dr. Stephan Goetz of Penn State University states: Local officials and development proponents often point to the payroll and other taxes paid by the stores as a benefit that justifies payment of the subsidy. However, Wal-Mart is a retail enterprise and does not export goods outside the local region, as a manufacturer such as Hershey Foods'"'' or Toyota TM does. More specifically, retail enterprises are not generally part of what economists call the export base. Instead, a new retail store largely displaces existing retail activity and jobs, rather than bring new money into a region. [emphasis added] At best, the store increases retail volume in the vicinity of the store, but this comes at the expense of the surrounding communities that see their retail dollars disappear. Thus, in the relevant area from which retail customers are drawn to a store, there is no net regional change in economic activity, except that which is induced by the higher real incomes resulting from lower prices. Whether this increase in income is sufficient to offset the public cost of the higher poverty rate and infrastructure subsidies awaits further study. Several Iowa communities where big box building supply stores such as Menards and Home Depot have opened were studied.ss Sales of hardware and building supplies in the host community and surrounding counties were tracked over several years to test what the authors call the "zero-sum- game theory", namely that the retail sales gains generated by big box stores are offset by sales losses at existing, often locally owned retail stores. The results confirm the theory. The sales of hardware and building supplies grew in the host communities but at the expense of sales in smaller towns nearby. Moreover, after a few years, many of the host communities experienced a reversal of fortune. Sales of hardware and building materials declined sharply, often dropping below their initial levels, as more big box stores opened in the surrounding region and saturated the market. A stud Y56 conducted for Leominster, MA examined the likely impact of a proposed 510,000 sq ft shopping center that would include a WalMart Supercenter, a Lowe's, a department store and four chain restaurants. The study found that the city already had more retail than residents could support and the proposed shopping center was predicated to dramatically worsen the situation. Its projected annual revenue of $185 million was equivalent to 77 percent of the local market's current sales in building materials, groceries and general merchandise. Since neither population nor incomes were growing, sales at the new shopping center would come entirely at the expense of existing businesses. Competing stores within a 5-6 mile radius would lose $104 million in sales each year. Those stores located 5-6 miles further out would lose $72 million. Because of the impact on existing businesses, the 869 jobs created by the center would be offset by about the same number of job losses. After accounting for the cost of providing city services to the new development and declining tax revenue Page 28 of 37 from existing businesses, the study concluded that the project would produce only $51,000 in additional revenue or about $3 for each of Leonminster's households. The "retail pie" is relatively fixed in size i.e. it grows only incrementally as population and income grows. Consequently, when a company opens a giant store, it invariably captures a substantial slice of the retail pie, leaving smaller portions for existing businesses, which are then forced to downsize or close. To test this premise, Dr Kenneth Stone of Iowa State University57 studied Iowa towns and found that on average the Superstore cost other merchants in the host town about $12 million a year in sales, while stores in smaller towns nearby also suffered substantial revenue losses. These sale losses resulted in the closure of 7,326 Iowa businesses between 1983 and 1993, including 555 grocery stores, 291 apparel stores, and 298 hardware stores. While towns that gained a Superstore initially experienced a rise in overall retail sales, after the first two or three years, retail sales begin to decline. About one in four towns ended up with a lower level of retail activity than they had prior to the Superstore's arrival. Dr Stone attributes this result to WalMart's strategy of saturating regions with multiple stores. Other studies present another side to this argument. Global Insight, an economic research company, recently released a stud Y58 showing that WalMart saved each American household on average $2,329 in 2004. The study also found that WalMart had a net positive economic impact in the form of a 0.9% increase in real wages and the creation of 210,000 jobs nationwide. These jobs are equal to 10% of the jobs created nationwide in 2004 and represented more than 1.2 times the monthly average job creation rate. The study also indicated that WalMart's entry into a market creates economic opportunities for suppliers, construction and building materials firms, and supply and general merchandise stores. Other studies have concluded that the prices for food categories at WalMart are typically 5%-48% less than prices for the same products in supermarkets and other conventional retail outlets.59 Another study found that, in several Ohio counties, WalMart dramatically increases the per capita Earned Income Tax Credit claims in a county by 18 and 435percent and increased the local property tax assessment collection of $350,000 to roughly 1.3 million. ° Traffic & Travel Patterns Large scale retail has in recent decades increasingly gravitated to standalone sites oriented almost entirely to the automobile trip. The design of these commercial facilities discourages pedestrian and bicycle travel and infrequently provide any accommodation for bus transit. This business form represents a departure from the regional, community and neighborhood shopping center models that were prevalent through the 1980's. Although, suburban in nature and auto-oriented, the shopping center emphasized the synergy created by a variety of businesses in one place and the multiple- destination trip. In contrast, "big box" retail and especially the general merchandise chain retailers such as Target, K- Mart and WalMart and the large specialty stores such as Home Depot either seek the standalone site or locate in "power centers" dominated by other large-scale retailers. This development is almost always located in suburban settings adjoining major highways. The emergence of the "superstore" (a full service grocery store in the same building with a discount department store) has been especially notable regarding travel patterns. These stores typically range from 150,000 sf to 250,000 sf and will often provide or attract other auto-oriented business to adjoining sites. The empirical evidence and a growing body of hard data suggest that this retail model induces sprawl, substantially increases the length of the retail trip and compounds traffic congestion on roads adjoining the site. Page 29 of 37 Nationally, trip lengths are increasing as shown by Table 14. Table 14: Averaae Vehicle Trip Length in Miles by Purpose of Trip: United States Trip Purpose 1969 1977 1983 1990 1995 To / From Work 9.40 9.02 8.55 10.97 11.80 Family/ Personal Business 6.51 6.72 6.68 7.43 6.93 Shopping 4.36 4.99 5.28 5.10 5.64 Social / Recreation 13.12 10.27 10.55 11.80 11.24 All Purposes 8.90 8.35 7.90 8.85 9.06 Source: Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey (2000) In Alachua County, vehicle trips are somewhat shorter than the National averages but are on the increase. Between 1998 and 2004, daily vehicle miles traveled on the 1,639 miles of roads within Alachua County grew from 6.443 million to 7.791 million representing a 21% increase over 6 years. This average annual increase of 3.5% compared to a population growth rate of about 1.8% annually. Table 15: Average Vehicle Trip Length in Miles by Purpose of Trip: United States vs Alachua Count Trip Purpose United States 1995 Alachua Count 2004 To / From Work 11.80 9.44 Family/ Personal Business 6.93 5.54 Shopping 5.64 4.51 Social / Recreation 11.24 8.99 All Purposes 9.06 7.25 Source: Alachua County Impact Fee Study, James C. Nicholas, PhD, 2004 Alachua County adopted transportation impact fees in 2005. The background studies6' indicate that each lane mile of roadway capacity costs $1,750,000 to construct (including right-of-way and engineering). At a lane capacity of 10,081 vehicles per day, each vehicle mile of capacity requires $173.59 of capital investment. Consequently each trip generated by any land use accounts for 1/2 of this cost ( '/2 attributed to origins and '/z to destinations) or $86.80 times the vehicle miles traveled. When taxes that are applied to road construction are considered, this figure is adjusted to $58.33 per vehicle mile. For example, if a land use generates 100 vehicle trips a day and each of these trips averages one mile, the capital expenditure required to provide this capacity is $583. As this formula indicates, the calculated proportionate share of any land use depends on two factors: (1) the average length of the trip and (2) the number of trips generated. Both of these factors are hotly debated when it comes to superstores. Trip Length. Big box stores and superstores in particular are typically located on the fringe of urban areas, primarily because the amount of land needed for development makes it cost prohibitive to build closer to the city center.62 Superstores are larger than the average big box store, and this increases the need to locate them in sparsely populated areas. Consequently, unless special efforts are made to extend some form of public transit to these sites, access is predominantly by car rather than public transit. The distance from residential neighborhoods and the lack of walkways near the store or through the parking lot make box stores and supercenters less accessible to pedestrians. Because their design forces shoppers to primarily rely upon automobile transit to reach the big box or superstore, traffic congestion in an area can dramatically increase.63 A report prepared for Oakland's Community and Economic Development Agency indicated that because they combine features of a grocery store, with those of a general retail store or warehouse membership club, superstores are much more likely to spawn traffic as compared to other similarly sized stores. a Since shoppers need to buy groceries on a more frequent basis, supercenters are likelys to be visited more often than similar big box retail establishments without a grocery component. 5 A California study found that Page 30 of 37 Supercenters will face more traffic congestion than other retail big box stores because shoppers are willing to drive further to access a supercenter grocery store than a conventional supermarket.66 This conclusion is evidenced by the lower prices and variety of products offered as compared to a conventional supermarket and by the fact that superstores have higher revenue per square foot than competing supermarket chains.6 Traffic in the general region is also likely to increase, because motorists are willing to drive longer distances in order to shop at a supercenter, thereby adding traffic to area roadways and increasing vehicle miles traveled. When these cars converge upon their final destination, the density of traffic around the supercenter will also be higher than if only local patrons shopped there. A comparison of store distribution patterns used by Publix Supermarkets in Alachua County with a hypothetical distribution of Superstores generally illustrates these arguments. The 12 Publix Supermarkets all serve a trade area of less than 2 miles with an estimated average trip length of about 1.0 miles. The Superstore configuration includes four locations with estimated trade areas of ten miles and average trip lengths of about 5.0 miles.68 When compared to Publix, the typical Superstore will require 5 times the roadway capacity to accommodate its customers. In Alachua County, each 100 trips generated by Publix would require $550 in roadway capacity while the same 100 trips generated by a superstore would require $2,750 in roadway capacity. Trip Generation. There is considerable debate regarding the trip generation characteristics of large scale retail especially Superstores. Trip Generation, /'h Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers is the definitive source for estimating trips generated from different land use types. This edition was updated in 2003 to include recent traffic studies. An ITE description was included for Discount Superstore (ITE Land Use Code 813). Based on these trip generation factors, a 200,000 sq ft Superstore would generate between 42,000 and 93,000 trips per week with an average of 76,000 trips per week. Table 16 shows how this traffic distributes over a typical week. Table 16: Daily/ weekly Trips from Land Use 813 (Free Standing Discount Superstore) For An Assumed Store Size of 200,000 Square Feet Average Trip Rate Low End of Range of Trip Rates High End of Range of Trip Rates Weekday Trips 10,847 5,930 12,806 Saturday Trips 12,601 7,064 14,722 Sunda Trips 9,396 5,522 14,054 Weekly Trips 76,232 42,236 92,806 Source: Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation, 7' Edition Despite these numbers, independent traffic studies indicate that they are too conservative. These challenges center around two issues: (1) the trip generation rates, and (2) the adjustment for pass-by traffic. In Gresham, Oregon, an independent stud Y69 of three Superstores indicated that the ITE Trip Rates understated the Weekday PM Peak Hour trip rate by 12% (the factor used for concurrency management purposes in Florida) and the Saturday Midday Peak Hour by 36%. For impact assessment, pass-by trips are subtracted from the trip generation estimate. Traffic studies conducted by WalMart estimate that 34% of their trips are not new (pass-by). If a Superstore is characterized as a "destination store", 20 - 25% to be a more realistic factor. Page 31 of 37 Is Alachua County Subsidizing Large Scale Retail? As noted in the discussion regarding travel patterns, the proportionate share of the capital costs of building roadways is a product of trips generated by a particular land use and the average length of those trips. Superstores typically have trip lengths in access of 5 miles compared to about 1 mile for neighborhood serving supermarkets. The impact fee rates70 for Alachua County an average trip length for commercially-based land uses to be 4.67 miles effectively penalizing neighborhood serving uses with shorter trip lengths. Under this formula, both the supermarket and the superstore would be assessed a rate of $8,475 per 1000 sq ft. Using the relative trip lengths shown for Publix and for the hypothetical superstore trade area, the adjusted fee rates would be $2,739 and $9,224 respectively. This difference is especially striking when the size of a superstore is considered i.e. the road impact of a 55,000 sq ft Publix is $150,665 while the impact of a 200,000 sq ft superstore is $1,844,799. If the percentage of new trips attributed to the superstore is increased in recognition of its "destination store" character, the net impact on Alachua County's road network rises to $2,329,292. If only the grocery store portion of the superstore is compared, its net cost to the roadway network is $843,906 - about 5.6 times the impact of a supermarket. The adopted road impact fee is $3,814 per 1000 sq ft for Commercial Retail. This fee structure effectively subsidizes large scale retail especially those retail establishments that draw from larger trade areas. Under this formula, a 200,000 sq ft superstore would pay $762,800 compared to $1,844,799 if a full proportionate share was assessed. It is also important to note that no assessment of the roadway impact occurs at all if new large scale retail is constructed within municipal limits. Recommendations This analysis recognizes that chain retail and large scale retail has a place in Alachua County, but that the increasing dominance of chain retail and the emergence of the "superstore" model in particular present challenges to Alachua County both in terms of community character and fiscal integrity. While large scale retail may offer low prices and a variety of consumer choice, the accompanying effects on the local economy, the fiscal health of local governments, affordable housing, poverty levels, and travel patterns may create impacts that cannot be effectively addressed under existing planning, regulatory and fiscal policy. Under present Comprehensive Plan policy and land development regulation, county and municipal governments can only assure the mitigation of localized traffic and environmental impacts. Community and regional impacts can only be addressed through the expenditure of public funds. The amendment proposed provides Alachua County government with new and expanded tools to evaluate impacts, develop strategies and tools to mitigate them, and allow for the manageable growth of the community. Page 32 of 37 Amending the Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan amendments are a first step in establishing the policy and regulatory framework that addresses the unique issues raised by large scale retail. The following language is offered for inclusion in Alachua County's Future Land Use Element. The effect is (1) to establish "big box" forms of retail development as distinct categories sitting alongside the existing definitions and standards for shopping centers (neighborhood, community and regional) and (2) to require expanded review and analysis as a prerequisite to the entry or expansion of these retail forms within Alachua County. Future Land Use Element: Definitions Blp-box store: A colloquial term used to describe a style of retail store and by extension to the company behind the store.:Typical characteristics include the following: • Floor space several times greater than traditional retailers in the sector, generally more than 50°000 square feet sometimes approaching 250,000 square feet, though varying by sector and market; • Free-standing or in Power Centers: Typically windowless, rectangular, single story construction, with a high ceiling; • Expansive open air surface parking lots and general orientation to automobile-driving consumers, as opposed to pedestrians; Location in suburban or rural areas, often in proximity to freeways, as opposed to downtown shopping districts. Chain stores: (also called retail chains) Retail outlets which share a brand and central management, usually with standardized business methods and practices. Such stores may be branches owned by one company or franchises owned by local individuals or firms and operated under contract with the parent corporation. Department store: A retail establishment engaged in retailing a wide range of products without a single predominant merchandise line. Department stores usually sell products including apparel, furniture appliances and additionally select other lines of products such as paint, hardware, toiletries, cosmetics photographic equipment, iewelry, toys, and sporting goods. Certain department stores are further classified as discount department stores. Discount department stores usually have central customer checkout areas, generally in the front area of the store. Power Center. An unenclosed shopping center that usually contains three or more big box retailers and various smaller retailers and usually located in plazas with a common parking area shared among all the retailers. Superstore: A discount department store and a full scale grocery store or supermarket under one roof and usually associated with national chains. Superstores typically sell a wide range of products such as toys, electronics, clothing, groceries, furniture, sporting goods and automotive supplies. Amendments to Urban Activity Centers Policies Future Land Use Element Policy 2.1.15. The County shall adopt amendments to the Land Development Code that provide for additional review of retail establishments exceeding 100,000 sf GLA and developments including one or more retail establishments exceeding 100,000 sf GLA. These amendments to the Land Development Code shall provide at a minimum the following standards of review: Page 33 of 37 1. The requirements and standards set forth in Policies 2.1.1- 2.1.14, shall be satisfied; 2. The applicant shall delineate the market or service area(s) of the establishment. If the applicant or retail chain operates other retail establishments within or adioining this market or service area, the extent of these market or service areas shall also be delineated. Such delineation(s) shall be subject to verification by the County; 3. The County shall cause to be prepared a Community Impact Report to be paid for by the applicant. The County may prepare the report or may contract with a private entity, other than the permit applicant, or another public agency for the preparation of the report. The private entity or other public agency shall be qualified by education, training and experience to conduct the required analyses. The report shall include the following elements: a. A market study documenting the need for the location and the type of retail establishment(s) or for their expansion, through analysis of factors including population projections within the relevant market or service areas, based on estimated build out of the future land uses. This analysis will include (i) an assessment of the extent to which the proposed retail establishment(s) will capture a share of retail sales in the market or service area. (ii) how the proposed retail establishment(s) will affect the supply and demand for retail space within the market or service area and (iii) the effect of the retail establishment(s) on retail operations within the market or service area(s). b. An employment study documenting the need for the location and type of retail establishment(s) or for their expansion through analysis of factors, including employment rates, economic development needs, income levels, and jobs-housing balance within the relevant market or service area(s) based on estimated build out of the future land uses. This analysis will include an assessment of how the construction and weration of the retail establishment(s) will affect wages and benefits, income levels, and the demand for employment within the market or service area(s). c. A fiscal impact study for all governmental jurisdictions within the market or service area(s) to include (i) a proiection of the public revenues resulting from the construction and operation of the retail establishment(s) and (ii) a proiection of the costs of public services and public facilities resulting from the construction and operation of the proposed retail establishment(s). d. A traffic impact analysis for the market or service area(s) including the effect of the project on average vehicle miles traveled by retail customers in the market area, the effect on the project on levels of service in all roads within the trade area and recommendations for mitigating any level of service deficiency that may identified. e. A consistency report including an assessment of the effect that the retail establishment(s) will have on the ability of each iurisdiction within the Page 34 of 37 market or service area(s) to implement the goals, objectives and policies contained in its comprehensive plan, including, but not limited to, land use patterns, community character, traffic circulation, affordable housing, natural resources, including water supplies, open space and public safety, f. The identification of positive, negative and indirect impacts of the proposed retail establishment(s) and proposed measures to mitigate adverse impacts. 4. The Land Development Code shall establish methods for the mitigation of adverse impacts including the mitigation of impacts within all governmental iurisdictions within the market or service area(s). Page 35 of 37 Endnotes 1 Future Land Use Element (FLUE), Objective 2.1, FLUE pg 19 2 FLUE Policy 2.1.2., pg 19 3 FLUE Policy 2.1.3., pg 19 FLUE Policy 2.1.3., pg 20 5 FLUE Policies 2.1.5-2.1.13., pgs 20-23 6 FLUE Policy 2.1.6., pg 20 7 "Big Box Retail" is a colloquial term used to describe a style of retail store 8 "California Responses to Supercenter Development: A Survey of Ordinances, Cases & Elections"; Public Law Research Institute, Hastings College of Law, University of California, PLRI Reports, Spring 2004 9 Ibid 10 SB 1056, California Legislature (CA Government Code, Section 65957.3) 1 A Vision for New Rochelle: Plan for Revitalizing the City Park Neighborhood, May 2001", Columbia University, Graduate School of Architecture, Preservation and Planning 12 A Short History of Suburban Retail, Seth Harry, Seth Harry and Associates, Inc, February, 2004 13 Gregory Freeman, "Wal-Mart Supercenters: What's in Store for California?", Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation, Jan 2004 14 Gregory Freeman, "Wal-Mart Supercenters: What's in Store for California?", Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation, Jan 2004 15 Alachua County Impact Fee Study, James C. Nicholas, PhD, 2004 16 Economic Impact Analysis: Local Merchants vs. Chain Retailers, Civic Economics, December 2002 17 Id. Civic Economics report 18 The Economic Impact of Locally Owned Businesses vs. Chains: A Case Study in Midcoast Maine, Institute for Local Self- Reliance, September 2003 19 The Andersonville Study of Retail Economics, Civic Economics, October 2004, www.AndersonvilleStudy.com 20 NFIB Small Business Policy Guide, National Foundation for Independent Businesses 21 Strategic Analysis of Present and Future Wal-Mart Store Placements, Service and Infrastructure Impacts, and Political Interventions, for Orange County, Florida, Grant Thrall, PhD, July 2005 22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market-dominance-strategies 23 Wal-Mart's Impacts on the American Supermarket Industry, Dr. David Rogers, DSR Marketing Systems, Inc, February 2004 24 Alachua County Affordable Housing Study, Alachua County Department of Growth Management, May, 2003 25 Guiding Vision - FY 05-06, Alachua County Commission, Policy 10 28 Id., Policy 11 27 http://www.flhousingdata.shimberg.ufl.edu 28 Wal-Mart and County-Wide Poverty, Dr. Stephan J. Goetz & Hema Swaminathan, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Penn State University, October 2004 29 Economy Up, People Down: Declining Earnings Undercut Income Growth, Lawrence Mishel, Jared Bernstein and Elise Gould, Economic Policy Institute INCOME PICTURE, August 2005, http://www.epinet.org 30 City of Los Angeles Housing, Community & Economic Development Committee, Report Re: Options for Regulating the Development of Superstores, Report No. R03-0585, December 16, 2003 31 Rodino Report 32 Randolph, et al., BASF Report 33 Rodino Report 34 Santa Fe Releases Independent Business Study, Hometown Advantage Bulletin, February 2004 35 Rodino Report 38 Whitney Gould, Towns can Expect more - even from Wal-Mart, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, March 8, 2004 37 Randolph, et al., BAEF Report 38 Strategic Economics, Economic Analysis of the Proposed Fremont Wal-Mart: Short and Long Term Impacts on Retail and Economic Development, March 2003 39 Ian Thompson, Grocery Industry's Labor Woes are Rooted in Wal-Mart Expansion, Oakland Tribune, December 21, 2003 40 Id. 41 Randolph, et al., BAEF Report 42 Randolph, et al., BAEF Report 43 Rodino Associates, Final Report on Research for "Big Box" Retail Development, Oct 28, 2003 (Prepared for the City of Los Angeles, Industrial and Commercial Development Division) Page 36 of 37 44 "California Responses to Supercenter Development: A Survey of Ordinances, Cases & Elections", Public Law Research Institute, Hastings College of Law, University of California, PLRI Reports, Spring 2004 45 Buckingham Township, PA., Ordinance 98-02 46 A Short History of Suburban Retail, Seth Harry, Seth Harry and Associates, Inc, February, 2004 47 Id. Seth Harry paper 48 California SB 10561 Section 65957.3 of the Government Code 49 Understanding the Fiscal Impacts of Land Use in Ohio, Randal Gross, Development Economics for Mid Ohio Regional Planning Commission, August 2002 50 Fiscal Impact Analysis of Residential and Nonresidential Land Use Prototypes, Tischler & Associates, July 2002 51 Understanding the Fiscal Impacts of Land Use in Ohio, Randal Gross, Development Economics for Mid Ohio Regional Planning Commission, August 2002 52 RKG Associates, 2001 reported by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, www.hometownadvantaoe.org 53 A Short History of Suburban Retail, Seth Harry, Seth Harry and Associates, Inc, February, 2004 54 Wal-Mart and County-Wide Poverty, Dr. Stephan J. Goetz & Hema Swaminathan, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Penn State University, October 2004 55 The Impact of Big Box Building Materials Stores on Host Towns and Surrounding Counties in a Midwestern State, Kenneth E. Stone, Professor, Iowa State University, 2001 56 The Fiscal and Economic Impact of a Proposed Shopping Center Project on the City of Leominster, Thomas Muller, PhD, August 2003 57 Competing with the Discount Mass Merchandisers, Kenneth Stone, PhD, 1995 58 The Economic Impact of Wal-Mart, Global Insight, November, 2005 59 Consumer Benefits From Increased Competition in Shopping Outlets: Measuring the Effect of WalMart, Jerry Hausman, PhD, MIT and Ephraim Leibtag, US Dept of Agriculture 60 The Impact of Walidart on Local Fiscal Health: Evidence from a Panel of Ohio Counties, Michael Hicks 61 Alachua County Impact Fee Study, James C. Nicholas, PhD., 2004 62 Randolph, et al., BAEF Report 63 Randolph, et al., BAEF Report 64 Supplemental Report on an Ordinance Amending the Oakland [CA] Planning Code to Define "Large Scale Combined Retail and Grocery Sales Commercial Activities" to prohibit this Activity in All Zones, Oakland Community and Economic Development Agency, Sept.23, 2003 65 Id. Oakland Report 66 Randolph, et al., BAEF Report 67 Randolph, et al., BAEF Report 68 Trip length estimates assume that travel is evenly distributed in the trade area. Transportation models specific to the location and trade area would be required to determine actual trip lengths 69 West Powell Boulevard Wal-Mart Retail Center, Kittelson & Associates, Inc, April 2005 70 Alachua County Impact Fee Study, James C. Nicholas, PhD., 2004 Page 37 of 37 ALACHUA COUNTY ?- 3t .4 r .. •. . .. 3£:4 . ' J. . . r ., .. 3 n Y t _- w?"£ a < # _ - : j t t k ?. _ ya. ? l ` + li 3 t t i in Ed ! FIGURE 1: BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS 9 • pg 11 ALACHUA COUNTY s_. kA rrp r :?l Eta [3 FIGURE 2: PUBLIX SUPERMARKET DEVELOPMENT PATTERN pg 12 ALA(."o"'HIIUA COUNTY 10 Mile Trade Area t 1 ? 5 Mile Trade Area " ~x FIGURE 3: HYPOTHETICAL SUP RSTORE DEVELOPMENT PATTER pg 13 Alachua County Office of Planning and Development Staff Report: CPA-07-06 SUMMARY PAGE Application Number: CPA-07-06 LPA Hearing Date: January 18, 2005 BoCC Hearing Date: To Be Determined STAFF CONTACT: Missy Daniels, Senior Planner SUBJECT: A request for a Comprehensive Plan text amendment to establish "big box" forms of retail development as a distinct category and to require expanded review and analysis before developing or expanding this type of retail within Alachua County. APPLICANT/AGENT: PROPERTY OWNER: PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: PREVIOUS REQUESTS: Robert Ackerman and Tom Ryder N/A N/A Land Use: N/A Zoning: N/A Existing Use: N/A Acreage: N/A N/A ZONING VIOLATION HISTORY: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial of transmittal with bases in staff report. LPA RECOMMENDATION: Approval 1 • • Alachua County Office of Planning and Development Staff Report: CPA-07-06 Applicant's Proposed Text Amendments Proposed Amendments to Future Land Use Element Definitions Future Land Use Element: Definitions Big-box store.- A colloquial term used to describe a style of retail store and by extension to the company behind the store. Typical characteristics include the following: Floor space several times greater than traditional retailers in the sector, generally more than 50 000 square feet sometimes approaching 250, 000 square feet though vavaging by sector and market; Free-standing or in Power Centers; Typicallywindowless rectangular, sin lg estory construction with a high ceiling; Expansive open air surface parking lots and general orientation to automobile-driving consumers, as oL)12osed to pedestrians; Location uz suburban or rural areas olen in proximity to freeways, as opposed to downtown shopping districts. Chain stores (also called retail chains) Retail outlets which share a brand and central' management, usually. with standardized business methods and practices. Such stores may be branches owned bV one companV or franchises owned bV local individuals or firms and operated under contract with the parent corporation. Department store: A retail establishment engaged in retailing a wide range ofproducts without a single predominant merchandise line. Department stores usually sell products including apparel, furniture, appliances and additionally select other lines of products such as paint, hardware, toiletries cosmetics photographic equipment iewelry toys and sporting goods. Certain department stores are further classified as discount department stores. Discount department stores usually have central customer checkout areas generally in the front area of the store. Power Center An unenclosed shopping center that usually contains three or more big box retailers and various smaller retailers and usually located in plazas with a common parking area shared among all the retailers. Superstore: A discount department store and a full scale grocery store or supermarket under one roof and usually associated with national chains. Superstores =ically sell a wide range of 2 0 0 Alachua County Office of Planning and Development Staff Report: CPA-07-06 products such as toys electronics clothing groceries furniture sporting goods and automotive supplies. Proposed Amendments to Future Land Use Element Policies Policv 2.1.15. The Countv shall adopt amendments to the Land Development Code that provide for additional review of retail establishments exceeding 100, 000 sf GLA and developments including one or more retail establishments exceeding 100, 000 sf GLA These amendments to the Land Development Code shall provide at a minimum the following standards o review: 1. The requirements and standards set forth in Policies 2.1.1- 2.1.14, shall be satisfied; 2. The applicant shall delineate the market or service area(s) of the establishment. I the applicant or retail chain operates other retail establishments within or a joining, this market or service area the extent of these market or service areas shall also be delineated Such delineation(s) shall be subject to verification by the County; 3. The County shall cause to be prepared a Community Impact Report to be paid or by the applicant The County may prepare the report or may contract with a private entity other than the permit applicant or another public agency for the pr paration of the report The private entity or other public agency shall be qualified by education training and experience to conduct the required analyses. The report shall include the following elements: a) A market study documenting the need for the location and the type of retail establishment(s) or for their expansion, through analysis of factors including population projections within the relevant market or service areas based on estimated build out of the future land uses. This analysis will include 0) an assessment of the extent to which the proposed retail establishment(s) will capture a share of retail sales in the market or service area (ii) how the proposed retail establishment(s will affect the supply and demand for retail space within the market or service area and (iii) the effect of the retail establishment(s) on retail operations within the market or service area(s). b) An employment study documenting the need for the location and type of retail establishment(s) or for their expansion through analysis of factors, 0 0 Alachua County Office of Planning and Development Staff Report: CPA-07-06 including employment rates, economic development needs, income levels, and lobs-housing balance within the relevant market or service area(s) based on estimated build out o the future land uses. This analysis will include an assessment of how the construction and operation of the retail establishment(s) will affect wages and benefits, income levels, and the demand or employment within the market or service area(s). yfor all governmental jurisdictions within the market c) A fiscal impact stud or service area(s) to include (i) a projection of the public revenues resulting from the construction and operation o the retail establishment(s) and CH) a projection of the costs ofpublic services and public facilities resulting from the construction and operation o the proposed retail establishment(s). d) A tra, f e impact analysis for the market or service area(s including the effect o the project on average vehicle miles traveled by retail customers in the market area, the effect on the project on levels of service in all roads within the trade area and recommendations for mitigating anY level of service deficiency that may identified e) A consistency report including an assessment of the effect that the retail establishment(s) will have on the ability of each jurisdiction within the market or service area(s) to implement the goals, objectives and policies contained in its comprehensive plan, including, but not limited to, land use patterns, community character, traffic circulation, affordable housing, natural resources, including water supplies, open space and public safety. The identification of positive, negative and indirect impacts of the proposed retail establishment(s) and proposed measures to mitigate adverse impacts. 4. The Land Development Code shall establish methods or the mitigation of adverse impacts including the mitigation of impacts within all governmental jurisdictions within the market or service area(s). • Alachua County Office of Planning and Development Staff Report: CPA-07-06 ANALYSIS Background The applicants have proposed comprehensive plan text amendments to require a greater level of analysis prior to approval of new or expanded large-scale retail in the County. They have provided a study that demonstrates the impacts of large-scale retail on a community. They say that "large scale retail, especially that of a scale that draws from a broad trade area, presents unique issues for urban planning and may require a greater level of analysis during the development review process." The proposed text amendments concern one or more retail establishments in a single development of 100,000 square feet GLA (gross leasable area). The applicant is proposing that the Land Development Regulations be amended to require developers of such retail to submit certain studies and information, such as a market study, as outlined in the text amendments above and discussed in more detail below. Chronology Application submitted: October 29, 2005 Original Report Released: January 11, 2006 Local Planning Agency Hearing: January 18, 2006 BoCC Hearing: February 22, 2006 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION CONSISTENCY The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment has been analyzed for consistency with both the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations. Alachua County's Comprehensive Plan requires new commercial development to locate in the Commercial land use designation and primarily within designated Activity Centers, which provide for the concentration of mixtures of higher intensity and density land uses. These Activity Centers are divided into retail and employment centers and are given a level of high, medium or low by size and type of activity. The size of a commercial area is also designated by the description Neighborhood, Community or Regional shopping centers as defined in the Plan and any new shopping centers, or developments at an i • Alachua County Office of Planning and Development Staff Report: CPA-07-06 equivalent size, are required to be located within Activity Centers. Proposed Amendments to Urban Activity Center Policies The applicant proposed several definitions describing types of retail development for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element. These are not repeated here but can be found on page 2 of this staff report. These retail types are not mentioned in either the adopted Comprehensive Plan or in the applicant's proposed text amendments, and therefore, seem unnecessary. Pronosed Policv 2.1.1 S. The Countv shall adopt amendments to the Land Development Code that provide for additional review of retail establishments exceeding 100, 000 sf GLA and developments including one or more retail establishments exceeding 100, 000 sf GLA. These amendments to the Land Development Code shall provide at a minimum the following standards of review: 1. The requirements and standards set forth in Policies 2.1.1 - 2.1.14, shall be satisfied; 2. The applicant shall delineate the market or service area(s) of the establishment. I the applicant or retail chain operates other retail establishments within or adjoining this market or service area, the extent of these market or service areas shall also be delineated. Such delineation(s) shall be subiect to verification b the County; 3. The County shall cause to be prepared a Community Impact Report to be paid or by he applicant. The CountE may prepare the report or may contract with a private entity other than the permit applicant, or another public agency for the preparation of the report. The private entity or other public agency shall be gualified by education, trainin amend experience to conduct the required analyses. The report shall include the following elements: a) A market study documenting the need for the location and the type of retail establishment(s) or for their expansion, through analysis of factors including population projections within the relevant market or service areas based on estimated build out o the future land uses. This analysis will include N) an assessment of the extent to which the proposed retail establishment(s) will capture a share of retail sales in the market or service area NO how the proposed retail establishment(s) will affect the 6 0 9 Alachua County Office of Planning and Development Staff Report: CPA-07-06 supply and demand for retail space within the market or service area and (iii) the effect of the retail establishment(s) on retail operations within the market or service area( b) An employment study documenting the need for the location and type of retail establishments or for their expansion through analysis of factors, including employment rates, economic development needs, income levels, and fobs-housing balance within the relevant market or service area(s) based on estimated build out of the future land uses. This analysis will include an assessment of how the construction and operation of the retail establishment(s) will affect wages and benefits, income levels, and the demand for employment within the market or service area(s). The Comprehensive Plan places great emphasis on developing or redeveloping activity centers as pedestrian-friendly, compact, mixed-use centers, with explicit detailed design standards to achieve this. The policies also provide an expanded basis for establishing new activity centers, expansion of existing centers, or redevelopment of an activity center. Master Plans are required for most development or redevelopment within Activity Centers. The following Comprehensive Plan Policies and Land Development Regulations detail the Master Plan process. A Master Plan is required for any retail development over 50,000 square feet GLA (gross leasable area). The Master Plan requires that all development be consistent with the design standards found in Policies 2.1.1 - 2.1.14 mentioned in the proposed text (Policies 2.1.1 - 2.1.14 included in Appendix 2). A market study is also required as part of the Master Plan process. OBJECTIVE 2.1 Provide for the concentration of mixtures of higher intensity and density land uses through designation of Activity Centers on the Future Land Use Map, with standards to ensure pedestrian-friendly compact centers connected to a multi-modal transportation system and integrated with surrounding uses in the urban area. Policy 2.1.3. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment shall be required for new, expansion, or redevelopment of activity centers to establish level, type, and uses on the Future Land Use map and to establish specific activity center Plan policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Such Comprehensive Plan Amendments shall be considered based on: 7 • • Alachua County Office of Planning and Development Staff Report: CPA-07-06 a. The findings of a market study or employment study, such that: The market study shall document the need for location and type of new Activity Centers or for expansion of existing Activity Centers, through analysis of factors including population projections within the relevant market or service areas, identified in Section 3.0 Commercial Policies, based on estimated build out of the future land uses. 2. The employment study shall document the need for location and type of new Activity Centers or for expansion of existing Activity Centers, through analysis of factors including employment rates, economic development needs, income levels, and jobs-housing balance within the relevant service area based on estimated build out of the future land uses. Policy 2.1.7 A detailed master plan shall be prepared for each Activity Center. The master plan shall include an overall site plan that incorporates the design standards in Policies 2.1.8 Site and Building Design, 2.1.10 Parking, 2.1.11 Automobile Access, 2.1.12 Community Green Space, and 2.1.13 Surface Stormwater Management Facilities. Land Development Regulations 402.93 (d.) When Master Plan Review is Required Proposals for individual new development or redevelopment within activity centers that meet or exceed any of the thresholds listed in Table 402.93.1 shall require review and adoption of an activity center Master Plan as a prerequisite for submittal of a development plan application. Development proposals that do not meet or exceed the thresholds may proceed using the activity center development plan option, as described in Section 402.93. Table 402.93.1 - Master Plan Thresholds Development Residential 100 dwelling units Commercial Retail or Office 50,000 sf of GFA* Industrial 100,000 sf of GFA All Development Types New development on property that is 50% or more of the land area of an quadrant of an activity center. All Development Types New Development of Regional Impact application 8 C7 • Alachua County Office of Planning and Development Staff Report: CPA-07-06 Large Scale Future Land Use Map amendment All Development Types application, including activity center boundary modification. All Development Types External trip generation is equal to or greater than 5,000 total vehicle trips on a weekday *GFA = gross floor area ** Trip generation will be determined using the latest edition of Trip Generation published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (i) Master Plan Application Requirements An application for an Activity Center Master Plan shall include the following: 1. all of the requirements of Article 2, Common Development Application Elements, of this Chapter. 2. all of the requirements of Article 8, Unified Land Development Code Text Amendments, of this Chapter. 3. all of the items listed above in Section 402.93(0, Master Plan Elements. 4. Multi-modal Transportation Impact Analysis A multi-modal transportation analysis shall be prepared by a qualified traffic engineer. This analysis shall provide detailed information on the availability of facilities to accommodate multiple modes of transportation, including but not limited to, vehicle roadways, bicycle thoroughfares, pedestrian infrastructure, and transit service. 5. Infrastructure Plan An infrastructure plan shall provide a general analysis of the infrastructure needs for the Master Plan area at buildout conditions, and a phasing and financing plan for any needed infrastructure improvements associated with development in the Master Plan area. Infrastructure shall include, but is not limited to multi-modal transportation facilities, stormwater management facilities, utilities, open space, and civic space. Mechanisms for implementing shared infrastructure shall be provided. 6. Market Feasibility Analysis a. A market feasibility analysis must demonstrate that the proposed land uses and development intensities for the activity center are economically feasible and needed in light of existing and future development of similar types as well as existing and future populations within the market area of the activity center. At a minimum, all market feasibility studies shall take into account the following: i. Current population of the market area of an activity center, future population of the market area of an activity center, the number of people the center is estimated to serve, existing residential development within the market area, and future 9 Alachua County Office of Planning and Development Staff Report: CPA-07-06 residential development within the market area. All projections of future population and development shall be based on the Future Land Use Map in effect at the time. ii. The market feasibility study shall also recognize the full development potential of the nearest activity centers and existing and planned commercial development within the market area. iii. Where new commercial retail uses are proposed, the market feasibility study shall take into account the per capita retail expenditures within the market area and the percentage of retail sales revenue spent within the activity center, as a percentage of retail within the entire county. b. Data for the market feasibility analysis must be obtained from professionally accepted sources including, but not limited to, U. S. Census and related data, the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) at the University of Florida, or the Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) population projections from the North Central Florida Regional Planning Council. Consistency: As discussed above and found in the Comprehensive Plan language and Land Development Regulations, the applicant's proposed policies Policy 2.1.15.1, Policy 2.1.15.2 and Policy 2.1.15.3, are already a requirement for developments above the 50,000 square feet retail threshold. This is less than the applicant's request to require this level of analysis at 100,000 square feet. There are, however, certain elements of the applicant's proposal that would be useful. The detail required for delineating the market service areas (proposed Policy 2.1.15.2), the level of detail required in the market study (proposed Policy 2.1.15.3.a) and requiring an employment study for large-scale retail (proposed Policy 2.1.153.b). As discussed, the Comprehensive Plan already requires these elements more generally. The level of detail found in these proposed policies would be more appropriate to include in the Land Development Regulations. No Comprehensive Plan amendment would be necessary. Proposed Policy 2.1.15.c yfor all governmental iurisdictions within the market or service area(s) A fiscal impact stud to include Ci) a projection o the public revenues resulting from the construction and operation of the retail establishment(s) and (ii) a projection of the costs of public services 10 0 0 Alachua County Office of Planning and Development Staff Report: CPA-07-06 and public facilities resulting from the construction and operation o the proposed retail establishment(s). Comprehensive Plan Intergovernmental Coordination Element OBJECTIVE 2 Establish mechanisms to address the resolution of intergovernmental issues related to impacts of development proposed in the comprehensive plan uponmunicipalities within the County, adjacentcounties, the region and the state. Policy 2.3 Alachua County shall continue to notify and consult with the following entities whenthere is any proposed development that could have an impact on that entity before actionis taken on the proposed development. Comments by these entities will be incorporated into the appropriate development reports. 1) Municipalities in Alachua County, 2) North Central Florida Regional Planning Council, 3) School Board of Alachua County, 4) Gainesville/Alachua County Regional Airport Authority, 5) State Department of Environmental Protection (local office), 6) State Department of Transportation, 7) St. Johns River Water Management District, 8) Suwannee River Water Management District, 9) University of Florida, and 10) Gainesville Regional Utilities. Policy 2.5 In the case when a proposed development has been determined to be incompatible with the comprehensive plan of the other governmental unit, Alachua County and the governmental unit shall work together to resolve this conflict in the following manner: 1) Staff at all levels in all departments shall initially work with staff of the other governmental unit. 2) If there is not a satisfactory resolution at staff level, then the Department Head shall notify the County Manager who shall notify the Board of County Commissioners. The Board may create an ad- hoc committee comprised of members of both governmental units if that process is mutually agreeable, or may request to use the North Central Florida Regional Planning Council's informal mediation process established pursuant to S. 186.5091 F. S., or any other mutually acceptable mediation process. 11 0 • Alachua County Office of Planning and Development Staff Report: CPA-07-06 The adopted Comprehensive Plan language above would allow for a requirement such as the one detailed in the applicant's proposed Policy 2.1.15.3.c to be included in the Land Development Regulations for all proposed development. A Comprehensive Plan amendment is not necessary. Proposed Policy 2.1.15 d. A traffic impact analysis for the market or service area(s) including the of ect of the project on average vehicle miles traveled by retail customers in the market area, the effect on the project on levels ofservice in all roads within the trade area and recommendations or mitigating any level of service deficiency that may identified. The applicant is requesting that a traffic study be submitted along with any development proposal for new retail 100,000 square feet or more. The following Comprehensive Plan language and Land Development Regulations require a traffic impact analysis already. 3.3. REQUIRED FACILITIES AND SERVICES OBJECTIVE 3.3 New commercial development or redevelopment shall have adequate public facilities and services at the time development occurs. Policy 3.3.1. New commercial development shall meet all of the requirements for adequate facilities based on the level of service standards adopted in this plan for roads, potable water and sanitary sewer, solid waste, and stormwater facilities and the concurrency provisions of this Plan. Policy 3.3.2. In addition to the facilities for which level of service standards are adopted as part of the concurrency management system of this plan, other facilities that shall be adequate to serve new commercial development include: a. fire, police, and emergency medical protection; b. local streets; C. pedestrian facilities and bikeways. 12 P 41 , 0 0 Alachua County Office of Planning and Development Staff Report: CPA-02-03 Adopted Land Development Regulations 402.93(1) 4. Multi-modal Transportation Impact Analysis A multi-modal transportation analysis shall be prepared by a qualified traffic engineer. This analysis shall provide detailed information on the availability of facilities to accommodate multiple modes of transportation, including but not limited to, vehicle roadways, bicycle thoroughfares, pedestrian infrastructure, and transit service. Consistency: The facilities discussed in Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.3.2 above all have adopted level of service standards in the Capital Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the policies in this section state that other facilities that shall be adequate to serve new commercial development include fire, police, and emergency medical protection, local streets, and pedestrian facilities and bikeways. The applicant's proposed text amendment to require a traffic impact analysis is already covered by these policies and the Land Development Regulations have been written to implement them (402.93(1)4. above). The applicant does include an additional requirement not currently in the County's traffic study requirements and that is the effect of the project on average vehicle miles traveled by retail customers in the market area. According to the Department of Public Works, "...The proposed Policy 2.1.15(3)(d) pertaining to the average vehicle miles traveled by retail customers, might provide interesting and potentially useful information pertaining to the study of market areas for certain types of developments but the collection of this type of data for most developments would be hard to justify and may prove to be very unreliable in most cases." Proposed Policy 2.1.15. 3. e. A consistency report including an assessment of the effect that the retail establishment(s) will have on the ability of each jurisdiction within the market or service areas to implement the Qoals, objectives and policies contained in its comprehensive plan, including, but not limited to land use patterns, community character, traffic circulation, fordable housing, natural resources, including water supplies, open space and public safeU. Page 13 of 22 Release Date: January 11, 2005 , 'A I 0 0 Alachua County Office of Planning and Development Staff Report: CPA-02-03 Comprehensive Plan Intergovernmental Coordination Element OBJECTIVE 1 Coordinate the Comprehensive Plan, the plans of the school board, other units of local government providing services, but not having regulatory authority over the use of land, and with the comprehensive plans of municipalities within the County, and adjacent counties. Adopted Land Development Regulations Section 402.05 Development Application Forms (a) Content The Director shall establish application forms to be submitted to the Department for all development applications referenced in this Chapter. The information required to accompany each type of development application that is submitted to the Department shall include but is not limited to the following: 1. authority to submit an application, in a form approved by the County Attorney, 2. statement of how the development proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; 3. statement of how the development proposal is consistent with the applicable standards and criteria of this ULDC; 4. evidence of compliance with all applicable elements of the County's concurrency management system as provided in Chapter 407, Article 12 of this ULDC; 5. documentation or professional studies for natural resources assessment (Section 406.04, Chapter 406) and tree survey, landscape plan, public school impact, sign plan, solid waste disposal and recycling, stormwater management, erosion and sedimentation control, traffic impacts, water and sewer utilities, environmental monitoring plan, pollution prevention plan, and similar information as may be required by the Director, 6. development plans; 7. activity center development plan requirements listed in Section 402.94(b), 8. master plan or zoning master plan with all related attachments, if applicable; Page 14 of 22 Release Date: January 11, 2005 Alachua County Office of Planning and Development Staff Report: CPA-02-03 Consistency: The current land development regulations cited above require the applicant for a development application to submit a consistency analysis with Alachua County's Comprehensive Plan. The requirement to submit a consistency analysis for neighboring jurisdiction comprehensive plans would be new. As found in Comprehensive Plan Intergovernmental Coordination Element Objective 1 above, the County is required to coordinate its Comprehensive Plan with the comprehensive plans of other municipalities and adjacent counties. As this policy allows for the inclusion of a requirement as proposed in 2.1.15.e for a consistency report of the effect on all jurisdictions in the market area, no Comprehensive Plan amendment is necessary. Proposed Policy 2.1.15.f The identification of positive negative and indirect impacts ofthe proposed retail establishment(s) and proposed measures to mitigate adverse impacts. To the extent that this is intended to be a summary of the findings from the requirements of the other policies proposed by the applicant, staff is in agreement that this would be a good requirement. There is no need for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to include this in the Land Development Regulations. Proposed Policy 2.1.15.4 The Land Development Code shall establish methods for the mitigation ofadverse impacts including the mitigation of impacts within all governmental jurisdictions within the market or service area(s). Staff understands this proposed policy to be mitigation for adverse impacts not already required by the Land Development Regulations, such as for an adverse impact on affordable housing. Methods for mitigation of impacts could be established in the Land Development Regulations but this would need to be better defined and further studied as a possible text amendment to the Regulations. Conclusion Staff agrees with the premise behind the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment, which is a higher level of review for large-scale retail development. As discussed above, many of the applicant's proposed policies are already included as policies in the Comprehensive Plan and are implemented through adopted Land Development Regulations. For those not already included in the Land Development Regulations or not included in as much detail, staff would propose they be considered as possible text Page 15 of 22 Release Date: January 11, 2005 Alachua County Office of Planning and Development Staff Report: CPA-02-03 amendments to the LDRs, and, with the direction of the County Commission, staff can begin this process. Specifically, this may include: • Added requirements to the market study • Employment study for retail • Fiscal impact report for Alachua County and jurisdictions in the market service area of the proposed development • Consistency report with the Comprehensive Plans of jurisdictions in the market study area • Mitigation requirements for adverse impacts caused by the proposed development Staff does not find that any of the proposed policies require a Comprehensive Plan amendment to be included in the Land Development Regulations. Staff Recommendation That Application CPA-07-06 be denied with the following bases: Bases: 1. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Policies 2.1.15.1, 2.1.15.2, and 2.1.15.3 are already a requirement in the Land Development Regulations Section 402.93(1) and do not therefore require a Comprehensive Plan amendment. 2. Adopted Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.3.2 states that certain facilities, including streets, should be adequate to serve new development. In addition, the policies in this section state that other facilities that shall be adequate to serve new commercial development include fire, police, and emergency medical protection, local streets, and pedestrian facilities and bikeways. Land Development Regulations Section 402.93(1).4 requires a traffic impact analysis to be submitted with the Master Plan required by Land Development Regulation 402.93(d) for retail development over 50,000 square feet GFA (gross floor area). The applicant's proposed text amendment, Proposed Policy 2.1.15.d, to require a traffic impact analysis is already covered by the Comprehensive Plan policy and Land Development Regulations. Page 16 of 22 Release Date: January 11, 2005 Alachua County Office of Planning and Development Staff Report: CPA-02-03 3. Currently adopted Land Development Regulation Section 402.05(a) requires an applicant to submit a consistency analysis of their proposed project with the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant's proposed Policy 2.1.15.3.e requiring that a consistency analysis be submitted is, therefore, unnecessary. Attachments Exhibit 1 - Cited Comprehensive Plan Policies that were not included in the text of the analysis. Exhibit 2 - Staff and Agency Comments Exhibit 3 - Application Page 17 of 22 Release Date: January 11, 2005 C, ?yl Alachua County Office of Planning and Development Staff Report: CPA-02-03 Exhibit 1: Alachua County Comprehensive Plan Citations Alachua County 2002 Comprehensive Plan as Amended FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT Policy 2.1.4. The design standards of Policies 2.1.5. - 2.1.13. shall apply to any new Activity Center and/or expansion of any existing Activity Center, and to the update of Activity Center Plans provided in Policy 2.1.14. These standards shall also apply to any development or redevelopment within existing Activity Centers, except for development authorized by an approved Final Development Plan or approved Development of Regional Impact Development Order issued prior to [adoption date of the 2001 update of the Comprehensive Plan]. Policy 2.1.5. Compact Centers. Activity Centers shall be compact, multi-purpose, mixed use centers which integrate commercial development with residential, civic, and open space. Commercial facilities shall be phased with the residential component of the development. Policy 2.1.6. Mixed Uses: A balanced mixture of uses shall be provided to reduce overall trip lengths, to support pedestrian, bicycle and transit opportunities and create pedestrian friendly streetscapes. a. Mixed uses shall be encouraged within individual buildings (e.g. residential above retail or office space). b. All Activity Centers shall provide civic uses, such as green spaces or community centers. C. Mixed uses shall be integrated within an overall design framework to create a pedestrian friendly, human scale environment, through objective, measurable criteria including size, scale, proportion, and materials detailed in the land development regulations. Flexibility in design shall allow for choice and variety in architectural style. Policy 2.1.7. A detailed master plan shall be prepared for each Activity Center. The master plan shall include an overall site plan that incorporates the design standards in Policies 2.1.8. Site and Building Design, 2.1.10. Parking, 2.1.11. Automobile Access, 2.1.12. Community Green Space, and 2.1.13. Surface Stormwater Management Facilities. Policy 2.1.8. Site and Building Design: Site and building design and scale shall be integrated Page 18 of 22 Release Date: January 11, 2005 r? Alachua County Office of Planning and Development Staff Report: CPA-02-03 within the surrounding community. Architectural and site design techniques shall be used to define pedestrian and public space and to provide human scale with the Activity Center. At a minimum Activity Center sites and buildings shall achieve the following: a. Centers and edges are well-defined. Public or civic space or civic use shall be an organizing element around which other development in the Activity Center is located. b. Development is organized along a density and intensity gradient suitable to the site and integrated with surrounding land uses. C. The design shall include a pedestrian circulation system to connect the non- residential uses with residential uses and areas. Primary pedestrian routes and bikeways shall coincide with the street system or other public space such as parks or squares, and shall avoid routes through parking lots or at the rear of developments. d. Streets and roads shall be fronted by design features including sidewalks which define and contribute to a pedestrian street character. Building design, placement, and entrance shall be at a pedestrian scale and oriented towards streets or other public space such as parks or squares. e. Automobile and non-automobile modes of transportation shall be equitably served by the street system. Development shall provide pedestrian and bicycle- friendly access, and shall provide transit facilities to the development and the surrounding community. Vistas created by street terminations within the Activity Center shall incorporate significant buildings or places to the maximum extent possible. g. Large scale nonresidential establishments shall incorporate development design techniques to integrate the establishment into the surrounding community. Such design techniques shall include: 1. creation of a series of smaller, well defined customer entrances to break up long facades and provide pedestrian scale and variety, that may be achieved through the use of liner buildings. 2. limited number and size of signs. 3. landscaping and use of pocket parks and courtyards adequate to soften large building masses. h. An AA/B@ street grid system may be utilized where AM streets shall meet all Page 19 of 22 Release Date: January 11, 2005 Alachua County Office of Planning and Development Staff Report: CPA-02-03 pedestrian oriented Activity Center standards in a continuous uninterrupted pedestrian friendly network, while AB@ streets can be assigned to non- pedestrian oriented uses. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design guidelines shall be incorporated to the maximum extent possible. Policy 2.1.9. Signs: Signs shall be designed to minimize negative visual impacts through guidelines addressing characteristics such as: a. uniformity, materials, placement, b. limits on scale, lighting, height, width, movement, and sign area to facade area ratios. Policy 2.1.10. Parking: Parking areas shall be designed to minimize intrusiveness and impacts on the pedestrian character, through the following techniques: a. On-street parking may be allowed with landscaping that affords traffic calming and produces a comfortable and safe pedestrian environment. b. Parking lots shall generally not be located between buildings and adjacent pedestrian areas such as storefront streets and public squares. C. Parking lots shall be screened from streets, sidewalks, and open spaces, and shall be designed to maintain or enhance the street edge. d. Parking lots shall be designed with safe pedestrian connections to business entrances and public space to create a park-once environment. e. Reduction of paved parking areas shall be required wherever practicable through measures such as provision of shared parking to serve multiple uses and alternative paving materials. Large expanses of pavement shall be discouraged. Reduced ratios of required parking for non-residential uses shall be provided in the land development regulations. Policy 2.1.11. Automobile Access: Automobile facilities shall be designed to provide safe access to the development. a. Internal traffic circulation systems shall be designed with: 1. traffic calming techniques to maintain safe multi-modal transportation. Page 20 of 22 Release Date: January 11, 2005 Alachua County Office of Planning and Development Staff Report: CPA-02-03 2. an interconnected street grid system. 3. maximum use of common access drives. 4. convenient access to transit facilities. b. Points of ingress to and egress from the Activity Center to arterial and collector roads carrying through traffic shall be minimized. A connector street system shall provide multiple linkages from the Activity Center to local destinations, including neighborhoods, as an alternative to arterial and collector roads, except where such connections are precluded by physical layout of existing development or environmental features. C. Automobile-oriented uses shall have a limited number of driveways, and drive-in or drive-up windows shall be located to minimize conflict with pedestrian and bicycle traffic. d. Street design shall produce small blocks. e. All new commercial development shall provide vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian connections to adjacent commercial development and to adjacent residential development, except where such connections are precluded by physical layout of existing development or environmental features. All new residential development shall provide vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian connections to adjacent residential development and to adjacent commercial development, except where such connections are precluded by physical layout of existing development or environmental features. Policy 2.1.12. Community Green Space. Landscapes and buffers shall be provided on at least 20% of the Activity Center site, including public open space. Paved areas shall require 50% shading as specified in the land development regulations, based on factors such as scale of development and performance standards. Policy 2.1.13. Surface stormwater management facilities shall be sufficient to serve the functional purpose, and shall be designed as an integral part of the Activity Center, as a physical or visual amenity that provides usable open space or an aesthetic feature that resembles natural areas, to the maximum extent possible. Page 21 of 22 Release Date: January 11, 2005 Alachua County Office of Planning and Development Staff Report Exhibit 2: Staff and Agency Comments Department of Public Works The County requires that any development of the magnitude described in this amendment shall submit a detailed traffic impact study. The proposed Policy 2.1.15(3)(d) pertaining to the average vehicle miles traveled by retail customers, might provide interesting and potentially useful information pertaining to the study of market areas for certain types of developments but the collection of this type of data for most developments would be hard to justify and may prove to be very unreliable in most cases. Department of Environmental Protection There do not appear to be any significant environmental or historical resource issues associated with this text amendment request. Department of Fire/Rescue Services No comment. Page 22 of 22 Release Date: January 11, 2006 i i Disclaimer: ORIGINAL RECENED Draft Trip Generation Characteristics of Wal-Mart Stores FDOT District Seven NOV 16 2006 January 2006 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF CLEARWATER This draft report consists of an analysis of raw traffic data and a comparison with ITE Trip Generation. However, the data collection is incomplete leading to a conclusion that may or may not be accurate. Due to the limitations of the data, this draft report recommends further study. Therefore this project is on going and this document will have further refinements and conclusions as additional information is collected for "Big Box" type developments. The Florida Department of Transportation does not accept any responsibility for its accuracy or use for any other intended purpose. The user assumes all risk of use. TRIP GENERATION CHARACTERICS OF WAL-MART STORES FDOT DISTRICT SEVEN Prepared for: FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT SEVEN 11201 N. McKinley Drive Tampa, Florida 33612 Prepared by: URS CORPORATION 7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway Tampa, Florida 33607 DRAFT JANUARY 2006 0 0 DRAFT I INTRODUCTION FDOT has conducted driveway traffic counts at several Wal-Mart and Super Wal-Mart locations in the Tampa Bay area. The purpose of this study is to analyze the data and develop local trip generation rates for this type of development. This report also provides a comparison of trip generation using the local trip generation rates developed in this study and the ITE trip generation rates. II DATA COLLECTION' Twenty-four hour driveway counts were conducted at five Wal-Mart Super Centers and three regular Wal-Mart stores in the Tampa Bay area. The super centers varied in size from 115,000 square feet to 204,000 square feet gross floor area and the regular Wal-Marts varied from 126,000 square feet to 198,000 square feet. The combined average size for all the eight stores was 163,000 square feet. A summary of the counts provided by FDOT is provided as an Appendix to this report. The location and brief description for each store is provided in this section. Figure 1 shows the location of the sites. Site 1: Wal-Mart Super Center on Dale Mabry Highway south of Waters Avenue This site is centrally located in the Tampa urban area. This store includes two driveways onto Dale Mabry Highway along the eastern boundary and one driveway that provide access via Waters Avenue. This site has no shared access with other retail establishments and there are no out parcels on the lot. Site 2: Wal-Mart Super Center on SR 54 west of Little Road This site is located in the northwest corner of the SR 54 and Little Road intersection. This store has one access on to SR 54 and one access onto Little Road. There is an out parcel in the southeast corner of the lot which has two right-in-right out driveways one each on to SR 54 and Little Road. 0 DRAFT Figure 1 Wal-Mart Locations in FDOT District Seven 4 I' SR 5o SR NOT TO `.CALL - • Super Walmart walmart Locations HERNANDO COUNTY PASCO COUNTY \CO ? F SR 52 J? SR 52 C? • 'mac-?`: SR 54 7 SR 54 •i , PASCO COUNTY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY z tr i- ?,C0 u) o SR O (n! u) ?. O 0 .„.. z _ SR 582 SR 580 '49 Ave. f ice' ; l SR 574 SR FO 't r:<s T4 NI;?C PAY ( - 0 0 DRAFT Site 3: Wal-Mart Super Center on SR 50 west of Suncoast Parkway This site has three entrances from SR 50 and the access is shared with adjacent retail buildings on the site. Site 4: Wal-Mart Super Center on US 41 south of SR 50 This site has three entrances This site does not have any other retail or out parcels that share access with Wal-Mart. Site 5: Wal-Mart Super Center on US 41 south of SR 50 This development includes three entrances which also serve several out parcels on the site. Site 6: Wal-Mart on Dale Mabry Highway north of Bearss Avenue This site has two driveways, one each from Dale Mabry and Bearss Avenue and a third driveway from the side street. This Wal-Mart is part of a shopping center with several other retail buildings. Site 7: Wal-Mart on SR 54 east of US 41 This Wal-Mart is part of a shopping center with several other retail land uses. There are four driveways that serve the shopping center. Site 8: Wal-Mart on Dale Mabry Highway north of I-275 This Wal-Mart is part of a shopping center that includes Best Buy and Staples stores and other retail buildings, with access from Dale Mabry Highway. III TRIP GENERATION The traffic counts were analyzed in order to develop trip generation rates. Traffic counts for different driveways were aggregated and summarized to determine total daily and peak hour trips. Trip generation rates were developed per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (trips/KSF). Approximate gross floor area data was taken from the property appraiser for respective counties. Trip generation rates were calculated for each site and then average rates were determined. Trip rates were separately estimated for Wal-Mart Super Centers and Wal-Mart stores. For illustration purposes, trip rate calculations were also performed for the entire '8 site sample combining both Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart Super Centers. Charts showing data points and average weekday and peak hour trip generation rates are represented in the Appendix. 0 0 DRAFT Daily Trip Generation Weekday daily trip generation rates per presented in Table 1. 1,000 square feet of gross floor area are Tahla 1-nnilu Trin rpnprafinn Ratp% Wal-Mart Super Centers Weekday Trip Generation Site Location Store Size Trips Rate Number (square feet) (trip ends) (trips per 1000 square feet of GFA 1 Dale Mabry & Waters Ave 115,573 15,891 137.5 2 SR 54 & Little Rd 171,157 10,440 61.0 3 SR 50 & Suncoast Pkwy 203,784 9,415 46.2 4 US 41 & SR 50 153,129 12,075 78.9 5 US 19 & Ridge Road 204,566 21,985 107.5 Average 169,642 13,961 86.2 Shopping Centers with =a Wal-Mart Weekday Trip Generation Site Location Store Size . „ Rate Number (square feet) I (vehpes per day) per 1000 (trips pe square feet of GFA 6 Dale Mabry & Bearss Ave 132,737 14,495 109.2 7 SR 54 & US 41 198,100 15,019 75.8 8 Dale Mabry & 1-275 126,658 9,238 72.9 Average 152,498 12,917 86.0 All Sites Combined Weekday Trip Generation Site Location Stare Size Trips _ Rate Number (square feet) (vehicles per day) (trips per 1000 square feet of GFA 1 Dale Mabry & Waters Ave 115,573 15,891 137.5 2 SR 54 & Little Rd 171,157 10,440 61.0 3 SR 50 & Suncoast Pkwy 203,784 9,415 46.2 4 US 41 & SR 50 153,129 12,075 78.9 5 US 19 & Ridge Road 204,566 21,985 107.5 6 Dale Mabry & Bearss Ave 132,737 14,495 109.2 7 SR 54 & US 41 198,100 15,019 75.8 8 Dale Mabry & 1-275 126,658 9,238 72.9 Average 163,213 13,570 86.1 As seen in Table 1, the average weekday trip generation rate was 86.2 for the five sites with Wal-Mart Super Centers and 86.0 for the regular Wal-Mart sites part of other shopping centers. The combined average rate was 86.1 trips per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. 0 DRAFT Peak Hour Trip Generation Tables 2 and 3 present a summary of the average trip generation for the AM and PM peak hours. These AM and PM peak hours represent the peak hour of the individual stores between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. Table 2-AM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Trip Generation Rates Wal-Mart Su per Centers Store-- Weekday AM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Directional lit S Site Loc tion Size Trips Rate" p a Number (square feet)* (trip ends) ` (trips per 1000 square feet of GFA' In '- Out 1 Dale Mabry & Waters Ave 115,573 304 2.6 51% 49% 2 SR 54 & Little Rd 171,157 332 1.9 54% 46% 3 SR 50 & Suncoast Pkwy 203,784 287 1.4 46% 54% 4 US 41 & SR 50 153,129 571 3.7 53% 47% 5 US 19 & Ridge Road 204,566 619 3.0 55% 45% Average 169,642 423 2.5 52% 48% Shopping Centers with a Wal-Mart Site 1 L ti Store - Size Weekday AM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Directional Trips Rate Number on oca 1 (square feet) (trip ends) I (trips per 1000 square feet of In GFA Out 6 Dale Mabry & Bearss Ave 132,737 442 3.3 37% 63% 7 SR 54 & US 41 198,100 771 3.9 39% 61% 8 Dale Mabry & 1-275 126,658 161 1.3 40% 60% Average 152,498 458 2.8 39% 61% All Sites Combined Weekday AM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Directional } Store Trips Rate Split Size Site (square Number location feet) (trip ends (trips per 1000 square feet of GFA in Out 1 Dale Mabry & Waters Ave 115,573 304 2.6 51% 49% 2 SR 54 & Little Rd 171,157 332 1.9 54% 46% 3 SR 50 & Suncoast Pkwy 203,784 287 1.4 46% 54% 4 US 41 & SR 50 153,129 571 3.7 53% 47% 5 US 19 & Ridge Road 204,566 619 3.0 55% 45% 6 Dale Mabry & Bearss Ave 132,737 442 3.3 37% 63% 7 SR 54 & US 41 198,100 771 3.9 39% 61% 8 Dale Mabry & 1-275 161 1.3 40% 60% Average t iw 436 i 2.6 47% 53% * Square footage of entire shopping center C • DRAFT Table 3-PM Peak Hour of Adiacent Street Trip Generation Rates Wal-Mart Super Centers Store Weekday PM Peak Hour of Adjacent Directional Street lit S Site Size p N b Location (square Trips Rate um er feet) (trip ends) (trips per 1000 square In Out feet of GFA 1 Dale Mabry & 115 573 1009 8.7 49% 51% Waters Ave , 2 SR 54 & Little Rd 171,157 753 4.4 48% 52% 3 SR 50 & Suncoast 203,784 675 3.3 45% 55% Pkwy 4 US 41 & SR 50 153,129 920 6.0 31% 69% 5 US 19 & Ridge 204 566 1542 7.5 41% 59% Road , Average 169,642 980 6.0 43% 57% Shopping Centers with a Wal-Mart Store Weekday PM Peak Hour of Adjacent Directional Street S lit Site Size ? p N b Location (s are Trips Rate er um qu ...feet (trip ends) (trips per 1000 square In Out feet of GFA 6 Dale Mabry & 132 737 1072 8.1 35% 65% Bearss Ave , 7 SR 54 & US 41 198,100 1143 5.8 40% 60% 8 Dale Mabry & 1-275 126,658 645 5.1 47% 53% Average 152,498 953 6.3 41% 59% All Sites Combined Store Weekday PM Peak Hour of Adjacent Directional Street S lit Site Size p b N Location re s u Trips Rate um er q a ( ) (trip ends) (trips per 1000 square In Out feet of GFA 1 abry Dale & rs 115,573 1009 8.7 49% 51% ve W ate A 2 SR 54 & Little Rd 171,157 753 4.4 48% 52% 3 SR 50 & Suncoast 784 203 675 3.3 45% 55% Pkwy , 4 US 41 & SR 50 153,129 920 6.0 31% 69% 5 US 19 & Ridge 204 566 1542 7.5 41% 59% Road , 6 abry & Dale M 132,737 1072 8.1 35% 65% A ve 7 SR 54 & US 41 198,100 1143 5.8 40% 60% 8 Dale Mabry & 1-275 126,658 645 5.1 47% 53% Average 163,213 970 6.1 42% 58% 0 0 DRAFT The average trip generation rate during the AM peak hour of the adjacent streets for the Super Center sites was 2.5 trips/1000 square feet. For the shopping centers with Wal-Mart sites, the average was 2.8 trips/1000 square feet. The combined average rate was 2.6 trips per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, as shown in Table 2. The averages enter/exit split percentage was 47 percent entering and 53 percent exiting for AM peak hour of adjacent street. The average trip generation rate during the PM peak hour of adjacent street was 6.0 for Wal-Mart Super Centers and 6.3 for the shopping centers with Wal-Mart stores. The combined average rate was 6.1 trips per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area as shown in Table 3. The averages enter/exit split percentage was 42 percent enter and 58 percent exiting for PM peak hour of adjacent street. Trip generation rates for the peak hour of the generator were also developed, as shown in Table 4. These values were derived by first selecting the highest four consecutive peak 15-minute periods during the 24-hour period for each site. The average peak hour trip generation rate of the generator was 7.1 trips/KSF for Super Centers and 7.3 trips/KSF for the shopping centers with a Wal-Mart. The combined average rate was 7.2 trips/KSF. The averages enter/exit split percentage was 43 percent enter and 57 percent exiting for the peak hour of the generator. 0 0 DRAFT Table 4-Peak Hour of the Generator Trip Generation Rates Wal-Mart Super Centers _ Store Weekday Pea k Hour of the Generator Directional Site Location Size Trips Rate Split Number (square (trip ends) (trips per 1000 square In Out feet) feet of GFA 1 Dale Mabry & 115 573 1328 11.5 42% 58% Waters Ave , 2 SR 54 & Little Rd 171,157 815 4.8 47% 53% 3 SR 50 & Suncoast 203 784 687 3.4 48% 52% Pkwy , 4 US 41 & SR 50 153,129 1101 7.2 47% 53% 5 US 19 & Ridge 204 566 1808 8.8 40% 60% Road , Average 169,642 1,148 7.1 45% 55% Shopping Centers with a Wal-Mart Store Weekday Pea k Hour of the Generator Directional Site Location Size Trips Rate ' Split Number (square (trip ends) (trips per 1000 square In Out feet) feet of GFA 6 Dale Mabry & 132 737 1244 9.4 33%0 67% Bearss Ave , 7 SR 54 & US 41 198,100 1298 6.6 40% 60% 8 Dale Mabry & 1-275 126,658 766 6.0 45% 55% Average 152,498 1,103 7.3 39% 61% All Sites Combined Store Weekday Pea k Hour of the Generator Directional Site Location Size Trips Rate Split Number (square (trip ends) (trips per 1000 square In Out feet) feet of GFA 1 Dale Mabry & 115 573 1328 11.5 42% 58% Waters Ave , 2 SR 54 & Little Rd 171,157 815 4.8 47% 53% 3 SR 50 & Suncoast 203 784 687 3.4 48% 52% Pkwy , 4 US 41 & SR 50 153,129 1101 7.2 47% 53% 5 US 19 & Ridge 204 566 1808 8.8 40% 60% Road , 6 Dale Mabry & 132,737 1244 9.4 33% 67% Bearss Ave 7 SR 54 & US 41 198,100 1298 6.6 40% 60% 8 Dale Mabry & 1-275 126,658 766 6.0 45% 55% Average 163,213 1,131 7.2 43% 57% DRAFT A review of the data points of the sites appears to indicate that the trip generation rate did not increase proportionally with increases in size of the development in any particular pattern. In some instances, stores with smaller gross floor area had higher trip generation than stores with larger gross floor area. This implies that other factors influence the trip generation potential for these developments. These factors may include the area type, (urbanized versus transitioning to urbanized), density of the population in the market area served, presence of other similar retail nearby, etc. COMPARISON TO ITE TRIP GENERATION RATES The average trip generation rates developed from the counts were compared with the average rates provided in ITE Trip Generation 7th edition for similar land use types. Free standing discount super store (LUC 813), free standing discount store (LUC 815), and shopping center (LUC 820). This comparison is provided in Table 5. ITE Trip Generation worksheets are provided in the Appendix. Table 5-Comparison of Estimated Rates with ITE Trip Generation Rates for Similar Land Use Tvoes Free Local Dat a Free Standing Standing Shopping Discount Discount Center Super Store Store ITE LUC' Super Analysis Period ITE LUC 813 ITE LUC 815 820 Center Wal-Mart Combined Dail 49.24 56.02 42.94 86.2 86.0 86.1 Directional Split In/Out 50/50 50/50 50/50 46/54 40/60 44/57 AM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street 1.84 0.84 1.03 2.5 2.8 2.6 Directional Split (In/Out) 51/49 68/32 61/39 52/48 39/61 47/53 PM Peak Hour of Adjacent Street 3.87 5.06 3.75 6.0 6.3 6.1 Directional Split In/Out 49/51 50/50 48/52 43/57 41/59 42/58 Peak Hour of the Generator 4.03 5.43 7.1 7.3 7.2 Directional Split In/Out 52/48 50/50 45/55 39/61 43/57 " Data not available DRAFT 0 Overall, the field-measured daily trip rate was approximately 50% higher (86.1 trips/KSF versus 56.02 KSF) than that of the ITE free standing discount store (LUC 815) rate on a weekday and approximately 20 percent higher during the PM peak hour of the adjacent street. CONCLUSIONS" The purpose of this study was to analyze the site-specific trip generation data provided by FDOT district seven and to develop average trip generation rates for Wal-Mart land use. While there are some limitations in the data collection and a need for refinements of the data, the analysis clearly indicates that trip rates associated with local Wal-Mart and Wal- Mart Super Center stores are significantly higher than those listed in the ITE Trip Generation Manual for free standing stores (Land Use Codes 813 or 815). TRAFFIC DATA LIMITATIONS A review of the traffic data collected resulted in a listing of potential refinements needed to the traffic counts, in order to best refine the trip generation rates: ? Site 1: Traffic counts were not conducted for the driveway located in northwest corner. Therefore all the trips from the site arc not accounted for. ? Site 2: Traffic counts did not include the two partial access driveways in the southeast corner of the site that serves the out parcel but also has internal access to Wal-Mart. ? Site 3: Only one entrance was counted for this super center. This site has two more entrances from SR 50 that are shared with adjacent retail buildings. ? Site 7: Traffic counts were not conducted for two driveways that provide access to the site ? Site 8: Traffic counts were conducted only for one main entrance from Dale Mabry Highway. This site has several other access points that are shared with other retails stores on the site. " Some of the limitation in the data collection may preclude the results of the analysis, as is, from being used as a valid tool to calculate trip generation. However, the key conclusion of the report is valid, i.e. that the local trip generation rates for these sites is substantially higher than the ITE published-rates for LUC 813 and 815. In fact, a potentially higher trip generation rates would be found if the above listed data limitations were resolved. Conducting traffic counts to cordon off all the driveways and revising this analysis with updated data and with data samples from discount superstores other than Wal-Mart (such as Super Target) would provide a useful reference tool for local discount superstore trip generation rates • e DRAFT APPENDIX C: • DRAFT LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DATE: November 7, 2005 TO: David Olson Bijan Behzadi Jim Anderson, Grimail-Crawford Michael Dorweiler, PBS&J Domingo Noriega, URS FROM: Peter Maass 'f `L SUBJECT: D7 Traffic Operations Walmart Trip Generation Please find enclosed D7 Traffic Operations Walmart Trip Generation data collection for eight local Walmarts. This is for your use. HAPDA\MaassUteviews\Letter of Transmittal.doc l Florida Department of Transportation District Seven.Traffic Operations Walmart Trip Generation Summary ' ak N00 Tri Location Date Time Trips In Trips Out Total Trips Dale Mabry S of Waters 8/112005 7:00 - 8:00 PM 764 564 1328 SR 544 W of Little Road 8/16/2005 1:00 - 2:00 PM 358 376 734 SR 50 W of Suncoast 8/2/2005 12:00 - 1:00 PM 338 361 699 US 41 S of SR 50 8/1512005 1:00 - 2:00 PM 498 566 1064 US 19 N of Ride Road 8/16/2005 12:00 -1:00 PM 740 1151 1891 Average - - 540 604 1143 N S Pe ek ©ur l i 3neatQ.nfor fnart " Location Date Time Trips In _Trips Out Total Trips *Dale Mabry N of Bearss 8/1/2005 1:00 - 2:00 PM 416 828 1244 *SR 54 E of US 41 8/112005 1:00 - 2:00 PM 509 722 1231 Dale Mabry N of 1-275 8/112005 12:00 -1:00 PM 342 424 766 Average - - 422 658 1080 6 7 8 *Walmarts are part of a shopping center 0 I. J b y DRAFT Super Wal-Mart Florida Department of Transportation District Seven Traffic Operations 0 Combined Trips from 7:00-8:00 pm In 764 Out 564 Total Trips 1328 North Entrance Volume out 603 Volume in 171 Sum 774 South Entrance Volume in 181 Volume out 383 Sum 554 0 b y Walmart on Dale Mabry south of Waters Peak Hour 7:00-5:00 om August 1. 2005 Agency Name:F.D.O.T. Station Name:WALMART Trip Counts Site 10:DMs/Waters Station Num:000000000003 Start Date/Time:08-01-2005 00:00 End Date/Time:08-02-2005 00:00 08-01-2005 Exiting North Entrance West End Time 00 15 17 01 9 02 8 03 1 1 04 1 05 4 06 4 07 9 08 4 09 11 10 27 11 16 30 14 4 3 3 4 4 4 9 11 14 21 13 45 20 5 2 1 3 10 6 11 5 21 20 19 00 14 4 2 4 8 5 8 7 9 19 34 29 Hr Total 65 22 15 9 16 23 22 .361 29 65 102 77 End Tlme .12 15 23 13 23 14 37 15 25 16 31 17 20 18 7 19 39 20 33 21 38 22 39 23 17 30 27 23 32 35 29 36 •26 53 40 42 30 25 45 33 39 33 42 30 26 21 32 37 35 30 24 00 29 31 35 31 33 32 37 47 31 32 24 20 Hr Total 112 116 137 133 123 114 111 171 141 147 123 86 24 Hour Total :. 1995 AM Peak Hour Begins: 10:00 AM Peak V olUnle : 102 AM Peak H our Factor : 0.75 PM.Peak Hour Be ins : 19:00 PM Peak.Voiume : 171 PM Peak H our Factor : 0.81 08-01-2005 Enterin N orth Entrance East ': End Time 00 15 48 01 26 02 16 03 8 04 2 05 6 06 16 07 32 08 15 09 59 10 98 11 94 30 52 14 5 4 8 7 7 22 39 59 62 63 45 44 9 12 3 3 15 15 25 16 58 79 96 00 29 10 7 3 11 16 29 19 27 73 109 109 Hr Total 173 59 40 .18 24 44 ' 67 98 97 249 348 362 End Time 12 15 88 13 95 14 146 15 111 16 101 17 84 18 115 18 - 159 20 137 21 133 22 81 23 64 30 105 86 102 123 100 104 95 166 153 128 97 67 45 105 126 '121 109 92 69 100 119 141 112 68 65 00 129 121 137 120 104 117 162 159 115 119 68 47 Hr Total 425 428 506 463 397 374 472 603 546 492 312 243 24 Hour Total : 6840 • AM Peak Hour. Begins: 10:45 AM Peak V olume : .362 AM Peak-Hour Factor : 0.83 PM Peak Hour Begins: 18:45 PM Peak Volume : 606 PM. Peak Hour Factor : 0.91 s 0 b y Agency Name:F.D:O.T. Station Name:WALMART Trip Counts Site 1D:DMs/Waters Station Num:000000000003 Start Date/Time:08-01-2005 00:00 End Date/Time:08-02-2005 00:00' 08-01-2005 All Lanes End Tlme 00 16 65 01 35 02 24 03 9 04' 3 05 10 06 20 07 41 08 19 09 70 10 125 11 110 30 66 18 8 7 12 11 11 31 50 73 83 , 76 45 64 14 14 4 6 25 21 36 21 79 99 115 00. 43 14 9 7 .19 21 37 26 36 92 143 138 Hr Total 238 81 55 -27 40 67 89 134 126 314 450 439 End Time 12 15 109 13 118 14 183 15 136 16 132 17 ' 104 18 ' 142 18. 198 120 . 170 21 171 22 120 23 81 30 132 109 134 158 129 140 1.1 219 193 170 127 92 45 138 165 154 151 122 95 121 15 178 147 98 89 00. 158 152 172 151 137 149 199 206 146 151 ,.: 90 67 Hr Total 537 544 643 596 520 488 583 774 687 639 435 329 24 Hour Total': 8835 AM Peak Hour Be ins : 10:00 AM Peak Volume :. 450 AM Peak Hour Pactor : 0.79 PM Peak Hour Begins : 19:00 olume : RM Peak Volume.-- 774 PM Peak Hour Factor : 0.88 • • b y Agency Name:F.D.O.T. Station Name:Walmart Trip Counts Site ID:DW/Waters Station Num:000000000000 Start Date/Time:08-01-2005 00:00 End DatelTime:08-02-2005 00:00 08-01-2006 Enter-In South Entrance Volume In (West), End Time 00 15 18 01 4 02 8 03 . 4 04 2 05 3 06 4 07 18 08 8 09 18 10 22 11 19 30 5 8 4 6 0 5 3 16 6 20 19 27 46 10 4 5 5 9 2 8 6 11 14 23 22 00 10 3 6 3 3 4 20 12 16 31 30 36 Hr Total 43 19 23 18 14 14 35 52 41 83 94 10.4 End Time 12 16 33 13 23 14 50 15 19 16 25 17 39 18 - 48 19 43 20 36 21 42 22 41• 23 19 30 30 26 28 24 24 30 17 44 40 41 28 12 45 30 32 32 27 38 28 45 37 24 43 32 13 00 30 37 25 31 29 35 33 37 32 42 21 19 Hr Total 123 118 135 101 116 132 143 161 132 168 122 63 24 Hour Total : 2054 AM Peak Hour Begins : 10:30 AM Peak Volume : 99 AM Peak Hour Factor : 0.69 PM Peak Hour Beal ns : 21:00 PM Peak Volume.: 168 PM Peak Hour Factor : 0.84 08-01-2005 Exltln -South Entrance (Volume Out Eas t . End Time 00 15 37 01 25 02 11 03 12 04 3 05 10 06 10 07 24 08 17 09 26 10 52 11 51 30 48 17 16 12 2 11 14 25 13 31 46 63 45 39 17 6 8 12 6 9 27 15 22 47 64 00 20 8 6 9 2 13 12 42 33 38 66 77 Hr Total 144 67 - 39 41 19 40 45 118 78 117 211 255 End Tlme 12 15 63 13 52 14 71 15 76 16 91 17 76 18 91 19 86 20 91 21 86 22 102 23 61 30 67 66 66 63 107 88 87 105 110 86 97 62 45 78 55 100 92 91 76 70 107 50 99 92 66 00 84 87 50 90 84 74 70 95 61 80 90 37 Hr Total 292 260 287 321 373 314 318 393 312 35 381 226 24 Hour Total : 5002 AM Peak Hour !ftins : 10:45 AM Peak V olume : 244 AM Peak Hour Factor : 0.79 PM Peak Hour Begins: 19:30 PM Peak Volume : 403 PM Peak Hour Factor : 0.92 I? b y Agency Name:F.D.O.T. Station Name:Walmart Trip Counts Site ID:DMs/Waters Station Num:000000000000 Start Date/Time:08-01-2005 00:00 End DatelTime:08-02-2005 00:00 08-01-2005 Ail Lanes End Time 00 15 55? 01 29 02 .19 03 16 ,14 5 05 13 06 14 07 42 08 25 09 44 10 74 11 70 30 53 25 20 18 2 16 17 41 19 51 65 90 45 49 21 11 13 21 8 17 33 26 36 70 86 00 30 11 12 12 5 17 32 54 49 69 96 113, Hr. Total 187 86 62 59 33 54 80 170 119 200 305 359 Endlime 12 15 96 13 75 14 121 15 95 16 116 17 115 18 139 19 129 20 127 21 128 22 143 23 80 30 97 92 94 87 131 118 104 149 150 127 125 74 45 108 87 132 119 129 104 115 144 74 142 124 79 06 114 124 75 121 .. 113 109 103 132 93 122 111 56 Hr Total 415 378 422 422 489 446 461 554 444 519 503 289 24 Hour Total : 7056 AM Peak Hour ftglns : 10:45 AM Pe9k Volume : 342 AM Peak F lour Factor : 0.76 PM Peak Hour Begins; 19:00 PM Peak Volume i. 554 PM-,PeaWMour Factor : 0.92 • 0 y Florida Department of Transportation District Seven Traffic Operations Walmart on SR 54 west of Little Rd peak !-tour 1-00.2:00 August 16, 2005 2 Combined Trips from 12:00-1:00 pm gE ,oe. East Entrance Volume in 140 Volume out 196 Sum 336 0 b y Station Name:WALMART TRIP COUNTS Station Num:000000000081 Description:UTTLE RD. NORTH OF SR 54 CIty:PORT RICHEY County:PASCO Start DateMme:08-18-2005 00:00 End DateRIme:08-17-2005 00:00 08-16-2006 EAST ENT. VOLUME IN. est End Time 00 01 02 03 04 05 08 07 Be 09 10 11 16 7' 0 .............. 1 ............. ........... 0 .....................0 .....................31.....................3 .....................$ ..... ............19. ........................ ..................22{1 ..................35. .........._.......33. 30 1 ......................... 5 ................. 41 ..................... 0 ....................... .. 31 2 ................. ................................ . 7 9 .......... ......... . . . ........ 15 231 34 30 45 4 _1 2 3 ...._..__...._......._.. ._.__-..._.......... 1 . . . ............... .:. .12. 7 ............._. _......._....._.__......... ...................... 17 ..... . - ................... . 48 i . .......................... 51 ........................ 31 00 2 0 .....................?. ..........5. T _ ... 21 12 . . . 22..................19. ._.........,.. .?. . 17 , _... ._....._. ...,.._ 30 ._._•------_.._ _ 27 _....._._ 38 Hr Total 9 8' 1 6 10 20 49; 54 58 12i 147 132 _ ............._.. End Time 12 ..........__._........-. 13 ...................... 14 ...................... 19 ........................ ... 16 17 18 19 .............. 20................... 21 22 23 15 _.......28 .. ............_._.._35 30. .._....._ ...__.._33 .... ............._.39 ?._.::...:........ 3a .._..._...__......:27.._.._.....-_._23. .......... ........ 23 11 ....... .... .- . . 3 . . 6 34 7 ............... 27 ...... .................... 8 ................... 38 .... ... 291 34 ................... ......................... 311i 27 ................................................... 28 .......................... 121 . . .. . - . .. .12 .................... ...... ._.._..._ .. ...... 1 ......................... 45 30 40 . 3a 32 . .................. 34.=............ _... 24 ..................24 22 * -......... 14 3 1? 00 33 38 38 35 . 281 35 30 15 ................... 26 ........... je 16 ...._............... . 8 ................ . 4 Hr Total 118 140 .............. iii 138 ......... 1201 132 ....... ..I......................... 112=, 89 . 91 54 38 22 24 Hour Total : 1809 AM Peak Hour Begins: ............ 09:45 AM Peak Volume : 150 AM Peak Hour Facto r; .74 PM Peak Hour Begin s : 13:30 PM Peak Volume ; 148 P Peak Hour Factor : ............... 0.91 0848-2009 EAST ENT . VOLUM E OUT Eas t End Time 00 01 02 03 04 05 08 07 08 09 . 10 11 19 9 1 3 3 4' 2 91 14 17 28 36 32 30 9 ................... .............. 8. ............... .. .. ........... ......................... 2 ..._........... - 5 ......................... .............. 3 ` ...................... ii ......................... r......................... 1311 ......................... ....... ... ....... ........ 15 .. .............. 33 _ . 3 .................. . S7 45 2 ......................... 4 ......................... 1 ......................... 3 ......................... 2; 3 ................................................... 19 13 .. 29 31 39 54 00 5 3 1 3 2 8 21 i 24 18 27 32 50 Hr Total 25 End Time 12 14 13 7 14 14 1b 111 13 .......... ....... 18 17 - 82 62 ..... 18 .................8.................. 79 30................... 117 Z?................... 137 22.................. - 187 23........... ...... 1b 44 ..................57. . 44 . .4`s .. ..... 481..................38. ...... .44 44 ... .. .............. 35 35 ......................... 20 ......................... 15 . . 30 45 50 48 1 44 38':. 41 38 37 22 ...... ................. 1 2 45 59 .............. 40 .............. 48 ........... 47 ........ . _....... . 52; 53 ............... ....................... 35` 41 ........................{........................ 41 ......................... _ _44 .............. , . 15 .... .... __.........._......-._ . 10 00 35 ......................... 58 ....................... 52 ........... ........ ...... ....... ....... 38 :.......... 531 56 ... ..... .. . . .421 42 37 20 .... .. . 12 ................ 14 Hr Total 188 _ 1. 196 189 ...................... 180 ......................... . . ........ .. .a......................... 197 191 ......................... ................. ........F......................... 157 168 .............................. ......................... 149 .......... . ............. ............ 138 { 1 69 51 24 Hour Total : 2599 ................... .................... AM.Peak Hour Begins : - 10.45 AM Peak Volume : 189 AM Peak Hour Facto r : 0:78 PM Peak Hour Begins: 12:15 PM Peak Volume : 201 PM Peak Hour Factor : 0.85 LJ E b y Station Name:WALMART TRIP COUNTS Station Num:000000000081 Descriptiowl-ITTLE RD. NORTH OF SR 54 City:PORT RICHEY County:PASCO Start Date/Time:08-18-2005 00:00 End DateMme:08-17-2005 00:00 08-16-2005 All Lanes End Time 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08, 09 10 11 15 .j ........................ 30 ........._. 1 ......... 4 ......................... 3 ..................... 7 5 ......................... ...................... 17 ................... .. ..... 33 28 . ........ 48 .. . ........ 71 . 85 10 .......11. .... .$ ........5 .. 8; 2 20= 20 30 56i 84 81 45 __..._._..._..3 _ .._ 8 F .....__.........__. _._.....__._.._ . ................... ..................... . .._ ..... _ :4_._....._. $. .................. ...... 31= .._ 20 ................... . ._.._...._.._48 .................. 77 .......I.......... 90 .............. ..... . 65 00 7.1 2 8 4 20 43 1 3 ..................... 35 . 57 .....,..._.._._ 59 . -- 88 Hr Total 36 3 13 2d 21 s 33 111. 18 1 137 238 284 319 ...................... End Time 12 ................... 13 .................. 14 ......._.._...... 16 .................. . .................. . 1617 ................ 1$ ........... ....... j19 ............... . 20 ..._..._..... 21 ........ ...... 22 ............... 23 is 72 ? 92 74 i A 78 751 77 711 : 69 58 46 3$ 21 ___..... 30 77 _ _ 70 ....._ ..__.__.. 83 _.._...,____.__ 88 .._..,........_.._ ..._.... - 75, 78 .. .. - 87 ._....._._w. 88 . 84 ..-._...- .. 49 . 34 _._.._....._._....... .. 13 45 89 ww?nw?r? ......................... 80 ......................... 78 ......................... 79 ......................... 88 7 ......................... ................_. 7..7 .................. 59......J . 83 ......................... 55 ......................... 59 ................ ......... 18 . 21 00 88 a4. ........ 88 ..................3 ...................61..................8:.. ..................72 1 57 53 . 38 .. ....................... . 20 ... ............... . . 8 Hr Total 8 30 338 323 318 3171 323 289 1 257 .................. . 240 .................. 190 ................ .. 105 .. ................. 73 24 Hour Total : 4408 ............ AM Peak Hour Begins : 10.30 AM Peak Volume : 295 ........................ AM Peak Hour Facto r ......... 0.82 . .......... . . . PM Peak Hour Begins, 13:00 PM Peak Volume :. 338 PM Peak Hour Factor : .. .... .. 0.89 0 y Station Name:WALMART TRIP COUNTS . Station Num:000000000080 Descrlption:SR 54 WEST OF LITTLE RD. C1ty:PORT RICHEY County:PASCO Start DateMme:08-18-2005 00:00 End Date/TIme:08-17-2005 00:00 08-16-2005 SOUTH EN T. VOLUM E IN Nort h End Time 00 01 02 03 04 08 08 07 08 09 10 11 15 15 .........................I. 7 ........................ . 2 ......................... .....................3. ............-.......1.? ...................4! 10a ........................ ..................2?.. ......_..........24. ..................28 49 40 ..r.._.......? 307. 1 ............ .....................8.. 3.. ..... 3 .....................5;....................,4 13 ........................1 12 .......................... 27 ......................... 44 1 . ......................... 51 .................. 53 ..................... 45 0 i . . . .. . . .. .. . 4 . .... . .. .. _.. ._... 3 ._.._......... ..... ... . 2 _. _ . _._. 6 ..._......_,_... _ 9 ( _....... _ .._... 11 _ __ -._. 31 . _....._.. . . . . . 52 , . _. 42 .._. .. . . . . .._ 54 _ . _ ........ . 3 . .... .... . .. . 00 8!s . .. . 2 . _ 7 . . 5' .......... . .. ... 7 7 ................. . . ..... .. . .. . .. . _ 1 25 . 25 ...... ... _. . . .. _ _ _.. 28 . ._......._._....,. _. . 48? _.... ._ .. ... _ . 51 42 . Hr Total 30 ..................... ... 19 ..... ... .............. 15 ..... . . .. 13 . ..... ... . . ... . . . . 17! 21 57 ................ 89 ....... ................. . 110 ........................ 172 ......................... 193 189 ............ End Time 12 if- .. ...... 14.. ....... 15 16 17 18 ?1' '9 20 21 22 23 15 58 9 42 34 571 48 55' 59 38 28 29 15 ..........,........_..._.._. 30 51 1 .__...._.................. 4 .._...__..,..._...._ .._... 53 ,_.._.._ .._.._.._ . 44 . ..... . . „ ....... - -- ,.,......_.._._ ............. . 591 40 ... . .. .. . , ..:_.•_._.............. 54 . . . ?._......__.,.__ 1 44 .... .. 46 ._..._. 28; ........ - -18 8 . ......................... 45 521 .................. ....... ....................... 8.0. .... .................. ......................... 57 ..... . .......... . 52 1 . . .......... .. .. ....... 1 37 4 1......................... ....... _.... ... . .... ..................50 ...... ......... ..... , 84 t_....__................. .................. 33 ...._.._...........38 ....................... .........---------2?- . ---................. g. I 00 521 53 ......... 46 89 ............S7k.. ................49 . 44 ! 51 45 40 8 11 Hr Total 211 218 198 _ 199 214. 174 203 1218 160 132 73 50 24 Hour Total : 2955 1 AM Peak Hour Begins: 0930 AM Peak V olume : ............ 200 AM Peak our Facto r • .0,93 PM Peak Hour Be in s : 15:30 PM. Peak V olume : 237 PM Peak Hour Factor : 0.86 08-16-2005 SOUTH E NT. VOLUM E OUT South End Time 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 15 19 7 5 0 1 11 8 11 ......................... 22 23 43 48 30 7 ?_.. ........................ ................. .... 11 5 ....................... .................... . 8 ................... _8 - 10 15 .......................... .......................... 1 13 .......................... 27 ......................... . 37 ......................... 44 ................... 45 10 _..+ ......................... 7 .................... .1. ..................... ...:... 2 .................. ............ .? .5 5 .............. ........... 10 .................. x.8 ......................... ...................18 ..................24 ..................36. ..................41. 0_0 17. ...._...__...._.....__B 4 ,10 5.€ _ ._._.......4 10 26 _ __-30 ....:,... _.._46 . _ __ 49 53 Hr Total 31 15 1 4 17 26 541 46 79 104 182 182 . End Time 12 13 14 . . 15 ....... 18 ........................ 17 ........................ 18 19 20 Z1 22........•.•.....-. 23.......-...••.•... 1$ 41 ......................... 38 ... ............ . 3 ......................... 57 1 .......................... 22 34! 44 ......................... ......................... 50 . 43. 30 21 ...,... 30 _.___.._.56 42 54 38 54 1 40 45 _._34 25 20 46 46 .................... 53 40 ........................ 51 ........................ 44 .................... 1 51 ,........... ......... ..... 44 38 ................ .................................. 45 ......................... 29 ......................... 24 ........................ . 17 . .................... ..... 00 41 47 58 42 43 i 36 45i 35 42 20 19 14 .,,..,.... . ................. ........ Hr Total 178 ................ ...-.- 180 . _.....................- 205 ..................... ......................... 186 .................. .. ....................... .174 ......................... , 163 ...... ,......................... 18; ,157 ........................ ......................... 182 ........................ . ........................ 128 ......................... . ......................... 8 ......................... ......................... 72 . .................... 24 Hour Total : 2887 ' AM Peak Hour Be ins : .10:45 AM Peak Volume : ............... 179 AM Peak Hour Facto r : _ 0.91 PM Peak Hour Begins: 14:15 PM Peak Volume : 209 PM Peak Hour Facto r : 0.90 0 b y Station Name:WALMART TRIP COUNTS Station Num:000000000060 Descriptlon:SR 54 WEST OF LITTLE RD. City:PORT RICHEY County:PASCO Start Date/Time:08-18-2005 00:00 End Date/Time:0847-2005 00:00 08-16-2006 All Lanes End Time 00 01 04 03 04 06 06 07 OS 09 10 11 i 1b 34 .... 14 1 ? .......... 3 . ................. ..?. is ........._.......:16 ..................32. ..................8 ...................51. ..... . . .. ... 92 88 : 30 14 ..... 17 8 ..................... 5 ......................... .11= 10 ................. .... ......................... 23 ......................... 27 . 40 71 . .. . . _ . 88 .......... ....... 97 46 10I . ? 11 4 . _ . . . 4 i 9 11; 271 21 49 76 78 95 00 ..... ._.._ .. .__ . . 8 ........................ .... _ . .._ _ 11 ............ ... _.__.. ..___. 15 ......................... ................... 12' 11 4s .................. ... y...._. 35 ...................... .. . _.54 ......................... 78 ..... . . .. 97 ... . . _..._.....-91 Hr Total 83 I 50 30 27 34 47 111! 115 189 . .. ............. 278 . ... ................ 355 . 371 ............ ......... End Time 12 ................... ...... 13 ......................... 14 ........................ 16 ................. ......................... .... ... 1 B 17 ... ..................... ?18 .. . 19 ............... .-...- -.................. 20 ..._..................... 21 ..-........... .......... 22 ......._... ............. 23 16 97 97 95 98;x. 70 _ 891 _ ........_.1 Q3 ..._ _ _ _:. 88. _.._.._..._.....7.1 ...38. ...,..._.... _......_38_ 30 .101 .............. 88 ........................ „107 ............ ....... 80 .................. „ 107' 94 ....._............-i......................... 941 ......................... . 84 ................. ........ 91 .............. ...... ...... 62 ............ ............. 41 ............. . 28 48 _98 ............... _ 113 _...._........... 97 ......................... 10 ............. ......... 85' 88 ...... _........... _................... ............ 94 ................... ...... 102 ........_............ 78 .......... .------ ...... 65 ................... ..... ...... ..... 44 ......................... 33 00 1 d0 1 d4 1 1 1 100 i 85 9 88 . $7 84 77 25 ,- Hr Total 389 ......... . 398 ................ . 403 ................ . . . 8 86 ................ 337 3881 ....... 388 ..............375 ........... ...... . 342 .................. . 256 ................... 171 ................... 122 24 Hour Total : 5822 ....................... .......... .................. . . ...._......_.__. ..._._._...__ i ................ ` .. ._._.. AM Peak Hour Begins : .10:45 AM Peak Volume : 377 iii AM Peak Hour Factor ........ .... 0. jPM Peak Hour Begins: 15:30 PM Peak Volume : 417 PM Peak Hour Factor : 0.92 • • b y Florida Department of Transportation District Seven Traffic Operations 0 North Entrance Volume in 338 Volume out 381 Sum 699 • b y Agency Name.F.D.O.T. Station NameMaimart Trip Counts Site ID:SR50w1589 Station Num:000000000009 Start Datefrime:08-02-2005 00:00 End Date/Time:08-03-2005 00:00 08-02-2005 South Entrance (Vol me In South. End Time 00 1'S 18 01 5 02 10 03 3 04 5 05 3 06 5 07 14 08 27 09 32 10 61 11 75 30 14 4 3 3 2 5 7 15 34 39 54 71 45 15 2 6 1 6 3 17 26 26 67 73 80 00 12 5 0 0 5 5 16 22 37 54 64 74 Hr Total 59 16 19 7 18 16 45 . 77 124 182 252 300 End Time 12 15 101 13 71 14 62 15 55 16 69 17 75 18 73 19 84 20 67 21 70 22 38 23 26 30 65 85 78 55 62 59 77 58 57 56 22 24 45 77 82 62 71 .79 58 55 54 73 41 35 15 00 75 76 58 62 74 64 61 45 46 56 30 18 Hr Total 3381 314 260 243 284 254 288 219 243 223 125 83 24 Hour Total • 3967 AM Peak Hour Be ins : 10:45 AM Peak Volume : 290 AM Peak Hour Factor : 0.91 PM Peak Hour Sea! n s : 12:00 PM Peak Volume : 338 PM Peak Hour Factor : 0.84 08-02-2005 South Entrance (Volume Out orth End Time 00 15 18 01 27 02 . 6 03 6 04 10 05 1 06 10 07 22 08 39 09 51 10 69 11 66 30 34 15 11 3 5 9 8 32 32 46 62 74 45 12 4 8 3 4 12 15 20 42 53 78 88 00 24 9 8 1 5 5 15 48 37 .51 66 95 Hr Total 88 55 33 13 24 27 48 122 150 201 273 323 End Time 12 15 85 13 94 14 87 1'5 71 16 86 17 94 18 86 19 80 20 73 21 94 22 73 23 41 30 94 96 102 72 86 90 80 79 90 87 66 44 45 91 85 92 92 90 83 79 84 103 81 56 35 00 91 94 80 78 .91 84 82 83 79 93 36 34 Hr Total 361 369 361 313 353 351 327 326 345 355 231 154 24 Hour Total : 5208 AAA Peak Hour Begins : 10:45 AM Peak Volume : 294 AM Peak Hour Factor: 0.77 PM Peak Hour Be ins : 13:45 PM Peak Volume:_ 375 PM Peak Hour Factor : 0.91 0 y. Agency Name:F.D.O.T. Station Name:Waimart Trip Counts . S#te ID:SR50w/589 Statiori Num:000000000009 Start DateTme:08-02-2005 00:00 End Datefrime:08-03-2005 00:00 08-02-2005 All La End Tlme 00 15 38 Oi 32 02' 16 03 9 04 15 05 4 06 15 07 38 08 66 09 83 10 130 11 141 30 48 19 14 6 7 14 15 47 66 85 116 145 45 27 - 6 14 4 10 15 32 46 68 110 149 168 00 36 14 8 1 10 10 Al 70 74 105 130 169 Hr Total 147 71 52 20 42 43 93 1991 . 274 383 525 623 End Time 12 15 186 13 165 14 - 149 15 128 18 155 17 169 18 159 19 144 20 140 21 164 22 111 23 67 30 179 181 180 127 148 149 157 135 147 143 88 68 45 168 167 154 163 169 139 134 138 176 122 91 50 00 166 170 138 140 165 148 143 128 125 149 66 52 W Total -699 883 621 556 837 805 563 545 588 578 356 237 24 Hour Total:. 9170 AM' Peak Hour" ins : 10:45 AM Peak Volume : 584 M'Peak H our Factor : 0.86 PM Peak Hour 9e ihs : 12:00 PM Peak.Volume : 699 PM Peak H our Factor: 0.94 • 0 y Florida Department of Transportation District Seven Traffic Operations Northeast Entrance -' Volume In 105 Volume Out 38 Sum 1:43 East Entrance •._` Volume In 255 Volume Out 148 Sum 403 South Entrance Volume In 138 Volume Out 380 Sum 518 x „fib J C? Y xu \ +R .+5 E .? 7t V A x j d Trips from -2:00pm 498 566 Total Trips 1064 b y Walmart on US 41 south of SR 50 Peak Hour 1:00 - 2:00 pm August 15, 2005 Station Name:WALMART TRIP COUNTS Station Num:0000000013 Description:WEST OF US 41 SOUTH ENT. CHy:BROOKSVlLLE County:HERNANDO Start DateMme:08-15-2005 00:00 End Date/Tlme:08-16-2005 00:00. 0 Station Name:WALMART TRIP COUNTS Station Num:0000000013 Desoription:WEST OF U3 41 SOUTH ENT, Cky:BROOKSVILLE County:HERNANDO Start Date/TIme:08-15-2005 00:00 End Datelrime:08-18-2005 00:00 08-15-2005 All Lanes End Time 00 01 02 03 04 Ob 08 07 08 09 10 11 1S ....................... ...... _............2 ........................ ..................1?. ........................ ...................._8 ..................29. 83 ................... 86 ...................82 98 11 .................. I...... .......................... , 10 30 48 Si 114 . 71 .119 45 8 _4 9 7 2 10 70 . 58 ... . .... 89 ......................... 98 .......................... 104 00 8 .. 5 ....................... _ 1 ....................... 11 ...................... _. 8 ......................... 20 .................. 81 ........................ .. . -. . 57 ......................... 95 ....... .... . . . . .._..._..__ .. .84 .._....._.__._._. 98 145 Hr Total 29 ....................... 16 ................. _ .13 ...._ 32 13 48 _....... ........... 190 ...................... 224 ............._......... .. . . ... ... 313 .. ......................... 389 ......................... 383 ... ................... 479 End Time 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 . . .. ......... ..... _.... 20 ......................... 21 .................. _.... 22 ...... ......... 23 1b 141 30 .138 .......... . 152 1 .......................... 122 137. ..... 158, 208 ................... ...... 119 1 .......................... 153 113 ....................... 134 105 ......................... 115 92 _.... ._................ 84 72 ............. . ... .. 72 58 54 41 39 y - 35 46 119 ...................... . 135 .................... _... 127 .._............... 84 .......... .... 179 ........ .. . .. ....... ... . 188 ..... ............. ...... ........... .. ............ 114 .................._._.. .. . . ... 78 .................. . .. 55 . . 3a 27 00 141 130 ............ 128 ...... ....... 122 .............. 157 ........................ 149 ......................... 118 ......................... .92 ....... .................. .. .. 87 .......................... ...... . ....... ......... 55 .... ... . .................. 25 .......... 11 Hr Total 539 518 512 m 570 5.72 _481 413 321 .. ................ _ 240 .... 153 112 24 Hour Total : 7119 A Peak Hour Begins: „ 1045 AM Peak Volume : 432 AM Peak Hour Facto r : 0,74 PM Peak Hour Begins: 14:30 PM Peak Volume : 817 PM Peak Hour Factor: 0.75 • b y Station Name:WALMART TRIP COUNTS Station Num:000000000012 Desorlptlon:EAST, ENT. ON US 41 City:BROOKSVILLE Courlty:HERNANDO Start DateJTime:08-15-2005 00:00 End Date/TIme:OS-16-2005 00:00 0 Station Name:WALMART TRIP COUNTS Station Num:000000000012 Descriptlon:EAST ENT. ON US 41 City:BROOKS1/MLLE County:HERNANDO Start Datemme:08-15-2b05 00:00 End DateMme:08-18-2005 00:00 0845-2005 All Lanes End Time 1100 01 02 03 04 1 OS 06 07 08 08 10 11 15 ............ _...-13 . . :.................. 4 ...................._4 . ._...............-....1 3 .._.-............... ..................._5 _................9 .......... . 37 37 45 83 8 2 30 g 45 7 .....................7. .....................4. ...,................. 3 ......................1.. ................_....5. ..................... g. . . ._.... .:_.............. 23 _ .. ..................41.. :.................57 ................. . ................73 .................... . ..._...........100 ................. ... 3 3 __._a 21 45 55 84 90 00 8 . 1 ......................... 1 ......................... 1 ................... 5 ................. 18 .......... 4 ........................ 39 ................. ... .. 73 . ........_._.._ . 57 .. 77 . 98 Hr Total 34 15 12 ? . 11 ........................ 11 ....................... 36 ........................ 3 ...................... . . . 129 ........ .... .. ... . . ..........-----........ 198 . . ......................... 214 ...........,............_ 317 ......................... 370 End Time 12 13 14 15 18 17 18 . . . . . 19 . . .._.................. 20 ............... 21.......... ......... ... ............ 22 ..................... 23 16 84 1.15 70 87 11 35 31 30 26 21 14 10 ................. 30 1 0g ...............105 29_ . _ ...... . _...... 64 ........39: 38 4? ........................22.. ......... 17 21 : 3 1 1 49, ............. .. .......... ..... 98 ,................... ..43 .... .. .............. ._. 30. ..._....... .. 3e .._..._...... .................... 9 .......................... .... - ._.. - ......33 ..._...... 39 ............ .. ................. 22 ....... ........_.. ?4 . ............. . . .... 7 00 102 ................. .. 87 ...................... 39 ......................... 31 ............ ,48 47 ?.... „ 28 _. 34 . _........ 22 ............ .... ... .................. 20 ................... .. ...................,. 1 3 Hr Total 388 192 119 . . .... 104 .,....................... 84 ..................... 48 ...:............... . 41 24 Hour Total : 3378 ........................ . .. AM Peak Hour Begins: 10:45 ...................... AM Peak Volume : -349 AM Peak Hour Factor : ........................ 0.87 0 PM Peak Hour Be ins : 12:45 PM Peak Volume : 418 PM Peak Hour Factor : ....... .............. O.g1 • • b y Station Name;WALMART TRIP COUNTS Station Num:000000000011 Description:BARNETT RD. C US 41 CIty:BROOKSVILLE County:HERNANDO Start Daterrime:08-14-2005 21:30 End Date/Tlme:08-18-2005 00:00 08-14-2006 EAST ENT. VOLUME OUT East End Time 00 01 02 03 04 05 08 07 08 09 10 11 18 ................... ' .................... .................... .............. .................. .................... .... 30 .... .................... .................... ............... .................... .................... 45 00 Hr Total .................... .... ......................... . ........................ . ...... ............. _.. ........... ............ ..... .. .. ... . End Time 12 13 14 16 . 16 . .. . ... .. . 17 ........ ................ 18 ........_...._........ 19 .... 20_........ ._ ..... ..........._..._. .. . 21 ..... ........................ 22 ......................... 23 18 -- - - - 5 1 30 0 ................. 45 .. 8 ................ 00 ................ .......... ......................... .... ..................... ............. ....... ...... ........ ................ ..................... .... ......................... .............. ............ ......................... Hr Total _?....1 Q. .__._._.__.-..__.e __. _.__ . ? 24 Hour Total : 17 . .._._. ..._. _. AM Peak Hour Begins : AM Peak V olume : AM Peak H our Facto r : PM Peak Hour Be in s : 21 15 PM Peak V olume: 15 PM Peak Hour Facto r : 0.63 08-15-2006 EAST ENT . VOLUME OUT Eas t End Time 00 01 02 63 04 06 06 07 08 09 10 11 Is ......................... ......................... 1 ............. ......... .. 0 ................... ...................... .................. ..8. ........ .... 1 .. 5 a 30 a . 0 0 ..... 0 . 0 ...... 2 7 . 2 . .... 0 ................. 8 ............. .... ................ 3 45 0 ......... ... .........1 Q _ .................a ......................... .... .........2 ...................1 ..................... ................. 2 ..................5 . ................... 1... . .................... 5. .. . . . Hr Total 0 .......2. .. ..............1. .......1. . 0 .$. ... 10 5 B . 12 1 End Time 12 13 14 14 16 17 18 19 20 ii 21 22 23 16 ............... ..$ ........................ .. ..... . ....a ......................g .....................8- ..... .................. ......................... ....................... ............... . .. ... . ... . .. o 30 9 15 3 10 .4 7 8 5 3 ... ... 1 . . ........ . . 1 ....................... 45 5 ........................ 6 . ................... ...... 8 ............... ....... ... 9 ........................ 3 ........................ . 7 .......................... 8 ........................ . 3 ........................ e . ... .......... ...... . . - ...... ?- "?-._ Q 00 12 .. 7 ................. .... 7 .. _ .8 .... "? ....: 3 11 '' 5 .. . . . . . . 3 ................. :.. 2 ... 0 ..................... Hr Total 34 33 21 .......... .. .... ............. 30 .. .. _..........20 .... .. .............. 28 .... .. ._.........:-.35 .. - ............_ ........... ....... 12 . ... .............. ...... . ..-..... .. . ...................1 0 24 Hour Total : 313 ... ......... AM Peak Hour Begins: -08:45 AM Peak Volume : 19 AM Peak Hour Facto r : .......... 0,88 PM Peak Hour Begins: 12:45 PM Peak Volume : 43 PM Peak.Hour Factor : 0.72 0 • Station Name:WALMART TRIP COUNTS . Station Num:00000000010 Desorlptlon:BARNETT RD. Q US 41 CHT.BROOKSVILLE County:HERNANDO Start DateMme:08-14-2005 21:30 End DateMme:08-18-2005 00:00 0844-2008 EAST ENT . VOLUME IN West End Time 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 115 .................... .-................. ................ ... . ..... . . 30 ...................... . . ._............ . . .............. ...-........._... ................... ..............._... ..... _...... ............. ......................... ........ ............... .................... 4 00 ......................... .......................... ........................ ....... ............... . .... Hr Total ......................... ......... ................ ......... _...-._...... .. . . .. ? .... ......... ..... ..... . . .. ......................... . ............ .......... - ......................... .......... ............... ......................... ............ End Time 12 13 14 ...... ..... .. 18 . . ..... ............ - 18 ........................ 17 ........... .......... 18 ....._................. 19 ............ ........ -- 20 .................... ..... 21 ...... ............. _... 22 .......... ............ 23 ._ 30 ......................... .......................... ... .... ... ... .......................... ......................... ..... ... Y ..M. ... . .. .. . ................ 4 46 . . ........ a ......................... ... ....... -......... 1 00 . ..... ......... . 3 ............... 4 . Hr Total ._.. .. 1 .. 1 1 ...................2 24 Hour Total : 28 AM Peak Hour Begins : AM Peak V olume.•• 1 AM Peak Hour Facto r: ......................... PM Peak Hour Begin s: .21:30 PM Peak V olume : 18 13M, Peak Hour Factor : 0.56 08-15-2006 EAST ENT . VOLUME IN (West) End Time 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 18 U ...........:...... 0 ............... .............. Q :............. . _...._.......... 4 ...:.......:... 1 1 18 . 14 : 26 30 .............. I ....... ...... ....? .......... ........1 ..................1 ....................4. 7 . ..................... .....................2 ............... 3 z .............. a . ......... ... ... 23 .... .......... '18 ..._.......... 31 48 .2. . 0 ......................0 .........._..:......1. .......:.......... .....................2 . _..:.............$ .................11 _ 20 15 ...._.........23 ............. 28 00 ------- -- ------- - ------- .____..3 x. ..._.:_.r .._..? 2 .__...._..__._13 ... _._.__: t 5 2s . _ .22 - - 38 Hr Total 4 ...-. . ...................._1. ....................? .....................7 ..................11: ..................? $ ..................28 .................. 8. - ..._. .. . ... 82 ... . . ...._. 77 123 End Time 12 18 14 18 18 17 18 19 20 . .... . . 21 ................_ 22 ....... 23 15 37 ........................ ......................... 28 .......................... 19 ..............-........ ......................... 1 ..................... 22 , 17 .......-... .............. 15 ......................... 11 ......................... 3 . 2 30 33 __._.._...__ 25 .. ..............._.... 22 .___._..__.__. 22 _......_w__M_ 22 ._._ ._ . ___. „30 _.____.._. 14 _ ... .__ 14 .._ ..__ __.__._ 10 _ ...___... 2 1 1 45 .27 . .28 . 24 ... 28 32 . .. 30 ................... 13 ................. 21 ................. 9 5 ....... .. .... . 5 ........... .. 00 .............31. 25 .......... 25 ........... 24 : 27 :' ...... 2 6 12 1 S 3 9 . . .. ...................4 ....... 2 Hr Total 128 105 .........97 .............. 93 .104 ................117 8. .................8.7. .. .................. 37 ... . 27 13 ....................... 6 24 Hour Total ; 1266 , . .. ............ . .................. . ......... AM Peak Hour Begins : 10:45 ........................ AM Peak . Volume : .,107 AM Peak Hour Facto r : 0.70 PM Peak Hour Begins: 12:00 PM Peak Volume : 128 PM Peak Hour i:actor 0.86 ?J U a y Florida Department of Transportation District Seven Traffic Operations North Entrance Volume In 31 Volume Out 168 Sum 484 Southeast Entrance Volume In 305 Volume Out 629 Sum 934 Southwest Entrance olut°e In 119 Volume Out 354 Sum 473 Combine Trips from 12:00 -1:00 pm in 740 . E? ? '1151 v r Total Trips 0 • b y Walmart on US 19 north of Ridge Station Name:WALMART TRIP COUNTS Station Num:00000000058 Descrloon:US 19 Q RIDGE RD. SOUTH ENT. WEST DW City-.PORT RICHEY County:PASCO Start DateMme:08-18-2005 00:00 End DateMme:08-17-2005 00:00 8-16-2005 VOLUME I N SOUTH ENT. WES T DR. North '.nd Time 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 6 5 3 3 2 1 E 1 21 10 15 181 22 ......................... 27 ..._........... 0 1 2 ............... 0 ......................... 1 .......................... 94 2 .............................................. 7' ......................... 8 . ........................ 10 251 1 28 5 _2 _.__...__... 2 _._._ _ _._..-._. 1 . _. 1 _... 1 e 5 __..__ . _ .. r ._..« _._ . _ 9 _. _..... 13 ._.. _._ _ 3 . Q 25 2`? 25 0. 7 _....•--•--•..•• .............. .......... .. 1 4 ................. ......................... 0 ` 6 .............................................. 2Q i ......................... 18 ......................... . 34 ...... . ... _ -- - ....... 24 ._...__._._...... 29 29 Ir Total 15 . ... . 8 8 . 5 2' 14 38 45 ... ........... 88 95 ......................... 107 .. 109 nd Time 12 e . ... « 13 • 14 _ ..... .... ..... 15 . .. ...................... 16 J-1 7 ... 18 19 2-0----- ..... .. ........... 21... ..... ** ..... 2"2*"**"'*'*'* .... "" 28-...-* ......... 5 22 32 24 28 _. _2-21-1-1-- E 38 20= 17 24 12 11 3 0 .33 . ............19. .... 20 ............37 9 ................... .................20 25 .....:............181 :.................. 22 ..................20. :.................:13 .. .... 8 5 5 34 ,_....,.._._ ................ 38 ................... ,17 .._............... 27 .................. 3 29 .................. ,................... 21 1 1 ......................... 1 ......................... ................... 14 ......... ..... . 10 .. .. . ................_.... 3 10 30 18 ..................3a ..................26 ................... 23l...... _........ 28. ..................24; 22 ..........:.......1fl. ................. :15 . ............ . ... . . 8 6 Ir Total 119 103 ......._..-...._.31 118 M « 104 .1.1a .+ ._.. -- ._.._... _.--83-i ._ ........... 7?. .«__.........._ 97 . ...... ...___....54 ...... ........ .. .. 35 -,".......... .............._.. . 17 -- ;4 Hour Total: 1498 . .7 . . ------ ..... --- iM Peak Hour Begins: 10:15 ...... ...... AM Peak V olume : 1.12 ..--.. .... AM Peak Hour facto r : 0.82 IM Peak Hour Be in s : 12:15 PM Peak Volume : 129 PM Peak Hour Factor : 0.83 )8-18-2005 VOLUME OUT SOUT H ENT. WE ST DR. South end Time 00 01 02 03 04 OS 06 OT Oa 09 10 11 i5 8 - -++- ......................... 11 .... ._.... .... 5 ..............._......... 3 ......................... Qi 1 ................... ................-....... 7 ........................4 i 31 ......................... 11 ......................... 37 ........... .......... 51 . . . 76 10 14 .,+..? ......................... 7 . ............... .5 ........... 1 ....................... .1 21 2 .......................... ...................... 12 1 22 .. ........ .............. 22 21 . .. .62 ....................... 77 7. ... 0 6 1 2 I ...................... . 8 , . 1 . 19 ................... ...... ......................... 18 ....-.................... 43 ....... «......... .... 49 ..-.......-.. 65 10 5 3 _-3 1 _..1:...___._. 11 __....._ .._.17 1 23 33 52 88 91 ir Total 32 21 13 41 18 44 1 95 82 153 248 309 ........................ End Time 12 ................ . . 13. ... ........... 14 ......................... Is .............................-.................- 16 17 ....................... 18 18 ................... 20 .. 21 ........................ 22 ........ 23 15 74 80. ..... 80 ..._ ? ..................721 88 88 .................. 81. 1 51 ........ - ..................60. ...42 .............. .32 I.......... ... . 31 10 76 79 76 75 86 . 88 76 ( 81 82 i 44 . 9 ... ............ . 26 1.5 96 76 77 $5 93; 87 _ _ 76 ` 51 39 32 28 24 ......................... )0 108 ....................... ......................... 88 ....._.................. ........... ... 78 ........... .............. ............. ..... . 80 ........ ............... ... ........................ 84? 72 .. . . . .................. 99 I.......... ............... 64 i .............. . 48 ...........:....... 25 .................. . 13 .................. . 18 rTotal 354 i 301 311 317' ................. . . ........ 335 .. « 335 ............. ..... ....... 332 ............ ......................... .227 . ........................ 229 ......................... ......................... 143 ......................... ............... _........ 80 . ..................... . ... 99 14 Hour Total : 4088 E f kM Peak Hour Begins : 10,45 AM Peak Volume : ............... 304 AM Peak Hour Facto r : 0.84 2M Peak Hour Begins: 12:30 PM Peak Volume : 363 PM Peak Hour Factor : 0.84 r U b ti Station Name:WALMART TRIP COUNTS . Station Num:00000000058 Descrlption:US 19 C RIDGE RD. SOUTH ENT. WEST DW City:PORT RICHEY County:PASCO Start DateMme:08-18-2005 00:00 End Date/Time:08-17-2005 00:00 8-16-2005 All Lanes .nd Time 00 01 02 03 04 08 06 07 08 09 10 11 5 11 14 8 5 .. 2 .... 9€ .. .... .41 28 . ........ 55 ... . 73 103 0 15 ...... ... ....... ....... .... . 5 .............. . .....2 ......................2 4 t.....................4 ...................13( ..................2$ .. ............ .32. . . ... . 45 . 93 1 05 5 9 2 1 .2 2 7 171 32 .. . 25 . .... .. ...._ 71 ............. ..... 74 , ................ 90 0 12 ........... ......... 4 ................ .. . 7 2 I 1 17 71 9 7 6 15 24 ..... Ir Total 47 . ..... 29 21 11 30 82 .. 140 150 248 355 418 :nd Time 12 ............ 13 14 15 ....................... .. 16 17 If -...... _....... 18 19 ............... .......... 20 ........................ 21 22 ......... ......... 23 5 96 ..._-.._........_......... 112 ..... ...._.........__ 104 .._...-...._.._._.. 103 .............__._. 94 128 .._........_..__._...._I..._....... _ 101 - . 88 84 54 43 34 0 .........1.Q9 ...... . ..................98. ...................96. ................112 ....1601 1131. 94; ............. . ..83 .. .. 102 37 17 3:. b 130 . 112 .. .. . .... 94 112 ..... .. . 97 . .......... .. 67 ................ . 52 .................. . 45 ................... 36 ................... . 27 ....._........ 10 138 -...,.._.. ................ ..... .. _ ....... _ . . . 82 ......................... . ........ 108 ......................... ....... ... . 108 .............. ...... ........ ...1.......07.1 .1071 98 ....... ......................... ................ .. . 123 ......................... .. .. ................ ...... 88 ......................... ............... ... 58 . ........... ....._.. 40 . .. 19 .................. _ 24 Ir Total 473 . 404 402 _ 433 4391 453 415 304 296 197 115 118 A Hour Total : 5584 ............. ......... . . ........................ ?M Peak Hour Begins: . 0.45. 1 AM Peak V olume : 413 .......... AM Peak Hour Factor : ............ ..... .... ....088 IM Peak Hour Begins : 12:15 PM Peak V olume : 489 PM Peak Hour Factor : .............. .89 • • ti Station Name:WALMART TRIP COUNTS Station Num:000000000015 Descdption:US 19 Q RIDGE RD. SOUTH ENT. EAST DW City:PORT RICHEY County:PASCO Start DateMme:08-16-2005 00:00 .End Date/Time:08-18-2005 23:45 8-18-2005 VOLUME I N SOUTH ENT. EAST DR. North ,nd Time 00 01 02 03 04' 05 06 07. 08 08 10 11 S 10(. .......... .... .. ?.,,,,,,? _,. . . 4 2 6 _................. = 4 .......... ...... -..T. . .. 43 ................_ .....t 13 _.....?. .. 31 .............. 31 41 ....._.............. 52 ............ .. 87 0 8 i 8 7 2 2' 5 .... 4' . ....................1 9 7 ................. .. 1$ .......................... 4.. ........ . 87 ........... ........... ......8 .................. b 7, .................... .. ? .......... .,. ........ 5 .... ........... ?. . . ................ .................... ...................... ..._.. 71 .. .,.._..,...... _-. ._. . .. 10 k _............._.... ... 9 19 ._..._.._......_ . . 39 ............. . 49 ..------- _._.... 52 w..............- 70 .. .....__.._... 0 11 1 ...................__. - 8 1 - . 5 . . 8? j 1$ Y 24 28 85 75 85 . . Ir Total 34f . 25 . .... 15 . . 13 , 11 i 21 38; 69 114 ...... 200 ............ 248 ........... 270 :nd Time 12 ? 13 . 14 1b 16 17 18 09 20 21 22 23 b 86 59 65 73 52 1 78' _ 59 ?._.._._._.._.._ 59 ... ,_._......_ . 85 _..... - ..._..... 32 23 _..._...._..._._._.... _,..,.,.r-- __--.._..... ;o 74 81 56 _ .. 81 ........................ .__ _.._....__.w 60! 77 ................. _ S6 _ 52 53 45 ...... 24 ......................... 18 ......................... ? ............................. 46 75 ................. .... 55 , ........ 64 63 54 62€ 65 ! 40 48 39 31 . 15 _ ......................... ?Q 70 . .......................... 72 ........................ 65 . ................. ... 53 ........ _ ................... ......... 871 ................69 .. - ....... ....... ....... .................. 49 49 ...................--.•.. { ......................... 47 ......................... 29 ...................... .. 15 .. ............. _?. . Ir Total 305 287 _ __....._ 240 .. 26-0 241.... 2581 ..._ 200 ... 207 _._........_ 178 ..__....._..102 . _56. A Hour Total 3830 ............ i ... ........... ... ............. 1M Peak Hour Begins: -10.45 AM Peak Volume : 280 AM Peak Hour Factor : 0.93 W Peak Hour Begin s : 12:00 PM Peak V olume : 305 PM Peak Hour Factor : 0.89 1846-2005 VOLUME OUT SOU TH ENT. E AST DR. South _nd Time 00 01 02 03 04 Ob 06 O7 08 OS 10 11 is 31 10 8 i 10 .._ 21 10 ........ _. _.... --................... ... .. . 121 40 ........................ s................ ......... 41 ...... ....... ........... 53 ....... _................ 89 ......................... 83 ............... .......... ........... 10 17 . ................ ......... ......................... ................. 8 .................... .... .. . ......................... ! .. . . . i • 6 ......................... ......................... 13i 32 ......................... ......................... . 33 ......................... 67 ......................... 89 ......................... • 105 ......................... tb 26 . 7 ........................ . 7 ..................... .. . 4 ......................... 0! .....:.............11. ......... ............_.....: s.................3.'?. ..................48. ...................73 ...............114. ...............148• IO ........................ 10 1 1 6 26 `: 35 --- 55 ------- N•-- 80 112 __.--__. 128 .,......_ dr Total 91 =nd Time 12 37 "ii'*"*"**"' 32 14 ...... 31. ........... 1 b 20 41.... ............ ............ ..................... 16 17 89'• 140 ....................... .. . ............. ...... .. 18 18 175 ................... 20 273 ......................... 21 404 ........................ 22 424 ........................ 23 15 167 127 ............ 119 ............ ...... 130 ..... 821 101 ......................... 162! 120 ...................... ..;.................... ..... 132 .117 . ........................ 131 98 . . 113 70 54 41 47 129 30 187 123 94 118 83: 1241 ...... ..... ..... _ _. .. _-_-•- ....... .._.._... ..... . . . _ 46185 . .._ 150 ....._-._.._..._....w... 122 ..._...--_._..._..-_.__ 83 _ ._..___.. - ..... ............_. 92, 102 . . . ._.._._........ .... . 108 95 . . - 91 . 81 47 .. 34 ........................ DO -i 48 ,.,.,..,,, 140 114 95 114 h 100 95: 115 102 82 53 .................... Hr Total 829 584 478 ....................... 402 ........................ 371! _419 .............. ... 487„ 482 .._..... ...... 1 .................... 354 . ............ 224 ............. 122 ................ 24 Hour Total : 6710 { ' AM Peak Hour Begins: 10:30 - AM Peak Volume : 414 AM Peak Hour Factor : 0.81 ........ ... . PM Peak Hour Begins : 12:00 PM Peak Volume : 629.113M Peak Hour Factor : 0.85 . . • 0 y Station Name:WALMART TRIP COUNTS . Station Num:000000000015 Description:US 19 Q RIDGE RD, SOUTH ENT. EAST DW CIty:PORT RICHEY County:PASCO Start DateMme:08-16-2005 00:00 End DateMme:08-16-2005 23:45 B-16-2005 All Lanes nd Time 00 01 02 03 04 Ob 06 07 08 09 10. 11 6 41 ; : 14 81 16 ; 14 16 53 72 94 141 150 ........................ D 23 ..... ............. 16 ......................... 151 ................... 13 ......................... .............. 1 11 ........ 17 . _ . _.._..... 49 5 1 1 12 8 1 73 6 33 14 12 { 4 18 . 8? . ?a 5? 85 122 - :............178 0 28 18 ........... 12 ......................... 11 ......................... .. - _._. 14........... 19 ............ .. _ •...•...... ?44k ............_.., 55 ...................... .. ............. 81 ....................... _ .-._._..._..•_. 145! .........................+ 187 ........................ 193 ......................... Ir Total 125 82 47 44 31: 82 1051 209 289 473' 650 894 :nd Time i2 13 . 44 - 16 16 17 18 ;18 20 21 22 23 5 _ .253 186 184 203 1341 •_ 173 240 179 176 183,1 102 84 0 203 6 260 248 ............ 205 179 ........... 188 155 ............ .148 143= 193 ............ 154 958 190, ........... 171 184 f 135 1184 ............... 139 158 ...-....... 120 78 .............. 78 85 49 0 218 212 169 148 181 6 14 984 1 149 91 68 1 ......................... Total 934 ......................... 851 ..................... 718 .............. ....... 852 ......................... . - _ $121°__.__. .891 . . 745 .................... ......... 1 662 ?_......_._.....w . .......... ..__. . 648 _..•.•.•..._.._._....._. ................... 532 .._....._..:._...__... .. ....................... 1 326 178 4 Hour Total : 10340 I I tM Peak Hour Begins : 10:45 AM Peak Volume : 888 ....................... AM Peak Hour Facto r : 0.89 ........._............. )M Peak Hour Be lns : 12:00 PM Peak Volume : 934 PM Peak Hour Factor : 0.90 U b y Station Name:WALMART TRIP COUNTS Station Ntim:000000000014 Description:US 19 NORTH OF RIDGE RD. City:PORT RICHEY County:PASCO Start Date/Time:08-18-2005 00:00 End DateMme:08-17-2005 00:00 1-16-2005 EAST ENT. VOLUME IN Most) id Time 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 14. .. .. . .........x...... 4 .. . 3 .. .. . ............... s . .... 8 .. .. . 8 .. ...............21 31 34 49 ....•...........63 57 ........ . .. 1 12, ......................... 2 ......................... . 0 ........................ . 8 ........................ . 8 ........................ 8 ...................... _.. 18 .................. ...... . 29 ...... .................. . 38 ........................ 47 57 . . .. 81 8I. _... 4 8 1.. & 11 24 ..__29 . 5§. ,._........_ .78. 7$ 1 4 8 7 ...................3 .....................3 14 .:................37. ................39. .40 . . 81 72 .. _.. _. . 73 r Total 38 18 18 .. . 15 28 41 100 128 148 212 0 ... 2 89 d Time 12 , 13 . . ............. 14 ...............•-----•.. 1b ..--------•--....... 18 ....................... I-?- ......---.........._.... 18 . ...................... 11-9- _....................... 40 .............. .... 2 11 .. 2..................... . .... . 23......... S 73 74 82 54 82i 70 85 58 59 52 32 _ 12 85 . ..............73 . .... 82 ................... ...... 78. ......................-. ... ....................... ......................... 56 .................. .. ..... 72 ......................... 80 ............. ............. ............. ....:48 . ............... 38 .... . 5 72 ...... ................... ...i. . .... ............ .. .. . . ..........74 . . . ..............._.. S9. ..................67. ...................78 ................. ?4 ....._._........78. ..................5 3 ................:..48 . ......... .. ....34 . .............. . 9 ._BS 2 . .8 . . 60 . . ... . . . ......... $4 80 58 ..................33 56 ..................43. .................. 3... . .................24 ........... ..... . . 1 1 r Total 318 299 258. ---- 253 ?_ 284 _ 259 _ 228 282 _ 215 184 128 . . 47 4 Hour Total -: 4038 _._ .. _? M Peak Hour Begins .. .....10:30 . AM Peak Volume .......288.... . AM Peak Hour Facto r, 0.89 .......... M Peak Hou Be in s : 12:15 PM Peak Volume : 317 PM Peak Hour Factor : 0.92 B-16-2006 EAST ENT . VOLUME ,OUT Eas t nd Time 00 01, 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 6 12 14 - 4 •2 3 2 11 11 15 15 23 31 0 .9 ........ ...... 8 ............ ..... ... 3 ............. ._3 .. ........ . 3 ................. ... 5 ................... . ........... 10 .......... ...... .. ........ i8 ..................... .. 12 ................. 22 ............... ................ 28 28 ................ 8 6 .. ............ 4 ................... ? ................ . 2 ................... 3 ................... 3 ................... ....... .................. ?2 ................ 21 ........ . 19 ........ .. 27 ................. . 10 o ...::... _ 2 _._...__ . 3 3 _..._.__. 4 .... _ s _ _.... . . 10 _....._ M 14 _. _ ? ? _.. _._... - 15 .... _ 28 _ . ... . 31 ........ .... Ir Totat ;. 39 28 11 10 13 15 40 53 C6 73 . 96 ~115 .... ;nd Ti 1R . ............ 13 . .......... 14 ...................... 1b ........................ 16 --_....... ...... .... 17 ....... ..... --,7- 16 ................ . .. -* 19 ...................... 20 ...................... 21 ....................... 22 ........ .. 23 6 ........................ ... . ......................... 34 ................... .. 37 ................... 24 .................. 38 ................. . 27 ................... 33 .................. 27 ........... ......................... ........................ 18 .............. ?.... ? 0 43 44 ---...._._? 35 _.•.__..,- ,38 -_.,._...,. 28 ......__..... 33 . 25 . 40 _ 44 . 31 ............... 26 ..._.?_ .. 18 5 44 29 34 28 38 38 32 33 55 28 18 $ ---• ................4 _..•,r... _.......... ................35 ...............22 ................43 .... -.............32 ..................45 ...... ............... .......... ................2$ ...... ...............-22 ....... .-.... ...............25 .................1 s .............. ...................... ... Ir Total 188 148 .....1.25 ............... 147 ..122 ..........1 . . 53 ..............1.......53 ......... ............11...6 . .. ..............134 .............. .12..8 . . .... ..._.......102 . .................... § 6 .... 54 ... .. 4 Hour Total : 2026 ?M Peak Hour Begins : .10:45 ........... AM Peak . Volume : 112 .. ............. AM Peak Hour .Facto . r: ^0 90 . 0.90 IM Peak Hour Begins: 12:00 PM Peak Volume:. 188 PM Peak Hour Factoe : 0.93 • y Station Name:WALMART TRIP COUNTS Station Num:000000000014 Descrlplion;US 19 NORTH OF RIDGE RD. City:PORT RICHEY County:PASCO Start DateMme:08-16-2005 00:00 End Date/Time:08-17-2005 00:00 i-i6-YOOb All Lanes id Time 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 26 ...._._..... .... l ....... 18 ..........y............ 7 ................. .................. .7 ...... ? ........ .......8 10 ...................... ._-...-....3? . ..... . 42 . '..9 . 84 88 : 88 I 21 8 3 ... 9 .... ... .......... 91 . ................. 13 ._............ . . 28 ................ ... .. ......_ 45 ................ . .... ............. 50 ................ . .... ............. 89 ... ... . .................. . 83 ......... ........ . 107 _............... 18 .__......_ 8 -7 --- 3 : . 12 1 33 4 40 .... ..78 ... ................97 .............. ... ........ 1 14! 8 ........1? ................. _..$. ..................... 9 .... ................... .. ..19. . ..................47 ..................83. ..................8..1. ...... _..........7.. ...............10x. ...............104. rTotal 77 42 ...... 27 25 ....... 39? ._....._............... Be ..... .................. 140 .......... .............. 161 ...... ........... ..... 198 ...... .._............ .... 285 ................... . 366 ......... .... 404 ........ nd Time 12 13 14 15 . i6 17 18 18 20 21 22 23 i 114 114 .98 _ 91. 88 . 106 .92 89 as 73 57 30 1.28 117 ............... 97 ...................... :114 ...... ....... 99 ......................... 98 ........ 81 ................. .... 112 .................... .104 ............... 77 ....... ..._._._W._... . 64 ......_._.. - 31 i t18 ..... 99 .......................... 88 05 1 1 117 . . - .. .. . ... .. ... 1;11 8 73 62 15 1 ,.._. ..........128 ........,..117 ..........:. 82 ...........107 .........112 : . . . : -1 01 a ....... .... ............... _ .84 .................g3 .. ......83 ................43 25 r Total 484 447 _ 383 _400 402 _ 422 344 398 .343 286 218 101 i Hour Total : E 6064 1 M Peak Hour Begins : ,..,,.. i 10:45 AM Peak Volume : 400 ........................ AM Peak Hour Facto r 0.93 M Peak Hour Begins, - 12:00 PM Peak Volume : 484 PM Peak Hour Factor 0 ........................ 0.95 • y • • DRAFT Wal-Mart Florida Department of Transportation District Seven Traffic Operations • • b y Agency Name:F.D.O.T. Station Name:WALMART Trip Counts Site ID:DMn/Bearrs Station Num:000000000005 Start Date/Time:08-01-2005 00:00 End Date/Time:08-02-2005 00:00 08-01-2005 Bearrs Ent rance Volume In North End Time 00 15 0 0.1 0 02 3 03 0 04 0 05 0 o8 2 07 7 08 8 09 22 10 23 11 29 30 2 5 0 0 0 2 7 8 19 21 35 34 45 5 0 0 0 5 2 16 11 25 31 48 36 00 4 0 0 1 0 4 15 10 23 33 41 51 Hr Total 11 5 3 1 5 8 40 36 75 107 147 . 150 End Time 12 15 43 13 38 14 40 15 49 16 48 17 52 1$ 45 19 30 20 37 21 28 22 24 23 10 30 39 48 48 34 64 34 56 42 33 20 6 10 45 54, 56 27 35 37 36 38 31 27 28 8 16 00 26 45 54 44 46 57 47 22 23 18 13 6 Hr Total 162 187 169 162 185 179 186 125 120 94 51 42 24 Hour Total :' 2260 AM Peak Hour. Begins. 10:15 AM Peak Volume :. 153 AM Peak H our Factor : . 0.75 PM Peak Hour Begin s : 16:15 PM Peak Volume : 199 PM Peak. Hour Factor : 0.78 0841.2005 Bearrs En trance Vol ume Out South End Tlme 00 1S 13 01 5 02 4 03 8 04 1 05 0 06 7 07 5 08 15 09 11 10 25 11 40 30 6 2 0 2 0 4 8 10 11 35 .34 65 45 2 8 1 0 0 6 8 7 21 28 '43 53 00 4 2 0 2 0 0 13 8 22 29 41 42 Hr Total 25 17 5 12 1 10 28 69 103 143 200 End Time 12 15 52 13 76 14 56 1s 43 16 27 17 47 18. 46 19 46 20 31 21 48 22 48 23 39 30 58 47 57 51 42 45 29 44 47 28 34 17 45 48 62 40 42 70 39 38 42 50 47 12 15 00 61 63 38 62 59 38 40 50 46 14 19 8 Hr Total 219 248 191 198 198 169 153 182 174 137 113 79 24 Hour Total : 2710 AM Peak Hour Begins : 10:45 AM Peak Volume.: 199 AM Peak Hour Factor : 0.77 PM Peak Hour Begins: 13:00 PM Peak Volume : 248 PM Peak Hour Factor : 0.82 11 r ? b ti Agency Name:F.D.O.T. Station Name:WALMART Trip Counts Site iD:DMn/Bearrs Station Num:000000000005 Start Date/Time:08-01-2005 00:00 End Date/Time:08-02-2005 00:00 08-01-2005 All Lanes :End==Time 00 15 13 01 5 02 7 03 8 04 1 05 0 06 9 07 12 08 23 09 33 10 48 11 69 30 8 7 0 2 0 6 15 18 30 56 69 99 45 7i 8 1 0 5 8 24 18 46 . 59 91 89 00 8 2 0 3 0 4 28 16 45 62 82 93 Hr Total 36 22 8 13 6 18 76 64 144 210 290 350 End Time 12 15 95 13 114 14 96 15 92 16 75 17 99 18 91 19 76 20 68 21 76 22 72 23 49 30 97 95 105 85 106 79 85 86 80 48 40 27 43 102 118 67 77 107 75 76 73 77 75 20 31 00 87 108 92 106 105 95 87 72 69 32 32 14 Hr Total 381 435 360 360 393 348 339 307 294 231 164 121 24 Hour Total : 4970 AM Peak Hour Begins : 10:30 AM Peak Volume :. 341 AM Peak H our Factor :. 0.86 PM Peak Hour Begins: 13:00 PM Peak Volume : 435 PM Peak Hour. Factor : 0.92 • L_J y Agency Name:F.D.O.T. Station Name:WALMARTTrip Counts . Site ID:DMn/Bearrs Station Num:000000000004 . Start Date/ Time:08-01-2005 00:00 End Date/Time:08-02-2005 00:00 08-01-2005 Date Mab Entrance Volume In East End Time 00 i6 2 01 0 02 0 4 0 o OS 2 06 6 07 15 08 15 09 44 10 41 11 63 30 0 0 0 0 6 2 17 21 43 42 47 45 1 1 1 l 4 5 7 16 28 45 41 52 00 2 0 •0 1 9 10 27 25 56 40 63 Hr Total 5 1 1 5 22 25 75 89 188 164 225 End Time 12 15 53 13 52 14 55 4 6 51 17 48 18 50 119- 69 20 36 , 21 19 22 15 23 5 30 49 59 .57 48 56 55 54 24 15 5 5 45 52 59 67 43 47 53 39 25 5 6 8 00 54 59 49 55 48 38 34 22 15 2 4 Hr Total 208 229 228 '195 199 196 .196 107 54 28 22 24 Hour Total : 2677 AM Peak Hour Begins: 10:45 Peak V olume: 202 AM' Peak H our Factor : 0.80 PM Peak Hour Be Ina :. 13:45 PM. Peak Volume : 238 PM Peak Hour Factor : 0.86 08.01-2005 Dale Mab F. Entrance (Volume .Out . West . End Ttme 00 16 10 01 2 02 2 03 3 04 0 05 1 06' 11 07 36 08 42 08 86 10 99 11 145 30 3 2 1 2 4 10 5 40 49 83 102 119 46 6 3 4 .7 8 15 17 29 60 , 97 112 136 00 9 0 1 5 4 26 29 . 57 58 118 99 141 Hr Total 28 7 8 17 16 52 62 162 209 384 412 541 End Time 12 15 130 13 130 14 136 15 132 16 125 IT. 130 18 113 19 165 20 109 21 58 22 40 23 22 30 122 156 148 127 122 - 122 147 152 77 66 26 16 45 116 151 157 121 132 148 132 106 78 39 25 21 00 126 143 151 135 145 125 116 89 72 32 10 9 Hr Total 494 580 , 592 515 , 524 525, 508 512 336 195 101 68 24 Hour Total : 6848 AM Peak Hour Begins: 10:45 AM Peak Volume : 499 AM Peak H our Facto r : 0.86 PM Peak Hour Begins: 14:00 PM Peak Volume : .592 -PM Peak Hour Factor : 0.90 y Agency Name:F.D.O.T. Station Name:WALMARTTrip Counts Site ID:DMn/Bearrs Station Num:000000000004 Start DateMme:08-01-2005 00:00 End Date/Time:08-02-2005 00:00 08-01-2005 Ail Lanes End Time 00 15 12 01 2 02 2 03 4 04 0 05 3 06 17 07 51 08 57 09 130 10 140 11 . 208 30 3 2 1 2 4 16 7 57 70 126 144 166 45' 7 4 5 8 12 20 24 45 88 142 153 188 00 11 0 1 6 5 35 39 84 83 174 139 204 Hr Total 33 8 9 20 21 74 87 237 298 572 576 766 End Time 12 15 183 13 182 14 191 15 185 16 176 17 178 18 163 18 234 20 145 21 77 22 55 23 27 30 171 215 205 179 168 178 202 206 101 81 31 21 45 168 210 224 173 175 195 185 145 103 44 31 29 00 180 202 200 190 200 173 154 123 94 47 12 13 Hr Total 702 809 820 727 719 724 704 708 443 249 129 90 24 Hour Tota : 9525 AM Peak Hour Be ins : 10:45 AM Peak Volume : 701 AM Peak H our Factor : 0.84 PM Peak Hour Begins. 13:45 PM Peak Volume : 822 PM Peak Hour Factor :. 0.88 • L y Florida Department of Transportation District Seven Traffic Operations Combined Trips from 1:00-2:00 pm in 509 Out 722 Total trips 1231 Sum almart on SR 54 east of U 41 R East Entrance Volume in 366 Volume out 47`9 Sum 347 9 0 b y Agency Name:F.D.O.T. Station NameMalmart Trip Counts . Site ID:SR54e/US41 Station Num:000000000007 Start Date/Time:08-01-2005 00:00 End DateMme:08-02-2005 00:00 08-01-2005 East Entrance Volum e. In Nort h End Time 00 15. 4 01 0 02 7 03 2 04 1 05 10 06 22 07 29 08 69 09 98 10 70 11 85 30 4 4 01 2 2 12 10 32 65 70 70 75 45. 2 2 2 0 9 21 23 41 65 76 94 100 00 0 0 0 _2 6 33 33 53 58 85 117 76 Hr Total. 10 6 9 6 18 76 88 155 257 329 351 336 End Time 12 15 106 13 83 14 70 15 78 16 53 17 . .51 18 71 19 .47 20 30 21 20 22 1 9 23 7 30 72 105 71 61 44 46 79 66 19 22 8 11 45 91 67 74 71 74 74 72 54 20 16 4 6 00 99 113 68 69 67 65 60 44 30 9 3 1 Hr Total 368 368 283 279 238 236 282 211 99 67 24 25 24 Hour Total : 4121 AM Peak Hour Begins: 10:45 AM Peak Volume : 377 AM Peak Hour. Factor : 0.81 PM Peak Hour Be Ins : 12:30 PM Peak Volume : 378 PM Peak Hour Factor : ' 0.84 08-01-2005 East Entrance Volume out South End Time 00 15 6 01 13 02 8 03 0 ?04 5 05 11 06 46 07 51 08 92 09 102 10 104 11 119 30 10 2 0 0 5 6 36 .31 93 104 99 116 45 . 2 0 0 2 10 7 20 38 122 85 102 144 00 0 3 2 13 7 7 20 50 80 97 101 122 Hr Total 18 18 10 15 27 31 122 170 387 388 406 501 End Time 12 1S 119 13 110 14 123 1S 108 16 113 17 97 18 85 18 75 20 90 21 43 22 32 23 7 30 122 103 103 139 106 89 103 83 54 20 34 12 46 97 148 111 89 89 85 118 104 27 27 10 21 00 102 118 101 119 93 88 118 72 35 25 7 5 Hr Total 440 479 438 455 401 359 424 '334 206 115 83 45 24 Hour Total : 5872 AM Peak Hour Begins : 10:45 AM Peak Volume : 480 AM Peak Hour Factor : 0.83 PM Peak Hour Begins : 13:15 PM Peak Volume : 492 PM Peak Hour Factor : 0.83 0 b y Agency Name:F,D.O.T. Station Name:Walmart.Tdp Counts Site ID:SR54e/US41 Station Num:000000000007 Start Date/Time:08-01-2005 00:00 End DateTme:08-02-2005 00:00 08-01-2005 Ali Lanes End Time 00, 15 10 01 13 02 15 03 2 04 6 OS 21 06 68 07 80 08 161 09 200 10 174 11 204 30 14 6 0 2 7 18 46 63 158 174 169 191 45 4 2 2 2 19 28 43 79 187 161 196 244 00 0 3 2 15 13 40 53 103 138 182 . 218 198 Hr Total 28 24 19 21 45 107 210 . 325 644 717 757 837 End Time 12 15 225 , 13 193 14 193 15 186 16 186 17 148 18 156 19 122 120 120 21 63 22 41 23 14 30 194 208 174 200 150 135 182 149 73 42 42 23 45 188 215 185 160 163 159 190 158 47 43 14 27 00 201 231 169 188 160 153 178 116 65 34 10 • fi Hr Total 808 847 721 . 734 639 595 706 545 305 182 107 70 24 Hour Total : 9993 AM Peak Hour Begins : 10:45 AM Peak. Volums :. 857 AM' Peak H our Factor.:. 0.88 PM Peak Hour Begins : 13:00 PM Peak Volume : 847 PM Peak Hour factor : 0.92 0 b y Agency Namef.D.O.T. Station NameMalmart Trip Counts Site ID:SR54e/US41 Station Num:000000000006 Start Date/Time:08-01-2005 00:00 End Date/Time:08-02-2005 00:00 08-01-2005 West Entrance olume In Nor th End Tlme 00 15 3 01 0 02 1 03 0 04 0 06 1 08 1 07 13 08 5 o9 20 10 26 11 34 30 1' 1 0 0 1 3 6 4 14 19 29 29 45 2 1 0 1 8 0 2 10 10 24 31 44 00. 2 0 3 0? 3 2 14 7 17 20 . 41 47 Hr Total 8 2 4 1 12 6 23 34 46 83 127 154 End Time 12 18 43 13 . 33 14 37 15 15 16 34 17 35 18 45 19 .41 20 33 21 14 22 . 4 23 2 30 26 40 32 34 53 49 40 38 29 11 9 2 45 28 29 47 22 35 42 46 31 18 14 3 3 00 45 39 36 30 32 42 40 24 29 8 2 4 Hr Total 142 141. 152 101 154 168 171 134 109 47 18 11 24 Hour Total : 1848 AM Peak Hour Begins : 10:45 AM. Peak. Volume : 148 AM Peak H our Factor : 0.79 PM Peak Hour Begin s : 17:15 PM Peak Volume : 178 PW Peak H our Factor-.: 0.8-41 08-014005, West Entrance olume Out South End Time 00 . 15 5 01 1 102 1 03 2 04 4 05 2 06 1 07 10 08 15 09 35 10 37 11 66 30 7 1 1 2 2 4 11 10 25 43 44 52 45 5 0 4 3 5 . 0 12 19 20 38 44 72 00 1 0 1 3 3 6 . 22 15 21 37 63 72 Hr Total 18 2 7 10 14 12 46 54 81 153 188 262 End Time 12 15 69 13 61 14 57 15 38 18 63 17 62 18 79 19 57 20 56 21 37 22 13 23 12 30 67 73 42 66 70 62 60 52 51 41 10 13 45 65 49 74 43 65 60 71 55 39 37 16 5 00 64 60 55 43 54 65 56 61 50 15 9 9 Hr Total 265 243 228 190 252 249 266 225 196 130 48 39 24 Hour Total : 3178 AM Peak Hour Ins : 10:45 AM Peak Volume : 253 AM Peak H our Factor : 0.88 PM Peak Hour Begins : 17:45 PM Peak Volume : 275 PM Peak Hour Factor : 0.87 • y Station Name:Walmart Trip Counts Site ID:SR54e/US41 Station Num:000000000006 Descdption:WALMART@SR54 E.OF US41 WENT CHANB IN/ CH-2 SB OUT Cky:LANDOLAKES . County:PASCO Start DatelTme:08-01-2005 00:00 End Daterrime:08-02-2005 00:00 0801-2005 AO Lanes End Time 00 01 02 03 04 06 OB 07 OB 09 10 11 1S 8E ; 2 2:: 41 t 3: 2 23 20: 55J 63; 100 ............. 30 .............._ .................. ............. 8 21 1 .......................... ............. ......................... ... 2 ................................. ............ . ......... 3 ........ .......... .... - . .........._. .................... 7; 17 ............. .................. .... _._.... ....... _.-......._.._y.......... 14 ........................ .........._y.._...... 39 ..................... ............ 6 ..2 .......... .' ....................-;......... 73 ............................... - ....... 81 ............. 45 7 ...................? E ....... ........4 .... 4 ......................>......... s 13: ............ ?....... .0+........ ..... . 14 ........... ....... 29' .. ... . .. .......... .. 30' 62 75 . ........ ......... 116 ............ 00 0 € 3 4 3 6 8 36 . ` . . . 22`. .......... 38 11 ...... ...... .......... , ... 104: 119 ...................... . ....................... Hr Total 28`• 4= _1. End Time 12 113 _ j14 .....................,.....................,......... .._...........11_i. 28'.- 15 1_18 17 ............ t.......... 18 18 .... ............ 69 ........ ....... .19. .......................... 88i .............. ZO. _. .......... ............. 127; _...._..._. 2,.. T-.... I ............ 238 ... - .......... 22 . ............ ,......... 315: ..........-.J-23... ............. 416 ............. 15 ........ 112 : 94:1........ .......94 _ ..... 53 .. • . ,.. _ . . .... ......... ......97 ......... ....124 • .. ....._...98.......... ......Bg ......... 5 .......51. .. 17 .... ..-.. .......14 30 .93 113; ....... .............................. 74 ............ .. 100: . ....r......... 123i ............ p......... 111} .............}.......... 100 ............ .....» 90.2 ......... .......... 80 ...................... 52 ............. .......... 19 .....-......j......... 15 ........ 45 93 ................78........ .._...121. ........... .....65: . . . . 102' : 117 86' S7 51 19' 8 00 ............ 109: 991 ........... ..................... 91 ..............} _ . ..... ... 3 E _. .. .................. ....... • . .... . .. ......... 86 ....................... . ...... .... 107 i ...................... 96 ............. ....... 85.= ......... -.1........... ......79 i ...... .......... .. . ..... . 23 . ... . ...11 V. ................... . ...13 ............. Hr Total 407: 384: 380• . .. .... 21E ......... . .............. 0B - .- ....... .. 171 ....4...171 437 399'• .. - 3051 . ..... . 177 .......... .. 66 50 24 Hour Total : 5026 . € ; i AM Peak Hour B ins : to:45 .-... AM Peak Volume : 401 AM Peak Hour Factor : 0.84 PM Peak Hour ins : 17.45 PM Peak Volume : 448 PM Peak Hour Factor. • 0.90 • • y Florida Department of Transportation District Seven Traffic Operations 0 West Entrance Volume in 342 Volume out 424 Sum 766 0 b y Agency Name:F.D.O..T. Station Name:.Walmart Trip Counts Site ID:DMn/1-275 Station Num:000000000000 Start Date/Time:08-01-2005 00:00 End Date/Time:08-02-2005 00:00 08-01-2005 West Entr ance Enterin (Volume In East . End Time 00 15 25 01 . 9 02 8 03 3 04 3 05 7 06 10 07 18 08 20 09 23 10 40I ill 58 30 13 4 4 1. 15 2 15 15 16 42 29 78 45 22 1 5 0 11 3 8 15 14 48 55 85 00 5 6 7 3 6 7 19 17 23 46 75 89 Hr Total 65 20 24 7 35 19 52 65 73 159 199 .310 End Time 12 16 108 13 77 14 63 15 66 16 71 17 50 18 86 19 68 20 90 21 56 22 53 Z3 27 30 84 98 75 65 78 75 ?7 87 90 61 30 19 45 73 89 65 69 77 56 71 74 71 47 25 13 00 77 81 73 75 80 87 76 85 84 43 17 21 Hr Total 342 345 276 275 306 268 330 314 335 207 125 80 24 Hour Totat • 4231 AM Peak Hour Be Ins : 10:45 AM Peak V olume :' 296 AM Peak H our Factor : 0.83 PM Peak Hour ins : 13:00 PM Peak Volume : 345 PM Peak Hour: Factor : 0.80 08-01-2005. West Entrance Exitln Volume Ott es t End Time OO _ 15 27 01 18 02 8 as 12 04 3 05 5 06 11 07 30 08 26 09 24 10 38 11 65 30 29 2 7 0 3 4 7 22 17 46 48 88 45 18 6 8 4 4 8 13 25 18 35 31 81 00 26 5 4 4 8 5 8 19 22 41 .58 81 Hr Total 100 31 -27 20 18 22 39 96 83 146 175 315 End Time 12 15 93 13 123 14 76 15 62 16 78 17 86 18 94 19 104 20 127 21 73 22 40 23 35 30 123 102 86 95 77 78 105 95 90 88 53 , 41 45 110 89 71 95 97 97 98 81, 88 87 38 24 00 98 86 67 89 87 86 93 79 88 73 37 33 Hr Total 424 400 300 361 339 347 390 359 393 321 168 133 24 Hour Total • 5007 AM Peak Hour Begins : 10:45 AM Peak Volume : 292 AM Peak H our Factor : 0.83 PM Peak Hour Baghis : 12:15 PM Peak Volume : 454 PM Peak H our Factor : 0.89 • • b y Agency Name:F.D.O.T. Station Name:Walmart Trip Counts Site ID:DMn/I-275 Station Num:000000000000 Start DateMme:08-01-2005 00:00 End DatelTime:08-02-2005 00:00 08-01-2005 All Lanes End Time 00 15 52 01 27 02 16 03 15 04 6 85 12 06 21 07 48 08' 46 09 47 t0 78 11 123 30 42 6 11 1 18 6 22 37 33 88 77 166 45 40 7 13 4 15 11 21 40 32 83 86 166 06 31 11 11 7 14 12 27 36 45 87 133 170 Hr Total 165 51 51 27 53 41 91 161 156 305 374 625 End Thne 12 15 201 13 200 14 139 is . 148 16 149 17 136 16 .180 19 172 20 217 ?21 129 22 93 23 62 30 207 200 161 160 155 .153 202 182 180 149 83 60 46 183 178 136 164 174 153 169 155 • 159 134 63 37 00 175 .167 140 164 167 173 16J 164 172 116 54 54 Hr Total 766 745 576 638 645 615 720 673 728 .528 293 213 24 Hour Total : 9238 AM Peak Hour ins : 10:45 AM Peak.Volume : 588 AM Peak H our Factor : 0.86 PM Peak Hour Begins : 12:00 PM Peak Volume : 766 PM Peak Hour Factor : 0.88 • • y 0 0 DRAFT All Wal_Martc Site Location Weekday Trip Generation Trips Based on Number Store Size Trip Count Rate Average Rate 1 Dale Mabry & Waters Ave 115,573 15,891 137.5 9954 2 SR 54 & Little Rd 171,157 10,440 61.0 14741 3 SR 50 & Suncoast Pk 203,784 9,415 46.2 17551 4 US 41 & SR 50 153,129 12,075 78.9 13188 5 US 19 & Ridge Road 204,566 21,985 107.5 17618 6 Dale Mabry & Bearss Ave 132,737 14,495 109.2 11432 7 SR 54 & US 41 198,100 15,019 75.8 17061 8 Dale Mabry & 1-275 126,658 9,238 72.9 10908 Average Average Rate per 1000 Sq Feet GFA Weekday Daily Trip Generation All Sites ? Trip Count Average Rate ----- 24.000 - - ---- -------- ------------------- I---------------- ---------------.. ---------------- 22,000 -- .. ------- . . .................. --- :---- ---------_ ?--- - -- 20,000 - ---- ----------------- - ----------------- ----------- ;..- 18,000 -------- ---- -------------------- ----------------- ------- . ..... --------------- W Q N 16,000 - -- - ---« .. -------------------- ----------------- ....... -`-'-. -- -----------.; I t 14 000 t ------- --- ......... ....... ._..--...... --' --------------- . - - ------------------- j 12.000 ------ .. .--------- ---. ---. __ I? . .................... --------- -----------.._. ---- 10,000 ... ' ° :....: --------------- ................. . .................. . - --------- ? 8.000. _ __ _ T_....... 100,000 125,000 150,000 175,000 200,000 225,000 1000 Sq. Feet GFA lbJ,Z7J 7J,9/U 86.1 Sunar.CPntPm DRAFT Site Location Weekday Tri Generation Trips Based on Number Store Size Trip Count Rate Average Rate 1 Dale Mabry & Waters Ave 115,573 15,891 137.5 9954 2 SR 54 & Little Rd 171,157 10,440 61.0 14741 3 SR 50 & Suncoast Pkwy 1 203,784 9,415 46.2 17551 4 US 41 & SR 50 153,129 12,075 78.9 13188 5 US 19 & Ridge Road 204,566 21,985 107.5 17618 Average Average Rate per 1000 Sq Feet GFA 113y,04Z 7a'vol 86.2 Weekday Daily Trip Generation_Wal-Mart Super Centers ? Trip Count Average Rate - - - - - r_- -- 24.000 ------ - ------------ ----- .. -------------- ---------------- - - -- - ------, i 22,000 - = ------------ - -----..1. - ? ----------- i ------------- ----------------- 20,000 ----------- y c 18,000 .. ............ ............... ................... ................ .._.__-_.___. . W CL f 16,000 - --------- ?-------- --- ----- - ------------ - -------------------- m u d 14.000 --- ------------- ..: --------- --- ------ - ' --------------- -------- ------- -. 12,000 ----------- -- ?... ------------- -- ---------- --------- 10,000 - - *! ------ ................ ---....---.. _.... 8,000 -i 100,000 125,000 150,000 175,000 200,000 225,000 1000 Sq. Feet GFA • • DRAFT Chnnninn f`en4nrc with W2l_M2r1c Site Location Weekday TripGeneration Trips Based on Number' Store Size Trip Count Rate Average Rate 6 Dale Mabry & Bearss Ave 132,737 14,495 109.2 11432 7 SR 54 & US 41 198,100 15,019 75.8 17061 8 Dale Mabry & 1-275 126,658 9,238 72.9 10908 Average iac,4ya IA,V,. Average Rate per 1000 Sq Feet GFA 86.0 Weekday Daily Trip Generation Shopping Centers with Wal-Marts r Trip Counl Average Rate ------ 24,000 22,000 20,000 a w ? 18,000 ?-------.. ---------? ..-------- ;----------- .----- ---- ---------- w a 16,000 ------- ----------- ------------- -- -------- m ? =y 14,000 ------------------------- --------------- - --- ------------ . - ----- --------- - - > 12,000 -f-------- ------------ -- :.. -------... --------- ..... ----------- ----------------- -----------...... . .... .... .................. i :? 8,000 , - -, - - - 1 100,000 125,000 150,000 175,000 200,000 225,000 1000 Sq. Feet GFA • 0 DRAFT An w.rau„re Site Location AM Peak Hour Trip Generation Trt s Based on Number Store Size Trip Count Rate Average Rate 1 Date Mabry & Waters Ave 115,573 304 2.6 305 2 SR 54 & Little Rd 171,157 332 1.9 451 3 , SR 50 & Suncoast Pk 203,784 287 1.4 537 4 US 41 & SR 50 153,129 571 3.7 404 5 US 19 & Rid a Road 204,566 619 3.0 540 6 Dale Mabry & Bearss Ave 132,737 442 3.3 350 7 SR 54 & US 41 198,100 771 3.9 522 8 Dale Mab & 1-275 126,658 161 1.3 334 Average rva,ci? -r.rv Average Rate per 1000 Sq Feet GFA 2.6 Weekday AM Peak Hour of the Adjacent Street Trip Generation All Sites ? Trip Count Average Rate .... i I- - I -----T-- - ----------- -------------- ------- ------ ------------- :.. 700 ± ------ -- .. -- ------------- ----------- --- 600 { ---------- --------'--- ............ ------------ ----------. w I ..... 500 --------- - -------- - ...... .......... ----- - ------ CL F ? _ u 400 ------- -------- -- . ----------- .-----_ - ' --- ----- -----• - ...... 300 ------- ? - ---------- 200 ...------ --------- ------------ - ---•••--... ........... ... .-------- I , 100 _T.. 100,000 125,000 150,000 175,000 200,000 1000 Sq. Feet GFA ------------ I ------------ 225,000 • 4Q". . r nn4nrc • DRAFT Site Location Weekday Tri Generation Trips Based on Number Store Size Trip Count Rate Average Rate 1 Dale Mabry & Waters Ave 115,573 304 2.6 305 2 SR 54 & Little Rd 171,157 332 1.9 451 3 SR 50 & Suncoast Pkwy 1 203,784, 267 1.4 537 4 US 41 & SR 50 153,129 571 3.7 404 5 US 19 & Ridge Road 204,566 619 3.0 540 Average toa.ogc yAo Average Rate per 1000 Sq Feet GFA 2.5 Weekday AM Peak Hour of the Adjacent Street Trip Generation- Wal-Mart Super Centers ? Trip Couni Average Rate - - - - - 700 .-----... ------ ----•-- ...------ - ...---. ..--i..... .-----.. ? I 600 --------- ._ L ?_... ------ ----- ----- -- --------- ------ I ? a I i a 500 .... ........ :.. .... -----[ ------ .. . .--------.. .r• y 6 400 - - 300 = ... .. ? --- ----------- -- - -----. ------- ------ -------- i i ------------ ---- I 200 ---------? -------- -- -- --------- -------- ------- ---- --------------- -- 100 .. _ i.. _ - - - - 100,000 125,000 150,000 175,000 200,000 225,000 1000 Sq. Feet GFA 0 0 - nnninn (_antprn with Wnl.Martc DRAFT Site Location Weekday Trip Generation Trips Based on Number Store Size Trip Count Rate Average Rate 6 Dale Mabry & Bears$ Ave 132,737 442 3.3 350 7 SR 54 & US 41 198,100 771 3.9 522 8 , Dale Mabry & 1-275 126,658 161 1.3 334, Average Average Rate per 1000 Sq Feet GFA -1*Z,4!dtf 405 2.8 Weekday AM Peak Mourof Adjacent Street Trip Generation Shooping Centers with Wal-Marts ? Trip Count Average Rate ' " " " 800 1 ------- --------- ------------ - ----------- -----------.... ------------- -- ----------- ,- ----------------------- ----------------- --- ------------- - --..... ---------- ------ - ------- -------- 700 700 ------- 600 ----------- ---------- - ------' ... ........... -- -------- ------------- -------------- -- ---- V c w 500 ---- - -- --------- --------- --------- - ? ---------- ----- ------- ...-----:-- '-' ' ---?-------- - - ------------' C F ? 400 ----------- -------------- -------------- .-------- m 1 300 - -- ----- --- ----------- - ............... --------- .:.. ..------------ ---•---------- ------------+ ? I 200 --------- ------------------.. ;---------- . ......... ...--------- ------ . -----------. i 100 -.... ?_... - _ 100,000 125,000 150,000 175,000 200,000 225,000 1000 Sq. Feet GFA • • DRAFT ch...,.,inn ren4e.? -;f1, W.1-M„fe Site Location Weekday Trip Generation Trips Based on Number Store Size Trip Count Rate Average Rate 6 Dale Mabry & Bearss Ave 132,737 1072 8.1 811 7 SR 54 & US 41 198,100 1143 5.8 1211 8 Dale Mabry & 1-275 126,658 645 5.1 774 Average I O'e,vyo 7U. Average Rate per 1000 Sq Feet GFA 6.3 Weekday PM Peak Hour of the Adjacent Street Trip Generation_ Shopping Centers With Wal-Marts ? Trip Count Average Rate - -- -_L-J 1500 ........... ----- ----------- ---------- .. ... -----? 1400 ---------- - ------------- -------- I. -- ----- ..-- ------- 1300 - -------- -- ----- --------- ;---- ----.. ---------' ---------- .._._.. ................ 1200 - - ----- -------- ----------- --------------- -- - ---------- -------- -------- ----- -- -------- C - w a z 1000 ------ -- -- ------------- m L -----. --- -- t 900 I ------ -------- I .. 700 ---------- ---- '-------------- .. -------- - - -- -- - - - . . - - - -' -- - - - - ............... --'- , :? 600 -- % ------------ =- ------------- ----- ------------ I --------------- Soo 100,000 125,000 150,000 175,000 200,000 225,000 1000 Sq. Feet GFA a ? r 0 0 DRAFT All VU JJ-U .te Site Location AM Peak Hour Trip Generation Tri s Based on Number Store Size Trip Count Rate Average Rate 1 Dale Mabry & Waters Ave 115,573 1328 11.5 834 2 SR 54 & Litde Rd 171,157 815 4.8 1234 3 SR 50 & Suncoast Pkwy 203,784 687 3.4 1470 4 US 41 & SR 50 153,129 1101 7.2 1104 5 US 19 & Ridge Road 204,566 1808 8.8 1475 6 Dale Mabry & Bearss Ave 132,737 1244 9.4 957 7 SR 54 & US 41 198,100 1298 6.6 1429 8 Dale Mabry & 1-275 126,658 766 6.0 914 Average Average Rate per 1000 Sq Feet GFA ?VJ?L IJ FIJI 7.2 Weekday PM Peak Hour of The Generator Trip Generation_ All Sites ?• Trip Count . Average R -------- ------------ - ------------ ---------------- .. ...--------- --- . ------------ 1900 --------- ............. ;.. ............ ..................... ------i • 1700 --------- - - ------ ----------- . ----- ----- -------- 9 1500 ------------ ---------- ------- ------- ----------. .. ---=------------- ---- W a 1300 • - ------------- ----------- -------- ------------------ - m :. r 1100 - ----------- - -----? •' ......... ---------- ---------- - ----------- -------------- • 900 - 700 ---------- ------------- - --------------- ------------ -- -----y ----------.. ----- ---------- --- so F ?- .. - ?.- ... 100,000 125,000 150,000 175,000 200,000 225,000 1000 Sq. Feet GFA • 0 DRAFT Q.. or ran+ure Site Location Weekday Trip Generation Trips Based on Number Store Size Trip Count Rate Average Rate 1 Dale Mabry & Waters Ave 115,573 1328 11.5 834 2 SR 54 & Little Rd 171,157 815 4.8 1234 3 SR 50 & Suncoast Pkwy 1 203,784 687 3.4 1470 4 US 41 & SR 50 153,129 1101 7.2 1104 5 US 19 & Ridge Road 204,566 1808, 8.8 1475 Average Ioa,e?44 191-m Average Rate per 1000 Sq Feet GFA 7.1 F Weektlay Peak Hour of The Generator Trip Generation Wal-Mart Super Centers ? i ! Trip Count Average Rate - • - - - J _. ......... ----------.. .. ....... -- - ... ...... ............... ................... .. 1900 ------ ------ •-------- --------.. -------------- ------- ----------- -------- 1700 -------- - --------- L ------ --------- . i ............ ................ ......... 1500 ------- - -------------- i ........... . - ---------------- w _ I z 1300 * - ° i---------------- r` m t 1100 -- -- - --------.......---_...-? ' --- ............ ....... ....._....... I ; 900 ---------- - ---------- - --------------- 700 ----------- ' --------- . ...... ------ . ............. t ? ---- i • i 500 ' 100,000 125,000 150,000 175,000 200,000 225,000 1000 Sq. Feet GFA N w 1 DRAFT Shnnninn Centprc with Wal-Marts Site Location Weekday Tri Generation Trips Based on Number Store Size Trip Count Rate Average Rate 6 Dale Mabry & Bearss Ave 132,737 1244 9.4 957 7 SR 54 & US 41 198,100 1298 6.6 1429 8 Dale Mabry & 1-275 126,658, 766 6.0 914, Average Average Rate per 1000 Sq Feet GFA 1 az,gvc -I,-I u3 7.3 Weekday Peak Hour of The Generator Daily Trip Generation Shooping Centers with Wai-Marts ? Trip Count Average Rate -- --------- -- --- -------.. ---------- ----------- 1900 { -- -- -- ----------- ----------- ....... ------ ----------- ---------; 1700 ------- ---------- --------- ------------ -------- .----- i i ------------ -------- -- 1500 w 1300 ---' ----- . ----------- ----.... .............. --------- -------------- ----- F m - i - ---------- -------- --- --------------- L 1100= >-" !-_ - ----------- -- - ------------------ .----- ? I 900 ------ ------------ -- --' - -- - ---------- ------- --- ............. --------------- .----- 700 --------- ------------- ............... ............. ............. ------ ---- -- _------- i ! 500 100,000 125,000 150,000 175,000 200,000 225,000 1 1000 Sq. Feet GFA • • DRAFT Land Use Code 820 Shopping Center 1_Dale Mabrv and Waters (Walmart Suoercenter) Intensity 115.573 1000 Ft Equation/Rate Trips Total Enter Exist Enter Exit Dail 42.94 4963 50% 50% 2482 2482 AM Peak Hour 1.03 119 61% 390/6 73 46 PM Peak Hour 3.75 433 480/6 52% 208 225 2.SR 54 and Little Road (Super Center) Intensity 171.157 1000 Ft ustion/Ratc Trips Total Enter Exist Enter Exit Dail 42.94 7349 500/6 50% 3675 3675 AM Peak Hour 1.03 176 61% 39% 107 69 PM Peak Hour 3.75 642 480/ 52% 308 334 3-SR 50 and Suncoast Pkwv Intensity 203.784 1000 S Ft Equation/Rate Trips Total Enter Exist Enter Exit Dail 42.94 8750 50% 50% 4375 4375 AM Peak Hour 1.03 210 61% 39% 128 82 PM Peak Hour 3.75 764 48% 52% 367 397 4.US 41 and SR 50 Intensity 153.129 1000 Ft Equation/Rate Trips Total Enter Exist Enter Exit Daily 42.94 6575 1 50% 50% 3288 3288 AM Peak Hour 1.03 158 61% 39% 96 62 PM Peak Hour 3.75 574 48% 52% 276 298 S.US 19 and Ridae Road Intensity 184.043 1000 S Ft EquationtRate Trips Total Enter Exist Enter Exit Dail 42.94 7903 1 50% 50% 3952 3952 AM Peak Hour 1.03 190 61% 39% 116 74 PM Peak Hour 3.75 690 48%1 52% 331 359 6.Dale Mab and Bearss Ave. Intensity 98.337 •1000 S Ft Ecluation/Ratc Trips Total Enter Exist Enter Exit Dail 42.94 4223 50% 50% 2112 2112 AM Peak Hour 1.03 101 61% 39% 62 39 PM Peak Hour 3.75 369 48% 52% -1-7-71 - 192 7.SR 54 and US 41 Intensity 76.119 1000 S Ft Equatiort/Rate Trips Total Enter Exist Enter Exit Dail 42.94 3269 50% 50% 1635 1635 AM Peak Hour 1.03 78 61% 39% 48 30 PM Peak Hour 3.75 285 48% 52% 137 148 8.Dale Mabry and 1-275 Intensity 126.658 1000 S Ft Equation/Rate Trips Total Enter Exist Enter Exit Dail 42.94 5439 50% 50% 2720 2720 AM Peak Hour 1.03 130 61% 1 39% 79 51 PM Peak Hour 3.75 475 48% 52% 228 247 ` • • DRAFT 1TE TRIP GENERATION Land Use Code 813 Free Standing Discount Superstore I,- .A.,1..., ..A 1Alnlnro nAlal.r.?A C?.nmm?n4nrl Intensi 115.573 1000 S Ft uation/Rate Trips Total Enter Exist Enter Exit Dail 49.24 5691 50% 50% 2846 2846 AM Peak Hour 1.84 213 51% 49% 109 104 PM Peak Hour 3.87 447 49% 51% 219 228 O CD r.A -4 1 iMln P-A Mit- Cnn}Prl Intensity 171.157 1000 Ft Equation/Rate Trips Total Enter Exist Enter Exit Daily 49.24 8428 50% 5001* 4214 4214 AM Peak Hour 1.84 315 51% 49% 161 154 PM Peak Hour 3.87 662 49% 51% 324 338 z CD gn -A C"-.t pl- Intensi 203.784 1000 S Ft Equation/Rate Trips Total Enter Exist Enter Exit Dail 49.24 10034 50% 50% 5017 5017 AM Peak Hour 1.84 375 51% 49% 191 184 PM Peak Hour 3.87 789 491/. 51% 387 402 A I IC Al ?-i RR 5n Intensity 153.129 1000 F1 Equation/Ratc Trips Total Enter Exist Enter Exit Dail 49.24 7540 50% 50% 3770 3770 AM Peak Hour 1.84 282 Sl% 49% 144 138 PM Peak Hour 3.87 593 49% 51% 291 302 C 1IC in -A DiA- 0-4 Intensi 184.043 1000 S Ft Equation/Rate Tri Total Enter Exist Enter Exit Daily 49.24 9062 501/0 50% 4531 4531 AM Peak Hour 1.84 339 51% 49% 173 166 PM Peak Hour 3.87 712 49% 51% 349 363 a neln \A?km, -A tZmmm, A- Intensi 98.337 1000 S Ft EquationfRate Trips Total Enter Exist Enter Exit Dail 49.24 4842 50% 50% 2421 2421 AM Peak Hour 1.84 181 51% 49% 92 89 PM Peak Hour 3.87 381 49°/n 51% 187 194 7 CD CA -4I IC Al Intensi 76.119 1000 S Ft uatiowRate Tri s Total Enter Exist Enter Exit Dail 49.24 3748 500/6 5011 1874 1874 AM Peak Hour 1.84 140 51% 49% 71 69 PM Peak Hour 3.87 295 49% 51% 145 150 n rl?le rA.h- -A 1_77r. Intensi 126.658 1000 S Ft Equation/Rate Trips Total Enter Exist Enter Exit Dail 49.24 6237 50% 50% 3119 3119 AM Peak Hour 1.84 233 51% 49% 119 114 PM Peak Hour 3.87 490 490% 51% 240 250 0 0 DRAFT Land Use Code 815 Free Standing Discount Store 1 Mala Wlohm onA Wnfam rWalmart Ri inPrranfPrl intensity 115.573 1000 S Ft Equation/Rate Trips Total Enter Exist Enter Exit Dail 56.02 6474 50% 50% 3237 3237 AM Peak Hour 0.84 97 69% 31% 67 30 PM Peak Hour 5.06 585 45% 55% 263 322 2_SR 54 and Little Road (Sur)er Centerl Intensity 171.157 1000 Ft uation/Rate Trips Total Enter Exist Enter Exit Dail 56.02 9588 50% 50% 4794 4794 AM Peak Hour 0.84 144 69% 31% 99 45 PM Peak Hour 5.06 866 45% 55% 390 476 a SP 5n and Snnrraet Pkwy Intensity 203.784 1000 S Ft Equatio ate Trips Total Enter Exist E Exit Dail 56.02 11416 50% 50% 5708 AM Peak Hour 0.84 171 69% 3l % 53 PM Peak Hour 5.06 1031 45% 55% 567 4 I IS 41 and SR 50 Intensity 153.129 1000 S Ft Equation/Rate Trim Total Enter Exist Enter Exit Dail 56.02 8578 501/o 50% 4289 4289 AM Peak Hour 0.84 129 69% 31% 89 40 PM Peak Hour 5.06 775 45% 55% 349 426 .r, I IC IQ and Piekum Rnad intensity 184.043 1000 S(I Ft Equation/Ratc Trips Total Enter Exist Enter Exit Dail 56.02 10310 500/, 50% 5155 5155 AM Peak Hour 0.84 155 69% 31% 107 48 PM Peak Hour 5.06 931 45% 55% 419 512 R I)aIP K4nhrv and Rr:are_a AvP Intensity 98.337 1000 Ft Equation/Rate Trips Total Enter Exist Enter Exit Dail 56.02 5509 50% 50% 2755 2755 AM Peak Hour 0.84 83 69% 31% 57 26 PM Peak Hour 5.06 498 45% 55% 224 274 7 SR 54 and I1S 41 Intensity 76.119 1000 S Ft Equation/Rate Trips Total E Exist Enter Exit Dail 56.02 4264 50% 2132 2132 AM Peak Hour 0.84 64 31% 44 20 PM Peak Hour 5.06 385 173 212 B.Dale Mabrv and 1-275 intensity 126.658 1000 S Ft Equation/Rate Trips Total Enter Exist Enter Exit Dail 56.02 7095 50% 50% 3548 3548 AM Peak Hour 0.84 106 69% 31% 73 33 PM Peak Hour 5.06 641 45% 55% 288 353 a • Disclaimer: Draft Trip Generation Characteristics of Wal-Mart Stores FDOT District Seven January 2006 This draft report consists of an analysis of raw traffic data and a comparison with TE TA . However, the data collection is incomplete leading to a conclusion that may or may not be accurate. Due to the limitations of the data, this draft report recommends further study. Therefore this project is on going and this document will have further refinements and conclusions as additional information is collected for "Big Box" type developments. The Florida Department of Transportation does not accept any responsibility for its accuracy or use for any other intended purpose. The user assumes all risk of use. I}r-?,, Phillip Ray Craddock, Jr., AIA pcraddock@rhoala.com l?k 0 0 o o Larry D. Craighead, AIA Iraighead@rhaoia.com Architect 211 N. Record Street, Suite 222 Dallas, Texas, 75202 Telephone 214/749-0626 Fax 214/748-0656 7pm ILI Daniel P. Moyer, E.I. Project Manager DMoyerC&cphengineers.com 3277A Fruitoille Road Sarasota, Florida 34237 Phone: 941.365.4771 Fax: 941.365.4779 www.cphengineers.com Ce(( 15 - James J. Porter ATTORNEY BOARD CERTIFIED IN CITY, COUNTY, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW Ruden, Direct Line: 813-222-6620 Direct Fax: 813-314-6920 '' iMcCloskyjim-porter@ruden.com 401 E. Jackson Street Suite 2700 Tampa, Florida 33602 www.ruden.com =CPfi jackeline Vallejo Toledo, P.E. Sr. Traffic Engineer/Project Managef IToledo@cphengineers.com 500 North Westshore Boulevard, Suite 760 Tampa, Florida 33609 Phone. 813.288.0233 Fax. 813.288.0233 www.cphengincers.com C Florida • Texas • Connecticut • Puerto Rico C. John Melendez, III ' Transportation Division Manager' IMelendez@cphengineers.com 500 North Westshore Boulevard, Suite 760 Tampa, Florida 33609 Phone: 813.288.0233 Fax: 813.288.0433 www.cphengineers.com